Importance of A-Levels

[Vedic]

Only to pretentious, elitist muppets. If anything, the person who got the 1st has obviously applied himself and is just as capable as the 2.1 student who went to a better establishment. All that would indicate to me is that there were some extenuating circumstances for the student who gained the 1st during their A-Levels. I'd even argue that they were more rounded as they've had to fight to get where they are.

And I can easily argue that the degree was easier than if it had been done at a top university, hence getting the 1st isnt as much of an achievement.

The fact is that best graduate positions at the top firms, want the best students from the top universities. They are pretentious, and like the traditional well-rounded person (320 points, 2.1 from top uni, involved in lots of sports etc)

Same principle applies to picking soft Alevel subjects. An A grade in Media studies requires the same effort as a C in Mathematics.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Edit your language!

Why do people do this? If you know it is swearing then edit out the swear word in your post otherwise it is the same as if you were the one swearing.

For what it is worth - as far as I am aware A Levels/Highers etc can still count in some jobs (particularly as a means of distinguishing between otherwise similar candidates) but as with any other arbitrary division it can miss out on otherwise worthy candidates.

 

[Vedic]

You aren't factoring in the degree subject at all...

Just using the Guardian list as a handy guide, Sussex comes 25th overall, not fantastic you might say, yet it is ranked first for chemistry.

Look at the rankings for agriculture and forestry.

So yes, the 'top' universities may lead the list overall and indeed for the majority of the more traditional subjects, but going to what you label as mediocre universities doesn't automatically write you off as an inferior employment prospect.

You're right. You can debate whether the department's quality can compensate for a poor reputation. In my opinion, and from what Ive seen from employers, reputation matters more.

If you decide to use your chemistry degree to do something degree related, you wont have a problem with jobs, because the industry knows how good the department is. But if you decide you are sick of chemistry, and decide to do something else, your university's reputation will matter.

 

[Nix]

And I can easily argue that the degree was easier than if it had been done at a top university, hence getting the 1st isnt as much of an achievement.

Please do so. External examiners would generally beg to differ.

 

[Simon]

Any examples to support the fact that companies look at A levels despite degree results?

Maybe it is more of a factor with Graduate scheme as most applicants are still at university at the assessment centres and therefore don't have their degree result so they need to look at something.

 

[aayzof]

Any examples to support the fact that companies look at A levels despite degree results?

Maybe it is more of a factor with Graduate scheme as most applicants are still at university at the assessment centres and therefore don't have their degree result so they need to look at something.

I don't know the specific companies but many have online applications that automatically filter you out if you don't have ABB at A-level - you simply can't proceed with the application. Speaking to the careers section at my uni they also say many companies have minimum A-level requirements. It's generally things like large law firms, investment banks etc. Sorry I can't be more specific, the names of the firms have completely slipped my mind!

 

[Chrisss]

Look at the rankings for agriculture and forestry.

So yes, the 'top' universities may lead the list overall and indeed for the majority of the more traditional subjects, but going to what you label as mediocre universities doesn't automatically write you off as an inferior employment prospect.

The Guardian table is meant to be very unreliable for various reasons.

The Times one is more reliable...(where you'll see Sussex isn't ranked so highly)

http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/gug/gooduniversityguide.php?AC_sub=Chemistry&x=11&y=4&sub=4

Secondly only a handful of universitys offer 'agriculture and foresty'.

 

[Chrisss]

Please do so. External examiners would generally beg to differ.

When you're at university, you are marked relative to the rest of your year.

Therefore, it's reasonable to expect that the standard of the students at a top 20 university will be higher than elsewhere, thus it's harder to get into the top 15% to obtain a first than it is at lower unis.

In short, even if the course was exactly the same at all unis, it'd still be harder to do well at a good one.

 

[semi-pro waster]

The Guardian table is meant to be very unreliable for various reasons.

Like the fact that it doesn't actually list all the universities that do certain courses perchance? I know for certain that Abertay does Law, I graduated from there but there is nothing in the Guardian table to indicate that it does the subject.

 

[aayzof]

,,

 

[Nullvoid]

The Guardian table is meant to be very unreliable for various reasons.

The Times one is more reliable...(where you'll see Sussex isn't ranked so highly)

http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/gug/gooduniversityguide.php?AC_sub=Chemistry&x=11&y=4&sub=4

Secondly only a handful of universitys offer 'agriculture and foresty'.

Apologies for that, I just used it because it seemed sound enough. I would have used the Times version but last time I looked they no longer included teaching quality as a factor which to me seems quite an important omission.

The use of Sussex was also just to prove the point that the 'top' universities aren't the absolute best for every subject area . Have a look at this global ranking. Sussex comes joint 102-150th, and if you narrow the subjects to "Natural Sciences and Mathematics" it comes joint 76-110th (tied with Edinburgh and UCL among others)

 

[freshy]

the importance of a levels is really not emphasised enough in schools.

although there are obvious exceptions a levels can be more important than the degree itself.

there are sectors where they are more important than others. any degree with a vocational element or specific technical training usually offers alternate options.

any graduate entry will stipulate minimum a level requirements. a levels are less important if you go for a regional job or ad hoc vacancy.

take for example banking - if applying for grad positions (which offer paths to development and rotations) over vacancies (where you have to make your own luck so to speak) then a levels are important.

much like the choice of uni there are unwritten rules - get AAB and a 2.1 from a top ten uni and you stand a good chance at an offer.

the people that are protesting that degrees superseed the a levels are wrong; whilst this may be true after two years experience, a levels are crucial in milkground vacancies.

what with online filters and competition they are a way of grouping seemingly like minded people together.

people with poor a levels are by no means without any hope but to think they can get the same jobs as those with good a levels easily is misguided.

it is all about how you pitch yourself and to what type of job....although there are ways around it.

 

[SpeedFreak]

Not as important as you might think is my answer. I underperformed seriously at A-levels. With a predicted AAB I came out with BBC after a disasterous set of final modules.

After my degree I was offered a job with British Nuclear although below their expected results/qualifications. I was confident, well read up on the role and passed all of their tests with flying colours. (I did turn down the job though and what i do now needs no A-Levels and will make me a lot more than anyone would ever pay me)

 

[freshy]

Apologies for that, I just used it because it seemed sound enough. I would have used the Times version but last time I looked they no longer included teaching quality as a factor which to me seems quite an important omission.

The use of Sussex was also just to prove the point that the 'top' universities aren't the absolute best for every subject area . Have a look at this global ranking. Sussex comes joint 102-150th, and if you narrow the subjects to "Natural Sciences and Mathematics" it comes joint 76-110th (tied with Edinburgh and UCL among others)

the pedigree of universities is misleading for undergrads - since lists are composed of research funding elements, investment per student etc.

recruiters do not wholly care about course rep save for niche courses, but uni rep... they went to these prestige schools and perpetuate the old boys networks etc...

 

[DAVEM]

Apologies for that, I just used it because it seemed sound enough. I would have used the Times version but last time I looked they no longer included teaching quality as a factor which to me seems quite an important omission.

The use of Sussex was also just to prove the point that the 'top' universities aren't the absolute best for every subject area . Have a look at this global ranking. Sussex comes joint 102-150th, and if you narrow the subjects to "Natural Sciences and Mathematics" it comes joint 76-110th (tied with Edinburgh and UCL among others)

Neither the Times league table or the Guardian ones are a far reflection of true university standing at the moment (that stupid student satisfcation is included in the Times version which is just waaaayy off now).

Check out the RAE score of your intended department, thats the best indicator of how good a department is (well it's the best indicator anyhow).

If you're department has less than 4, it's pants. If it has 5 or 5* it's nationally / internationally recognised as a leading department.

Davem

 

[aayzof]

Internationally/nationally recognised for its research, yes. That doesn't necessarily mean it will provide the best taught undergraduate programmes. Although it's fair to say that if a department is consistently churning out research of international importance they know what they're doing!

 

[carlazai]

For KPMG, academic scores count for less than 50 per cent of what we look for. Work experience, positions of responsibility and career motivation are as, if not more, important and we would never automatically rule out a candidate on the basis of A level scores alone.
Also:

This is what most small to medium companies will look for. Its the big players that care about the GCSE's and A-levels bit, it gives them a method of differentiating everyone.

 

[E1mo]

Agreed, the big companies with the most desirable grad schemes will still be able to get in a couple of hundred candidates for interview with AAB and a 2.1 degree, and from those they can select those with the most raw talent and ambition to fill their places.

 

[Simon]

the people that are protesting that degrees superseed the a levels are wrong; whilst this may be true after two years experience, a levels are crucial in milkground vacancies.

what with online filters and competition they are a way of grouping seemingly like minded people together.

people with poor a levels are by no means without any hope but to think they can get the same jobs as those with good a levels easily is misguided.

it is all about how you pitch yourself and to what type of job....although there are ways around it.

BP didn't care about A levels. What have physics and Mathes got to do with a job when you already have a Chemical Engineering Degree and 1 years placement doing that role, for example.

I got crap A levels and they didnt hinder me, however I guess I already had my degree when I applied.

 

[E1mo]

Simon, Chemical Engineering graduates are in a totally different job market compared to those who want to move into Media, Finance, Consultancy etc. which will take graduates with (virtually) any degree subject. Quality Law placements are also extremely difficult to get onto. In these areas A-Levels DO matter.

Good Engineering graduates are pretty thin on the ground, especially Chemical Engineers. I am starting to look for Engineering grad schemes and I haven't seen a single explicit request for UCAS points.