Poll: What would you rather have? 2:2 from a top-ranked uni or a 2:1 from a low-ranked uni

What would you rather have?

  • 2:2 from Oxford

    Votes: 101 66.4%

  • 2:1 from London Met

    Votes: 51 33.6%
  • Total voters
    152

Zephyz

Zephyz

Zephyz

Associate
Joined
24 Dec 2011
Posts
125
What would you rather have? 2:2 from a top-ranked uni or a 2:1 from a low-ranked uni?

(Didn't know if it was right to put it into Speakers' Corner so I put it here)

So I was reading a thread on another forum about some guy who says he is likely to get a 2:2 from Notts in Computer Science and he's upset that all the graduate schemes he has seen are looking for 2:1. He also states that he has friends who go to lower ranked universities have achieved 2:1 in Computer Science and that he has helped them many times with their work.

He states that it's unfair that graduate schemes don't factor in which university you go in and care more about having 2:1, meaning that his friends are more likely to get onto graduate schemes than he is.

His reason being that the difficulty of his course compared to his friends at much lower ranked university meaning it will be a lot of easier for his friends to get 2:1 than him and that he had to work more hard for his 2:2 than the person who got 2:1 at a lower ranked university.

What do you think? Do you think the university education needs to be reformed and what would you pick? 2:2 from a top-ranked uni or a 2:1 from a low-ranked uni and why?

EDIT: Changed it from first at a lower ranked to 2:1
 
Last edited:
Zephyz said:
(Didn't know if it was right to put it into Speakers' Corner so I put it here)

So I was reading a thread on another forum about some guy who says he is likely to get a 2:2 from Notts in Computer Science and he's upset that all the graduate schemes he has seen are looking for 2:1. He also states that he has friends who go to lower ranked universities have achieved 2:1 in Computer Science and that he has helped them many times with their work.

He states that it's unfair that graduate schemes don't factor in which university you go in and care more about having 2:1, meaning that his friends are more likely to get onto graduate schemes than he is.

His reason being that the difficulty of his course compared to his friends at much lower ranked university meaning it will be a lot of easier for his friends to get 2:1 than him and that he had to work more hard for his 2:2 than the person who got 2:1 at a lower ranked university.

What do you think? Do you think the university education needs to be reformed and what would you pick? 2:2 from a top-ranked uni or a first from a low-ranked uni?
Click to expand...
Some lower universities are much better than some of the top universities, for example my cousin went to Coventry my other cousin UCL they both did the same degree, the one at Coventry received a lower grade than the one at UCL. However Mat ( Coventry) speaks and writes German and Spanish better than Emma, yet Emma managed to pull a higher grade.
 
I got a 2:2 from a top university. I've only got the name of the uni and my course on my CV and of the three jobs I've applied for since leaving uni I've received two job offers (I've never actually been asked what my grade was).

I think it depends what route you want to go down, if you want to go grad schemes then yeah 2.1 from anywhere is needed. I wanted to work for start ups and small companies and it's never been a problem.
 
A first because the only reason I am getting a degree is to get on a PGCE and the first will mean an extra £5,000 bursary...
 
Too bad, I can't insert a poll now :(. I was thinking of doing two options, hopefully a mod can add it?


What would you rather have?

1. 2:2 from Oxford
2. 2:1 from London Met

EDIT: Changed it from first at a lower ranked to 2:1
 
Last edited:
A 2.2 is bad, as the vast majority of large employers have a cut off at the 2.1/2.2 boundary. 2.2 in mathematics from Cambridge? Nope, PWC won't talk to you. A 2.1 in maths from Plymouth? Well, at least you won't be rejected at the automatic filtering stage. So 2.2 is bad wherever you've gone.

2.1 from a good uni vs 1st from a crap one is a closer call. I'm on target for a 2.1 from a crap uni, so that's not brilliant, but it's sufficient.

edit: I would far rather work with someone with a 2:2 from Oxford than a 1st from London met. I think I'd trust a guide dog over a london met student though, so that isn't saying a great deal.
 
Depends in the subject but I would rather have say a 2.2 in maths from Cambridge than from some ex-poly.


I have seen and experienced numerous examples where selection is based on University, not dogree classification. Many companies will only look at the top 10-15 universities in the country so it would be irrelevant what classification you got in a bottom league university.



Saying that a 2.2 is not great, should really aim fr the 2.1.
 
Last edited:
I got a 3rd at uni. Nobody knows though. Had a difficult sandwich year then royally ****ed up the last year. Taken me ages to come to terms with it, could easily have got a 1st. And that was just at Bournemouth Uni.
 
Experience and personality trump education every time. Also you need to remember most employers haven't got a clue what the good universities are short of oxbridge. Grades do serve as automatic filtration for jobs that receive enormous amount of applications.

I think your friend is wrong about his course being harder though. In theory all courses at all unis should be of an equal nature and course heads should meet to see what level other unis are pegging their courses at. If anything the crapper uni will be a harder course due to a lower teaching/research standards.
 
Would rather get a higher class from comparatively worse uni. I know plenty of employers that just bin applications based classification and keep 2:1's or above. But of course theres a line to draw before deciding if a uni is just too bad.
 
2.2 isn't really going to get you anywhere unless you are lucky.

Nowadays a masters is becoming the requisite for a lot of good technical jobs.
 
So seeing your opinions so far, how do you think the university education system could be changed and do you think it needs to be changed?
 
Trivially, close the polytechnics and drop the idea that sending people to university can make up for deficiencies in the rest of the education sector.
 
My experience (and opinion) is a 2:2 from a higher ranked university will servve you better. As said above for techincal jobs, if you really want to go for the good ones then you need a Masters.

Fortunately, my 2:2 from a good uni let me on to my MPhil

(fyi: my year was royally screwed as a knee jerk from the dept getting a *******ing from the uni - 1 got a 1st, 1 2:1, 1 3rd and the rest 2:2.....)
 
Zephyz said:
So seeing your opinions so far, how do you think the university education system could be changed and do you think it needs to be changed?
Click to expand...

Of course it needs to change but as part of societies emphasis on the idea that everyone is equal and should go to university, nothing will change.

What is the point of so many universities that offer useless degrees (ones that no industry recognises or cares about) at a poor standard.

People whinged about the new fees and as with all idiots managed to point to the old system as proof that the new plans were ridiculous. The old system wasn't great equality wise but people tended to work harder and the degree they achieved was actually worth something in almost all cases.

If you want every man and his dog to go to university then don't be surprised when standards slip and it becomes a business above an educational institute.

The other thing they really need to do is sort out certain degrees so that they actually have some relevance to business in this country. My computing degree was a joke. We spent 80% of our time learning things that were either obsolete or simply not used in the real world. Pretty much all the lecturers were involved in niche research that wasn't subject to the winds of change so much as other topics in computing. Hardly any of them were actually employable as programmers and most hadn't worked in the real world for decades.
 
Zephyz said:
So seeing your opinions so far, how do you think the university education system could be changed and do you think it needs to be changed?
Click to expand...

It needs to return to how it was 30 years ago. This nonsense about getting a certain amount of people through uni is just ludicrous. The fact of the matter is that many jobs people end up in do not require a university education. It just devalues the whole system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom