Failed degree, what next?

[Jon]

Damn right Mr Drat.

 

I think going to uni and failing to get ANY kind of degree does not look good though.

 

The sis must complete the degree IMO, come hell or high water.

[Stevo985]

 

 

 

 

In fact in this climate anything less than a 2:1 is bad and even a 2:1 doesn't guarantee much.

 

Completely untrue. I may as well not have a degree

 

For the vast majority of good jobs that will give you a career, it certainly is true.

 

 

Again, total bollocks.

 

And anyway, that isn't how you phrased it. You outright said 'a 2.2 is bad' therefore invalidating the degrees of millions of people. What gives you that power?

 

It's not, the only chance you have to get a decent job with a 2.2 is to find somewhere to do a PGCE. 

 

A 2.2 isn't a very good mark, especially if that qualification isn't in a hard science or in computer science, it send a bad signal, i.e. that you spent most of your time getting pissed. 

 

If you look at any graduate job description that pays good money you will typically see  '2,1 or above in a relevant discipline'.

 

I got my graduate job with a 2:2, which I like to think is a pretty decent career with a pretty decent company.

 

Company was recruiting 2:2 and above.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Stevo985

[Stevo985]

Update though.

 

Turns out she failed one module, but that module was 30 credits, which causes her to fail the whole year.

She claims she did the assignment and the uni "lost" it. I imagine that's bollocks and she just didn't do it or legitimately failed it.

 

But as I understood it yesterday she had resit the whole year, as in every module.

But she doesn't. She only has to resit that module, and it's only a 1 semester module.

 

So I think she's just going to resit it again at Luton. It'll only be one day a week for 1 semester so she might even live in Birmingham and commute down, that way she can get a job up here to pay for it.

 

So maybe not quite as big a deal as we first thought.

[ender4]

If you have to resit one module over half a year, how does the tuiton fees work?

 

Do you have to pay a proportion of the £9k?

[Stevo985]

Yeah. Think it'll "only" work out to about £800, so a lot cheaper than we thought it might be!

[tonyh29]

 

 

 

 

 

In fact in this climate anything less than a 2:1 is bad and even a 2:1 doesn't guarantee much.

 

Completely untrue. I may as well not have a degree

 

For the vast majority of good jobs that will give you a career, it certainly is true.

 

 

Again, total bollocks.

 

And anyway, that isn't how you phrased it. You outright said 'a 2.2 is bad' therefore invalidating the degrees of millions of people. What gives you that power?

 

It's not, the only chance you have to get a decent job with a 2.2 is to find somewhere to do a PGCE. 

 

A 2.2 isn't a very good mark, especially if that qualification isn't in a hard science or in computer science, it send a bad signal, i.e. that you spent most of your time getting pissed. 

 

If you look at any graduate job description that pays good money you will typically see  '2,1 or above in a relevant discipline'.

 

 

This is a way of thinking that I just don't understand, or am I misunderstanding it? Having any sort of degree should not nor should it ever be a certainty to a immediate good salary. We see in our industry far too many kids - and that is what they are basically spotty kids - coming straight from Uni thinking that they know everything and expecting the world, all because of a few grades that have typically been decided by a couple of people. A degree surely is nothing more than a extension of education that exposes the person to a few further ideas and get's them thinking and learning. Most times it has little to no relevance on real world issues and challenges and that is why people start at the bottom of the ladder and get recompensed accordingly.

 

 

 

 

yep  This

[Dr_Pangloss]

 

 

 

 

 

In fact in this climate anything less than a 2:1 is bad and even a 2:1 doesn't guarantee much.

 

Completely untrue. I may as well not have a degree

 

For the vast majority of good jobs that will give you a career, it certainly is true.

 

 

Again, total bollocks.

 

And anyway, that isn't how you phrased it. You outright said 'a 2.2 is bad' therefore invalidating the degrees of millions of people. What gives you that power?

 

It's not, the only chance you have to get a decent job with a 2.2 is to find somewhere to do a PGCE. 

 

A 2.2 isn't a very good mark, especially if that qualification isn't in a hard science or in computer science, it send a bad signal, i.e. that you spent most of your time getting pissed. 

 

If you look at any graduate job description that pays good money you will typically see  '2,1 or above in a relevant discipline'.

 

 

This is a way of thinking that I just don't understand, or am I misunderstanding it? Having any sort of degree should not nor should it ever be a certainty to a immediate good salary. We see in our industry far too many kids - and that is what they are basically spotty kids - coming straight from Uni thinking that they know everything and expecting the world, all because of a few grades that have typically been decided by a couple of people. A degree surely is nothing more than a extension of education that exposes the person to a few further ideas and get's them thinking and learning. Most times it has little to no relevance on real world issues and challenges and that is why people start at the bottom of the ladder and get recompensed accordingly.

 

The level of degree's from 2:2, 2:1 etc is also big bollox. It goes back again to a lot of what was discussed in the work appraisement thread. The only real exception I can see is people getting something like a first in a course that has a portion of real work experience associated with it, who can then say to prospective employers, look I obviously have some experience in this field of work and I can vouch for my ability to learn

 

I guess that depends on the discipline, computer science, chemistry, applied physics and a lot of the engineering disciplines are really there to give people the skills to go straight into industry. 

 

A 2.2 is a pretty poor mark in any discipline and doesn't really send out a good signal unless you can heavily compensate for it with an otherwise impressive CV.

 

Incidentally a degree shouldn't be a guarantee of anything but in most industries it's very often the thing that will get your foot in the door as a 21 year old. So doing well on it does count.   

Edited July 3, 2013 by Dr_Pangloss

[StefanAVFC]

That wasn't really my point. You outwardly said a 2.2 is 'bad' therefore invalidating the degree of millions of people. I know many bosses in high up places that hire graduates and will interview based on CV. All the degree class is good for is getting the interview. Once you get to interview, somebody with a 1st is no different to somebody with a 2.2.

 

It also depends on the course/job. I am doing a PGCE next year and to get ontp the PGCE outright, you need a 2.1. However, as I applied through a more schools based program for people wiht more teaching experience than the average PGCE applicant, I only needed a 2.2 because I demonstrated I was at a certain standard already.

 

You'll find there's thousands of examples like that so to generalise a whole degree class as 'bad' or 'a very poor mark' is, as I originally said, complete bollocks. 

[Dr_Pangloss]

It is a poor mark though, how can a 2.2 be good? It's licence to be out-competed by others in your area that did better. If you're going to spend all of that money on a qualification why settle for a very substandard mark? 

[Davkaus]

That wasn't really my point. You outwardly said a 2.2 is 'bad' therefore invalidating the degree of millions of people. I know many bosses in high up places that hire graduates and will interview based on CV. All the degree class is good for is getting the interview. Once you get to interview, somebody with a 1st is no different to somebody with a 2.2.

 

 

 

I don't understand the problem here. A 2:2 is a poor degree and as you point out, will often see people ruled out based on CV alone. At the interview stage, you'll still likely have to do better than someone with a first to be considered. If you do about the same, with about the same work experience. Few people, when given the choice between two identical candidates but their degree class, will pick the one with a substantially poorer mark. After a few years of full-time employment it won't matter too much, but right after university, it's often a deal-breaker.

 

Not only would I pick candidates with a better classification, but if the role didn't actually require a degree, I'd be far more likely to hire someone with the extra 3 year's work experience than someone who studied for 3 years and got a 2:2. And anyone who gets a third is probably better off leaving it off their CV altogether.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Davkaus

[CVByrne]

A Degree helps gets you a job.

 

Work experience gets you the job you want. 

 

 

After a few years the Degree's relevance is little, your work experience becomes the important part. 

 

Of course a 1st is gonna help get the first job more than a 2.1 which will help more than a 2.2. 

 

Some jobs do try to cut down on applicants by giving minimum of 2.1 required etc.. 

 

But your degree is just a part of a CV which gets you the interview. It's interview skills that really get you the job.

 

 

A Degree of some sort is needed though for many jobs to even get an interview. So it's importance is high, the highest importance I'd say. 

[Xela]

As someone who never went to University and has no real qualifications is a degree that important? I knew from school that I was simply not a studious type and university for me would have just been a massive piss up. I took the job route and started at the bottom and worked my way through the system by hard work and various promotions. To be honest, i don't think I would be earning more if I had a degree. 

[CVByrne]

Also the reason there is a 2.1 cut-off and why it's treated differently in relation to the grade above it than a 2.2 is because some people miss out on a 1.1 by 1 or 2 % and it's often down to 1 subject they may struggle with. So over all they are a 1st class student in the majority. It's also forgiving for the variation that a very hard exam can take on grades. That someone could get 72% one year or 68% the following year depending on difficulty variation of exams each year.

 

But getting a 2.2 means it's hard to argue you are a 1st class student who got hit hard by a bad exam or two. This is the reason 2.2 is treated so differently to 2.1 as it's all about 1.1's to employers.

[maqroll]

Maybe she'd be more interested in learning a trade? A two year program for whatever, but something that is less classroom and more hands on, in the shop stuff.

[RunRickyRun]

No one really gives a shit about 2:1s or 2:2s or 3rds by the time you reach your thirties anyway.

 

If might close a few doors early on that would be open if you had achieved a first or a 2:1 but past experience and/or professional qualifications become far more important as you get older.

 

I'm the proud owner of a drinking man's desmond

[Voinjama]

Even having  a master's does not improve your job prospects that much. You would think it would, but it doesn't.

[StefanAVFC]

People who gets first's are often recluses with the social capacity of a doorstop. Yeah it looks good on paper but practical skills are more important and work experience.

 

Oh look, who's generalising now.

[Davkaus]

Tell yourself whatever it takes to make yourself feel better about spending 3 years to get a below average degree.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Davkaus

[StefanAVFC]

Getting personal now are we? Awesome

 

I'm onto the next stage of my life and career now with my 2.2 so I'm delighted with it. I'll tell myself that if that's okay?

[CVByrne]

Thread totally derailed as expected. 

 

Some rather amusing generalisations though