University degrees: what’s the difference?

Eloethan don't get my DD on the subject of the Vice Chancellor! The language becomes very inflammatory!

Nowadays DD is involved in interviewing their potential post grads. She tends to weed out firsts because so many of them turn out to be too good to be true. She also checks spelling and grammar as she is the one who ends up re writing their work. She also makes a point of investigating any unexplained gaps in the CVs. There have been cases of these gaps being mental breakdowns which left the unfortunate students quite unable to cope with the pressure of a very demanding science PhD.

I think the degree thing has got out of hand if a first degree is not sufficient and an Masters is now required. Even then, a good job is not guaranteed.

In my opinion, universities are just businesses now, in many cases paying huge salaries to their vice-chancellors. The recent reports of unconditional places being handed out to ever increasing numbers of students have suggested that this happens because universities need the fees in order to keep afloat. It is a ridiculous situation.

I feel sorry for young people these days.

I work in a global organisation which has a very popular graduate programme. We receive hundreds of applications, so reject all CVs with typos, lack of wide ranging interests, and any degree less than a 2.1.

Even by taking these steps, we interview several hundred applicants each year.

I agree that a bachelor degree is too common, so encouraged my DDs to get their Masters before venturing into seeking a career.

Sign of the times I guess.

A science degree is fantastic and even at 2:2 physics is amazing. I couldn’t do it and I don’t think many of us here could.
She simply needs to persevere with her career choice and it will happen. I agree with filling in meanwhile with anything to keep an income and a work ethic going however.

A 2.1 from Oxford or Cambridge is an excellent achievement, they don’t hand out many firsts!
I think that Preston/Luton etc probably do hand out many firsts and I would expect any decent employer to know the difference. A 2.1 or 2.2 from a Russell Group Uni is worth a lot.
Hope your neice finds an employer with some common sense.

The thing is VM that it is what it is. Unfair yes, but I'm afraid she has to learn that life is unfair. I've heard today that unemployment is at its lowest since 1975 so there are jobs out there but she will have to accept the situation and do the best she can. Sorry.

Grandma70s sorry my bad. I had understood "redbrick" to refer to universities other than Russel Group but which hadn't started life out as polytechnics. Clearly I am in error and I thank you for putting me straight ?

Thank you for interesting comments. My main frustration here is that in today’s application process, to move on to the next stage, there is absolutely no opportunity for any detail apart from grade of degree. If the degree was Oxbridge or Croydon College the grade is still the defining factor. How can this be right? Incidentally, one of the employers involved here is a huge government department. I know many Gransnetters are ‘in education’ so would welcome some inside knowledge on this.

paddyann please read my post again. I referred to the difference between Russel Group and the bottom of the heap. I made no reference to any other university. Why do you think I was referring to other universities?

They want the very best and it is their privilege to choose who they want. She WILL be successful in obtaining a job, just"onwards and upwards"

Agree with grandtanteJE65

Nonnie is St Andrews at "the bottom of the pile"as far as I'm aware its not a Russell group uni.It has a great reputation bothe here and abroad

NoddingGanGan - I am confused by your reference to Russell Group and Redbrick universities as if they were something different. Most redbricks are in fact Russell Group as well. The term Redbrick University originally referred to the University of Liverpool, which is Russell Group. I know this because my aunt and uncle were very friendly with the man who coined the term in the title of his 1943 book, under the pseudonym Bruce Truscott.

If it takes 3As to get into one university, and a much lower set of A level grades to get into another, then of course it matters. That some, or even over 50%,
employers are ignorant is hardly a reason for not aiming high.

I feel your pain. I have two daughters and one did a largely practical degree at a "redbrick" and the other a classics degree at a Russell Group. The first got a 2:1 and the second a 2:2 but I know which course was the most rigorous academically. This is not to decry my first daughter's achievement. She is talented and worked hard. But so is and did my other daughter. What was lacking at the RG uni was pasteral care which the redbrick gave out in spades.
Ironically, DD2's best module in her final year was one in which she only received half the lectures due to that lecturer being on strike! So she had to teach herself much of it. Her second best mark was for her dissertation, likewise the tutor for which was on strike so flying almost completely solo yet again. For both of these she got a 2:1 mark, just. It was the rest of her modules that let her down. Don't know what that says about her as a self starter but the message isn't getting across to employers.

Whether rightly or wrongly, I don't pretend to say, but the marks attained in a university degree only matter when a person is applying for their first job. After that the work they have actually done and the experience they have gained counts for far more.

Your niece has probably a far better understanding of her subject than another candidate from a less good university, which will be an advantage when she gets a job.

An internship might be the way forward, even although I dislike the thought of anyone with a degree being forced to work for next to no pay.

Nothing is stopping your daughter from putting the name of her university in her application in the hope that some future employer knows that a degree from there counts.

When I studied for my MA, people with just a 2.2 were not accepted. Maybe it’s changed now.

Someone mentioned volunteering and I agree that's the way to go. Don't let rejections get her down.
Make sure she gets up and does something every day.
A happy, positive, fulfilled person is more attractive than one who mopes at home on the computer in a darkened room - and I know several of the latter.
She could help scouts or guides. She could tutor A level students.

I was a recruiter so am speaking from experience. The fact is that some companies have criteria for who they will consider and no amount of tweaking will get an interview if you haven't the required degree. No point expecting some sort of trick will overcome the rule, it won't. She will have to be realistic no matter how painful.

I would suggest that she tries smaller employers who may not have a policy.

There are some things that will give her the edge and anything handwritten will have the opposite effect. Both the CV and covering letter should be tailored to the job being advertised, many are not. Stock letters do not impress seasoned recruiters. She should want to do the job not want to work for esteemed Blogs and Co. She should emphasise what she can do for them and not what they can do for her. She should get someone to proofread before sending it off. Much of the above may sound obvious but I can assure you that some highly qualified people don't see to know it.

Many managers don't know the difference between one university and another, I used to spend a lot of time telling them the difference between ones at the bottom of the heap and Russel Group ones. You can't change this so it has to be accepted.

A sensible employer won't give a job to someone over qualified so it makes sense for her to apply for appropriate jobs unless it is something which is clearly a stopgap outside her field.

Good luck to her.

* studying

Mine all found that a first degree by itself was not necessarily going to get them into a career of their choosing. They all went on to take postgrad qualifications to improve employment prospects. As we live in Scotland that meant stufying for 5 years as we have 4 year degree courses. They are now all happily working in their chosen fields at senior levels.

Some years ago a Media Studies degree was the ‘go to’ course for the undecided. I don’t know how successful this qualification has been, but it seems to have disappeared now in favour of degrees in Events Management or Travel and Tourism. Are graduates from these courses any more successful than someone who joined a firm such as Thomas Cook at age 17 and learnt on the job?

Some very useful observations and advice given above.
One of my DC’s degree was in a specific profession, so worked directly in that field.
The other DC’s degree was in a wider field, but they accepted a job in a global company, working below degree level. However, 10 years on they have worked very hard, used their skills and been promoted several times, now working at an appropriate level.
Sometimes, going in at a lower level, proving your skills might be the way to go.

For what it is worth, we are increasingly becoming like the US and some other European countries, where a further qualification e.g. a Masters, is required. To an extent that wipes out the significance of the class of first degree, particularly if you can get some other accolade with it, such as the Dean's prize for top essay, xyz award for academic excellence etc, many of which are available, particularly (suspiciously perhaps! ... it's all jolly good marketing , sorry if this seems cynical) in the Tier 2 universities.

The Tier 2 universities also seem to have the most fabulous graduation gowns. Of course this is nice for the students, but also means their graduation ceremonies and photos look very attractive! Also good for marketing.

....oops, typo....I meant the 'the practice you describe where the university you got your degree from is ignored'....