Jump to content

Degrees


invergowrie arab

Recommended Posts

I think I could've got a First if I'd really kicked my arse and worked hard but I just didn't, especially not with my disseration which really was substandard, and I ended up getting a solid 2:1.



I can see why employers running graduate recruitment schemes might put more emphasis on assessments and suchlike than purely assessing academic criteria - it's pretty unlikely that you'll get a job doing very similar work to your degree and a lot of what is required to succeed in the workplace is based on attitude, learning etc. Of course, some jobs will be more closely aligned to academic work - the places mentioned in the report don't sound as though they'd have work that closely aligned to academic studies.



In my old job the graduate scheme was actually open to non-graduates who already worked in the company and some of the most successful people were non-graduates who moved from different areas into our division. Some of the best managers were also people who had joined the company at 15 or 16 and worked there for thirty odd years, really understood the organisation and were great people persons and managers. Of course, I have worked with some people who have an entire chip shop on each shoulder about not having a degree and spend their time drearying on about only have five O-grades but making their way to the heights of regional manager.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do some people seem utterly determined not to grasp the facts that lots of very capable and intelligent people don't have degrees, lots of useless morons do have degrees and that getting a 2:2 doesn't automatically mean you're less intelligent or capable than someone who got a 2:1 but that when you look at it statistically over the whole population, the people who got better degrees got them because, as a group, they're smarter and/or worked harder (were more motivated).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do some people seem utterly determined not to grasp the facts that lots of very capable and intelligent people don't have degrees, lots of useless morons do have degrees and that getting a 2:2 doesn't automatically mean you're less intelligent or capable than someone who got a 2:1 but that when you look at it statistically over the whole population, the people who got better degrees got them because, as a group, they're smarter and/or worked harder (were more motivated).

Everyone who has a degree less than mine is a spastic.

Everyone who has a degree more than mine is a nerd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rule No 1 of detecting utter bullshit: go to the author of the source of bullshit:

http://www.theguardian.com/profile/lu-hai-liang

Lu-Hai Liang is a freelance journalist from Hastings. He likes writing about culture, videogames and travel and dreams of writing a non-fiction book.

Well, this guy certainly appears to be a voice of authority on the subject IMO. As noted from his April 2012 regurgitation of largely the same puff-piece blog:

As for me, well, I am worried. I wrote this article partly out of the fear that I may land a lower second.

May 2014:

In the spring of 2012, I wrote an article called "What will you do if you get a 2:2?" At the time I was in the last months of my final year at university. I'd written the piece as a way to assuage my fears. I was scared. Scared that I was heading for the dreaded 2:2, so I wanted to seek out others, those who'd also got the Desmond and managed to survive.
My fears became real. I remember looking at the transcript of my degree results. I'd missed the magical upper second, the golden gateway to so many graduate schemes and good jobs, by 1.5% below the grade boundary. I was hurt psychologically. Have others felt the same, and what effect did it have on their careers?

Riiiiight: anyone else sensing a good reason why our failed journalist and student is desperately peddling yet another, now cheerily optimistic essay on why degree classifications don't really matter? It's a toughie.*

*If you got a 2:2 or less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I got my degree 40 years ago (no, really!) it really didn't matter what you got, rather where you got it.

I didn't work too hard, enjoyed student life and got through Glasgow Uni. This was deemed by employers to be much 'better' than a whizz-bang degree at Strathtech.

I also became a Partick Thistle supporter, so it hasn't adversely affected me in any way!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sum bois.

ETA, what is all this about oaksoft, I have missed out on this.

Only the nerds should get jobs and you are just a thick cnut wasting a place at uni that could have been taken by someone that was more appreciative. Or something of that ilk. Don't want to misrepresent his stance. :unsure2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rule No 1 of detecting utter bullshit: go to the author of the source of bullshit:

http://www.theguardian.com/profile/lu-hai-liang

Well, this guy certainly appears to be a voice of authority on the subject IMO. As noted from his April 2012 regurgitation of largely the same puff-piece blog:

May 2014:

Riiiiight: anyone else sensing a good reason why our failed journalist and student is desperately peddling yet another, now cheerily optimistic essay on why degree classifications don't really matter? It's a toughie.*

*If you got a 2:2 or less.

You are looking at the why. Maybe you are entirely correct about the author's motivation.

Doesn't change any of this:

Last month, accountancy firm Ernst & Young, one of the UKs biggest graduate employers, announced that they were to scrap a requirement of at least a 2:1 from its graduate application process. The company claimed there was no evidence that academic success at university was linked to achievement in professional assessments.

Instead EY is to use its own strengths-based approach and numerical tests to assess potential recruits.

We found little link between previous success at university and future success in professional qualifications, says Maggie Stilwell, EYs managing partner for talent, on their decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead EY is to use its own strengths-based approach and numerical tests to assess potential recruits.

I agree with this. It's what we do as well.

I'm much more interested in how someone interviews and scores in our logic tests than any degree qualification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with this. It's what we do as well.

I'm much more interested in how someone interviews and scores in our logic tests than any degree qualification.

The only issue there is that with enough experience and a little knowledge, it can be easy to bullshit your way through the interviews. I should know...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only issue there is that with enough experience and a little knowledge, it can be easy to bullshit your way through the interviews. I should know...

I've only ever dealt with recruiting newbies... none of them know anything, whether they have a degree or not.

We usually go for contractors if we need experienced staff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only ever dealt with recruiting newbies... none of them know anything, whether they have a degree or not.

We usually go for contractors if we need experienced staff.

I would tend to agree with that, I've trained enough of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would tend to agree with that, I've trained enough of them.

It can be amusing for a while. Watching the growing realisation that they know nothing and are here to learn...

There's always the odd dick that assumes they are arriving to teach the peasants how things really work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...