It’s a familiar story…you captained the sports team, chaired the debating society, organised the Christmas ball and ran for Union president 3 years in a row…only to come out with ‘just’ a 2:2 or a 3rd. Now your graduate job-hunt is even more difficult, as all the best jobs specify ’2:1 or higher’ just to apply.
So are employers right to exclude such a large percentage of the graduate population?
Is a perfect exam record and an early bedtime a better employability indicator than the skills acquired Eurailing it from Barcelona to Bratislava?
The most sought-after jobs must have a cut-off point, or risk being inundated with inadequate and underqualified applicants…but is a 2:1 a fair minimum, and does this requirement actually do more to hinder, rather than help, the employer?
Let us know what you think. Sign in or register to comment…and share your thoughts and experiences on the great 2:1 debate!