MINIMUM REQUIREMENT AND ARBITRARY DEGREE GRADING CAN EXCLUDE BEST CANDIDATES, CLAIM GRADUATES
A new survey reveals that 58% of students and graduates want employers to stop using a 2:1 as a minimum requirement for graduate jobs.
The Milkround.com poll – of more than 600 students and graduates – found that jobseekers feel the absence of a standard system for classifying degrees is unfairly leaving strong candidates unable to apply to certain jobs where a 2:1 is the minimum requirement.
Students and graduates claim that in some cases stronger candidates are excluded – while weaker candidates are accepted.
Fast becoming known as the go-to expert (or ‘rent-a-gob’) on all things graduate, Graduate Fog was thrilled to be invited into the Guardian’s fancy new recording suite on Friday to give my take on this story for their latest Careers Talk Podcast (My segment starts 10 mins into the recording).
What do I make of it – do I agree that employers should scrap the 2:1 cut-off?
Here are my thoughts:
1) I don’t think there’s any ‘should’ about it. The requirements for a vacancy (at any level) are for the recruiters to decide – not the candidates. It’s their money – and it’s them who has to work with the person they hire. That said…
2) I think the 58% of students and graduates in question know this. Contrary to how this story has been reported elsewhere, I don’t think the respondents were demanding anything as radical as a new law saying those with a 2:2 or below were being discriminated against!
Instead, I think they were pointing out that – for various reasons – drawing this ‘line in the sand’ occasionally / sometimes / often excludes those who may in fact be stronger at the skills needed to do the job.
3) I agree with graduates that under the current system there will be times when the ‘wrong’ candidate is given the job – while the ‘right’ candidate is disqualified from even applying. Not all these ‘2:1 or above’ jobs actually require amazing academic qualifications. Often other skills are more important and this is not reflected in the recruitment criteria.
But employers aren’t stupid. They have three main reasons for using the 2:1 minimum requirement:
– They assume this is a reasonable indicator or a candidate’s ‘smartness’ and ability to apply themselves
– De-selecting those with a 2:2 or below is a quick and easy way to reduce the volume of applications they will receive and
– There is often a ‘snob-factor’ at work – many companies like to be able to tell their clients ‘We only recruit people with a 2:1 or above.’ It just sounds good.
Since this story broke, accusations have been flying that graduates are asking recruiters to ‘dumb down’ their hiring criteria – which raises all sorts of questions like ‘What on earth do students think university is for, if it’s not to give employers an indication of who are the brightest and best candidates?’ etc…
Whatever.
I actually think there is a more interesting question here, which is:
Do recruiters have any good reasons to change this minimum requirement?
Doubtless, many would say ‘No, it’s a buyer’s market – why should employers lower their standards for candidates who didn’t bother to work hard at uni?’
But I disagree. Because, despite the volume of applications recruiters receive, I’m still hearing them complain that very few candidates possess the ‘soft skills’ they look for in really excellent candidates.
It’s just a theory but if employers broadened their academic requirements for graduate jobs, might they start to see a better mix of applicants, with a more rounded set of skills?
There are all sorts of reasons why someone might graduate with a 2:2. It’s unfair to assume they were simply in the pub for the duration of their degree.
It could be that they didn’t enjoy or engage with their degree subject as much as they expected to – but given work that really engages them, perhaps they’re capable of being outstanding?
Or perhaps they took on several paid jobs to pay their tuition fees and living costs – and found themselves over-stretched and with little time to study?
What I mean is, are ‘2:2 people’ actually better at some things than ‘2:1 people’? Are they more entrepreneurial? More passionate? More social? Do they make better salespeople? Are they more likely to make great leaders?
(The latter is what big companies are all about these days – they’re obsessed with ‘leadership potential’).
Hmm. I don’t have the answers – I’m just saying these are interesting questions, no?
*Hear Tanya discussing this story for a Guardian Podcast – including tips on what to do if you got a 2:2 – or think you’re about to! (Her bit starts 10 mins in)
There is little that annoys me more than people turning up their noses at a 2:2. I think there are much better indicators of someone’s worth and, indeed, intelligence than a figure written on a piece of paper. As you say there is no standardised system for grading at degree level and personal biases of the markers can therefore come into play. And they do.
Of course, some graduates get a lower mark because they wasted their time and did not apply themselves. But it is an unfair assumption to say that it is always the fault of the student.
Graduate recruitment is often very biased and rather unfair. But then again, all too often, so are the people who decide what classification a graduate will receive. It is nothing graduates haven’t already faced and overcome. They got their degree. No one can take that away from them and I really do resent attempts by the media and employers to utterly devalue a 2:2. It’s a fantastic achievment, not something to be ashamed of.
I agree with Nic’s comments regarding media devaluation of a 2:2 class degree. This is indeed a great achievement. There are a lot of paradoxically clever stupid people out there and I would heed caution using rigid selection criteria – balance is key and different, valuable strengths come from what is effectively and naively being tainted as ‘waster’ degrees.
As strange as this may sound, but for my line of work (Business Analysis / change management), I would be very reluctant to employ anyone with a 1st class degree as my experience is that they have often lacked social skills which can be as equally important as mental aptitude. If you’re looking for a technical candidate that requires little interaction with non-technicals, then often the ‘higher’ degree classes can offer an employer solid skills.
I also think the actual degree subject is often a more important consideration. A 2:1 in Music, History, English Literature, Psychology, Philosophy and any other ‘arts’ degree is always less valuable than a 2:2 in a BSc degree, particularly an IT or maths based degree.
In fact I have found a 2:2 has generally meant I felt more comfortable with the employee in that they have social and team working skills. When recruiting, there are 2 main considerations; can I and everyone work with them and can they do the job? The former usually has a 55% weighting as its difficult to remould innate personality traits whereas I can train them up with the skills I want in time.