Now this is not fair in terms of people who tried to get the 2.1 or higher, on the account of extra curricular activities, like societies etc. which we all know are quite influential when one needs and wants to stand out of the crowd in order to expand his employability! It should have been made clear long time ago what students should be striving for. On my opinion 2.1 is a reasonable mark. Of course it is easy to talk, as I am in a safe 2.1.

I was tempted to 'report a concern' with some of these views and at times the use of English - what are you guys on course for a 2:2 or something? (humour me!)
So much Sarah-bashing - she's got a good point. Based on my experience of people who attain 2:2s, the majority are without doubt people who don’t care enough or simply don’t put sufficient hours in (too much fb, going out, etc). Whereas the minority, like Christopher J, are just plain unfortunate and no less deserving of a place than someone with a 2:1. Let’s not forget how big an element luck plays; I heard of one employer who, faced with a huge stack of applications, will chuck the first half in the bin. The rationale being that if they’re not lucky enough to be in the first half then they’re not lucky enough to work for him!
However, these discussions are largely irrelevant. This scheme PWC have adopted won't catch on - the reason such a crude measurement was introduced in the first place was because of such high numbers of applicants and there is sufficient quality among those incredibly high number of applicants of students holding a 2:1+ that firms won't feel they are missing out on much talent.
In my opinion, employers should deploy greater differentiation even among 2:1s – taking into account if it is a higher or lower one as it better reflects the variety of academic quality within that group, i.e. someone who scrapes a 2:1 and one who narrowly misses out on a first class degree. The same could be extended to high 2:2s even.

Paul H – getting a first in most subjects demonstrates a good level of intelligence as much as, and probably more than, an IQ test – whether it’s a Geography degree or another they all have unique transferable skills. To take your example, how does an IQ test imply whether someone will make a good sales director or not as opposed to a well-honed humanity skill such as presenting and clarifying your arguments publicly?
Adam K, Katie H – I fully agree with your points on the difference between unis. All degree grades are assumed to be equal and universal, yet some are more equal than others.
Richard V – students can choose courses orientated towards work experience with a year in industry say where this contributes to their final mark. Also, to say there is often a link between learning and what you get in the end is a huge understatement ? your grade reflects how much learning you’ve done; whether you take in everything the night before or digest it for 3 years, the outcome is the same, you’ve still learnt it and thus demonstrated your ability to receive, take in and employ knowledge rapidly or otherwise.
Brad R – it is worth noting that nowadays, for those who can't or won't go to university many 'big' companies have post-A-level entries. Fair point eh Brad? (Notice the question mark ‘superstar’).
I take the point that yes, those who do various extra-curricular activities may hinder their chances of getting the mark ‘they hoped for’ but if their

I am really not so sure about that Sarah. It really depends on circumstances.... Some students are just lazy and do not care about their careers, they are sitting on fb all the time etc. but others have got other commitments like part time work and it is pretty hard to combine all of those. They still can be good students who care but its only 1% between 2.2 and 2.1 so it might have been the case they weren't so lucky as you...

I hardly think it undermines the point of university! As you should know degrees at university difer a lot in terms of workload and difficulty. Should someone with a 2:1 degree at an old polytechnic on a relatively useless degree be given a better chance of getting a job?! I am currently studying Chemistry at Oxford University, and have worked hard my entire educational life. I am on for a 2:2, not due to me 'not working hard'. Chemistry is thought of as one of the hardest degrees a uni has to offer. I think I could definitely offer an employer more than a lot of my friends that got 2:1's that actually did relatively minimal work! I don't think it means that you 'care anymore about your career', than a lot of my peers that are not on for 2:1's.

In regards to the comment above - that was an unfair pass at people slipping the mark for a 2:1 saying that they haven't worked hard enough. There are some people with 2:2 degrees that have more transferable skills, interpersonal skills and drive than people who have a 2:1 and 1sts. Just because they haven't got the 2:1, doesn't mean that the company has to give up on them at the first hurdle. Where they may have slipped in their degree; be it that they found a few essays hard, presentations difficult or just unlucky with some exams, this may not reflect in jobs and companies have come to realize this.I wish for you to retract this comment:"The job market is hard enough as it is, why make it more difficult for those who actually care about their careers?"From this comment, it defines you as snobby and carrying some personal vendetta.

I missed out on a 2:1 degree by less than 3%. My girlfriend of over 3 years decided to break up with me half way through my finaly year exams. I passed all my exams but one which due to the circumstances they gave me 40% but did not include my coursework for that particular module. Had it been included I would have got a 2:1. So because I am now stuck with a 2:2 in electronic engineering and I am cut off from the majority of my ideal companies. Yet somebody who got 3% more overall who might not be better at the job is considered. I am not saying dont look at academic acheivement because that can show a lot about a persons interests, motivation and comitment but can it tell you wether that person will stay with the company after their graduate scheme has finished and the company has invested thousands in them? No. Can it tell you how driven that person is to succeed in that company? No. So other means of assessing graduates is a good idea in my opinion.

regarding sarah fs contribution, i feel that she has completely misunderstood people who get less than a 2:1. It is not simply a case of "trying hard" or "not caring" but rather a case of failing to jump through as many of the hoops that your degree sets out for you. I would argue that degrees are for the most part arbitrary and are only to show employers that they are capable of retaining knowledge and arguing points (for example in the humanities)An IQ test would be far more useful to gauge how an individual would perform in a job. How would a first in geography show to an employer that you will make a good sales director?

Its a good news for all the students, as for sarah f i appreciate what you are saying however dont you think some people who go to a not so good university end up getting a better university mark and better job than the person who went to a renowned red brick university, isnt it unfair then considering the student worked really hard all his life to get into a good university compared to a student who just worked a bit harder and got the mark. I mean, also getting a 2.2 in law is different than getting a 2.2 in business adminstration e.t.c. Also some undergraduates try but dont achieve the desired results. I think if universities have the policy to consider any think below 2.1 as a pass than why shouldnt those students be accepted in the firms they want to apply to. I think its a fair deal as this gives everyone a chance to succeed.

I disagree with Sarah F's comment. Surely university should be about the learning first and foremost, and not simply what grade you happen to get at the end? While there is often a link between those two areas anyway, it can easily be spoiled by highly knowledgeable students who struggle with standard academic examination methods that don't reflect the majority of real-life work. Alternatively, it can also be spoiled by students who 'prepare for the test' and promptly forget what they were taught once final exams pass by.

i don't think it's fair for companies to set a 2.1 requirement because many students who are involved in many different extra curricular activities may not in the end gain the 2.1 they hoped for. alot of sports teams train rigorously every week and that does limit the time spent studying. also, sometimes no matter how much hard work you put in, the result you get isn't as high as you expect. getting a 2.1 is also not really a fair judge on intelligence, there are a wide variety of degree courses out there hence different skills are acquired through the different courses, a maths student may not be as creative as a media student, etc. i think the best comprimise is to make having a 2.1 degree a "benefit" and not a "requirement" for graduate positions.