Do I need a first?

[Gealle]

Any company that doesn't prioritise the applicants that have a First do not require highly intelligent and motivated staff. Intelligence is not required for about 80-90% of the jobs in the real world hence they would prefer to recruit 'less intelligent' people. This may suit you if you fall into this category - I gather this is the case due to your suggestion that a First requires excessive work. If you're depserate for a highly intellectually demanding job however - aim for a First.

Are you saying you can get a first without excessive work ?
On a side note - I don't see the point of making assumptions about people on messageboards - you don't know anything about the person you are talking to unless you've met them in real life.

What kind of jobs are you referring to when you say 'highly intellectually demanding' ? Consultants/Finance/Other conventional graduate jobs ?

I'm at the heart of finance. I got a 2:1. Similarly, I know a lot of folk with a 1st who are locked away in their roles with no progression because they can't adapt or socialise.

At the end of the day, you need to be rounded - and you have to appreciate the abilities of those amazing people who can socialise AND get 1sts AND do it outside of the science faculty. Hat's off.

Live and let live and it'll do you the world of good.

[big_phil]

As the previous poster said, you need to be well rounded. It's a load of rubbish saying that anyone without a first isn't intelligent (as one person mentioned earlier) and it's all well and good getting a first, but if you can't socialise or don't do anything outside you're degree then a company assumes you aren't able to adapt very well and that, to be frank, you're bloody boring.

[IR Student]

I want to do a Phd in Chinese foreign policy. Do I need a first-class IR degree? Can a good master 'replace' a 2:1 degree? Do people with a 2:1 degree get Phd funding?

Thank you.

[the Empress]

Do you have a particular institute in mind for your Phd? They're probably the best people to contact for such a specific field.

[realist]

Does having a first make that much difference ? At the moment I've decided I'm going to aim for a 2:1 because I want to get a decent degree but also want to have fun but there's always been a niggling thought in the back of my mind that I should try for a first. (I'm a third year if that helps with the advice giving).

No, because at the end of the day, when you finally join the real world, a degree is nothing but a useless piece of paper.

[IR Student]

Thank you for your reply.

I just want to know generally speaking whether 2:1 is good enough for good taught master programme (I guess I must do a taught master first) and Phd. Thanks.

[the Empress]

Generally a 2.1 is fine for a taught masters. Are you sure this is what you want to do? You can probably apply straight away for a Phd without one, as I guess you'll be getting your 4-year-MA from St Andrews. Taught masters are useful if you want to change your field or looking for a specific skill set, but personally, I wouldn't recommend it otherwise. There's also research masters which you could consider (and probably have a better chance of getting funding for).

[WashingtonIrving]

I dunno about applying straight for a Phd in all subjects, I'm down for a taught masters in philosophy and pretty much every university I looked at wants you to do that first, then if you do well enough they just transfer you to the Phd program.

Surely whether this person needs a first or not depends upon what they want to do? If you want to go on to do postgrad it will make funding that bit easier if you get a first. If you don't then it probably doesn't matter with most jobs. But I have seen certain companies asking for firsts only (or something exceptional in your Cv). But that was just a case of them having so many applicants they could afford to wipe out a lot of them.