Difference between a Credit and a Distinction (1 Viewer)

[Amundies]

Whaddup guys/girls. Obviously, a DI is preferred over a CR, but I was just wondering how much employers actually look into the difference between the two. Like, do employers only look at whether you get a CR or higher, or do they look at whether you got a CR, DI or HD? Cos I ceebs working extra hard and aiming for a high mark, it tends to take out a lot of the fun in learning. I'd like to have a wide range of opportunities available to me when I graduate however, so if a DI is really helpful then I will definitely aim for it.

Oh and btw, I know there's more to the CV than just marks, but I know that an edge here and there (including in the education section) can be really beneficial.

 

[obliviousninja]

Marks only get you as far as the interview stage.

It really depends what field you want to move into. But usually high credit or above is favoured.

 

[seremify007]

Depends on the company and the role. I've heard even in some accounting roles they can cull based on D average. But for the most part unless you're going for a technical or highly competitive (ie MC, IB or front office) role it won't really mean much other than giving you a slightly higher chance of getting an interview. Once you've got the interview everyone is on an even floor.

 

[enoilgam]

Marks are just a culling tool for the application stage and generally speaking, a credit average is all you need for most roles. The only exceptions to this are IB and MBB where you need a HD average, and Law where you need a D average. However, that being said, given the increasing demand and decreasing supply of graduate programs I'd say that a D average is probably best, because a few companies are starting to cull all those without a Distinction. Even though they might say "Credit average minimum", they may cull those with less than a Distinction if the demand is high.

To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't really bother with a HD average unless I was gunning for IB or MBB, because the extra work just isnt worth it. It will look good on a CV, but the difference is marginal and the work involved in getting one is probably best invested in building other areas of your CV. Also keep in mind that for a lot of entry level jobs, marks are virtually worthless anyway (the exceptions to this would be stuff like engineering, accounting or other specialised fields). I know that with HR, entry level employers showed zero interest in my grades despite the fact that they were quite high (I was never once asked to produce a transcript). This also seems to be the case for a few of my other mates going into entry level roles with big organisations.

 

[seremify007]

For what it's worth though (and I agree with everything enoilgram said), I was surprised that in applying for a work permit overseas I was asked to provide transcripts. This was both when I worked in the states and in Singapore- whether or not my marks made a difference I'll never know but it goes to show your university transcript can follow you years later so you wouldn't want it looking too shoddy.

 

[isildurrrr1]

For what it's worth though (and I agree with everything enoilgram said), I was surprised that in applying for a work permit overseas I was asked to provide transcripts. This was both when I worked in the states and in Singapore- whether or not my marks made a difference I'll never know but it goes to show your university transcript can follow you years later so you wouldn't want it looking too shoddy.

The transcript is just to show what courses you took. Same for immigration in aus they don't care about the name of the degree, they look at the specific subjects and see if you qualify for migration purposes since there's so many institutions with random degree names its impossible to truly know what you studied unless you look at the transcript.