I recently got automatically rejected as experienced hire from Detica because I had poor[er] A-Level Results. I have a good 2-1 BSc but that was ignored. I have a few years of consultancy experience with two big players but that was also ignored.I have been to three big name consultancies in total and not one of them asked for my A-Level Results (apart from the first for the grad scheme). For me to be asked now is an insult.What do you guys think about this?Fay

Fay, I was in the same position as you. I simply removed my Scottish Higher results from my CV and used the space to give more detail on my work achievements and other interests.When asked about my results recently, I asked why qualifications I got more than 10 years ago were still relevant? When they insisted I then said I wanted to withdraw my application if this was an indication of how dreconian their organisation was. They desisted and I got the job!

RL,That's awesome! I actually don't have the results on my CV but some HR person asked for them via email. I should have done what you did, and I certainly will do in the future.Any company who still cares about A-Levels after almost 10 years despite all my in-between achievements isn't a company I'd like to work at. Extremely elitist IMHO.Fay

Doesn't this policy also completely ignore the fact that A-levels are now so much easier than they were. A chimp could probably pass an A-level these days, fuelled with enough PG Tips and Rich Tea biscuits. It really does seem a little harsh, are you sure that this wasn't just a facade to hide other reasons why they didn't want you? I'd ask, just to make sure to ensure that theres nothing suspect on your CV that they took a dislike to.

this highlights how stuffy, out-of-touch, rigid and inflexible the world of consulting is!

Ha Ha! That first response was class, like it a lot and may give it a go next time I get the chance!It is funny why they keep asking for them as it kind of suggests that a person can not change or improve beyond their achievements as a teenager - does anyone else think it's dumb that firms employed and sourced to bring about innovative and diverse solutions are stuck in a rigid archaic organisation themselves?My partner works for a large US law firm, I can not believe the level of management there! For the money they draw in and revenue they generate they don't appear to be able to grasp even the most basic man management skills.

This is not unusual. I was asked for my A level results several times recently despite having two Masters degrees.It is particularly amusing to read how there is such a boom in recruitment and that consultancies cannot attract enough talent. Widening the pool might actually increase quantity and quality of applicants.

Well, no my CV is clean and I have been successful in getting interviews thus far. The HR person said it was standard practice for Detica so that it must be. If they didn't like something on my CV I don't see why they should lie about it.Fay

Couldn't they argue that A levels, as well as degree results, show your ability to perform consistently over a period of years, in different learning environments and give an indication of how you respond given an absolute deadline and stupid amounts of pressure? Doesn't mean I neccessarily agree with the policy, but maybe a less defensive response would be more helpful- explain why you got cr-p results and why you are now much better at delivering under pressure rather than a knee jerk 'how dare they want to know if I was always a high flier'

Here here.A-Levels are the most demanding qualification you ever will do.Degrees are more at your own pace - long term projects, perhaps fewer exams.Degrees are certainly more technical in their content, but more narrow - when you do A-Levels you are forced to study 3 or 4 subjects - 2 of which you might hate.I think A-Levels are a good indicator of intellectual capacity.Of course - once you have capacity you require to demonstrate that you can apply it: hence the importance of a degree and/or some work experience.I think A-Levels are the steepest learning curve in your knowledge career. How many new things did I learn in those two years - an absolute torrent of mathematics, physics and chemistry.A-Levels are pretty important.

Oh and before you comment on my grammatical inaptitude, you'd be quite right:but I did only get a GCSE grade B in English Language, so you can see how my teenage qualifications indicate that shortcoming!

Now...I can agree that A-Levels demonstrate your ability to cope under pressure, and that they're very demanding, etc. etc. However I disagree completely regarding the consistency of how well you've performed all your life.The simple matter of fact is that conditions change throughout your life, and personal conditions affect your performance despite how good you are. In my teenage years I was a very different person to who I am now, and my attitude to college/study reflected that. I think people tend to have more "issues" in the teenage years and this is the biggest performance hindering factor that companies and others alike seem to ignore.I think it's unfair to judge people by their A-Levels because people have very different attitudes to life in their teenage years and hence they underperform not because of incapability, but because of their immediate circumstances. So in the context of being a professional with a good degree from a decent uni, with a few years consultancy experience with world players and initially joining a grad scheme I can safely say that it is misguided to judge the capabilities of someone based on 10 year old exams they did as statistically troubled teenagers.By the time you hit university you have matured a lot more, and understand where priorities lie and work towards them.Fay

I agree with fay, A levels are hard and a good determinant but its like stating that consultants should all have the same educational upbringing/profile. This may serve HR departments and make their jobs easier but it does not good in bringing new talent into the industry. The consultancy industry will never develop and grow if it keeps to such old-fashioned principles.I'm surpised that no-one has also mentioned the loop-hole used by many wanna-be consultants, to undertake a Masters degree to negate a poor undergraduate result. This activity highlights the deficiencies in this "education" based filtering system. The consulting industry should undertake a joint study programme on how to improve and possibly standardise the entry process. I sometimes wonder whether theres any point in employing fresh graduates with no work experience, into the consulting industry. If you want to truly screen candidates on business knowledge and challengable personal improvement then let the industries refine the quality of candidates for all involved.

universities use grades at a-level for entrance requirements.So the chances r if your a-levels are not good enough for consultancy - BBB or higher; then that's not high enough to get onto a competitive uni course either.BUt i am being quite elitest here: i think you can get ont a good uni course with, say BBC.So if you have less than BBC and then you go to a non-competitive course or ex-poly, is your 2:1 the same as a top end uni?YOu can't have it both ways: play football/get pissed instead of doing your A-Level studies; or do the work and reap some rewards.I mean if you couldn't even get BBC - and you say A-Levels are easy. OK I will qualify what I am saying: because I have one friend who has genuine reaosns for doing poorly in A-Levels: he is still repeatign them after 5 years. But I think what you are talking about is all those people who called the studious students swats back in the teenage years now gurning because they can't get the job they want.Apologise for my political incorrectness.My ppinions are not the official opinions of top-consultant dotcom :)

sorry that was a bit harsh - i just spoke to one of my friends, he got 3 c's; and i woudln't say those things to him. he's a smart cookie too

well at least one "swat" in this world has accepted his wrongs and changed his views...1 down thousands to go.

I feel that a-levels (when I took them in 1992) were not really a fantastic test of intellectual ability. They were a speed-writing test and were best attacked by memorizing a defined and limited amount of information.Also bear in mind that a lot of students/pupils go through a fair amount of personal turmoil during their teenage years and in some instances blossom later. Intellectual ability, aptitude and calibre are not qualities which develop only up until the age of 21. Some people have a different life story and I suspect that the original poster is suggesting that consultancies are missing out on a wider pool of talent in their blinkered approach to recruitment.For what it's worth, I got three "A"'s.

John...you wrote this at 10 PM....were you a little worse fo wear at the time? I sense a little agression in your post........

perhaps i was a bit moody: i am in my final semester at uni; putting those a-levels to good use

being an a-level student researching a possible career. i was quite annoyed to see it implyed in some of the messages that a levels are getting easier. i would say, if anything, it is much more stressfull than it was 10 years ago. with exams now split and modularised, and students are being externally tested 4 times over the 2 years of study in january and may each year. it is becoming absurd. each of my 4 subjects has 2 1.5 hr exams one of which is in january and 1 2hr exam rather than 2 exams at the end of 2 years study. the only way we are compensated for this bararge of exams, is the opportunity to retake those exams which we arn't happy with. this gives the opportunity to improve, but adds to exam loads. which i suppose old a-levelers didn't have. but at least you could mess about in the first year and pull it back for the 2nd year, whereas i am now in my 2nd year of intense learning! and can't wait for the more laid back atmosphere of uni next year

just ignore all that

Oooh diddums!

I don't get your point, you're trying to give the impression that A-Levels are now harder due to the longer period of scrutiny you're under. Whereas doing the same topics 8-9 years ago with 2 years study and then one chance at the two final exams seems to have less pressure??? So in your opinion you'd prefer the old method so you could doss around for a while as, of course, you're bound never to get tested no those topics you were taught at the start of the course.I know which I'd prefer. By way of note, what are you intending to study for this laid back uni life? Media and Communications?