So, is the "first degree" really more important than the "highest degree"?
Netizen 1: Whether the first degree is important or not depends on whether you have a place to go. If it is a civil servant, the highest education is more important. For example, large enterprises and universities generally require that the first degree is 2 1 1 engineering university or 985 engineering university, so if you want to go to a university or a famous enterprise, the first degree is more important. Because the first degree reflects your IQ, your learning ability under the same study time in senior three, and your highest degree reflects your efforts. Simply comparing the first degree with the highest degree is more important, meaningless and boring!
Netizen 2: As a subordinate of a senior HR-more than ten years. He told me that when there were not many graduate students, faced with a handful of resumes, I directly picked out the graduate students and 985 undergraduates, and then blew the remaining resumes with a fan, not blowing them away, and put them together with the previously screened ones, and then sent an interview invitation. You can't blow it with a fan now. There are too many resumes for graduate students. Basically, most people have CET-4, CET-6 and CET-2, and they can only be selected by "the first degree". No way, big company!
Netizen 3: It's definitely not HR upstairs, it's totally bullshit. As a doctor of a third-rate university, I seldom think about the starting point of undergraduate and master's degree. My first degree is also a third-rate university. With the achievements of scientific research, I was easily admitted to a university. There have been more doctors in recent years, and many three universities have begun to recruit doctors. Comparatively speaking, it really doesn't matter if famous enterprises and famous schools have the first degree. Many doctoral colleagues around me have a very low starting point, secondary schools, self-taught undergraduate courses, and national projects one after another. In a word, maybe "the first degree" may be an obstacle for you to enter the door, but people with strength will eventually shine as long as they have a platform.
Netizen 4: There is indeed discrimination against the "first degree", but it is very reasonable. This is the selection mechanism of the whole society, not individuals. The first two are individual cases. Think about 2 1 1 and 985 undergraduates going to graduate school, and 985 undergraduates going to famous schools or going abroad. You have worked hard for four years, and you barely agree with others' original starting point. This fully reflects your personal ability. Well, don't say that you worked hard to get into graduate school. There are many people who work hard. Why are others admitted to famous universities? Why is it just an ordinary university? "First degree" is very important, not to mention the existence of "first degree" discrimination. What I want to say is that existence is reasonable. Some people can be surpassed by your efforts, and some people can't be surpassed by your efforts. The requirement of the "first degree" in an enterprise is to find people whose efforts you can't surpass, understand?
Yan:
Although many companies pay more attention to your "first degree", it does not mean that the first degree is very important, but the scale of master's and doctoral graduates is expanding. Employers use "first degree" to define the brand value and comprehensive ability of the school, making it easier to find suitable talents.