To wonder how smart do you actually have to be for some professions?

I admit I do find this mildly annoying! Especially on behalf of current grad job applicants which are university blind. So someone with a first from Oxford looks exactly the same on paper as someone with a first from an ex poly which gives nearly half its cohort firsts (and yes, I know, the person from the ex poly may be just as bright and work just as hard as the Oxford grad but let's not pretend they're the same - my friend (who is very bright btw!) went to the ex poly in my uni city and did basically the same course as me a couple of years after I graduated. He asked me occasionally to look over his coursework etc and it was just... easier).

@taxguru The situation you mention with your son's exam did not come about because the mark was 'fiddled' but because there is scrutiny over assessments. Universities have systems in place to ensure that assessment processes are fair. The marking for all assessments are, at minimum, moderated by another member of staff (checking a selection to ensure the marking is in line with university regs). On top of that all degree programmes have external examiners - academics from different institutions who checks the rigor of the assessments/marking/feedback given to students. Part of the assessment process is whether a particular cohort has done particularly better or worse than those that have gone before - if a cohort seems to have done particularly badly then they will look for reasons why and see if adjustments can be made so that cohort is not detrimentally affected. So, in the case of your son, they will have established that someone messed up and that material was not taught. It might not even have been that - the exams are often written a long time in advance so it could have been that covid meant the amount of material to be covered was reduced to try and help the students at a difficult time yet the exam couldn't be altered. Either way, they did what was right to not penalise the students. The checks and systems that are in place picked up on the issue and grades were modified so that the students were treated fairly. I'm pretty sure there would've been uproar if it had been the other way and everyone had received a fail grade for 50% of the module based on an assessment that did not map onto the taught material.

During Covid universities bent over backwards to try to ensure that students weren't detrimentally affected in the grades they received comparative to the pre-covid years - we had all sorts of mechanisms in place such as calculating degree classifications based on pre-covid grades, just final year grades, combinations of every which way possible really - whichever was the best outcome for the student was what they received. This was to try to help students. Judging how universities grade work based on experiences during Covid is unlikely to be representative of their normal processes - it was an unprecedented situation and they did what was needed to try and do the best by the students.

But, it is true that, generally, there are more first class degrees now than there were in the past. The marking system has always been bizarre and works on percentages that are not really percentages (outside of the science/maths-based exams where 1 mark = 1 percent). So, it isn't a case of they get a first by knowing less than 75% of the material - it doesn't work like that. When I did my degree (essay, scientific report-based) it was virtually impossible to get a grade higher than 80% for a piece of work and that had to be truly exceptional. If you did get awarded a first then it tended to be a 72% (a friend of mine once got given 68% for a presentation with the only area for improvement being 'I didn't like your type font'). This meant that you had to get a first in pretty much every piece of work submitted to come out with a first class degree by averaging over 70%. These days the lowest first class mark I can award is a 75% - so that already makes it easier. Plus, that is considered a 'borderline first' and we are encouraged to give 85% and potentially 95%. Also, we have borderline zones which mean we can consider those with an average of 68.5% for a first IF they meet certain criteria (a certain number of modules in the higher grade boundary). Much of this will be driven by the imposition of the National Student Survey (NSS) and the fact that league tables rank universities on the 'number of top degrees' they award (2:1/1st) and 'value added' (some calculation based on entry criteria to top degrees - so having bought in students with low entry tariffs who then go on to get good degrees).

@taxguru I agree your DS and others had no chance in that topic the system just isn’t a fair reflection of who is truly excellent. Employers do their own tests and find many people with firsts are not that great and could not possibly do the top jobs. As the research quoted by a pp suggests, being a one trick pony isn’t what employers want either. A first from a low ranking uni with low A levels and not great GCSEs does raise suspicions with employers.

From a 2023 study

https://gwern.net/doc/iq/ses/2023-wolfram.pdf

The same applies to all the other professions you’ve mentioned - an Oxford academic isn’t the same as one from the University of Hull, a local accountant isn’t the same as someone at the Big 4, a top London chambers isn’t the same as your local…

This is interesting. In my field, once you get to a certain level, whether you went to Oxbridge really doesn't mean much at all. There are super high flyers (equivalent to someone at the Big 4)that went to say, Southampton compared with plenty of Oxbridge people who are the local accountant.

I think being clever comes in many forms. Being good at exams isn't necessarily a marker of fabulous intelligence. Some of the best workers I know had to retake their exams multiple times. Some of the scariest people are Oxbridge educated and super confident but I wouldn't have them make me a cup of tea.

Yup, Unis are just degree factories these days.

In one of my son's exams, it was literally two equal questions, both 50% of the marks. It was in Covid, so they'd not had proper lectures, no tutorials etc and had basically been left to themselves to study. He did OK on the first question, and thought he'd got probably 80% of the marks (he was always pretty accurate about how well he'd done). But he could barely start the second question, which was on a topic he claimed he'd not been taught (and later checked the lecture notes and it wasn't there at all!). He thought he'd maybe scraped a handful of marks by writing the bleeding obvious basics, maybe 10% of the marks. So overall, was expecting a mark of 45% (80% of the first half and 10% of the second half). He said most of the exam hall left after half time and talking afterwards all his friends said the same thing that they couldn't do the second question.

When the marks came out, he'd got 90%! Apparently, that was a "standardised" mark, not the core mark, which was indeed 46% as he expected. So basically, because they'd screwed up the teaching and set the "wrong" question in the exam, they fiddled the mark by putting more weighting on the question that everyone could do well and less weighting on the one the students struggled with!

He said the same happened in other exams at Uni too, but not to such an extreme extent. I do feel there needs to be more scrutiny as to how Unis are marking their exams and deciding on degree classifications.

In my accountancy exam days, the professional exams had a fixed/rigid "pass" mark of 50%. If you didn't get the marks, you didn't pass. The only "concession" was that for anyone getting between 45-50% their papers were reviewed and sometimes re-marked if appropriate if markers had been harsh the first time. But if you got 51 marks out of 100, you passed - much simpler, fairer and more transparent rather than the more modern trend of changing the pass mark after the event according to how many/few passed or failed i.e. a moving target!

But there's still other factors. The people "scraping through" may have not been able to spend as much time studying as those who passed easily, either due to family/caring responsibilities, or an employer who didn't give much time off/support for studying etc. Someone who's had to take re-takes in professional exams doesn't mean they didn't have the ability to pass first time.

I agree with others that passing exams is more nuanced than simple intelligence. Putting the time and effort in is just as important (or having the luxury of being able to put time and effort in!).

Right from early years with our son, we've instilled into him a basic work ethic of doing his homework, revising for tests/exams, etc. He wasn't "academic" at all in the sense that he's never been interested in knowledge for the sake of knowledge, never read anything beyond the age of around 10 except for school work/homework/revision, etc. But he's a plodder. Got a full string of grade 9 at GCSE, full suite of A* at A level, a First degree in Maths and now half way through his professional actuarial exams in his workplace. He's not remotely "Interested" in any of that. He's just a plodder who puts the work in when he has to and knows how to pass exams. Part of that is that we ensured he had the environment, i.e. desk and equipment, a quiet house to do his homework, parental "pushiness" to ensure he did his homework, parental engagement with the schools etc. Even now, doing his professional exams, he has loads of paid study leave so never has to study evenings nor weekends, all his study materials and exam fees paid for by his employer, living on his own, so a quiet flat with no spouse/partner/childcare obligations, etc.

He's certainly no more intelligent than some of his peers working in the same place who are struggling and failing some exams - those who are married and/or with children, so trying to juggle family commitments alongside trying to study for exams etc.

Back in my day studying to be an accountant, I had a miserly employer who gave no study time so I had to study evenings and weekends. I also had to have a weekend job as pay was so low, so worked all Saturday and Sunday mornings, leaving me only Sunday afternoon. Also doing voluntary work 1 or 2 evenings per week. So my study time was squeezed and yes, I failed and had to re-take 1 of the 16 professional exams I had to pass. Before that I'd only managed grade D's in my A levels (again self studying alongside full time job) but it was enough to get into the accountancy body! I basically did what I had to do to scrape passes. If I'd had the luxury of lots of study time, or not having to work weekends, etc., I know I could have sailed through the exams with much higher marks.

So, no, I don't think even professional exams are particularly onerous to pass. If you get your head down and plod on, keep your eye on what's important in the exam, know the mark schemes, etc.,

Obviously, you're not going to get into a top 4 firm with poor A levels to start with and won't make partner if you've only just scraped through your exams and not "high flying" in your workplace, but you'll still have a good career, whether an accountant, solicitor, etc.

Some of the doctors and consultants we've come across in our 60 years of life have also been pretty unimpressive. Some have been remarkable, but again, like all professions, there've been a lot of "Plodders" - OH had seen plenty as he's had cancer for nearly a decade. He's seen a massive difference between different oncologists - one was a real high flyer who was on top of all the latest research, etc., another was a "plodder" who didn't really know anything about recent developments and new treatments coming.

There was an article on intelligence and occupations. Here is a summary of the article, written in plain English:

https://www.stevestewartwilliams.com/p/how-intelligence-and-personality

It contains a link to the original research paper. It shows the IQ ranges for the top and bottom jobs, along with a discussion of personality factors (ability + effort). Apparently cognitive abilities in Western societies are mainly down to genetic differences, rather than parental environment.

DD achieved 89% in her first year, 58% in her second year with 50% attendance due to hospital admissions. She had been advised to withdraw and do her second year again. However other family members said no and just have a go at the exams. She is super smart (IQ 162) but blinking hard work and frequently a doubting Thomas. She's a wonderful writer and although it's not her chosen field of study I think it really helps her answer written questions and essays.
And yes I agree 40% is very low as a pass mark for medics. My DD is studying a clinical subject and without this would not have passed her stats module, however it brings down her overall grade.

My DD got 12 x grade 9’s at GCSE (predicted 4 x A*s at A level) and I would say she is obviously intelligent but more than that, she puts the work in. No-one saw her straight 9’s coming in years 7-9, her attendance was under 80% in year 9 due to illness and covid on line learning probably put her back a fair bit. So I say sometimes you can be on average (maybe more) intelligence, but hard work pushes you to the top. If i’d have put the level of work into my GCSE and A levels, i’m sure i’d have done a lot better too (but not straight 9’s!)

The nss has caused this. On my course this year 18% got firsts which I think is high but about right compared to others in the same faculty. There is huge pressure to keep students happy for the stupid survey.

There are lots of educated fools around. Those who can talk the talk!

@TizerorFizz at least have the good grace to apologise to @SalfordQuays

@Andoutcomethewolves When DH went he remembers 1 person getting a first in engineering. At some universities on some courses, it’s 40%. A first doesn’t mean as much now it’s 40%, not 4% or less. Like top grade A levels, grade inflation has eroded firsts too - not everywhere but in too many cases.

The percentage means nothing. How hard are the questions, and how complex a response are you supposed to give?

@WitchHag 'A first class degree is 70% - less than three quarters.'

That's really not how it works 😕 at least for non-STEM degrees (no idea how it works there!). Have you been to uni? I went to a very good uni (top ten overall and number one for my degree course) and scraped a first - only four of us out of a cohort of 80 got firsts and I know the highest final grade was 72%. I think the highest I got on coursework was 78% and that essay won a prize. The requirements for my degree at A level were AAA (pre A*). So do you think I and all my course mates are thick? I mean some were decidedly average but on the whole they were a pretty bright bunch!

It's not like a maths test or something where if you answer everything right you get 100%...

I don’t know if it’s changed now, but a few years ago when a relative was in medical school, medicine degree were not graded in the same way as other degrees (first, 2:1, 2:2 etc.), so one just needed to pass (40% pass mark) each year with the ability to resit. Said relative did just that - scraped through each year, resitting at least one exam each year. Now a doctor.

Lawyers and accountants used to need at least a 2:1 or above to get a trainee position, but that might have changed now too?

Based on my experience at a uni with a high proportion of private school students - I'd agree that they weren't any more intelligent or academic than us state school students (in some cases they were IMO positively dim)

For me the difference lay in their unwavering confidence, self belief and also the opportunities they'd had - I remember my first politics seminar and all the private school students were just casually dropping in that they'd done public speaking in ridiculously prestigious circumstances. One had also worked for Obama 😳. And they all just spoke so confidently.

As a state school dropout pre-GCSE (put myself through college in my early 20s) who already had imposter syndrome I was just sat there in amazement that these teens had done all this stuff! I still managed to win all the prizes and be in the 5% on the course to get a first though so no I really don't think private school necessarily helps academically 🤣

Sorry to have perhaps offended some people with law degrees. My experience of them is second and third hand having dated and hung out with the peers of a 2nd and 3rd year law student. Also at a slightly later date having googled myself down a rabbithole of what such a degree entailed.
David Lammy says some astonishingly ignorant things, such as that men can grow a cervix after some procedures and drugs. He does seem to have a bit of a foot in mouth issue on other subjects including his foreign office brief.
To be fair Boris said some similarly astonishing/horrifying things in the same role, and apparently he is also everso intelligent.

On paper I'm highly intelligent. I got into Cambridge from a state school, got the fully funded PhD (which I couldn't have paid for), and for whatever IQ is worth, I score highly. But there are areas in which I am genuinely a borderline idiot. Someone upthread mentioned how their DH couldn't pack a car boot - that's me. Real example - I was getting a cat flap put in a window because I live in a ground floor flat without an external door. So I indicate where the flap is going to go, and its a window you open at the bottom and push outwards and the flap was going in near the base of the window so the cats could access it. And then I suddenly thought - "wait, couldn't someone just reach through and unlock the window?" I was stumped. I truly couldn't see a way around this. The workman looks at me, looks at the window, and says....

"I'll put the lock at the top".

This was a completely obvious solution. But I have no problem admitting that I'm very smart in some ways and pretty dumb in others. And I always ask if I don't understand something. I've only ever met maybe 2 people I would describe as actual geniuses, and they tend to be people who are sort of holistically brilliant. One was both a theoretical physicist and a wildly accomplished musician/ orchestral leader. Nice guy too, if a bit blunt.

Indeed Lammy thinks men can grow a cervix. And his boss, has a law degree too. HE think women can have penises. And these 2 men are running our country apparently. What IS intelligence..

Junior doctors didn't get a choice it was either get on with it or get a different job.
The idea was that the consultant had done those hours so the juniors should

😂 good point! We were young and idealistic!!

… is it that intelligent to sign up to these conditions?! 😅

Yes I remember ,I qualified as a nurse in 1996
I remember Drs being in csall.overnight ,and working the next morning from 9 am
I also remember it was worse at weekends ,when they were expected to.work all.week and be in call from 4pm, Friday until Monday morning.