Degree classification - Is a 2.1 the new 2.2?

[Plutonium]

Please help settle this argument between DH and I.
All our friends kids who graduated in the last 5yrs or so have all got either a 2.1 or a first class. When I went to uni, most people got a 2.2, a fe odd got a 2.1. A first class was as rare as hens teeth. I was telling DH that there was more academics stress now for Dd because everything’s has revved up several notches and she’ll have to be aiming for 2.1 unlike our time. DH said it’s all nonsense that most people get a 2.2 and a 2.1 is very rare. DH isn’t the most up to scratch with academic expectations /pressures in schools etc and just thinks everything is the same as when we went to school/university. I told him most graduate schemes now expect a 2.1.

I’ll be delighted if he is right. But what do you think?

I got a 2:1 in 2010 (69 so close to a a 1st - still bitter!) as did most of my peers. There were a few firsts among us too.

I would've been devestated at 2:2 and it would have really limited career prospects in terms of graduate schemes. As it happened I didn't go down that route anyway but doubt I would've been considered for my current role with a 2:2.

I definitely think things have changed . I graduated from a top university in the mid eighties. I remember being told that in my dept they would expect there to be only about 2-3 firsts in every five years . They never gave out mark schemes the whole process of degree class was shrouded in secret and certainly getting a first was really only for those who were aiming for academic careers and whose work had some mysterious quality which most of us were not party to.

In my year group the standard was a 2:2 , there were a few 2:1 ( ratio of probably 1 upper seconds for every lower) , a few thirds and a couple of pass degrees.

I had a 2:1 and had five job offers from top accountancy firms , plenty of people went to city law firms with 2:2s , even some with thirds .

Sorry that should be 2 lower seconds for every one lower second

There’s also the fact that academics are now encouraged to use the full marking scale by external examiners. Where previously the highest mark an exceptional piece of undergraduate work would have received might have been, say, 75 (for breathtakingly original, publishable work), now we are rightly pushed to give work of that calibre 85-90. And so on down the scale - a “solid” first-class piece of work should now get 73/74, instead of 70/71.

This is a good thing, I think, and also has the effect of pushing average grades overall upwards, which in turn produces more first-class degree classifications.

I work in an area where we get hundreds of applications for vacancies even for low level jobs, the attraction being is that it gets people on the first run of the ladder to higher levels. We have to have a quick and dirty way of sifting candidates, and I'm afraid the reality is that unless they have impressive practical experience in our field, anyone with a degree lower than a 2.2 goes in the reject pile.

first rung of the ladder, not first run.

Oh mine was an MA course Russell group uni. I think the course and university counts for a bit too.

If you're paying those extortionate fees and doing nothing wrong (ie, fucking up, being a dick, not going to lectures), then you deserve to come out with a degree that allows you to apply for jobs.

Sure, 2.1 is the new 2.2 in terms of academic standards. But unless employers drop their entry requirements to 2.2, then go ahead and dish out 2.1 like they're going out of fashion. Uni is too expensive to not, tbh.

If it's cheaper and more competitive for entry, competition for 2.1s can be more rigorous.

I wasn't entirely happy with my 2.1 but that was because my little sister got a first at the same time!

And I got a 2:2 not 2:1 , useless at typing on my phone

Back in the early 80s, 1st were very rare, and a 2.1 was seen as an achievement. A 2.2 was a decent result, a 3 seen as just scraping through, but these were all honours degrees, ordinary degrees were also about.
It's important to remember that when I started in 1979, only about 10% went to university/poly, so just getting a degree put you among the 'elite'. From memory the people most keen on getting a 1st or 2.1 were the ones who intended to go on to a masters and beyond. Of course, back then if you went to Oxbridge you could buy a masters for £10 if you were a graduate.

I graduated 1992 and got a 2:2 which was a bit of an embarrassment really as I was expecting a 2:1. From my year and course I think one or two people got a first, majority got 2:1, about 25% got a 2:2 and one or two got a third.

When I was applying for competitive jobs I was asked to give my position in the year group so that would distinguish between I scrape a first by being in the top third of the year and I came within the top 5% of my year group.

Come on guys, it really isn't hard to find this information:

www.theguardian.com/education/2017/jan/12/record-one-in-four-graduates-in-uk-awarded-top-degrees

So yes, almost three quarters get a 2.1.

I teach in Oxford and in some subjects hardly anyone gets less than a 2.1 these days, though compared to some other universities the proportion has not changed as much in recent years/decades.

I actually think the standard is higher in Oxford than it was 20-30 years ago, and so there hasn't been much pure grade inflation. It's harder to get a place: more international competition, applications from a wider range of UK schools and backgrounds. And I think students work harder on the whole.

Hi Pluto,

I have just graduated as a mature student from Warwick and got a 2:1.

I did ask the administrator and she said most people got a 2:2 out of the mature students and a few like myself got 2:1's and a couple got a 1st.

I went in with the aim to get a 2:1 as I worked full time in my business and it was a struggle to juggle things as it was. One of my fellow students got a 1st but he was practically retired and worked full time on his degree.

I graduated in 2013. I got a 2:1. I can confirm that practically all graduate jobs will want at least a 2:1. For anyone I knew at Uni, getting a 2:2 was a bit embarrassing. Probably about 5% of people got a first (in my subject anyway).

In 1983 it was a reuqirement for my job that I had to get a 2/1. Luckily I managed it.I was one of the only 15% who went to university then and 2/3rd of those got a 2/2 or lower. Today about 50% of people go and I think 2/3rds get 2/1 so it is harder to stand out.

I graduated in 1999. Only one of my wide circle of friends and acquaintances got a 2:2 - most of us got a 2:1, and there were several 1sts. I was at a RG university too.

I'm an academic, and there are definitely more 2:1s and firsts than ten years ago. In my experience, it's not so much that we are 'softer' when marking essays and exams, but the criteria used to calculate a degree result makes it easier to get a 2:1/1st. There's an awful lot of rounding up. We now mark out of 25. (It's quite common for universities to have abandoned the old percantage grading.)

My School/department (Humanities), have repeatedly complained about the grade inflation, but it was pushed through by STEM academics.

To have any chance of getting onto a company graduate scheme, you must have a 2.1 or 1st. You won’t get through the first hurdle otherwise.

I've done some university assessing as part of my work and I do feel that it's almost impossible to fail someone now. There's almost an attitude that they've paid for the degree, whether they have worked for or it or not.

I got a 2:1 in the early 90s.
It's what you needed to go into further study or be seriously considered for a professional position. We had the feeling that those with a 2:2 would struggle more.

Only a couple of people got a first and we pretty much knew who they would be.

Def more firsts and 2:1s around than when I got my degree in 1991. In a class of 150 it was 2/3rds 2:2, 1/3 2:1s and 3 firsts. That was an arts subject. Some STEM subjects had way more Firsts because the marking wasn't so subjective- you got the sums right you got the marks, which is fair enough. A 2:2 didn't bar you from a graduate job at all but as there were fuck all graduate jobs around when we came out even a First didn't guarantee you anything. I listened to a programme on BBC radio a few years back about this and they concluded that as people were essentially paying for their degree there was an expectation that more upper grades would be awarded.

Late 90s/early 2000s - top RG unis. Majority got 2.1, maybe 2 -3 firsts out of a cohort of 100, some 2.2, two 3rds (and they really had taken the piss for 4 years solid, or rather, been on the piss). Someone even got a (whisper) Ordinary. 2.2 was seen as devastating by those who got 2.2s. Definitely a night to drown their sorrows.

All the jobs I ever applied for wanted a 2.1 minimum.

In my uni if you didn't get high enough marks in 1st year and fail the retake you had to do additional courses on top of the 2nd yr course load. If you didn't get high enough marks then, you wouldn't get through to the Junior Honour year, and if you weren't inline for a 2.2 or above you didn't get onto Senior Honours (4th year), and therefore graduated with an Ordinary (i.e. non-Honours) degree. Alternatively if you made it into senior honours but buggered up your thesis, then lower than 3rd was the Ordinary. I don't know if English unis do Ordinary degrees?

If I of tried in my second year of history I'd of gotten a 2:1... unfortunately I didn't, I got a 2:2... a 2:1 is the desired classification and most employers prefer a 2:1, not to mention pgce courses require it, however a 2:2 is something to be proud of also 👌🏼