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?

Hardly anyone on my skn’s History degree at the highly rated RG university he went to for below a 2:1.

weatyFretty

*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.
weatyFretty

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.*

Whether or not you deserve a degree class also depends on your aptitude and intelligence. Some people are just brighter or better suited to certain academic qualifications.

I graduated in 2011 and got a First which was a huge shock if I'm honest. I was desperate for a 2:1 and would have felt very worried if I hadn't got one.

My main worry was that if I had failed just one module, the university would not have given me anything better than a Third after passing the resist. Even if with that failed module my overall grade for the whole course had worked out as a First.

Depends on the uni though. Lots of others just curve the grades if results are low. If I was looking at CVs I wouldn't find a 2:2 impressive. It would show someone is capable but certainly not exceptional.

I graduated 2 years ago from a cohort of 80, 10% got 1sts, 30% got 2:1s, 30% got 2:2s, 20% got thirds and 10% failed.

Where I work graduates need at least a 2:1

For my degree at my university:

Blimey. I have a 2:2. Graduated in 1996. I never realised it was considered a bit of a failure - I don't think I would have been able to get higher, because I hated university, I hated studying, I only did it because my parents really really pressured me into it.

I am really worried about how much young people are pressured into getting degrees these days, as someone who really didn't suit university but felt like I had no choice. And now I read, not only are you pressured into going to university, but you MUST get at least a 2:1 for it to be worthwhile......

Glad I am childfree, a homeowner and semi retired in my 40s. Trying to negotiate all this stuff that young people and young parents have to go through these days sounds exhausting .......

I graduated 18 years ago and we had about 8 Firsts in my year (we were the boring ones who worked very hard and had no life) and a lot of 2.1 degrees and 2.2 was kind of know as the party degree.

That was Oxford 2000 if that helps?

I graduated two years ago and everyone I knew was aiming for a 2.1 or a first. In my experience getting a 2.2 is now seen as quite a disappointment and makes it harder to get a job.

I graduated in 1994 and on my course (LLB) only a handful of people got firsts. I would say about 60% of us got 2:1s (including me) and the remainder 2:2s

I am a university admin and sit on two Board of Examiner panels a year. 2:1s are by far the most common award. Firsts aren't rare but they're not hugely common.

I would be disappointed to receive a 2:2, to be honest.

I must have forgotten it was a 2.1 that was required back then. But i'm right that a 2.1 is desired and expected by top employers nowadays. You wouldn't got to uni hoping for a 2.2!

In law though the old school tie seems to count for much more than degree class (at least it did then) so the 2:2s didn’t really seem to hold many of them back, despite not being all that bright.

I got a 2:1 back in 2011. I was very lazy, barely turned up to lectures, wrote every essay the night before it was due and my dissertation in 10 days. Very foolish looking back!

My degree is in History so a pretty academic subject but I really should have applied myself and I might have got a First. Not that I use my degree at all so it's fairly irrelevant

When I graduated in 1983 there were no 1st class degrees awarded - it was a rarity for the really exceptional student and the department awarded one around every 5 years.
25% got 2.1
60% got 2.2
The remainder got 3rds and Pass degrees - oh and 2 people failed right at their final exams

hmm..I somehow doubt the old school tie would help you if you got a 2.2 or a third in Law. Its so competitive nowadays that even the old school tie is selective.

People who got Pass degree, what was the reason and where the allow to resit?

I graduated in 1988 with a 2:1, which i was very happy with. Firsts were very rare and a lot of my peers achieved a 2:2. My DH dropped out of university and then went back in his 40s to do a degree. When he achieved a first, in 2005, I was over the moon for him. But he said "They're ten a penny nowadays!" Mind you, he always does play his achievements down. He went on to do a Masters and a PhD.

I was at university in the early 90s and most people got 2:1s. If you got a 2:2 you hadn't done very well. If you got a first you probably hadn't enjoyed your time (been drinking) as much as you should have.

In the 2000's, as a mature student, I got a 2:2. I was thrilled with that as I had almost dropped out a few weeks before the end and I hadn't worked very hard, my dissertation really was rubbish.

Most of my cohort got a 2:2, none were awarded a first, one or two got a 2:1 and a few got a third.

DS1 is at university now and is aiming for a first, in his mind there is no point in anything less now.

Graduated 4 years ago. Most people on my course got a 2:1, I'd have been gutted if I got a 2:2 tbh. A few people got them, one got a 3rd and a few got a 1st (my course was a small cohort). Overall in the year from other friends again I would stay most common would be 2:1, then 1st and 2:2s being close 2nd most common.

I guess I mainly had visibility of my course though and law students would have been going for a 2.1 minimum to continue a legal career

I graduated in 1979. There were just over a hundred people in my 'dept' and only one first was awarded. The majority classification was 2:2, with a smaller number of 2:1s and thirds. The accountancy dept, which was of a similar size to the one I was in, also awarded only one first.

In my professional life (I'm now retired), I regularly reviewed applications from young graduates. The number of firsts and 2:1s increased massively from about the year 2000 onwards. Massively - I hardly ever saw a 2:2 (and almost never a third) after that.

First piece of advice we were given by head of dept on day 1- you want a 2:1. Dont bother with a first or 2.2, you’re wasting your time.

That said I think young people are just smarter now. Better teaching, better preparation etc

Plutonium

People where I work get a pass degree for many different reasons.

1. They want to do a PGDE/PGCE straight away, which only requires a pass degree.
2. Personal circumstances which force them to exit early with a pass award.
3. Found a good job and don't want to come back for Honours.
4. Failed Honours year and are compulsory withdrawn with a pass degree.

I have personally just been awarded a pass degree because I've completed a "top up" degree programme online via a brick university. They do not offer a distance learning Honours year, you complete a set curriculum and are awarded a pass. I start my Masters a week on Monday though so you don't NEED a 2:1 to get onto a postgrad programme!

I'm a university student at the moment. I'm averaging 88% with my marks.

Yet I do think our assignments are fairly consistently marked very generously. A recent assignment I thought I'd done worse than usual in got 86%. I'd expected about 50-60%. A woman who's work has generally been quite poor recently got 97% on a written assignment. I didn't see that piece in particular but given her general standard I was absolutely astonished.

It does worry me in the field I'm in though. I'm training to be a paeds nurse. The nursing crisis is bad enough that most interviewers don't mention your grades or degree classification. So people who consistently scrape a pass on assignments, just 40%, can walk into jobs with a lot of responsibility. And that 40% may well have been a generous 40%. I'd be very concerned if I discovered that someone who consistently scored less than half the available marks were looking after my child.