Doing a masters with a 2:2 or 3rd. Bad idea?

[deletingsugar]

I'm graduating this year with a psychology degree. I've had a rough ride with a difficult bereavement, pregnancy and taking time out due to depression.

When i started I was very keen and did really well in statistics and research methods, getting a 1stin my first year. I got pregnant and took a year out to take care of my DD. As I started 2and year, my brother took his own life and it messed me up for a bit. I decided to carry on with my second year but failed. I restarted second year, still struggling mentally and only passed a few modules- got 45% in research methods. I had to take the year out and complete a few failed modules from home. I did this over 2 years as I had to take care of DD with little childcare and alongside work. I'd finally passed all year 2 modules with an average mark of 54%. Year 3 now and although I'm better mentally, I do believe I will end up with a passing degree or just scraping a 2:2. I missed one exam 2 weeks ago due to childcare issues and having DD at home but I'm going to try to keep on top of things this term- already putting my introduction for my research project together.

I love psychology, it's a fascinating subject. I want to learn more about the subject and I already have a few favourite areas of the discipline. I was thinking of taking on my university's msc research methods course for September. They require a 2:2, but I'm not sure if I'll keep it at masters level.

Should I even consider doing a masters with my academic history?

Bumping.

Does anyone know why lower ranked universities want 2:1 for a masters?

Whereas somewhere like Birkbeck (good reputation) has 2:2 as a point of entry.

Isn't Birbeck a private university which is mostly for working people, mostly mature students who want university in the evening?

It had a good reputation in that sense, a good option for working people.

Perhaps lower ranked universities have a lower quality of teaching so need the student to be more academically minded naturally

Wheras the higher ranked universities have a better quality of teaching so are less focussed on the grade of the applicant, but them as a person?

Birkbeck has a commitment to being accessible to people returning to education as mature students; they might offer a 2.2 but assume applicants may be returning to study after a period out of academia, because that would be a common route for their applicants. That's common for mature students, undergrad and postgrad - entry requirements may be slightly lower.

Birkbeck has a really strong academic reputation in some subjects.

It's unlikely lower-ranked universities offer a lower quality of teaching, btw. They may not have such fancy libraries but the teaching will probably be excellent and may be better than the fancier places.

On the other hand "lower-ranked" universities may not have the level of research (& funding for research) that means that postgrad degrees are based in rich and active research environments.

But it can depend on the discipline area & subject field; ex-polytechnics will have strong practice-led teaching in many areas. But they're still building matching research environments.

And Birkbeck is a College of the University of London, not a private university. You may be thinking of the New College of the Humanities.

Ok. So, if I have extenuating circumstances for getting a 2:2, will universities asking for a 2:1 be willing to accept me?

I want to do Reserach Methods but most postgraduate courses ask for 2:1. My university ask for 2:2 (not sure why), but I would rather do my masters elsewhere. I obviously wouldn't apply to UCL, Kings etc. But I was thinking of Westminster or Goldsmiths.

Otherwise. What's the point in continuing with my degree if I end up with a 2:2? Nobody would be willing to employ me. I am thinking about dropping out. I dont want to waste my time.

It's unlikely lower-ranked universities offer a lower quality of teaching, btw. They may not have such fancy libraries but the teaching will probably be excellent and may be better than the fancier places.

I’m not saying this is always the case but I definitely found that the lower-ranking uni I went to for my MA had worse teaching than the one I went to for my undergraduate degree. When I was studying for my undergraduate I was being taught by researchers at the forefront of their field who had published many well known works etc. When I was doing my taught MA at a lower ranked uni the lecturers were less experienced and prestigious shall we say. Still really great lovely people devoted to their subject but there definitely was a difference in levels of expertise

do it.

I did my UG and came out with a 2:2 as I had a rough time during my studies, and later went on to do a PG and got a 1st.

older, more mature, more experienced, you take it more seriously. do it.

you can do it.

Oh, god, OP my post sounds like a massive brag. Absolutely not my intention. I just wanted to try and illustrate how UG performance doesn't necessarily have much bearing on postgrad performance.

I did joint hons and in one discipline they were harsh to the point of ridiculousness. I always felt they were overly harsh but accepted that this is HE and it's not supposed to be easy. Now I say it with conviction that they WERE overly harsh because my grades now are more in line with what I tended to achieve in the other discipline.

Why now, at postgrad and without particularly changing my style of writing am I getting much better grades if not for the fact that on UG they held us to higher standards? Your 2:2 is not necessarily a true reflection of your ability. And I wasn't the only one who felt the harsh grading subject was...harsh.

It was like we couldn't do right for doing wrong. Many people do better at postgrad.