If someone has a 2:1 English literature degree , would you say they are very intelligent/academic?

[Curiousss]

Just basically this question, curious to know what people think.

A 2:1 in English lit isn’t really a defining characteristic of intelligence.

This is nonsense. No one thought a 2:2 was average or good 40 years ago even from Oxbridge. More students get 2:1s now but back then plenty just left uni with a lowish degree (sorry) and still did great afterwards

BTW I'm not saying 2.1 means stupid I'm just saying it doesn't necessarily mean super intellect. But that's literally the question.

This.

Well the question was would I think the person was 'very intelligent/academic'. And I feel like 60% isn't that high. That's only knowing/understanding just over half of the course content.

And a First is 'only' 70% so by your reasoning they only need to know 10% more of the content...the margins are quite fine.
For many subjects it's not simply about knowing the content. It's how you engage critically with the content, how you synthesise ideas and concepts and the ability to write or discuss the subject in an articulate and coherent manner.

This is really NOT my experience. In my experience up until GCSEs were introduced a 2:2 was considered a solid pass and more than adequate , a 2:1 great and the rare first brilliant. By the 2000 2:2 not so great, 2:1 good first well done but not amazing

I would say average intelligence and not particularly academic, or else it would have been either a first or a 2:1.

Hope you're OK @Curiousss
Having loads of people queuing up to tell you your degree is nothing and still means you're as thick as pigshit must smart a bit.

I wonder how many of the posters have a degree, how long ago they got it, and where from.

I had someone IRL tell me that only someone with a 'One One' could put BSc (Hons) after their name.

I'd never heard the term 1-1 or seen it written down until I filled in a job application form the other day and had to pick it from a drop down list. I scrolled up and down a very long list that seemed to include every possible degree classification from several countries and only picked it because it didn't say 'First' anywhere on the list.

But I also thought that there was a BSc classification without the (Hons) that is what a 3rd class degree is, or possibly unclassified, ie below a Third, but Firsts, 2.1s and 2.2s were all BSc (Hons)

Anyway, doesn't everyone on MN have 2 or 3 degrees anyway, so you'd definitely be a thicko if you only had one and especially if it was a lowly 2.1 (tongue in cheek, I only have one degree and it's from an ex Poly (because I went part time day release and it was a course designed for local industrial sites) so obviously isn't worth the paper it is written on).

I would say they were someone who is capable of getting a 2:1 in Eng Lit - not sure that tells me anything really useful about them at all. Not sure whether it matters whether they are intelligent or academic. If they enjoyed the course and it helps them on their way in life, then great.

@Loveduppenguin "I have 3 degrees…one is a 2:2 from early 2000’s the others are 1:1’s"
What's a 1:1?

People are hugely impressed by an Oxbridge degree irrespective of classification and other alumni give you opportunities without asking how you did. I wouldn’t have believed how many doors it opens until I experienced it myself.

@Bjorkdidit , the BSc was for those who didn't get a Third, but there used to be courses that were BSc not BSc (Hons).

@CurlewKate ,quite.

its a first class degree.

2:1 is an upper 2nd class
2:2 is a lower 2nd class

Depends where it's from completely.

@Loveduppenguin . A first class degree is a First.

And as I’ve said I’ve always known them as a 1:1…second class 2:1, 2:2 etc

Is a 1:1 a double first?

Never heard of a 1:1 before

If not a double First, what does the second 1 stand for?

It's not as if one can be awarded a 1:2

@Loveduppenguin "its a first class degree"

No it isn't. A First is a First, there are no classes. There are only classes for Seconds.

There are Double 1sts, but I think only at Oxbridge. Could be wrong about that....

I agree. I worked bloody hard at my degree and got a 2:2 in the History of Art from the University of Essex in 2002. Not a top uni but not too crap either. I will admit that I've never been great at exams, and I think that probably let me down, but I worked consistently hard in all my coursework and essays, and I was probably about 2 marks off a 2:1.

If anyone says I'm lazy or incapable of achievement I'll have to disagree. I am sure if I'd been able to do better in exams, I'd have got a 2:1.

My DD seems naturally gifted at most things, bar sport. Consistently gets A* and A in all subjects, excellent at music with grade 5 in bass guitar after a year, speaks French and German very well.

God knows where she gets it from! It certainly isn't me 😅🤔

Fair enough if you want to get into it then a 1st in itself doesn't mean someone's clever either lol. And I understand how arts degrees work, I have one. There's generally some kind of marking scheme to work towards.
At the end of the day it's one qualification. The question was would you think someone was intellectual/academic based on a 2.1. Alot of people who go to university get 2.1s so it doesn't tell you much.
Seems to me that people are projecting alot onto a pretty basic question. If you want to keep trying to argue with me or prove me wrong then go ahead but it's not that deep.

@StupidBitchy as a university academic I'm aware of the existence of marking schemes and that the points I made aren't exclusive to arts based degrees.

But then again, I wasn't trying to undermine those with a 2:1 by saying they 'only know 60% of the content'.