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.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. My husband did far less work than me on his degree but got a first (I got a 2:1). Sometimes the difference between a First and a 2:1 is 1% or 1 mark 'they have to draw the line somewhere - but there is practically no difference between the 2:1 graduate and the First candidate in those cases (especially in an English Lit degree where marking is subjective to an extent).

Hard disagree.

I would say that they have proved they can study and learn to that level. Only they know how much effort and tenacity it's taken. Doesn't necessarily measure intelligence.

I would say a 2:1 would make them quite intelligent/academic but not exceptionally so. I have a first class degree, then got a masters and phd from a RG university... I don't feel smarter than anyone else. That said, I do feel I could probably understand novel and challenging tasks eventually, given time to work them out

Probably worth more in 2009 than now, if you look at stats way more 2:1s are awarded these days.

I'm not sure having any degree means your academic or intelligent, sorry.

In the Arts I think you need at least MA (or MLit in your case) and in Science I'd expect a PhD/Doctorate to consider someone academic or especially intelligent. I sadly know several MPharm I wouldn't consider academic or intelligent.

I have only 2 ‘o’ levels to my name but my IQ has been measured at 142 so I don’t think exam results prove anything except that you have a good memory .

An academic is someone who has a PHD

Depends on which university and when they graduated.

I’m living proof. As are friends and peers of mine.

Some people are just good at exams and regurgitating arguments and key points. Others at the top of their specialism and clueless about everything else.
IQ cannot be effectively measured by grades achieved in examinations or vivas.

I have long ceased making assumptions about people’s intelligence based on their academic achievements because I’ve been so sorely mistaken in the past. I’ve had colleagues with 1sts, PHDs etc. who’ve been Mr Thick Thickety Thick-face from Thick-town, Thickania. They can’t be relied upon to brew up properly let alone apply any sound reasoning or analysis, totally incapable of intelligent thinking in a real world context. Yet I’ve had several colleagues who left school at 15 without any qualifications who were sharp, insightful and well-read. Do not judge a book by its cover notes, they can be very misleading!

No, I don’t think a 2.1 indicates either way.

Not all very academic people get a 1st, and indeed many only just above average people can get a 2.1.

I did zoology at the University of Bristol and while only the top people got 1sts, plenty of top students with difficult life circumstances, along with the average and below students (for the course) got 2.1s and 2.2s.

Even the person I knew who got a 3rd class because they failed to get the minimum to continue a 4 year MSc was actually very academic but his dad died a month before the exams. They’d have probably let him do the MSc if he appealed.

I think you’d need to see their work or engage in academic discussion to gauge that

I had the pleasure of sharing company with someone with a First from Cambridge on the weekend. He might be highly educated (and was privately educated prior to university) but his bigoted views were far from intelligent to me at least.

I have a First in literature btw. Not from Cambridge. I don't think I was/am academic or intelligent. I just like reading and did then.

My IQ was measured at 140+, I got a 2:2 in biology from a RG uni and now work in a very mundane, not particularly skilled job unrelated to my degree. What's your point?

You're wrong.
You don't need to work harder or put in more work. Or certainly not in an essay type subject. The difference between a 2:1 and a first isn't the amount of facts you learn and regurgitate, it's how original and incisive your answer is. Or certainly that was the case 20.yesrs ago. As soon as I worked that out I could write a first class essay every time.

I couldn't work hugely hard. I had a disability, went through two awful bereavements, and did lots of voluntary work and played a team sport for the university and travelled all over the country and had a job in a shop.

It was about working smarter not working harder.

100% agree with this.

I agree

But they’re not marking how much work you did. They’re marking how good your analysis, knowledge and argument is.

I would say that in 2009 that person was good enough at English Literature to get a 2:1. On it's own that is not enough information to say that someone is very intelligent.
In fact I know some academically very high achievers who have the emotional intelligence of a match box and worse general knowledge than my teenager.

I think there's definitely a distinction to be made between academic, intelligent and talented.

I consider myself very academic. I have a successful career as a lawyer and got a First in English and History in 2004 - I think there were only a handful of firsts in my year. I'm one of those weirdos who enjoy writing essays, I'm very good at exams and I had no issues consistently applying myself to revision etc as I enjoy studying. I did well throughout school, though not 'stand out' in any way (but got AAB at a level which was pretty decent back then). Obviously some level of intelligence was required but it also comes down to being able to 'apply' oneself. I don't think there are many incredibly academic/ intelligent people who don't need to put in any effort.

However, I don't consider myself particularly 'intelligent' in a broad/general sense, in that I'm TERRIBLE at some quite key subjects which come naturally to others, such as maths, chemistry/physics etc.

Similarly there are those with natural talents for creative subjects (art, music etc) which I am utterly hopeless at - but again, that doesn't necessarily mean those people are particularly academic or indeed 'intelligent' IQ wise, rather they have a natural flair for something and (usually) work hard to nurture that.

My general knowledge is also pretty poor, which I think boils down to not being sufficiently invested in learning about topics that don't naturally spark my interest. Those that have a more vociferous thirst for knowledge (and therefore wide-ranging general knowledge) could be considered intelligent in a different way.

Yes... exactly. Was your post supposed to be in response to the person who claimed that what separates a 2:1 from a First is how much work they did..?

I think a 2:2 in Maths, Science or Medicine would indicate higher intelligence than a 2:1 in English Literature.

No. It’s very average. Actually having a bachelor’s degree is almost meaningless, now. It’s a basic qualification. “Academic” begins at master’s level.

But they’re not marking how much work you did. They’re marking how good your analysis, knowledge and argument is.

Exactly.
Me and DH have exactly the same qualifications, including PhDs. DH is naturally more intelligent than me and is a talented writer. I have to work much harder but I'm far more organised and disciplined.
At the end of the day it didn't matter, our work was judged on the quality of writing, the engagement with theory and research and ability to develop coherent, critical arguments. It didn't matter that I worked twice as hard, the results were the same.