to wonder if someone with a 2.2 in economics is capable of running a country?

[sarahighseas]

I'm looking at you salmond.

Is his 2.2 even from what was a good uni back then?

Also what the Jeff do you mean by: even from what was a good uni back then. Have you not checked the rankings in the last 30 years? It's still good.

Many years ago I was at an interview day for the Civil Service Fast Track. Me armed with my 2:2 and the rest as I recall all had much better degrees from better universities.
Guess who was the only person with an A-Z?
Going to the tube station that evening they all followed me.

I didn't get the job and no idea which if any of them did but it did serve to remind me that academic prowess doesn't make you a capable person.

Cameron has a first class degree in PPE from Oxford, so by your standards he should be brilliant at running a country. How's he done so far?

Not so bad, in my view, actually. Despite all the doom-mongering about austerity it actually seems to be working and the economy is picking up again. I by no means like or agree with everything his government has done but IMO given a very difficult brief and a fractious coalition government he really hasn't done too badly (despite looking like he is made of tinned ham).

I got a 2:2 at uni. I also spent lots of time gaining experience in student & local politics, campaigning, debating etc.

I got a job in politics straight afterwards because they felt a 2:2 and all that experience, plus the fact I had office experience from working over the summers, was much better than a 2:1 alone.

It's not just about the figures: it's about the complete picture.

I've got a 2:2 in Economics and I think I'd be brilliant

Pretending for a moment that degree results are in any way a good measure of your ability to run a country (which is obviously not true), a 2.2 back then was different from a 2.2 now. In the 70s, only a tiny proportion of people got 1sts, not that many got 2.1s, and lot of people got 3rds or didn't complete a degree at all. In terms of where it placed you on the overall classlist, a 2.2 then was probably very roughly equivalent to a low-mid 2.1 now. These days, my department and the other ones I know about at other universities give out very, very few 2.2s - maybe 5% of our students don't get a 2.1 or 1st. So Salmond's 2.2 from the 70s would be roughly equivalent to George Osborne's 2.1 from the 90s (if that's remotely encouraging...).

My husband has a 2.2 because he spent a lot of time on politics (and being a DJ) at uni. He's a Russell Group academic now. And I'd say that the link between performance in an exam at 21 is a sight more relevant to a career in academia than one in politics - so, no. I wouldn't have thought it mattered in the least. And prime ministers do have a team of M(S)Ps and the whole civil service to help them do the sums....

Did I miss the part that said a Yes majority automatically elected Salmond to be the chief negotiator with the rest of the UK/EU/Central Banks and other bodies that will have to be dealt with?

Granted as the leader of the majority party it might be assumed but has any actual plan been set out?

I think that emotional IQ is more important than academic attainment for running a country. Alex Salmond has been elected as first minister has the mandate of the scottish people to hold a referendum. I hope the scots vote "no" for more important reasons than Mr Salmond's degree classication.

Salmond's qualifications are irrelevant, as we're not voting for him or his party.

We're voting to keep tax revenues in our own country, after which a general election will be called.

Really wish people could get that straight.

there will probably be a hideous English nationalist backlash
and more Tory govt
fun

I hate Salmond, think he is a self serving cock of the highest order and am willing to start a fund to buy him a small island of which he can be king cock.

DH pisses about with money all day as his proper job but only has a first in History of Art so don't think what degree you has really matters.

I work in the Politics department in a university and trust me, some of the idiots who we give 2:1 and firsts too can barely string a sentence together. A degree makes very little difference these days as everyone and their granny has one.

YABU
He's made a pretty good job of running the Scottish Government so far, IMO, and he has managed to make this referendum happen, which seemed like an extremely remote prospect even a few years ago.

However, this referendum is not about who is going to run Scotland. It's about whether the people of Scotland should be able to govern themselves like other countries around the world. The choice of who should run the country will be the subject of a general election further down the line.

Silly thread.

His exam results from age 21/22 or thereabouts are irrelevant.

The Yes campaigners have done very well whatever the vote, given the many bribes just offered in terror by Cameron. So all credit Salmond, especially with just a 2.2..............

Aherdofmims, I agree. I'm sure there are far more pertinent things to consider than a 36 year old joint honours degree result.

Dislike Salmond intensely, would not buy a used car from him, certainly not vote for him to run any country, but don't think that has anything to do with the level he achieved at University.
Conversely, I would like to see him arrested for treason; destroying the stability of the Realm for starters.

poppyfield me too. I think we'd get on. Priority for me was drinking, economics at uni was a right load of shit. Perhaps he may didn't agree with the 'wisdom' of the day.