AIBU to still regret getting a 2:1 instead of a first?

[onedayillmoveon]

It’s been 10 years since I graduated from university and I still can’t shake off the regret that I got a 2:1 and not a first. I know that a 2:1 is perfectly fine for the vast majority of jobs and nothing to be ashamed of, my more and more people have gotten firsts for the past 20 years or so. When I graduated in 2016, about 33% of humanities graduates from my uni got firsts. I just felt so stupid, incapable, inadequate….. I know people say that grades and numbers can’t define us, but I sort of did let it.

I still can’t shake off this horrible regret that I didn’t get one. I got a high first in my second year and was so pleased, I genuinely loved my subject and had applied myself. In my final year (which largely determines degree class where I went), I became quite depressed and stressed. I could never focus and never really adequately prepared for my exams. I just can’t stop wishing that I had pulled myself together in some way.

Some of you, if you read this far, might think, “well if you have a decent job, nobody gives a damn what degree you got”, and yes, fair. Yet there are certain supposedly ‘elite’ jobs where a first is strongly preferred, and I think not getting one ruined my chances of those.

Anyway, if anyone else has ever felt the same way, or knows someone who does, and wants to share ideas or experiences, maybe that will be helpful.

The study you are referring to is the 1981 IMS (Institute of Manpower Studies) Graduate Recruitment Survey, conducted by Helen Connor and Richard Pearson.
The survey examined the criteria UK graduate employers used during selection. A key finding was that while employers often specified a Upper Second-Class Honours (2:1) as their benchmark or preferred degree classification, many recruiters emphasized that personal qualities, relevant skills, and performance at interviews were ultimately more decisive factors in their final hiring decisions.
AI had a different spin on it!

And you ignore the rest of the post and my follow up. Like no way in hell is a 2:1 bad..many employers don't or didn't care what you got

I struggle to believe and think that an employer sees the few who get a first, something very view people achieved and then actively look against it.

I agree with the final statement you made of course soft skills matter.. that's why you interview and assess how they are at interview. You don't look at a topper and think "damn they did too well"

You also don't look at a first and get giddy with excitement.

You don't have to believe, after people telling you over and over again - it really doesn't matter. The world won't end.

Congrats on the first and the hard work you put in

I mean I don't anyway..I don't fall for tall tales.

Crucially, none expressed a positive preference for lower classifications over higher ones.

In the dataset you provided, none were given the opportunity to express that preference. The question was simply not asked.

In this thread, the person who got a first from Oxbridge and thought she was average demonstrated poor communication skills and lack of awareness, neither of which is favourable to an employer.

I didn’t work that hard tbh and it was years ago. No-one’s asked in 30 years.

Which is really the point for OP. There’s everything to play for in terms of her career - I’m sure she can be successful at what she sets her mind to.

Personally I think it’s a plus for a teacher to have had some kind of challenge along the way as it makes them more understanding of their students’ difficulties.

Or does it demonstrate poor general reading skills. My point was that I was average at Cambridge not in the general population. I mentioned the general population if you read my post more carefully.

I hear you, OP. I felt like this for years and ended up doing a PhD in the hope of putting it to bed. It's not rational. Worth spending some time thinking about how your achievements (and in particular other people's assessment of those achievements) relates to your sense of self.

Can you quote where you think you "mentioned the general population"?

That’s meant to say “I did not mention the general population”.

“The design of the question allowed employers to express a positive preference for graduates with lower seconds or thirds"

"But none did so"

QED.

So there was no reason to infer that’s what I was referring to.

Of course a Cambridge graduate is far above the general population average

Not great at taking feedback either - another thing that employers really don’t like.

I’ve corrected the typing error. My point was that I was very much in the middle of the Cambridge cohort. Which is probably where OP is I was just better at exams that’s all.

And yet you’re apparently in employment.

I read your post and nothing about it suggested to me you thought you were average relative to a specific Cambridge cohort.

You were referring to a degree from which you graduated in 1992. And used the present tense “I’m average” (not, I WAS average) to describe yourself.

This strongly suggested to me you were making an ongoing claim about your abilities relative to a wide population group, not a small cohort from 34 years ago.

I totally agree. This is nothing to do with the degree and all about the OP having no resilience or drive to put herself forward and is using an excellent degree result that people would die for, to make excuses for not being bothered to put herself in a position where she feel she might be rejected

I’m still in that cohort of people who went to Cambridge in the early 90s. I was average among them then and I still am now.

Back in the early 90s only 25% or so of people went to uni. And you could still leave school at 16 in those days.

It’s ok to be sensitive, anxious and fear rejection. It’s ok to find a career that works to her strengths. A Cambridge degree doesn’t mean she’s obliged to become the CEO of Deloitte.

You’re not still at Cambridge studying for your undergrad degree though. I went to uni in the mid nineties and don’t refer in the present tense to my academic abilities on a degree programme that I graduated from 26 years ago. Regardless of how often I see others on the course now.

It’s not that the end of the world that you expressed yourself in a way the caused confusion on a thread. I’m just explaining why that choice of words caused me to think you were comparing yourself to a wider population group. And possibly did so for the other posters who came to the same conclusion.