Are 1st Degrees getting easier to achieve?

[JellyPopz]

I graduated in 2009 with a 2:1 which I was very happy with. Only a handful of people across my wider course achieved firsts.

Let year, an older but non-academic family member achieved a 2:1 but for a large part of their course they were on track for a first (I was shown their marks, it wasn't a fib).

I've noticed now in the last year or two on social media lots of people my age (late thirties) that are graduating, are achieving firsts.

I can think of two reasons that may be the case - 1. Older people have emote focus and drive if they return to study and 2. People may have had more time to get stuck into their courses during lockdown.

I'm definitely not here to take anything away from people getting firsts, I know they are still not given out like sweets. I've definitely noticed more people graduating with them and wondering if its coincidence, one of the reasons above, another reason or if parameters have been shifted?

That is because there has been huge grade inflation with A levels too. In the 1970s less than 10% got an A compared to 27.2% who got an A or A star this year (36.4% last year) and there were far fewer candidates taking A levels in 1970s too.

@SaffronSpice Totally agree. You didn’t need the AAA and plenty of Dc were still bright enough to do the most challenging academic courses. If you passed the Oxford 7th term exam you could get there on CCC too. As our friend did!

A RG but not Oxbridge. With the amount of effort I put in I'd imagine a third from Oxbridge

Out of a cohort of 120, I was one of two students to achieve a first in my course in 2001. I was elated and it was a big deal -my tutor was so proud of me!

Someone who got BCD in 1970 is likely to have got straight As if sitting A levels today.

@SaffronSpice Probably. With an A star thrown in too!

@slowsundays That does rather lend itself to Oxbridge dominance of law at the higher end of jobs!

I graduated in 1985 too. I took Joint Honours and I think I had 11 or 12 3 hour papers. We'd also had no exams in Year 2 and Year 3, so we were examined on 3 years' worth of work. It was actually cruel.

If you did single honours, you did split finals over 2 years. That didn't make a lot of sense.

If you asked a student nowadays to do that, they would croak it! There were no 1sts in one of my subjects, and 2 in the other.

@TizerorFizz well it also really depends on the type of degree.
You can get degrees in things like circus arts, dance and tourism management which, let's face it isn't an indication of academic ability.

Years and years ago these things used to be left to the polys but are now degrees. There are also degrees like sound engineering which, while valuable are more vocational than academic.

That's why major employers (like the company I work for) have our own screening methods and interviews to get the best graduates. That suit the role. The degree is little indication of anything for roles that accept any subject.

Anecdotally speaking for, say 'project' roles I have always found the less academic, more time spent on other things people to be much better. Of course, you can have both ( I got a First and had plenty on my CV ). But how quickly people grasp things, their common sense, intuition... a degree doesn't cover all of that.

More resources to learn from. You can watch lectures back compared to reading scribbled notes. Revision for an exam 30 years ago would’ve been looking through books, compared to watching a summarised YouTube video. Lots of productivity tips online. You can find sources for essays easily online, compared to much slower ways in the past. I don’t think it’s as simple as grade inflation. I also don’t see why a better educated population is a bad thing.

@BrideToBe2313123 I went to a poly in the late 80s. They did degrees by then. I didn’t do one but it was available. They were designed to be more practical degrees that employers would value. Nothing wrong with that. Our bigger problem was colleges of HE, teacher training and everything else becoming unis.

I have just started university in a very competitive course. It's full on and I'm working my arse off. It's not easy per se, but I do think it's easier than it would have been 20 years ago. Maybe even five years ago. For instance every lecture is recorded. We have access to ALL lectures regardless of attendance. That's such an advantage. And a brilliant way in which we as a society are using technology to make our lives easier. Another is electronic notes. They can be copy pasted, moved, amended etc so easily. Our library not only has all the books, but we have access to them all remotely online- you don't even have to buy the course reading list. It's there for you, plus anything else you need without having to go to the library building at all. This would have been unimaginable if I'd gone at 18 in the 90s. So yes I think it's easier for me to get a first . But I also think it's a result of progression and we shouldn't push against advancements and cling to entrenched and archaic systems in the interest of perceived "fairness" that spans over time and societal changes that mean, really, they can't be compared.

I qualified as a doctor in 1995, got AAA in chemistry, biology and physics A levels. The course was tough!!
But….. I take a great interest in my children’s education, two are at university, one doing A levels. I’m not sure they’re easier. Some of the current content in the science A level is stuff I covered at university. Science has definitely moved on, their syllabus reflects that. Together with the crazy world our current teenagers live in, I really don’t think they have it any easier. In fact I have the utmost respect for those that manage to battle their way through all the new hoops that education is now throwing their way.

IMO it's not about 'fairness', but the meaning of a degree classification and, as a broader question, what it means to have a degree.

50+ years ago a degree, any degree was enough to get a 'graduate job'. First, third, didn't really matter. Fewer people got firsts, it marked them out as academically able but really. People managed to get their classification, whatever it was and get whatever job they wanted. Fair enough. But anybody doing a degree was seen as intelligent.

In 2023 so many people have degrees, Firsts even. But not all of these people get the plum 'graduate' roles. There are too many of them and too few jobs.

Of course, as you pointed out given all the resources we have, and things like clear marking schemes, etc if people do the work, meet the standards. they get a First. Fair enough.

But does it mean anything to anyone else? Not really. Unless you have a degree from a prestigious university, in a difficult subject or want to go into academia.

My DD went to uni in 2010. She bought books, went to the library and engaged with seminars and lectures. What you describe might have accelerated because of COVID. Being in labs though must be the same? I guess you still have to read and write essays. Of course many elements of degrees will have changed but we seem to be unable to recognise the very best because the uni sector has expanded so much. 40% firsts on some courses is too high. Judging the very best is now down what uni you go to and other recruitment hoops. It’s not necessarily degree class: it isn’t as much value as it was. Where you get it from still differentiates though.

Sadly, my DD felt like she had to go to university as without a degree she would struggle to get a good job!

I know a few barristers from Oxbridge schools. A 2:1 is like the holiest of firsts from every other UK university. A RG 1:1 is decently respected but nowhere near Oxbridge.

"it's not about 'fairness', but the meaning of a degree classification and, as a broader question, what it means to have a degree.

50+ years ago a degree, any degree was enough to get a 'graduate job'. First, third, didn't really matter. Fewer people got firsts, it marked them out as academically able but really. People managed to get their classification, whatever it was and get whatever job they wanted. Fair enough. But anybody doing a degree was seen as intelligent."

True but go back 50 years again, or fifty years before that. My point really is just as a degree on 1920 would have largely been only for the rich clever boys, that changed by 1970, when we see women , minorities and working class begin to break in (slightly) even then the firsts that were granted would have gone to those who had resource to pay for books and didn't have to work alongside education. That didn't experience the racism/ sexism or prejudice that was prevalent (not at all to say there were no exceptions)

My point is that setting a period when degrees are somehow "worth more" or have more meaning is arbitrary, contrary to progression within society and broader education.

I agree that degrees and their status have changed, particularly within the economy, but I'm not sure that's the fault of the individual or reflective of them being easier to gain. Rather it's the result of political changers , drives toward education and the moving away from a manufacturing economy to a financial one. But that's all my speculation and opinion

@catscalledbeanz Yes. I do see what you mean but when DC really did have to be pretty bright to get to uni, around 1-2% got firsts. Now it is 32%. In 20/21 it was over 37%. This simply is not correct and cannot be a reliable gauge of ability. Of course many might be overseas students but a first is seriously devalued. As recent at 2010/11 it was 15%. It’s not credible that intelligence has increased so much in less than 15 years even with the student numbers cap being lifted.

There is no correlation between firsts. There’s no parity between degrees with the same name. When employers hide uni attended, Oxbridge candidates still come out on top. Plus a few other unis of course. These unis clearly get their pick of the best but they are trusted. We do a know a first from Bucks New just isn’t the same. Why do we pretend a first is a first and comparable? It just is ridiculous. My DD did MFL. I see now unis don’t require literature as a component. Literature is hard! So unis dumb down to get bums on seats and keep classifications high. We don’t have overall standards or requirements. We probably should.

Years and years ago these things used to be left to the polys

Polytechnics became universities in 1992. But since then there has been a further expansion of the university sector with many further education colleges initially offering degrees in partnership with other universities but then becoming universities in their own right.

Mostly HE colleges. FE here is still post 16. So alternatives to A level and prep for work courses.