2:2 now not a 'good enough' degree?

[Cortina]

I saw a thread, earlier today, I think on AIBU. Someone was cruising for a 2:2 at Uni. They said that this wasn't enough to secure employment and many were agreeing.

In my day, insert old git icon , a 2:2, especially from a well regarded university, was a perfectly respectable degree.

Have things really changed so much?

Am late to this, but...how many candidates' degree classifications (or even whether the degree has even been earned) are actually verified?

Any?

Before being hired? Afterwards?

My firm requires copies of certificates for professional qualifications, degree and a level. These are checked on a random sample basis.

So if you were faking a degree class - there is a reasonable chance it would get found out. And of course instant dismissal without a reference if found out later.

Thanks, that's interesting.

I guess there's also a chance that your certificates wouldn't be checked - wonder how many risk it!

My perception is that it is easier to get a first these days, at least at some universities, so presumably also easier to get a 2:1. I went to one of the top London universities and only two out of one hundred in my year got a first. I got the marks for a first but was awarded a 2:1 because I wasn't thought to be outstanding . Am I right that more people get firsts these days, like the grade inflation in A levels?

gaelicsheep, I think the simple answer to that is yes.

What sort of percentage get firsts nowadays? Are they (sorry, but you know what I mean) proper unis and subjects? Are they externally moderated? (I think they used to be, but may be wrong about that)

In my year only about 6 of us out of ~90 got firsts on our russell group chemistry course.

At our place (a proper RG university) for science degree, 70% gets a first, 69% gets a viva for a first. In exceptional cases, 68% may get a viva for a first if there are some extenuating circumstances why the student has such a low mark.

All degrees are heavily externally moderated via a panel of external examiners. The external examiners carry out all the vivas to decide whether a borderline candidate is upgraded or not.

I'm not sure what percentage get firsts these days, but our course has 200 students by the final year and I know there were pages and pages of firsts awarded in the exam board meeting, so probably 10% or so.

I'm sure you are right. I graduated in 1989 from a Russell Group Uni. My flatmate got a first. His was the only first (Economics) in his year. It was also the only first awarded in EIGHT years.

Sorry, that's not very clear, I meant an overall mark on the course of 70% gets an automatic first, and an overall mark of 69% gets a viva.

Hmm - I got nearly 71 but it seems a first was still discretionary on my course even with marks over 70. To be fair I think the dissertation was key and I only got high 60s for that.

Anyhow, back to the point - my worry, as with A levels, is that employers might not take into account grade inflation when comparing candidates of different ages.

inappropriate people applying for jobs

when universities were universities
polys were polys
colleges were colleges

everyone knew where they stood

nowadays not so

everyones a winner

These days you'd have got a first automatically.

These days no consideration is given to specific aspects of how the mark was obtained (apart from weighting of different years/modules). The only exception to that is if you have a viva to be upgraded where the external examiner will look at your mark distribution, are you particularly strong in one area and weak in another, or are your marks consistent across the board. Another aspect that is also considered is progression of marks through the years (it is more favourable to get progressively better through the years).

I should also add that if you would have a viva and you had been identified as having a weakness in a certain area, this is the area which would be focused on.

I think most people would agree that a 2:2 is not a very good degree, but someone who interviews well and gains some relevant experience (internships etc if no paid work available) should still be able to land a job if he/she has a lot of perseverance and some good blagging skills.

My best friend at uni got a 2:2, did an internship at the European Parliament (thanks to family connections) and ended up with a decent job in the end.

My DP did not got to university but went to engineering college instead and has a great job.

However, as for the poster who reckons firsts are only for swots with no social lives.... this is nonsense I always hear and I think most people who say this are just jealous! ;)

Personally I would have been very disappointed with a 2:1 and mortified to get a 2:2, but then again I have always had a very competitive attitude and I do know that a 1st alone is also not enough to secure a top job - I wanted the mark mainly for my own satisfaction! I now work at a law firm which is very ruthless with regard to hiring and firing and wonder whether I would have been considered without a first. We regularly bin applications as soon as we see the dodgy grades.

I used to teach on a degree course and the way the degrees were awarded at that University meant that you didn't automatically get a 1st if you got an overall average of 70%. You had to have a certain number of modules that were graded at a 1st from both Level 2 and Level 3 units. So if you got say, 90% in one unit and all the rest were high 60s, you'd still get a 2-i, not a 1st, even if your average was over 70. You had to demonstrate consistent achievement at "1st" level to gain a first. I don't know how many Unis this applies to, though.

roary, if spectacularly bad students get 2:2s at Oxbridge- who gets the 3:s, and who do you fail?

Grimma in my year of graduation (2003), at a Russell Group doing English I was one of seven out of 120 who got a first. About 90 got a 2.1, most of the rest got 2.2s. There were no 3rds but there were a couple of people who didn't make the 3rd and got a degree without honours. I think those figures roughly hold.

Since then I have spent seven years at Oxford and then Cambridge (doing a Masters and PhD, and then as a Research Fellow, teaching for the last five of those years) and am now about to start a lectureship at a good 1960s uni. Again I would say the 1st is difficult to get but the point is that the 2.1 grade has massively expanded at both ends. It is pretty rare to get a 2.2 and pretty rare to get a 1st, and virtually unheard of to get a 3rd.

It is ridiculous to say that 1st class students don't have practical skills!

Surely the wider point is that a 2.2 is not the end of your life! There are plenty of people here saying their firms won't employ 2.2s, and people saying that in their field it doesn't matter what you got. A whole range of other factors can come into play. If you got a 2.2 because you're lazy and not very clever, that's going to translate in the workplace. If you got a 2.2 because you were young, you hated your course, you picked the wrong subject, you had personal difficulties to overcome, you missed a lot of study, you fucked up on a couple of modules but did well on the rest (etc etc), but you now pick the right career/get vocational qualifications/find the thing you love/persevere for all you're worth/have the right connections/work your socks off/get relevant experience - well, then you'll be fine.

Unless you're studying for a vocational degree like medicine degrees are not tickets to a good career. All degrees should give you a wide range of skills, a great set of experiences, time to read and think at a critical point of your life, the chance to meet all kinds of different people and to encounter new ideas. Whatever grade you get, and whatever subject you did, this is worthwhile in itself and will pay off in a whole range of areas in your life (not just employment).

Subject area is definitely important ? I have a 2:1 from a ?red brick? university, which has got me nowhere because it isn?t ?vocational?. In my industry (environmental consultancy), they want Masters these days, so even a respectable degree is not enough.

I think choice of university should be guided by the subject you want to do, rather than a blind dash for the ?best? university. I am now studying for an MSc at an ex-poly and find the teaching and facilities far better than those at the red brick university I attended. My ex-poly commands some of the best-regarded experts and one of the best reputations in the country in this subject area. I didn?t consider an ex-poly for my undergraduate, but wouldn?t be so quick to dismiss them with hindsight!

At our not-Oxbridge-but-reasonably-good- Russell Group university it is certainly not unheard of to get a 3 (or to fail, for that matter). True, the 2:1 grade has expanded more than I would like to see, but certainly not to the extent that I would give a 2:1 to a student I felt should really be in the lower 2:2s. No way. Just sat throught exam meetings and 2:2s and 3:s are not at all rare.

I got a 2:2 IT degree in the very early nineties. I was pleased at the time as I wasn't expecting to even get that - I spent the first year having a good time, and some of the rest suffering from depression. They let me postpone my finals as I was ill. I wished later that I'd done more work and got a better degree, but it hasn't really affected my career - although it did take a year to get a graduate job. My current employer cared more that I got my degree from a 'proper' uni, rather than what grade it was!

I have a 2:2 from University of Sheffield. When I needed it to it stood me in good stead but that was 13 years ago. I then did a PGCE and am now a specialist teacher working with Autisitc children. TBH the fact that I have a degree of any description is now enough for potential employers they are far more interested in my experience and skills in the classroom.

BTW I was a very lazy student. Turned up for the odd lecture and seminar but apart from that did very little. I was more intersted in where my next pint of cider was coming from. It was fun though.

My cousin - who went on to come top of her year in Central School of Drama got a 2:2 because she didn't do her references correctly at Cambridge. Her boyfriend who is super-duper bright got a 3rd for a similar reason. This guy writes books and could get published - not sure why not but that is another story. He didn't complain, which is a bit silly really. But degree class not necessarily linked to intelligence or even who hard you work.

My brother failed his degree despite having really good A Levels - but that is a whole other story. This was at a RG uni, but hopefully if he wants to he will be able to re-take his final year.

Cory Almost no one gets a third and i've never heard of someone failing. Tutorial teaching means that people at risk of failing can be pushed along like mad, it's a very paternalistic system. Personally I think we should let them fail. Our formula for calculating a first is so complicated I'm not sure I understand it but it works out to about 10%.

I got a 2:2 from a Russell group uni (awful course).
I also have a doctorate from Oxford. I'd hate to think that 2:1 is what everyone gets now, and that there are no longer back doors for those like me.

My German friends at Uni were all planning on taking Masters or more - they would say that a plain old degree was not enough. This was circa 20yrs ago.

roary, interesting what you say about 2.1s. I think there's a problem that the gap between a high 2.1 and a low one is huge - people don't seem to want to award a 2.2 unless they feel the student is really awful, so there are loads of half-hearted 60s. I have an Oxbridge 2.1, and though I was fairly lazy I knew I was never going to get a first. But then I have a distinction in my Oxbridge Masters, which is technically better - I think it really shows how some students just don't perform well in exams (especially 4 hour exams!) and are much better on dissertations and so on.

A 2.2 might just show that here was a student who didn't suit the system.