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?

Meant to say that my degree would prob be frowned on by many as it isn't that traditional: marketing. But I had previously worked in marketing for 3 yrs (went back to uni at 23) and knew that was what I wanted to do. Taking the degree led to Chartered Status and a global management role I couldn't have gone for without it, so it served the role I wanted of it. The fact I have now changed careers to teaching is neither here nor there, the degree has to be either relevant to the career you are after or have enough transferable skills/recognised rigour that it will open multiple doors for you. Football studies or 'deckchair management' just won't cut it and you would have to be very niave or stupid not to see that unfortunately. One degree is not as good as another.

'the degree has to be either relevant to the career you are after or have enough transferable skills/recognised rigour that it will open multiple doors for you. Football studies or 'deckchair management' just won't cut it and you would have to be very niave or stupid not to see that unfortunately. One degree is not as good as another.'

Exactly MrsC - my degree is in history from York.(I didn't start at the University expecting it to be well regarded my employers but both dh and I have found it to be so) A history degree either relates to absolutely nothing in the world of work or to absolutely everything depending on your perspective.

In fairness, although a 2ii would not qualify you for many professional or academic jobs, there are many roles where it will be plenty good enough to help people get to where they want to go.

cortina - "An old O'level grade B is the equivalent of an A grade GCSE grade today, An old O'level grade C would now be a D and so on, how many really realise that?"

So what would an old O level A grade be the equivalent of at GCSE? And why is an O Level C a GCSE grade D and not a B or C?

I am very please with my 1990 pass from red brick russell group!
I had a great time met intellectual equals and spent the rest of my life with one
His degree ( a very good one) does not have classifications so ya boo sucks - we have a pass and nowt else!!!

Done well out of it though and very happy! Our eldest is hoping to go to a tippity top university in october and gawd help him if he doesn't get a first!

some of the people I went to university with have 2:2s and have never had problems

i agree that it depends on the university a 2:2 from oxbridge still seems to count for a lot

but I'd have been gutted with a 2:2 and viewed it as a failure

most milk rounds have 2.1 min.

The reason why milkrounds have a 2.1 minimum is the 'everyones a winner' culture we live in

[[http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/aug/20/a-levels-a-grades-results Everyone gets great a - levels

25% get a first

Its all rubbish

Bring back proper tests and proper education where people actually fail and everything isn't modular and done by mum bitesize or plagarised downloaded

Yes, i agree with paulinepetrova etc.

If everything is HARDER only the truly bright/ really clever people go to university(regardless of their background, schooling etc), Makes it much fairer in the long run, more people would be 'average' and the education system would have to be geared to those pupils, thus encouraging them to do vocational subjects and not, ....gasp, go to university.

There is absolutely no question that things have been dumbed down. When I was young (old git emoticon) only a very few of my contemporaries got a 1st, now my older DCs are graduating, those who would have got a 2:1 in my day get a 1st and the lazy drunken reasonably bright ones get a 2:1.

Or perhaps that is a reflection of how well they have been drilled for exams in their 16 years of "schooling". Students are simply better at exams. They also have them more frequently. It doesn't mean they are more able, but it also doesn't mean the courses are dumbed down.

There is very definitely more "strategic" learning amongst students these days and from what I understand of the current A'level system, this is basically encouraged (the goal is to pass the exam, not to learn for the love of it). The first thing many students want to know when they are introduced to a new concept is "will this be on the exam?". In my day, we didn't dare ask.

However, thinking about the situation these days, our entry requirements demand straight A's at A'level with no repeats of modules (we ask for the module breakdowns), so given that we are teaching the cream, it might be expected that they are intellectually capable of performing well at degree level.

I think getting a first still requires getting a little something extra - just learning everything isn't enough, originality is important and really knowing your subject (arts/humanities subjects)

clement - do you have 16 year olds?
have you seen the GCSE's?
Even the higher levels are - well- easy

GCSE modules ( again at higher level) require learning 40 -15 pages of an AQA revision guide per module

learn that you got your A*

Posy, that is why more and more universities are talking about introducing entrance exams. We insist that students undergo a technical interview (carried out by academic staff) before making an offer.

It is also nonsense to imply as others have, that there are no fails these days. There are plenty of fails, also approximately the same number of students will attain only a 3rd class degree as a first and we do come down heavily on plagiarism. All coursework must be submitted electronically and all is checked for plagiarism. Any students found to be guilty of this will be disciplined and may be removed from the course. All our students also sign a form at the start of the course to state that they will not plagiarise work.

40- 50 (tired sorry)

Agree unseen

My ds had great GCSE results but also had to submit 3 pieces of academic work and do a TSA AFTER his two interviews for his first choice university

wheat - chaff but should it have to be that way

Define what 'not good enough' means in the long run.

Roll on ten years and what is the income level difference between the 2.1s and 2.2s? From what I've seen it can even itself out and in some cases, it can reverse significantly. Relationships and children see to that. In good or detrimental ways.

What position and salary would you expect to see a 2.1 and above in by their forties compared with a 2.2 and below?

What would be the house price difference between the good enoughs and not good enoughs?

I used to think 'Oh no, you can't judge by salary level or property price, philistine, it's about attainment of success in one's field and life enrichment, status amongst the peers in your profession,' however it does matter to a certain extent. If you're living in a £250k property in your forties with a 1st and gloriously happy, then all good and well but what if you're not happy with your lot? Money affords a level of comfort, peace and a crime free environment, in London, that is very soothing to the mind.

So, spill and define it precisely.

I think that things are geared more to helping students achieve better marks now - although I only have knowledge about one current Uni system, I'm sure it's more widespread - when I did my degree, we have X number of subjects through each year and then we had all the exams at the end of the year. So we had to revise for all exams in one go (like O and A levels).
On the course I taught on, everything was modular over one, two or possibly three terms - and the exam was at the end of the module. So this meant that you had more exam periods in the year, but you only had to revise for one, maybe two modules at a time. This, to me, makes it easier to get good marks. If I had been able to do this, I know I would have got better marks in my degree.

When I went 15% of people went to university and one third of those got 2/1s only. One person got a first. I was the best I the yar at a good few subjects and won prizes and didn't get a first and plenty of years not a single first was awarded.

But it's not fair on young people to do too many of these comparisons as they can only operate in the system we are now in. Plenty of people get low A level grades and many cannot even get A levels. 34% of my local comp school get A - C at GCSE up from 20% something. That means 70% of those local children cannot reach the dizzy height of grade C at GCSE. So even today plenty of people cannot get any type of degree.

The only issue which worries is me is some left wing teachers and not very clued up parents and children don't realise that for some jobs the institution and also your GCSE and A level subjects do matter. As long people know a 2/2 from an ex poly with your bunch of "£stuidies" GCSEs and BTECs might be great for working for the Socialist Republic of XYZ local authority but will not get you to that partnership at Ernst & YOung then there's no problem. It's when tales oare spun to children about if XYZ poly is the best in the UK for physics and then you're trying to get a job and employers don't know that and all think it's a rubbish place that you realise perception matters and you hadn't been given the right career guidance.

This is true Xenia, my cousin has a very good 2:1 from a traditionally well-respected university and won a prize for her dissertation but fails the entry criteria for many graduate jobs because she was depressed at A Level and her UCAS points are not very good (BBC).

As it turns out, she would have done well to resit those A Levels but even then many "blue chip" companies ask for 1st attempt results only / details of resits.

Cory - students do end up with thirds or passes at Oxbridge - outright fails are I think rare - but I suspect that's probably because of the college system - that a tutor will know a student well enough to advise them to defer a year if they are in danger of ailing. IME Oxbridge are stricter than other universities when it comes to the consequences of failing even one subject - DH was told that if he failed his coursework he could only get a Pass degree. Whereas my friend at a well-respected redbrick got a 2:2 despite failing 2 out of 12 papers!

I haven't read the whole thread but I would say it depends on which university and also what the degree is in.

IME people generally aren't happy with less than a 2:1

Most of the undergrads I teach seem to think that a degree should be a sure-fire ticket to a job, end of story. But that's simply not true - along with the degree (minimum 2.1 if just a BSc/BA, a 2.2 is okay if accompanied by a good MA/MSc) I think they need to be able to demonstrate some employment or voluntary work experience as a bare minimum to help their cv stand out from the others. Ideally they need to show that they've specifically tailored their degree choice and extra-curric activities to their chosen career path. Although I admit the graduate jobs market is scary (I should soon have a PhD as well as my MA (distinction), 1st class BSc and 2 years civil-service work experience, and am still concerned I won't be able to find a job) I think it may have its up-sides if it helps graduates raise their game: ultimately it should make us more competitive in global terms in the long-run.

I haven't read all of this but given that the vast majority of stduents have to work as well as study at Uni these days getting a 2:2 is quite an achievement.

I know students holding down 20 hour a week jobs on top of trying to study, or have families to look after as well as a FT course.

A 2:1 has always been prefered by employers (and a First typically meant you were a swot and not so employable and this I don't think has changed much). But employers are looking for rounded people now, and students with work experienece as well as good employability/transferable skills.

Yes most 2:2's could have worked harder but given the choice betwen racking up £10K debt and getting a 2:2 or racking up 20K get and getting a 2:1, given the current employment market, the former is a much more likely option for most.

My son is about to start Uni and I can't support him financially at all; I am truly worried for his future sadled with debt in a housing market that works only for those with rich parents.

As parents we should be standing up for students who get a raw enough deal as it is, not bereating them for what they have achieved... rant over!

Outside the world of graduate training programmes, relevant work experience and expertise beat degree class hands down.

Most of the people I have worked with weren't born in Britain and qualified outside the UK, and having worked for international companies, many of my employers wouldn't have a clue what a 2:1 was, never mind identifying a Russell group university. They can tell what experience is relevant to the job they need to be done.

There is more to life than the milkround. (And I think there is an analogy to be made about cows and blindly trotting onto the next step on the ladder).

Having said that, obviously, there is no way that taking a three year drinking holiday while bumbling along to a few lectures in 'whatever course would accept me' translates into employability.