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?

I prefer 'the war on terror' to '9/11'. At least 'the war on terror' is an academically accepted series of events/socio-political phenomenon whereas '9/11' is one event taken in isolation. DH has a masters that may as well have been titled MSc in terrorism!

I am a product of the dumbed down generation and agree from my experience that exams have at least become easier to pass even if the standard of the material and the syllabus hasn't changed much. At school (c.10 years ago) we used to be given past papers to help us revise for GCSE and A-level, including the 'old-style' O/A level papers. The class would routinely get As on modern papers and low B/C/D on old style papers. That was in geography, maths and chemistry for A level and across the board for GCSE/O-level. It's not the content of the paper - because we were only given stuff we'd covered (or that would defeat the point) although there were maths questions we couldn't have even attempted - it's the way questions were phrased, the amount of inter-module understanding you had to have to apply the knowledge and actually the sheer intensity of the exam. Keeping up the pace for 1h15 is very different to keeping it up for 3h! Plus I found the essays were expected to be longer in ye olde days.

My little brother took his GCSEs 2 years ago. For some reason, for fun, I decided to take a couple of his past papers in subject I last studied at the age of 13 before doing GCSE options (summer baby, me). I was getting As purely from general knowledge and there were very few extended answer questions. I bet that if I attempted a paper from 10 or 20 or 30 years ago cold I would be getting maybe a C from 10 years ago and outright failing 30 years ago. I'd actually be interested in putting that to the test.

As far as coursework is concerned I think it does still have a place as it tests different skills. It demonstrates (for science) understanding a question, devising a way to test that, interpreting results, evaluating the outcome, strengths and weaknesses and drawing conclusions. For essay subjects it requires understanding a question, structuring a long essay coherently to provide a balanced argument and researching (and possibly referencing). Probably many more things as well but those are off the top of my head.

Ironically I think you actually have to memorise more stuff now, though!

merrymouse obviously you don't know very much about what is required to make partner in a major law firm! Its not exactly a walk in the park........

and....another little rant from me to "secunda" who says becoming a barrister is impossible if you don't have parents with money - also total rubbish. My parents don't have any money, I didn't go to private school and didn't have any contacts until I started working and made them myself, and I got into a top chambers. And, one of my two degrees is from a new university, which plenty of the posters below clearly think automatically makes me a moron! I love it when people make broad sweeping statements about things they clearly know nothing about.

I returned to university as a mature student, I also went to university as a school leaver.

it IS very different, and maybe easier for SOME people but not for others

Exams the first time round involved loads of learning off by heart to regurgitate in exam halls then forget. You did not need to understand the subject at all in order to do well, just read and repeat. You didn't need to understand it.

Now its very much about critical thinking, you get high marks not from producing papers that are carbon copies of text books, but from being critical and finding new angles etc

In a lot of ways I think its better now, but at the same time I think that there is something to be said for learning off the basics BEFORE you can start to stamp your opinion on it, now they seem to encourage critical thinking from day 1.

Maybe a mix of old and new would be best, learning off in first year then developing critical thinking in years 2 and 3

But I DON'T think its dumbing down. Yes current students may not be able to rhyme things off that older graduates could/can, BUT they are learning a lot of skills that are a bit more transferable to post grad life IMO that were not valued nearly as much in older courses.

addie 81, you are right, I don't know a huge amount about being a partner in a law firm. I did say:

"When I think of a very successful person, I don't think of a partner in a law firm",

However my point was not that partners in law firms aren't successful, but that there are plenty of other ways to be successful. I wouldn't immediately think of a lawyer as a successful person because, believe it or not, outside that profession lawyers don't tend to be that high profile.

addie - how old are you? The point is that nowadays things like degree class, where you studied and connnections are giving you an edge over other graduates which is becoming increasingly necessary. Or when pupillages at your chambers are decided is every single CV read regardless of degree class and insitution and are all the names blanked out so there's absolutely no nepotism?

My cohort of graduates are finding it extremely difficult to get that first break - be it onto an LPC/BVC, or a place in a firm or chambers because there are too many graduates and you need to differentiate yourself in some way. I honestly don't think the difficulties faced in previous years are quite the same. Those who are managing are those with Firsts, or degrees from Oxbridge, or who've been attending chambers drinks since they can toddle because Daddy's a barrister. It's not impossible to do it without the above but it's bloody difficult.

Even making connections is tougher now. My father told me that when he applied for his pupillage barristers were much more open about talking to aspiring barristers because it was seen as uncommon to make the effort. At the last Inn dinner I went to the Benchers were moaning about how inundated everyone was with requests for work experience and letters or e-mails from tenuous connections asking advice. People have wised up to the fact you need to make these kind of links and they start it in the first year of their undergrad!

frakit I am 29. Called three years ago, following undergraduate and postgraduate law degrees. In my experience the field is a meritocracy. If you aren't good, you won't build up a decent practice, and therefore are a liability for the chambers. They are only interested in taking people who they know are going to be good, and therefore well instructed, and the best measure of that is f degree classification, academic prizes at uni, performance during a mini pupillage or a summer placement, success in mooting at uni, and impression given at interview. Your Dad could be the Lord Chancellor, but if you are a crap barrister no one will instruct you so its in no one's interests to take you on.

Merrymouse - most people probably measure success (amongst other things of course) in terms of getting to the top of a highly competitive field, and making a lot of money. Partners in big law firms are a classic example of this, plus, I second what the person below said about them making seven figures, which is almost unheard of in the business world unless you own the company, or a large chunk of it, or have a top level position in a FTSE100 company.

frakkit, I should have added that I agree with your observations about firsts - I got one, and I don't know anyone with a first who couldn't get good traineeship with a city firm or a pupilage. Goes back to the whole point of the thread, namely is a 2:2 good enough. The answer to that so far as the legal profession is concerned, is no, its not, although it probably was in years gone by.

Salbysea - I think your comment that you didn't need to understand your subject, just regurgitate by rote is a bit oversimplified adn sweeping. I don't know what type of course you did first, but my science degree require a reasonable level of understanding and application of knowledge some 21 years ago - rote learning wouldn't have got us too far.

Did the topic really have the micro world of law in mind though? There are other professions in the world.

addie81, I can only say again that my argument was not that partners in law firms are not successful, it was that there are other ways to be successful. I apologise to any partners in law firms who I may have offended by my ill judged remark.

I don't actually have any data on how many people earn over £1,000,000 a year and their jobs, so I can't really argue that point either way.

However, agreeing with msrisotto, I can only assure you that there is a whole big world out there that has nothing to do with being a lawyer.

Has anyone asked WHY as one poster says 'nowadays things like degree class, where you studied and connnections are giving you an edge over other graduates which is becoming increasingly necessary'

I think it is becasue it is so diffilcult to differentiate the wheat from the chaff as everyone has a high second from a 'university'

I made 110 applications back in the early 80s - it was very very hard a market - we have always had recessions and it can be hard from time to time. Where you went to university has always mattered and always will for many jobs. It is certainly a tough year to be graduating.

(On the LPC point - if you can pay you can get on it - it's whether you want to pay if you don't have a job after which is the issue)

As for which jobs are "successful" depends how you define success.

the question of 2:2s has been discussed on the thread, at length in the context of numerous different degree subjects and careers. The last few posts happen to have been about law. If you are not interested in that aspect of the thread Merrymouse, feel free not to post anything! Thanks for letting me know that there are jobs other than law. That was very enlightening. I had no idea.

Addie81, I was clarifying my original point, the one that you responded to, and the one that I made way back before the recent discussion of life as a barrister.

You seem to have understood my comment as "partners in law firms are unsuccessful and not as cool/rich/whatever as people in industry", when my point was that there are other ways to be successful and that in other fields, degree classification is not important once you have relevant experience or further qualifications. This was in response to the OP.

If you only want to talk about your job, that is fine, if potentially a bit exclusive. I am a little confused however about your continued inability to understand my very straightforward, and I admit perhaps a little banal point. I can only assume you are having a bad day.

Merrymouse stop being so facile! Of course I understand your point that there are lots of ways to be successful and that there are professions other than law. I would have thought that went without saying?? Apparently it doesn't so I have said it. I am off to do some work now. No doubt everyone else will thank us for stopping hijacking the thread and leaving them to discuss something else!