Moderation between universities - is a 2:1 the same wherever you study?

[goingmadinthecountry]

Can anyone point me towards any research on this that's available to view online? I know at undergrad level, dd1's work was sent to another similar level university for moderation. Is there moderation across the board, eg University of Essex and Oxford, Canterbury Christchurch and Bristol?

Dd1 reckons a couple of her friends did well at undergrad level (2:1s)and now they are at a good RG university are struggling with research/essays in particular. She feels her friend may have been lulled into a false sense of security by her first university which if true is not fair. If just a blip with an essay result they can boost her confidence.

No, I don't think a 2.1 is the same. I did undergrad at Oxford where my grades averaged in the high 60s. I moved to another, non-Oxbridge institution, for postgrad and easily gained another 10 or so marks. During my PhD, I had to help teach/mark students' work and had to be much more generous than I would based on my own undergraduate experience.

I think it's more likely a problem of the spam of second class degrees, the top end of a 2:1 is a vastly different ability set than the bottom end of a 2:1. I think only the 1sts and 3rds are accurate reflectors since they're a smaller pool. When I graduated law there were 2 1sts in a year of 150

Firsts have become commonplace now. I think an old 2;2 is probably equivalent to a 2;1 nowadays.

Having said that, I did bugger all work in my second year and somehow got the 2;2s and 2;1s needed for a 2;1 overall when I graduated and that was at a russell group uni I do think you have to put more work in as a student today.

When I graduated law there were 2 1sts in a year of 150

But nowadays Firsts are often 20-30% of the year.

user that probably explains why the 2:1's are struggling at postgrad level, unless they are working super hard they may just not be equipt for it

Firsts have become commonplace now. I think an old 2;2 is probably equivalent to a 2;1 nowadays.

But this is a generalisation, as is the claim a 2:1 is required to be the average degree given. Different universities award different proportions of classes, and have different rules and regulations.

It's not really fair to say someone with a 2:1 may not be equipped for a postgrad degree unless they're working super hard, I think. Too much variation in 2:1 degrees and in the demands of MA courses to say that.

I'm not convinced it's just the 2.1s that are the problem. At the RG university where I've done some marking, because of the differing levels of expectation, I've had to award firsts whereas at Oxford they would probably have received a low 2.1.

As has been demonstrated in this thread, there are real issues with the lack of standardisation and consequent confusion over what it means to have achieved a particular degree. This means that students with an ostensibly good degree from one university may struggle if they move to another. Equally, it means that students with poorer results (low 2.1/2.2) from a 'better' institution can be unfairly penalised. Jobs and postgrad courses may demand a 2.1/mid 2.1, which they fail to meet even though they have met a higher standard than those with 'good' results from other universities.

But standardisation across the board would be very unpopular (and in any case impractical). You would either end up with a very high failure rate and award of poorer degrees at some universities, or in order to avoid this, you would have almost entire cohorts at certain universities achieving firsts.

Too much variation in 2:1 degrees and in the demands of MA courses to say that.

But academics can (and do) judge the levels of degrees from different institutions. If money weren't an issue, we could filter out students who are unlikely to do well on Masters courses. My department is allowed to set a high entrance bar as our courses are over-subscribed. Far too many other departments are forced to take students that they don't think will do well.

Unfortunately whilst academics can recognise the variation in degrees from different institutions, I wonder if the filtering software used by employers looking to recruit graduates does? A lot of organisations will simply say you need a 2i to apply, potentially ruling out "better" candidates before even allowing them to complete an online application.

Yes, I think academics could (sometimes, not always) do a better job of filtering. But the OP is talking about her DD trying to figure out how her classmates are doing, and I don't think it's that easy to figure that out. Not suggesting she's wrong to be concerned about her friends at all - just I think it's surprisingly hard to figure out what's going on when you are in the middle of a course.

The MA I've taught it fairly competitive to get into, and I'm not sure that students with firsts do better than students with 2:1s often enough for me to think it's a good predictor of success. Anecdotally, I'd rather teach a student who got 67 in their undergrad degree but wrote a great dissertation, than a student who just squeaked in with 70 but did it all by being a good exam candidate rather than a researcher.

I'm not sure that students with firsts do better than students with 2:1s often enough for me to think it's a good predictor of success.

That's interesting. At least in my area of (theoretical) science, undergraduate degree marks are a good predictor of performance on research degrees. For experimental science, undergraduate degree marks are not such a good predictor but a lowish 2:1 generally does worse than a high 2:1 or First.

67 and 70 are clearly so close that the labelling 2:1/First is meaningless anyhow!

Interesting. I admit, I don't have data to back up what I say - I'm just thinking back to what I've seen and conversations with colleagues in other places, which suggest that it's the case.

I don't think we'd usually accept someone onto a MA course with lower than about 65 - not that there's a formal rule - so that's why I mention the middle of the 65-70 range.

I guess what I'm probably wittering towards is just the fact that the 2:1 range is pretty huge.

I have seen "fair access" people demand that the institution is removed from job applications so that the employer can't see if someone went to Oxford or UniofJustFoundedLastWeek. As others have noted, this is all very well but such a system could eliminate excellent candidates if a 1st at a former higher education college trumps a 2nd at Oxbridge/top RG.

Similar to thinking that kid who gets 1st place in the year4 running race is better than person who came second to Usain Bolt.

I think maybe the problem is that, if all universities had to have the same standards, loads of people at Oxbridge would get a first while at a low ranking university there would be lots of thirds / fails. Which would be pretty depressing.

Generally speaking the better/more competitive universities do dole out a higher proportion of firsts - but not to the extent that they would if you had a completely level playing fields for degree class bandings. You'd be producing huge numbers of thirds and fails at certain institutions or you'd have to introduce a starred/congratulatory first as a standard formal grade at the top end.

I'm not sure it would be depressing if we aimed for parity. It might destroy the myth that the post-92s are better at teaching. And most importantly it might stop students who actively do not want to study or learn from going to university because that's what you do after school. They should not be incurring pointless debt.

The university I work at is worrying close to the top 50.

No, it definitely is not. I have various friends and family who teach at universities, and I have heard several examples of them having to adjust to different academic standards when they swap jobs.

There are several genuinely good programmes at my university though. They tend to be more practical and professionally accredited ones.

I like to hope think I work on the single worst programme in the university.

My Ds is at a top 10 uni in his third year. He regularly gets marks of 67/68/69. No one on his course in the last 9 years has had a first! He works incredibly hard and was always identified as the one who would get a first. And it was his ambition but now, no more. Just going to get through it with a 2i (fingers crossed by me).

Dont you also have to consider who is going onto postgraduate study? What are the reasons behind people going on to post graduate study? People going on to post graduate study because they have a goal in mind will be far more motivated to do well than people there because there was some funding available and they couldnt get a job.

Basically are you comparing apples with apples?

Dd1 (Law as 1st degree) obviously has further to go. This MSc is quite specialised and a passion of hers - so lovely to see her on fire with excitement about what she's learning. She saves the world in her little way.