Daughter feels like a failure with a 2.1

[redcapblue]

My dd finished her first year at Oxford. She studies english. She got a 2.1, and was 2 marks away from a distinction (first) She got 68 and needed 68.5 (overall) for a first and to become a scholar.

She is sobbing away and feels the world has ended as she worked so hard for it. How do I get through to her that a high 2.1 is still amazing?

I would favour someone with a 2.2 from a top university in a preferred subject over since with a first in a less relevant subject from somewhere I'd never heard of. Because not all firsts are equal.

I know a young man who took a year to find a job with a 2:2 in Maths from Cambridge.

Yes, but the distribution is such that a 2:2 is quite a rare degree these days (Cambridge, anyway, and I am fairly sure Oxford too, where the OP's DD is). A 2:2 from Cambridge is an indication either something went badly wrong, or this is someone who didn't much bother/struggled badly. Far fewer students get them than 2:1s.

When DH is employing people he also prefers 2.1 and 2.2’s the anyone with a first tends to be a workaholic with too few skills. A 3rd is the opposite

I think it depends on the industry. My daughter starts her solicitors training contract next summer to be a commercial lawyer, with a large global law firm and for the top firms you can't even apply if you have less than a 2:1, the application shuts down, and a first from a Russel group is sought after.

I work for a large global and very well known corporation and you need a first ideally, or a high 2.1 before we will even speak to you and that's from a handful of top unis only. The entrance criteria and selection process is tough, and only the very best need apply. In my experience, having done grad interviews once upon a time, I found those with firsts simply smart and driven.

I'm curious as To what sort of industry actively seeks people with a 2.2?

🤔 I work for a very large multi nat ... I’m not sure where the ‘employers don’t think there’s a difference between 2:1 and 1st’ is coming from- or the implication that employers ‘prefer’ a 2:1 🤔😂

A 2:1 is very good and will ensure eligibility into almost all grad schemes ... but a 1st is better and of two candidates with similar interview scoring a 2:1 or 1st would make the difference.

I dislike threads like this - which turn being supportive about one thing into being derogatory about another.

2:1- great
1st- fantastic

That's really annoying because she was so close but a 2:1 or higher from oxford won't lead to any closed doors. Could she apply for a remark or reconsideration?

Oh, I've just seen it's only 1st year - most 1st years don't count towards the final grade so she's being stupid tbh. In 2 years she'll be looking back and laughing at herself. She has a fantastic start and has two years to push herself towards that first. Which frankly seems in easy grasp of her abilities.

Not sure about the above PP saying that 1sts can show people didn't live through uni - can guarantee my friends with 1sts got drunk every other weekend too 😂

I do totally agree that not all firsts are equal though.

A 2:1 from a top 20 uni is very much better than a 1st from a 50> uni.
I have a high 1st from a nothing specially uni and was viewed as equivalent to 2:1 from a better institution

Oh I just re-read this... she is in first year? I was going to say it honestly doesn't matter I have a first and an employer has never ever mentioned it.

Sounds a little extreme that she is sobbing away.... all she can do is remember how this feels and work even harder next year. Failure can be the best thing to happen. (Obviously this is only failure in her head!) What will she do in life if something doesn't go to plan?

2:2s are nearly an extinct classification anywhere these days. Not just Oxbridge. Yes of course something can go wrong and that’s often what a 2:2 means if DC has gone into the course with very high grade A levels and is good enough to get to Cambridge. I was highlighting that as being a barrier to getting work and it certainly isn’t as good as pp was saying. The young man in question is now doing well but the 2:2 meant his job search was a struggle and he now works for a very well known enterprise and lots of travellers depend on his maths skills every day. A 2:2 wasn’t a shoe in, even from Cambridge was my point.

When DH is employing people he also prefers 2.1 and 2.2’s the anyone with a first tends to be a workaholic with too few skills. A 3rd is the opposite.

This is such an irritating attitude. I partied very very hard and worked 20 hours a week in a shop and got a first.

Saying people who got a first are dull losers is such a destructive opinion and ridiculous that you would be penalised for getting a top mark - especially given university debt is now around £50k per student. What a bullshit privileged attitude.

I don’t believe she should work harder next year. At Oxbridge you are with the brightest and sometimes you have to accept this isn’t quite you! No matter how hard you work, it won’t necessarily help and you shouldn’t exclude other activities. If anything a more laid back attitude might help. Not more of the same that didn’t work.

University can be a bit of an adjustment - she does need to show resilience and the best thing to do is go and see her tutor and ask what she can do to close the gap for the next year, where she lost marks on the papers she sat (not with a view to changing these marks but to understanding).

But I do think a consistent message of a high 2:1 not being any kind of failure or in any way consequential is important. All of us eventually meet with and deal with failure on some dimension of life and this is merely a small learning opportunity

I’m not sure where the ‘employers don’t think there’s a difference between 2:1 and 1st’ is coming from- or the implication that employers ‘prefer’ a 2:1

Healthcare. I’m an NHS clinical employer and give exactly zero shits about 1st, 2:1, 2:2 etc. In fact, if a new grad (and it’s only ever new grads) gushes about how they got a first, my suspicions are instantly roused that they’re better with research than they are with people, and I need the latter. It comes down entirely to how they perform at interview, at the end of the day - we cannot reasonably or legally discriminate against an applicant just because of their degree, but those are my only (never broadcasted) thoughts about 1st vs anything less. All we really care about is if they passed and met the professional requirements for registration. One of the best AHPs I ever worked with barely scraped through her degree with a bottom-end 2:2 because she was severely dyslexic and every reasonable adjustment in the world couldn’t help her with the academic side. But she was a great clinician and her people and practical skills were faultless.

That makes sense about the student with the 2:2, bubbles.

I agree she shouldn't work harder - but she should work smarter.

A lot of students think 'hard' work is plugging away, doing the same they did for A Level, conscientiously spending hours in the library. But you really have to adapt to what's wanted, and it's different.

I don't really buy into the idea you don't get a first at Oxford because you're just not bright enough - not for the vast majority. On the whole, if you're bright enough to get in, you ought to be able to get a first.

I also find the attitude of being derogatory about firsts odd. Of course it's fantastic. And of course it doesn't mean you're a workaholic with limited skills. That's just bonkers. You still need to go through thr recruitment processes to get jobs. No one gets a job based on nothing more than a degree classification.😂

Let's be honest, just getting a degree is an achievement, and it's an expensive choice to make, and like any other attainment in life, doing well isn't something to be sneered at.

It really is tall poppy syndrome at its worst, when you start sneering at kids because they obtained a first.

YY, the comments about employers not selecting for firsts seem a bit ... unlikely to me.

2:2s are nearly an extinct classification anywhere these days. Not just Oxbridge. Yes of course something can go wrong and that’s often what a 2:2 means if DC has gone into the course with very high grade A levels and is good enough to get to Cambridge.

On the whole, if you're bright enough to get in, you ought to be able to get a first.

eh? One of the courses with highest tariff to get in uses approximate centiles for number of 1sts and 2:1s so neither of those statements is accurate in this case!

teaching.eng.cam.ac.uk/download/file/119

? Errol? I don’t think many universities are dishing out 2:2s in vast numbers. Certainly Cambridge and Oxford don’t. Look at the stats. Obviously some DC will get 2:2 but it’s not many. If you have the exact stats for Maths at Cambridge please do share. Is it markedly different to other degree classification stats?

Of course DC vary in how bright they are at top universities. Otherwise why even have degree classifications. Might as well not bother!

Just to let you know, 94% of Cambridge grads get a 2:1 or a first. So going in with a string of A*s and pass all the entrance tests and get accepted and then come out with a 2:2 is rare for a mathematician. Generally it will mean something has “gone wrong”.

Not vast numbers but in this case ~20% so far from 'extinct', and if percentiles are being used in a cohort with high entry grades, that's not always going to be because something went particularly wrong.

I don't know about maths, but I found the engineering link below easily (DD had mentioned it) . I don't believe all departments use this sort of mechanism but the fact is some do.

Sure, that may be the case for maths but it isn't for engineering.

(Hard to tell from unistats, it looks like 18% 2:2 for maths but I'm not sure how the integrated masters factors into it. )

The devil is in the detail, generalisations aren't always very helpful.

OP Hope your DD has had a day or two been able to see that although she's disappointed she can move on and keep perspective. My DC has just graduated from Oxbridge and those that got a 1st in year 1 and 2 found it harder to be happy getting a 2.1 as a final classification than those that had got a 2.1 in previous years but in the scheme of things as mentioned by others it will not make a massive difference to life moving forward in the future.
It sounds like she is close so is in a good position to keep aiming high but perhaps not the be all and end all of her life in Oxford. My DC certainly enjoyed herself and did not just work work work including being in the first team for a sport and having a busy and lively social life. She was 4 marks off a first in first year, 2 marks off a first in second year and did get a first in her final year.
Hope your DD has a great summer and keeps enjoying her subject.

I think maths is the wrong one to look at. Across all degrees and all unis maths has the highest number of firsts attained. Its in the region of 38 percent. Engineering comes a close second at about 33 percent of students getting a first, and law is the hardest to get a first in at only about 13 percent of students achieving it.

For a first and and upper second, the average across all subjects is approx 70 percent achieve either, and approx 30 percent get a 2.2 or below.

So a 2.2 is definitely not an outdated classification by any means, as nearly a third of students get that or below on average.

I think maths is the wrong one to look at. Across all degrees and all unis maths has the highest number of firsts attained. Its in the region of 38 percent.

That makes sense... also, are those percentages relative to the numbers who start a maths degree or the number who get to finals. It's a subject where students can hit a 'wall' in their ability and quite a lot switch to other courses.

Anyway, from the OPs DDs perspective, just missing out on that first and scholarship benefits must be disappointing but hopefully she can put it behind her. I'm glad mine knew the score before she started - she was perfectly well aware that whereas in all probability she'd have been getting firsts elsewhere (lower entry criteria, more awarded) she'd be likely to be in the 2:1 majority at Cambridge and therefore there's no sense of 'failure'.

94% of ALL Cambridge grads get 2:1 or first. These figures have just been released. It cannot mean there are 30% 2:2 on any course, surely? The grad classifications there might be stringent but 2:2 is 6% of students and all will be extremely bright. It might only be 1 mark that has made the difference but there is no data that says Cambridge has 30% 2:2. It simply doesn’t.

but there is no data that says Cambridge has 30% 2:2. It simply doesn’t.

Nobody said there was. I provided a link which shows that one specific course (engineering) has a policy of sticking to approximate percentiles yielding 20% with 2:2 or below. And 30% firsts, so clearly a lot of very clever hard working students won't get one.

Bluntness was referring to all unis and all courses, I believe.