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?

Does Cambridge Maths split between 2:1 and 2:2 these days?
It didn't used to.

errol, why do you think my claim isn't accurate?

I never commented on proportions of candidates who get firsts/2:1s, only one what someone ought to be bright enough to get. My point being that what stops candidates from getting firsts isn't, on the whole, that they're nor bright enough.

My point being that what stops candidates from getting firsts isn't, on the whole, that they're nor bright enough.

You said 'if you're bright enough to get in, you ought to be able to get a first.'

I don't think that's really the case on some of the Stem degrees where clearly they're all bright enough to get in but there are large quantities of difficult material and often rather tight time constraints in the exams. Hard work and good tactics may make the difference between a 2:2 and a 2:1 perhaps, and poor work ethic might lose a genius a first ... but no, getting in does not mean you 'ought to be able to get a first'. I'm actually baffled how anyone could imply that was true.

also, are those percentages relative to the numbers who start a maths degree or the number who get to finals

I think it's those who finish, so the breakdown of rhe Final Marks. I agree on lots hitting a wall, I don't know about maths, but I know in my daughters law degree intake a large amount either dropped out or moved to another course after the first year.

Yes, I do think if you're bright enough to get in, you're bright enough to get a first - and the OP's DD is doing English, which is the subject I've taught at Oxbridge, so I wasn't thinking very much about STEM. I certainly accept you may well be right there.

I've never sat down and surveyed colleagues to see if everyone else agrees, but I've certainly had this conversation informally with colleagues (when we're interviewing), and I don't think it's at all an unusual perspective.

Btw, I don't think genius has a particularly good correlation with getting a first either. Not in English.

Yes, I do think if you're bright enough to get in, you're bright enough to get a first

So how do you explain all the students that don’t get firsts? Loads of them work really, really hard. It’s just beyond them.

I don't think they work 'hard' in the right way.

A lot of students think 'hard work' means sitting in the library and reading a lot.

A lot of students have never really had to learn to study, too - they haven't learned how to think about what is being asked, how to read a mark scheme very closely, etc. etc. A lot are also working against their previous training, in that school English and university English are rather different, and some students find it very hard to break away from what they've always found worked/what they've been taught is good practice.

And some students, obviously, do not especially want to put in the amount of smart, hard work, that is necessary. And that's fair enough IMO.

Finally, in every year group, a significant proportion of students will be brought down by something outside their control, such as health or emotional problems or bereavement or whatever. This is especially tough on them.

I really don't believe more than a handful of students are genuinely 'not bright enough' to get a first.

I guess part of what I'm saying is a degree isn't only a measure of how 'bright' you are but also of other things. But more, I just think most students don't work optimally. It would be remarkable if they did.

Does seem like there's a difference between the 'two cultures' on this. So, I'll mentally amend that to '... get a first in an arts subject'.

I don't think they work 'hard' in the right way.

I can assure you, many do. In the same way that not every student can get an A* at GCSE, even if they absolutely bust a gut working in the right way, not everyone can get a first.

I think there is a difference!

I remember my brother complaining, ages ago, that Cambridge Maths was just ridiculously difficult for you to get a first in if you didn't have an exceptionally retentive memory, because the fastest way to do it was to memorise a huge array of proofs rather than working them out, and he was a worker-out. (Though that could be sour grapes, too, and he got a first, just not as good a first as he'd have liked.)

IME English is one of those subjects where raw intelligence (if there is such a thing) really doesn't play such an enormous role. I don't think most English academics are geniuses either, whereas with some subjects you do seem to get that classic 'eccentric genius' profile, don't you?

I can assure you, many do.

See, this just isn't my experience (so maybe we're seeing different things or maybe it's Oxford/Cambridge). And I don't think it is like GCSE, which is such a broad measure. Oxbridge undergrads are selected pretty carefully, aren't they? I don't think I've ever heard of anyone saying 'hmm, this kid wasn't any too bright, but we'll let him in anyway and he can aim for 2:2'.

Well, maybe I didn't work the right way, or whatever, but personally I think I just found my limit with Cambridge Maths. There were chunks I just cognitively couldn't grasp. There were some incredibly clever people on the course, and I wasn't one of them. I only survived by picking in my 3rd year a bunch of courses that didn't build on years 1 & 2.

I’m still confused! 20% of Cambridge Engineering grads get 2:2 but only 6% across the whole university? That’s the figure that’s been reported very widely so some courses must be awarding very few 2:2s. Are Engineers being discriminated against?

I think with maths and some aspects of science there are some for whom certain things are 'intuitively obvious'.

I remember coming out of our chemistry finals, my now DH was bewailing he'd forgotten to include some arcane detail ... I had to shut him up by pointing out that there would be people (diligent workers included) who would have actually got questions wrong, or not known how to tackle a question.

The engineering department is perhaps bloody mindedly resisting the tide of grade inflation!

Maths is fascinating to me (in a Cletus-the-yokel-gazes-in-amazement way), because of that 'intuitively obvious' bit.

I think by comparison the really nice thing about English is that if you read something really brilliant by an amazing scholar, it's not generally conceptually out of reach in the same way. I mean, you might not get every nuance and you definitely couldn't have done it yourself, but there will be parts of it you can read and follow.

Actually Errol you are correct. I’ve just found a piece written for the Times HE where s former visiting professor says that only 1% of English degrees were a 2:2 in 2016. Similar for Languages and History. There are departments who will not change so some students are treated unfairly the author argues. Engineering and maths are quoted as sticking to rigid criteria. I rather agree with the author. It seems faculties each have their own views and stick to them.

Bubbles, surely maths distributions have always been broader than humanities in terms of raw marks, which then presumably then filters through to degree classifications? Or was this different when your DD was at University?

All nine who graduated with DS (small course) got firsts. They colonised a room in the library, supported each other, and worked very hard indeed. Set distributions might not account for something like that.

I’m betting this is the first time ever ahes not got the grade she wanted / worked for in anything.
Very tough. Agree with all other posters it’s a bloody good end of year one grade.

Please help her to look at all the other stuff that makes her life rich and worthwhile. A first isn’t everything. If she doesn’t have / can’t see anything other than academic achievement she needs to spend the summer working on finding stuff -anything from bloody amazing friends , relationship , a passion for a sport , music , board games , big snorkelling - anything !

To hang all your self esteem on academia at Oxford is a terribly precarious thing ( and I say this as the parent of a classicist who is polishing her phd at the moment. She will be a uni academic I’m sure but has many other avenues that support her over all well being. She’s had to work at those though. She could have so easily had a single focus

I can only say what The Times HE piece stated. That some Cambridge departments award degree classifications on a different basis to others and it was argued this was totally unfair. They have complete autonomy and a maths or engineering grad could have equivalent “marks” as an English grad but get a 2:2. The author thought there should be a standardised approach university-wide but found different departments hung on to “their” methods of classification and this involved many more getting 2:2s but they were, in fact, perfectly good students who would, anywhere else have got a 2:1 because classification would be based on performance and not quotas.

I am now aware of this anomaly which makes the experience of my friend’s DS even more galling because his 2:2 was probably a 2:1 elsewhere.

I have no idea about what happens elsewhere other than we noticed a vast difference between the firsts gained in Spanish as opposed to French at DDs graduation. It was striking. We thought the Spanish lecturers must be more easily pleased!

I also don't agree if you're bright enough to get in, you're bright enough to get a first. By that logic it would mean that a degree is the same level of complexity as an a level. Which it's not. It's a very different animal.

A 2:1 is fine, that's a good mark. I got a 2:1 for my undergraduate Architecture degree and I'm going back for my Masters in September. 2:1 it's good, especially as it's a high 2:1

I didn't get a first in my first year exams at Oxford. My essays were very good in the next term and they bumped me up to scholar anyway, colleges do that - I got the fancy gown and the extra money from college. Aside from one scholars dinner a year where everyone wears the gown and £100/term it really isn't a big thing - to be honest, many people would rather have hung out with their friends than go to a dinner with their tutors! I then got a 2:1 in my finals - I had quite a difficult year for other reasons and was absolutely over the moon with it. Difficult year aside, I think i would only have been borderline anyway as I am better at coursework essays than essays under pressure - in the real world, your performance is generally measured in a more rounded way than just how beautifully you write four essays in a three hour exam . I have a very happy career and life. For me, it was the best I could have achieved and I am proud for working hard. Having a 2:1 has never held me back.

Oh yes and all oxford tutors tell you you are capable of getting a first!!!! They wouldn't have let you in unless they thought you were - they turn down lots and lots of people at interview each year and then pick people who, in their opinion, will do well in the system. But not everyone gets firsts, because it is hard to do. It's not the same as predicting a level grades from GCSEs. Particularly in an arts degree. As previous posters have said, your grade in an oxbridge arts degree depends to a great extent on your love for the subject and your ability to really take a position in an argument and convince - taking risks, writing from the heart, knowing your subject so well that you can demonstrate your knowledge by taking a view in a really creative way, rather than sitting on the fence. Definitely use this as a chance to examine whether this is what she has been doing, or whether she falls in the blander/more descriptive camp (which often gets you a 2:1). For what it is worth, I got firsts in the papers for subjects I really loved and lower 2:1s in others, hence the 2:1 over all.