Are Firsts the new 2:1?

[Cranmer]

Over the last 2 years we have had 6 nieces/nephews/God children and family friends graduating. Without exception, everyone of them has received a first. The courses range from nursing, graphic design to engineering and geography. The highest A level grade any of them achieved was a B and they all went to ex-poly type universities.

When I went to university back in 1994, there was 200 on my course and not a single First awarded. Are students just more able? Are 2:1s seen as good degrees still? Why are so many Firsts awarded now?

I think it depends on both the university and course to be honest. I went to a Russel group university and on my course (which was an artsy history kinda course) not many people at all got a First, the majority got a 2:1. However for someone doing something like maths for instance where generally speaking there tends to be only one right answer to a question I think more firsts would be given out on that type of course as its easier to access the full marking scale.

With my course I found on essays etc... people would struggle to get above a 75 (even those super dedicated types!) which meant it was very easy to slip from a low first to a high 2:1 for your overall classification

I think a 2:1 is a perfectly good grade, you can access postgrad courses with this and to be honest no job I’ve ever applied to has ever asked for my degree classification

I think only nailed on mathematicians do maths. They are all good at it! Other courses have students with more nuanced talents and they are essay based which is different. For a student, with no overseas parents who speak/teach another language, the most difficult degree to get a first in is MFL. In some universities the firsts would barely scrape double figures.

It does make a difference to employers regarding what subject and what university. If you read The Times article, the fact that worst marks are discounted and borderline marks are bumped up, plus other marking shenanigans, such as discounting marks gained in core subjects, means there is no standard system of reaching a conclusion about what is a First. The students at some universities clearly gain from a very lenient system regarding their classification that isn’t employed at other more renown universities where a first means excellence in all areas.

Most people think a first at Imperial or Oxbridge is a trustworthy classification. Numbers awarded reflect many high calibre students. Elsewhere down the tables, neither is the case. They don’t have the calibre of students in depth and the marking methods are not trustworthy. Universities have agreed to a protocol for marking and awarding degree classification now.

I don't have the figures to hand to back this up, but I also think Maths has a high rate of students dropping out or changing to other courses, in which case you'd expect the students left to be, on average, stronger.

I got a first (essay based subject) in the 00s, as a student of the ‘mature variety’ as did about 9 others on my course.
One person got a 2:1 with a mark of 69. As a borderline student it was looked at but because her final dissertation achieved a 2:1 (68) she couldn’t be moved to the next classification.
Reading through the boards and chatting to work colleagues with DCs at uni it seems ‘borderline’ marks are treated differently across institutions which may be a contributing factor for the increase?

One person got a 2:1 with a mark of 69. As a borderline student it was looked at but because her final dissertation achieved a 2:1 (68) she couldn’t be moved to the next classification.

I got a 2:1 with a mark of 84, I was gutted that they didn't push me up to a first which I'd have got if I had 85.

I think this is really interesting, I went to an RG uni in the 90s & got a 2:1, and only knew 1 person who got a first.
I now lecture in another RG uni (higher up the league tables, but not Oxbridge). To me the undergrad students seem a lot more dedicated than I was, both to their uni work and their other causes. And they are very bright and engaged on the whole.
When I'm grading papers, I tend to give out anything from 0% firsts to 35% firsts, depending on how students have done. There are criteria for each grade level but there is still an element of subjectivity for my subject.
There has also been a push on trying to improve the teaching skills of lecturers, which may make a difference.

Absolutely. It's so wrong if you have an "old" 2:2 and are denied a post-grad or training place in favour of a "new" 2:1.

If you are that old, you will almost certainly find that the normal entry requirements are not rigidly applied. Your application would be assessed on its own merit taking into consideration your academic and employment background.

I keep trying to persuade my DSes that my ‘Desmond’ from the 1980s is equivalent to a 2:1 nowadays. I did spend time in the bar but I worked hard for my exams. Their father, (my exH) did get a 1st though. It was so unusual you tended not to ever mention it as it would be taken as awful bragging!

But the overall cohort of people currently going to university cannot be more academically bright than the 10% that went to university in the 70s as DH did. Some courses such as Engineering haven’t changed that much in terms of dedication required. Changes in core subjects have happened, of course, but not the intelligence or dedication of the students required. It must be the case that the 30% of extra students now at university (of course there are overseas students too) are not as bright as the 10% going 40 years ago but the current students seem to get much higher grades.

Some universities according to the Times do discount lowest marks. They do bump up grades at the borderline and they discount poor grades in core modules. So you get an inflated number of firsts which lots of employers discount. Neither do they make a good employee on every count! Firsts really are no measure of intelligence (friends DD has one from an old poly - CCC at A level and 18 marks off a Bucks grammar place with 103 score back in the day). Getting a job means more skills are often required.

Firsts really are no measure of intelligence so the same could be said of top achieving A Levels and GCSEs then? A lot has to do with putting in hard work whatever exam you're taking!

@NewModelArmyMayhem18

Firsts really are no measure of intelligence so the same could be said of top achieving A Levels and GCSEs then? A lot has to do with putting in hard work whatever exam you're taking!

I think the point may be that whereas A levels are standardised and moderated, there's no such control over what constitutes a First at each different uni and course nowadays (not sure if there ever was but there was less diversity of courses back in the day).

I think the point may be that whereas A levels are standardised and moderated, there's no such control over what constitutes a First at each different uni and course nowadays

There should be if the external examiners are doing their job/being listened to. However, examiners are often drawn from other institutions at a similar level so there is likely to be be some disparity between those at the top and bottom of the rankings.

I just got a first. It was not handed to me on a plate.

Sorry if you didn't get one. Ffs.

All my friends’ DC got Firsts this year. I think kids these days work harder than we did.

@bottleofbeer Congratulations! Ignore these people who are saying it’s easier these days. It isn’t.

Thanks love x

No modules are dropped and borderline grades are only tipped over if the majority of modules were in the higher class.

But I'm totally sure your 1980s 2:2 is worth the same. You keep telling yourself that.

Well done bottleofbeer that’s excellent!

My0My your post is extraordinary, full of generalisations and your final point about your friend’s DD is just unkind. Maybe she hit her stride in her ‘ex-poly’(!). I’m guessing you just watch others like a hawk to check your superiority isn’t under threat.

@PhoneLock

I think the point may be that whereas A levels are standardised and moderated, there's no such control over what constitutes a First at each different uni and course nowadays

There should be if the external examiners are doing their job/being listened to. However, examiners are often drawn from other institutions at a similar level so there is likely to be be some disparity between those at the top and bottom of the rankings.

There's a really widespread idea that universities are unaccountable institutions which just do what they like and make up their own rules - this might be what it feels like to students (which is a shame) but it's not true. One of the Office for Students conditions of registration is 'The provider must ensure that qualifications awarded to students hold their value at the point of qualification and over time, in line with sector recognised standards'. It's pretty clear that there has been sector wide inflation - but the fact it's sector wide (contrary to what a lot of people have claimed, it isn't an post-92 problem, the proportion of firsts has increased hugely at the 'top' institutions) actually shows that it isn't just the result of individual universities making up their own rules and that there is some degree of comparability in standards, even if those standards have changed over time.

Bit of hyperbole there bottleofbeer! I don’t think anyone is saying a 2:2 from the 80s is worth a first today, but maybe a 2:1?

The university I work at really pushes “positive marking”.

The students getting Firsts on the course I teach on would be getting Thirds or low 2.2s in “the real world”. I feel terrible as once they progress into careers, they have a huge shock coming their way. I think it would be better for the “reality check” to come whilst in the safety net of university rather than from prospective employers.

It’s a mid-range university.

Very early 90s, popular course statistics.
0.3% 1st
16% 2.1
Definitely lower than currently. Most people on the course had mostly As, few Bs at A level, before A* existed, and no modules.
I think we just have to accept that it's changed, and the two systems can't really be compared.

Of course there is grade inflation, everybody know that. If unis only took the top 10% ability wise 50 years ago and are now taking the top 50% then the number obtaining top grades now would have to be tiny for the standard to be the same.

Grade inflation affects A levels as well because I constantly see posts on MN that BBB for example is a good set of A levels. In old money (before the A*) that would be a CCC equivalent and that would never be considered a good set of results. The few DCs I know who came out with BBB got sent to a crammer to retake but on MN "great results".

Come on, it's a bit unfair to say that all of the "excess" 40% now going to university are all less able than those who went in the sixties/seventies/eighties/nineties/whatever.

It wasn't that in the "old days" only the cleverest went to University, but the cleverest AND/OR most middle class. Even in the early nineties when I went, I had very able friends at school whose background/family aspirations meant they just didn't see themselves as "university material" (The same goes for two of my grandparents who were very able but working class and couldn't even access the grammar school places they'd earned because of uniform costs, let alone think about university. The other side, similarly able, did go to university.)

I do believe that there has been grade inflation, alongside students working harder (on average), marking criteria being less opaque AND more students accessing university who would never have gone in the past who ARE able.

What I mean by "similarly able" re my grandparents is that, as a child, they all came across to me as bookish, informed, interesting, passionate and knowledgeable about various topics but only one set had had a higher education - both sets would have benefitted.