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?

If unis only took the top 10% ability wise 50 years ago and are now taking the top 50%

Quite a few people have said this - but it assumes that admission to university is and was entirely meritocratic. It isn't and wasn't. When much smaller numbers went to university it was also much harder for bright working-class kids to go to university. Wider university participation isn't a perfect thing but restricting numbers predominantly benefits the middle class.

Sorry, cross-post @Danglingmod - but clearly I agree with you, and you put it better than me!

The barriers to getting to university 50 years ago where much greater than ability. That’s a very disingenuous argument.

Ha, crossed posted there.

BBB is NOT the same as CCC.

The A* was added to cream off and differentiate the top 2% ish (subject dependent ) of A grades because various lobby groups wanted this. AAA is still AAA. In the worlds I move in BBB is a decent set of grades, not stellar but demonstrating good ability in the subjects studied.

That is equivalent to stating an 8 at GCSE isn't really an 'old money A*' and quite damaging.

I don't know who these people are who get sent to 'crammers' to improve on BBB. Possibly people with a sense that they are entitled to As and above in order to gain access to certain universities or courses and who think nothing else is worthy of countenance. Anyone outside of London and a few other areas and/or anyone who is not affluent, has no access to said crammers anyway.

In the worlds I move in BBB is a decent set of grades, not stellar but demonstrating good ability in the subjects studied.

I agree @Piggywaspushed. It's only on MN where I have seen people who think that anything less than an A in any subject is considered a poor grade.

The few DCs I know who came out with BBB got sent to a crammer to retake but on MN "great results"

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you there. In the real world BBB is still considered pretty decent. If you only know a few students who achieved BBB or less then your children must have gone to a high achieveing 6th form /grammar school.

The average A levels pass grade is a high C.

In the worlds I move in BBB is a decent set of grades

It wouldn't get you in to the world I move in. You'd a have to go up a bit and add some twinkly things.

*into

It’s because they went to ex-polys. That’s why a lot of ‘prestigious’ graduate employer prioritise students that have been to a Russel group. They also general expect good experience these days in addition to your 2:1.

Presumably in the world you move in phone you expect more than a decent set of grades. That doesn't mean BBB isn't decent. It means whatever word you are in is elite.

It’s because they went to ex-polys. That’s why a lot of ‘prestigious’ graduate employer prioritise students that have been to a Russel group.

Again, Russell groups are giving more firsts than post-92s. The highest proportion of firsts is at Imperial, hardly a low-ranking institution...

It’s not unkind to point out that CCC at A level should mean a first probably wouldn’t be achievable at degree level if all marking and awarding of firsts was consistent. The report talked about in The Times clearly says there are glaring inconsistencies. Hitting your stride might account for it but CCC often means not great A levels either and in the case I cited, miles off a grammar school place. So on all measures prior to university, ok but not first material. It’s that simple. There are firsts given out pretty easily at some universities. It’s in the report and I don’t think dc are cleverer. They get more opportunities and are chased up more. If we got low grades no one cared!

I meant not great GCSEs either!

It’s not unkind to point out that CCC at A level should mean a first probably wouldn’t be achievable at degree level if all marking and awarding of firsts was consistent.

That's assuming that A-level results are a pure measure of intelligence and ability, which it is well-known they are not - of course that's an element, but they also reflect quality of the school and teaching, the student's home background and support and other things that don't actually relate to ability. Children on free school meals are significantly less likely to get top GCSE and A-level grades - do you really think that's because they're less bright? Even more true of grammar school entry exams which (and I say this as a former grammar school pupil married to a current grammar school teacher) reflect the child's background as much as their ability. I went to school in Essex and it wasn't some coincidence that there was literally one girl in my year with a local, i.e. working class, accent (and she was mocked mercilessly until she learned to speak with a middle class accent, which makes me burn with shame looking back). It's, according to DH, even worse in his school now.

I actually think it's both astonishing and awful that you think you could tell whether someone was 'first material' from an exam they sat aged 11.

it might not be unkind as a wider point, but what you implied was that your friend’s daughter was not deserving of a First as in your view she lacks intellectual rigour based on her previous attainment.

I got a place at St Andrews in the 80s with ABBC A levels. That wouldn't get me a place there now. Most people got 2:2s. Only one on my course got a first. One department hadn't awarded a first for 8 years!
My daughter has just graduated with a first, and most of her friends got 2:1s or firsts. I think more do Masters/post grad study these days. Back in the day it was only the really, really academically gifted who tended to do that.

Based on knowing her since 2 year ls old! I’ve known other dc who are fantastically clever and I would expect to get a first. They were reading early. Not struggling. They were quick snd bright. No differences in background and no poverty. Just wide differences in all aspects of learning outcomes until degree. You might not like comparisons but it’s inevitable this happens when everyone knows the standards are not the same at all universities as the report says. My example was purely an example. But it’s widespread and undermines the classification of degrees. Employers suspect outcomes too. DD in question took 18 months to get a job after graduation. So everything wasn’t rosy after the degree and it’s also true that other factors contribute towards success in getting a job. It’s not all about a degree.

I agree reep. But back in the day they were great A levels. My sister got AAA at A level and her school didn’t think she was Oxbridge material! It beggars belief!

So now you can determine whether someone is first material from when they learn to read! University is really different to school since you focus much more narrowly and have so much autonomy - is it really so impossible that she hit her stride later? I've seen students who seemed quite average even in their first and second years suddenly find 'their thing' and just soar in their final year.

I wonder if a lot of people on here making assumptions about intelligence and firsts have got them themselves? Are they intelligent enough themselves to determine if one child is cleverer than another?

That doesn't mean BBB isn't decent. It means whatever word you are in is elite

Agreed

Agree - I graduated in joint honours business/mod Langs in 1995 and nobody out of my group of about 250 got a first. Pretty even split between 2:1 and 2:2 and they also gave a couple of distinctions per language for spoken skills.

DH graduated in engineering and out of his much bigger graduation group of about 400 there were very few firsts - certainly less than 10.

Having said that, the entry requirements when I applied for Uni with Scottish Highers were at least BBBB. Now they are asking for AAAB at least.

I get hauled in to do loads of grad interviews and it is very rare to see even a single B grade ( I've never seen a 2:2) so I can understand why someone with Bs at A level will take a year out to resit. For example a friend's DD unexpectedly came out of the top performing girls schools with 3 Bs, she resat and now has 3A*s. Consequently she is now studying at one of the top institutions that top employers are looking for and she has the grades to open those doors for her.

And at GCSE grade 9s are already the new A*. DD sat last year and has a few 9s but a lot of 8s which are not viewed the same way at all. DD's school which is not particularly selective only highlighted pupils who got all 9s and I was surprised and looked at the local comps and they do exactly the same. It's a competitive world, once a new top grade is introduced that is all that counts.

I teach at a 'local comp' and I can assure you 9s are hen's teeth.

The problem is you don't see your circle as extra elite.