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?

No because "elite jobs" are just jobs to me, they are the jobs that I do, my family and friends have and that my DCs expect to have. In order to do so they know they need to get good A level grades and go to a good uni, BBB won't get them there.

I'm sorry but if you can't work out that your life experience isn't universal then perhaps it's the value of your academic qualifications that need questioning? My social circle also isn't average in terms of income, education, etc. - but I know that this is the case because I do things like read the news, rather than just insisting that my own experience must be typical and normative.

@Loveinatimeofcovid

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.

thats what i was trying to say

I applied for various law degrees last year, Russell group down to somewhere calling itself an Institute.
Russell group wanted AAA to get in, the insitute wanted CC really

Now, if i went to the Institute, the students there are naturally less academic than the Russell group? but if the top 10% of them still get a first, it is in no way comparable to the Russell group first.

They pretty much said it would mostly be assisted coursework to help us get best results, over exams.

So whilst i'd expect firsts from RG one's to be fairly similar standard, i would not expect it to be the same as ones at the bottom of the ranking tables, who have much lower performing students.

Sigh. The proportion of firsts at each institution isn't fixed - which is why Imperial gives out the most firsts in the country. Universities do have external scrutiny of their standards, though it isn't a perfect system. And the Russell Group is one of the most successful marketing tricks of all time but there isn't actually anything inherently different about a Russell Group university.

but are you saying a person getting a first at my example Insitute (where most people apply with CC) would also get a first at say Imperial (if they were allowed in)?

I am very aware that I live in an elite part of the country and that we are very wealthy - no need to tell me!

But the point I was making is that getting BBB at A level isn't great grades, it closes doors and closing those doors has consequences. Just over 25% of A level entries were A*/A last year, BBB means that someone falls into the second quartile across three subjects. That is why anyone looking to recruit amongst the top performers will require higher grades and restrict their graduate entry to the universities demanding them. That isn't just law and banking but other competitive areas like engineering.

I work in Fin Serv and I asked HR recently why I always interview grads from the same small set of unis as I suspected some kind of conspiracy theory. The answer was simply that they are the top unis for the subjects they want to recruit from and they attract the best students with the highest grades.

@burnoutbabe - I understand your point but I think many will willfully misunderstand you. Give up!

What about the students with AAA who go to a mid ranked Uni/ex-Poly for personal reasons? Mature students, students with caring responsibilities, students with anxiety disorders or ASD (like my son)? Do they not deserve to graduate with a First because their Institution, on average, takes students with BCC? There are very, very able students even at the lower ranked places, you know.

Ah, our lovely meritocratic education system where results and outcomes are the result intellectual capacity, ability and good old hard work.

@Danglingmod there are many people as you describe in my University. There are people on my course who indeed have AAA at A-level and mature students who could have certainly gone to 'better' universities. The only problem is they don't offer the course. I'm studying to get into a profession that you need the degree in. My university was never going to compete with the likes of RG universities so offer far more accredited vocational degrees. I'm working my arse off to try and get a first.

Good luck to you, Northernsoul.

I do feel (in his behalf - ds doesn't care so much) that it's important my ds gets a first if he can, because anything "less" from his university will not be judged well in the wider world. (Ds cares in an academic attainment sense, rather than a career progression sense, I should qualify.)

I asked HR recently why I always interview grads from the same small set of unis The answer was simply that they are the top unis for the subjects they want to recruit from and they attract the best students with the highest grades.

And they would miss people of the calibre of SG who is leading the Oxford COVID vaccine programme and Paul Nurse Nobel laureate.

People don’t always have the advantages or motivation to be early academic achievers.

My firm is not and has never been looking for medical people so we haven't missed out because we wouldn't be interested in either of them and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be intersted in us.

I have no idea why it is difficult for people to understand why companies focus on the top universities for graduates. Recruitment is very time consuming and consequently expensive. Companies want the best and the brightest and concentrate on the areas that will yield the best candidiates. There will always be exceptions and some people will work there way up the system whereas others may crash badly in the world of work, but the system of taking those most academically successful to the age of 21 is still the norm. I think it was Xenia posted recently that law tried to go admissions blind but they just ended up with even more Oxbridge candidates.

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

Agreed here too.

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

This ^^

I have no idea why it is difficult for people to understand why companies focus on the top universities for graduates

The snobbery on recent posts on this thread is depressing. I have no idea why it is difficult for some people to understand that not everyone aspires to work in the City in a law firm/banking/financial services or other company where they swindle the public out of a lot of money

Because not all companies do. Most want the best person for the job. You don’t need a top degree to be a copywriter for example. Should all the students with BBB and 2.1s just give up and be pickers in an Amazon warehouse?

I've always thought exactly what Sendsummer has pointed out: that the world of science is far more open minded to people. It makes little sense to judge people purely on how they were at age 18.

Suspect engineering is similar. The issue with law is that far too many people want to get into I.

And conversely, people with AAA or better with firsts from the top unis may well want to be public servants, creatives etc on not stellar pay or kudos because that's what they want to do. It does not mean they are wasting their brain power or potential.

The highest proportion of firsts is at Imperial, hardly a low-ranking institution...

Ah, but that's okay, because if you go there, you must be awfully clever and therefore it's a bit of a let down if you don't get a first, though?

Where you see snobiness I see inate chippiness.

Grad recruiters are looking to fill spaces on a 3 year programme at the end of which most will have found inhouse roles. Companies need the grads who will perform during that 3 years. It isn't the only time people are recruited, roles are filled at all levels all the time so anyone who develops later in life may end up being recruited at an older age to a much more senior role.

And the idea that any company recruits looking at very long term potential went out the window a long time ago. Young people job hop, they take time out to travel etc and do everything people my age were told isn't permissable. Nobody can afford to recruit a young person thinking they will develop in 15 years time, they will be on their 5th job by then.

I suspect a lot of the posters on this thread are govt employed and have no idea of the business world.

Most are teachers or academics. Definitely not in the business world. And, yes it does matter about general intelligence for engineers. They may well be interfacing with clients, pitching for work and writing reports. They need a variety of skills. Not having a good basic education holds anyone back. Being a late starter at university cannot make up for it.

I think you will find top scientists including SG are very much aware of the private sector having worked in and with them. They combine research and commercial skills. Ditto for engineers, tech innovation etc etc.

IMO a narrow view of talent is self perpetuating for a sector. Of course it is the easiest path for recruitment just as it is for university entry.

I can think of a lot more rewarding ways to use intelligence than financial services - how tedious.

@Danglingmod

What about the students with AAA who go to a mid ranked Uni/ex-Poly for personal reasons? Mature students, students with caring responsibilities, students with anxiety disorders or ASD (like my son)? Do they not deserve to graduate with a First because their Institution, on average, takes students with BCC? There are very, very able students even at the lower ranked places, you know.

Yes, some will deserve a First. But they deserve a First which would be judged by employers as being on a par with that from a higher ranked uni. Grade inflation actually does a disservice to such people.

I have a very clever friend currently being an MA as a mature student - sure she's going to get a first (from a post-92 university). She is easily clever enough to do equally as well at a RG university.

People who are super monied and work in finance aren't really elite they just throw money at everything. Easy to get top grades at school, top universities and the best opportunities when you have every financial advantage.

doing rather than being it's been a long day

I suspect a lot of the posters on this thread are govt employed and have no idea of the business world.

I don't disagree with some of your points cakeisalwaystheanswer, but I'm not government employed. I work in the privare sector and I understand how business works. Not all roles require graduates with 4 A* at A level and a 1st class degree. We would end up with too many chiefs and not enough Indians. We need Indians as much as we need chiefs.

I can think of a lot more rewarding ways to use intelligence than financial services - how tedious.

My workplace are currently supplying shit loads of PPE to the emergency services, governernment bodies and other public bodies. As a team we feel that we are doing our bit, and we are all going over and above our normal remit because we want to (and we want to keep our jobs). I feel that we are being more of a service to our country than some wanker banker who gets a seven figure bonus at Christmas for just doing his/her job.