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?

Good for you @Ginfordinner.

I have family members with Oxbridge degrees and three in one family with three firsts amongst the siblings from post 92 universities. Proud of all of them. The Oxbridge ones are in a league of their own but actually DP (who went to a post 92 many moons ago) is one of the cleverest people I know.

I got a first many years ago, as a single parent. It was bloody hard work, though made easier by the constant babysitting, and a welcome change from nappies. Luckily nobody told me it was vulgar.

Well done @onlinelinda - I have one too . Just worked very, very hard and found a degree I loved!

I graduated late 1990s. In my degree, one person got a first, 25 got a 2i, 33 got a 2ii and 2 people got a third. I know this because I found my copy of the paper list that was pinned up at uni the other day and just counted them.

So for my degree that works out as:

1.6% first
41% 2i
54% 2ii
3% third

But to those who have read dissertations recently and were surprised at the low quality. A few months back, I dug out my undergrad dissertation (I got a 2i for it) and was embarrassed at just how dire it was. I was going to show it to someone because it was on a topic that is still relevant and the person was really interested in that area and wanted to see it, but I really couldn't show it to them. It wasn't great!

newmodel and Linda*, one of my tutors told me the genuinely cool people got firsts and thirds and everyone else was just ordinary. The outliers were the spectacular ones. So that makes you spectacular.

Me, I got my 3 As at A level (well, CSYS which are even harder..) in the late 80s , which apparently makes me some kind of genius today and I'm still a lowly public sector worker.

Me, I got my 3 As at A level (well, CSYS which are even harder..) in the late 80s , which apparently makes me some kind of genius today and I'm still a lowly public sector worker. You are clearly an example of someone not motivated by money (I'm not either!) @Piggywaspushed. And well done to you. In the days when 3As was very, very, very unusual indeed (even at highly selective schools!).

BTW best example of a humble person with a big brain was someone I knew of through two really close friends. He had a first in Classics from Cambridge! Nuclear scientist? No. Investment banker? No. Lawyer? No! Teacher? No! He was and possibly still is a postman!!!!

In my year (Manchester, law) one person got a first only and only 15% of people went to university (I graduated in 1982). I was top in two subjects in the whole year and won prizes but still did not get a first. They often did not award any first at all actually. My first job was conditional on a 2/1 which I did get so that was fine. Today more people go to university and there are more firsts so employers tend to have to try to narrow things down a bit.

I think it remains the case in law that you should have at least AAB in good A levels as a starting point and at least a 2/1 from a decent place (and the firms want all your marks in all 3 years when assessing your application) plus much else.

I got AAB in 1979 and that was the best in the school with most people not going to university. Neighbours were coming up in the street saying I should take a year off and do Oxbridge (I didn't try that). However I did want to earn a fair bit of money so made choices accordingly - read law, did business law, came to London, always worked full time etc etc

In fact 1982 graduation was a bit like 2020. In 1982 we had 3 million unemployed in a population about 10m fewer than today and it was the highest for 50 years. In 2020 due to covid 19 we are nearly up to 3m again. Plus ca change.

Me, too, Piggy (4 As and a lowly public servant). I can brag on t'internet.

This story is semi-outing.

On graduation day, just before the ceremony when you could read in the little booklet what everyone on your course (and the whole faculty) had achieved, at least three people on my course came up and said "Well Done. I didn't know you were going for a First..." (or trying for or similar).

I was a little flummoxed. I didn't "go for" or "try for" anything, just applied myself as well as possible to every essay or exam. I didn't understand the concept of aiming lower than your best. I'm not massively driven in life generally but was definitely confused by this - why would you "aim" for lower than an A or a First?!?

They were not aiming for lower. They just accepted they wouldn’t get a first. The vast majority used to think a first was unattainable as the stats clearly show from
Posters. Therefore people who worked, worked and did more work were seen as going for a first. It just wasn’t available to the vast majority! And they knew it so chilled a bit.

My DDis got AAA in academic subjects at A level in 1992. Grammar school and one of two who got this on the “Arts” side. Science A levels usually mustered a few more, but few students got AAA at A level.

1992!!! Aaah 1982. We are quite old!

I agree @Xenia that some professions - law, medicine and others I don't know about because I don't move in exalted circles, nor do I live in London or anywhere near it, require high A levela and degree grades. And so it should be the case.

I think the point that Piggy and I were trying to make is that having AAA + at A level and 1st class degrees is not the norm in the real world of work. We are just being realistic.

And before anyone thinks I have a chip on my shoulder DD achieved AAA in academic subjects at A level and so far is working at a high first in a STEM degree at university. I just hope she hasn't peaked too soon. Like you @Danglingmod she hates to do badly, and at school, anything less than an A was a fail for her.

I think there may be more firsts this year due to the 'no detriment' policy adopted by most Unis. And to be fair, it is unprecedented in terms of final exams & grades, so I struggle to begrudge the young people graduating this year into the Covid followed by Brexit jobs drought a slight grade uplift due to such terrible circumstances.

Absolutely. In fact one reason even the best highest paid law firms do not just look at firsts is they need people with a wide range of skills such as will you work all night without over time, will you not get sick even if you work 4 week ends in a row without pay, are you good with clients and loads of other things and if you just recruited from those with first you would shoot yourself in the foot. Also in m ost even high paid jobs you need a variety of people - sometimes called the finders (people who find work, good with people etc)( and the grinders who can look at tax documents for 15 hour days hardly speaking to anyone - those are extremes but most work places do need a variety of people.

I bore people by posting a link sometimes to where the best law firms recruit from in terms of university and it is a fairly wide list as they need quite a lot of people so would never just recruit eg only firsts or only people from Oxbridge.

I moved from NE England to London for work and higher pay as that mattered to me. Some of these things may change however now - if most people in office jobs can work from home you could buy a mansion in Cumbria and work "in London" in a law firm from there or may be people will instead want to walk to work in London and not commute in so inner not outer London might become more popular? Who knows....

BTW best example of a humble person with a big brain was someone I knew of through two really close friends. He had a first in Classics from Cambridge! Nuclear scientist? No. Investment banker? No. Lawyer? No! Teacher? No! He was and possibly still is a postman!!!!

This isn't thaaaat unusual, in my (very anecdotal) experience. I know someone with a Maths degree from Cambridge who works as a cleaner and security guard (though I will say that in his case I do wonder what he'd have done if his very obvious autism had ever been diagnosed and supported).

As I said upthread, I went to Cambridge and I remember being terrified before going to our 10 year reunion (which was 10 years from starting, so 7 years from graduating) because I was coming to the end of my PhD with no job to go to at that point, and my circle of friends from university all had city jobs they'd had since graduation and I thought I might feel like a failure. But actually, there were loads of us in my year who had had slightly messy starts to their career (including periods of unemployment - we did graduate in 2008, so it wasn't a great market) and who did jobs that no one would describe as spectacular, or particularly well paid. I left academia last year and now do a fairly-but-not-super senior job in university professional services earning less than £40k, which I definitely do not need my first from Cambridge to do. DH went to Oxford and is a teacher, so we're a solidly middle class household but certainly not part of the elite!

I think some people think that if you go to Oxbridge you're bound to become either super rich, a politician or something else spectacular - but 8000 people a year graduate from Oxbridge, they're not all going to become world leaders.

@TheNavigator

I think there may be more firsts this year due to the 'no detriment' policy adopted by most Unis. And to be fair, it is unprecedented in terms of final exams & grades, so I struggle to begrudge the young people graduating this year into the Covid followed by Brexit jobs drought a slight grade uplift due to such terrible circumstances.

That seems to be what's expected.

OTOH - I mentioned upthread that Cambridge engineering has a policy of awarding no more than 30% firsts (which is lower than quite a lot of other engineering courses are awarding nowadays). So caught between that, 'no detriment' and the impossibility of ensuring absolute fairness in online exams their solution is to not award any grades to their 3rd years this year, except to the very small number who aren't continuing to the Masters year (they'll be viva'd). The rest will just get their transcripts. I suppose it's a bit different because of being an integrated masters but people always talk about the bachelors grades rather than distinction/merit/pass on the masters.

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

Universities generally took the richest, most privileged kids. That isn't the same as ability - quite the opposite if you look at the 'great and good' who've been in charge aka pale, stale males who fly in, fuck up and fly out. The widening of access has resulted in the democratisation of education and has allowed genuinely talented underprivileged and working class kids to reach their full potential - often far outperforming peers who have had everything given to them on a plate, from extra tuition to a dedicated home study room, such as here digitalsynopsis.com/inspiration/privileged-kids-on-a-plate-pencilsword-toby-morris/

There's a lot of snobbery in the general debate on grades. People who graduated in the 80s and 90s were overwhelmingly middle-class. Now that ordinary kids are achieving more than they did, there has to be another way to look down on them resulting in spurious accusations of grade inflation. It's the terrible realisation that for all the advantages given on a plate, poor kids can do better, which also affects the life chances of their own children, or at least it should. Maybe the sense of superiority and privilege isn't so well-deserved after all ...

Yes , I think it is very unsettling to privileged, monied parents to realise that money can't buy innate intelligence. It can certainly help their DC get top grades but the two are not necessarily the same thing. And when working-class teenagers come into their own at university then clearly it must be because they are at what are perceived to be 'sub-standard' (I wouldn't say that myself) universities, rather than because they may actually be more intelligent (and hungry for success) than more affluent peers.

I can't stand this elitist tone which is based on 'money talking.' It is all part of maintaining a morally bankrupt status quo.

Rant over!

@NewModelArmyMayhem18 but your analysis assumes that the increase in firsts is due to more working class or first generation students getting firsts whilst the middle classes remain in the 2:2 bracket and the evidence does not support this . Firsts have increased across the board, and at all types of universities from the research led older institutions through post 1992 .

It has never been the case that a first is equal across the spectrum of higher education. The student with a first in law from Anglia Ruskin has probably worked just as hard as the one with a first in law from Cambridge University but they have started from a lower academic level and will end at a lower academic level.

The value added maybe the same but the ultimate degrees are completely different and it is disingenuous to say that this is purely down to snobbery . They are simply not comparable in terms of output.

Again with the belief that the education system is meritocratic. I wonder why you think Oxbridge have a widening participation programme?

To attract the most talented academically of course and the most talented whatever their background should go on to get the top grades . But the evidence is that is ‘as well as’ rather than ‘instead of’ as was implied by newmodelarmy .

Do you think it’s a sort of marketing campaign then? Not a recognition that structural inequality results in barriers being erected that perhaps should be examined and dismantled?

No I think it’s to address structural inequalities, I am not sure why you have inferred otherwise from my posts . My point was only that a pp had implied that the only reason people were raising this issue is because their middle class children were being displaced, I was pointing out that firsts have risen across the board. More middle class students are getting firsts as well, infact one could argue that these new firsts are still going disproportionally to the privileged and therefore are a brake on social mobility rather than an indicator of progress.

For the record I was a first generation in higher ed student at a very middle class university. One reason I did an MA in middle age was because I realise how overwhelmed I was by the experience at 18. I am a massive supporter of widening access but absolutely not at the expense of excellence.

If everyone gets a first how to you distinguish the truly brilliant from the simply well
coached. Actually in my day of very few firsts the only people I knew who got firsts were all from working class backgrounds, they were outstanding academically and truly stood out. Now they would be lost in a sea of middle class ‘Oscars and Lydias ‘ as my dh likes to say .

‘Oscars and Lydias ‘ as my dh likes to say. In our house they are Tarquins and Jocastas!