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?

Just to be clear , my own children would be classed as advantaged now and they definitely are and I hope they are aware of it .

Universities generally took the richest, most privileged kids. That isn't the same as ability

Educational advantage maps onto socio-economic advantage from the age of about 3, according to the Sutton Trust (a major charitable research organisation for widening participation in HE).

So much of this thread is anecdata, rather than data.

I started teaching in HE at one of the top universities in the country (the top for my discipline) where I had older colleagues who had a rule of thumb that a First was only awarded to written work which was publishable.

There was some interesting research done in the Department of History at the Other Place in the 1980s, which looked at why the First Class degree awards were dominated by men, when women showed themselves to be just as able throughout their degree studies. What emerged was a set of attitudes about what a First meant: that it wasn't just more of a 2, i but better - academic staff at the time subscribed to a view that a First Class essay or exam (in History) had a totally different quality to it - and that students either had "it" or they didn't. If they had to ask what "it" was, it meant they didn't have "it." And when researchers actually mapped "it" onto work & marks, they found that many of what were seen to be innately "First Class" qualities were as much to do with socialised tendencies in styles of writing, rather than good solid historiography. The "good solid" work was seen as always being 2, i and never possibly ever First Class.

Things have become more sensible - we have published criteria for our grade boundaries, and specific assessment criteria. Students know what they need to do. Some of them pine for Firsts but don't get them. But we are transparent about what it takes, we can help them get there, and we can tell them why they don't get there.

As I said waaaay upthread, it is a perfectly reasonable observation to make that in past years, we were consciously and unconsciously under marking students - and I've explained some of the mechanisms by which this happened.

That older style of examining advantaged rich white boys, indubitably.

And look where rich white boys have got the UK in the last10 years ...

CatandtheFiddle that is a really interesting post and reminds us that the judgement of what makes a First is culturally contingent and that would be even more pronounced in the 'good old days' of the 80s and 90s some posters seem to be harking back to as the acme of meritrocratic judgement.

I apologise Peaseblossom I misunderstood your post.

I'm amazed by the number of posters on here confidently pronouncing on whether their daughter, son, friend's child and so on's dissertation was 'really' a first or not - based, presumably, on their own memories of what their own dissertation was like. Staggering that people think they can judge quality in the same way that lecturers who read the students and mark many dissertations year after year can do.

There is a bad case of rose-coloured glasses affecting this talk of HE of yesteryear. Loved @Sarahbeans' honesty in saying:
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 wonder how many of the posters on here might find the same, if they looked?

@CatandtheFiddle is absolutely right. Firsts have historically been awarded in a way that fits in with all sorts of preconceptions, and that wasn't always clear. But that doesn't fit the 'good old days' narrative.

'good old days' of the 80s and 90s some posters seem to be harking back to as the acme of meritrocratic judgement

My 'good old days' go back to my time as an undergrad starting in 1977, and my subsequent30+ year (very successful) career as an academic.

I was taught in the final year of my History degree (I did a second degree alongside that one) by someone who indeed reserved his A+ for essays he considered publishable.

When I first started teaching (at a leading place for my discipline), an older colleague told me that 80% was a mark one might give once or twice in a career.

Nowadays, we have clear criteria for the gradations of a 1s, and these are designed so that 80% is achievable by exceptional students. And there are some very able, clever and interesting undergrads about. They are exceptional and we reward them as such.

I agree. The one boy I taught recently to get an A* in Lit A Level , which is still hard to do, basically taught himself to write like an arrogant white male ( which was , in truth what he was!Although without some of the in built privileges). This is partly a problem with the subject . I got a first in a paper I ' faked my way through by writing how I thought they wanted me to. I rather enjoyed the intellectual challenge, but it is still about how you navigate a system. Said boy never even read one of the books. The girls found him frustrating but I did respect his innate intellect and his chutzpah.

I haven’t RTFT (I know...) but I recently graduated with a First in Maths from the OU.

To get this I had to achieve, in the last year alone, 2 modules with a distinction out of 4. To get the distinction you had to achieve an average of 85% in your assignments AND at least 85% in your written exam in one of the modules, and the other at least 85% in your exam with no consideration to your assignments. If I managed that, I then I had to average a certain mark across the rest of my modules (around 70% from memory to allow for an odd bad module) to be awarded a First overall.

It was a huge task to do this and something I’m still incredibly proud of as I know how difficult it was to achieve.

Well done lemon squash. I think one of the biggest changes is the clarity given to students now. We were definitely flailing in the dark! No criteria for work, no grade boundaries, hard to get materials because no computer access! Those things must surely be considered an improvement.

(Although on white posh men the only person to get a first in my year in law was female and not posh and I was pleased to come top in tax and get a prize as most people taking that option were male! )

That’s brilliant Lemon, it’s a long haul, you must be jubilant!

DoctorDoctor - I agree. I reread my dissertation and other essays a while ago and, whilst I stilli deserved my degree class (my ideas were original), my ds definitely writes better, with similar originality of thought.

@CatandtheFiddle that's a very interesting post. I got a first in 1994 and I had to put up with a few catty remarks that I'd only got it because I'd worked harder than others. That didn't bother me to much because at least I could say I'd done my very best. Your post has made me think it wasn't just down to me working harder.

The girls found him frustrating but I did respect his innate intellect and his chutzpah

But this is socialised behaviour which (surprise surprise - not) benefits boys/men over girls/women. I'll bet your female pupils read all the books, had practised their essays, had their passages and quotations and their close readings.

That was what Cambridge found: the young female undergrads were the "good, solid" scholars. The young male undergrads wrote with chutzpah & verve - young men tend to get more Firsts & more 3rds because of that ...

I'd only got it because I'd worked harder than others

You'd only got it because you worked harder??? That is the thinking behind the "A First means a special & different kind of brain"

I'm pleased that now those students who work harder in an appropriate way (sometimes effort sadly doesn't equal achievement) are rewarded - none of this snobbery about working hard because you're not brilliant.

As if brilliance is effortless. It very very very rarely is.

I'm not brilliant in that "genius" way. I work very hard, and I get excellent results from that. Where I am brilliant is having done the groundwork, I can push & push my ideas, and also recognise a new idea as significant, and run with it.

And that's what gets young people a First nowadays - as well as the sustained excellence that LemonSquash talks about.

In a system where more & more assessment is continuous and cumulative rather than sudden death exams at the end of the final year, hard consistent sensible and focused work is what students have to do.

Oh, absolutely cat : well aware of that!

Incidentally in schools, girls now do better than boys in all A Levels (although I think the trend was revered last year), and now also at degree level I believe : which probably also suggests a harder working group moving through and being rewarded.

And yet.. all the concern is schools is channelled into male underachievement. How dare those girls overtake them , eh !?

Oh, and if anyone is interested , he didn't go to university.

@CatandtheFiddle I got a starred First at Cambridge in the early 90s (there were something like 8 firsts among 100 or so students). I was very aware at the time of the "men work less hard, take risks and get firsts or thirds, women are the good solid students who get 2.1s" stuff. I always rather felt I'd let the side down and not been very sisterly getting that starred First. I also considered my degree as mainly a lucky product of being able to write in a particular style that pressed the right buttons, and valued it accordingly which is maybe a pity.
If more Firsts are given now, more transparently, that is on balance a good thing in my book.

So you think 40% firsts is ok? That’s the level at some universities on some courses?

I studied a niche subject at a top uni, graduating in 1995. It was a small department and there were approx 25 students in my year. Only 1 first was awarded and it was well deserved by the chap who got it, he was very bright and also worked extremely hard throughout the three years we were there. Firsts were seen as very hard to achieve and I never for a moment would have considered myself "First" material, no matter how hard I worked, I just didn't have the "X" factor to make my grade extra special. I was very pleased with my 2.1 though and it was considered a good achievement.
The remainder of grades across the year were roughly fifty/fifty 2.1s and 2.2s. I think there may have been 1 third.

I know several young people who have graduated recently with Firsts. I think Firsts are the new 2.1s.

Oh, and if anyone is interested , he didn't go to university. Wow. What has he ended up doing @Piggywaspushed?

Not sure now but he had disdain and contempt for university. He had some 'interesting' political views as I am sure I will come across him saying something awful somewhere at some point!

He was aiming for civil service fast track type thing which apparently had some non uni recruitment.

To be honest, I spent most of the time rolling my eyes and trying to get him to stop slagging off a book he hadn't read!

He sounds perfect for Mr Cumming’s schemes and plans Piggy

I’d have had some concerns about him to be honest, some of those behaviours sound pathological.

Yes, definitely a Cummings type!

Perfectly pleasant though , honest! Not rude or nasty!