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?

Ex poly uni and actually it was one of the ONLY ones that didn't implement a full no detriment policy. Most others implemented them as standard. If any semester 2 modules brought your semester 1 average down they were discounted.

Mine discounted your worst 20 credit module IF it was a semester 2 module and for the full 40 credit drop (and a lot of unis drop your worst 40 in normal circumstances) you had to meet all kinds of criteria.

I think it's precisely because it's an ex poly that their policy was so watered down compared to most. Students were basically held to usual standards in one module despite no teaching. Every single year A levels are apparently easier, more people get firsts because grades are inflated.

Nope, university is just a more common route, therefore more people attend and more get the higher classifications. Oh, I've also heard that peoe with first class have no social skills or lived and breathed the degree. You can't win.

Working hard because you're not brilliant. That was very much the attitude in my day. But I would think, if you're not trying your very best, how do you know what you're capable of?

The 'style of writing' issue highlighted by CatAndTheFiddle didn't apply to many STEM degrees though. And IME for those, a first required both working hard and being, if not brilliant, then at least capable of understanding content and being able to do calculations etc which some of the cohort couldn't get their heads around.

The reason I got a first was not because I was brighter than anyone else. I was in a fair bit, and pretty well organised, my time management was ok because of prior life experience, and I worked out that it paid off to scan across subjects to look for areas where similar or related content may arise in exams. There were no firsts on my course for several years, but truthfully, it could have been achieved. Also I wasn't 18; that may have helped.

This thread has been a bit upsetting for me tbh. I've worked very hard alongside working fulltime to gain a first in psychology but reading these comments it seems like it's not the achievement I thought it was
Although the thing about psychology degrees are the good ones are all BPS accredited which means the coursework needs to cover all the society's levels of competencies, that makes me think that the degrees cant be 'dumbed down' as much as people think or they would no longer meet the accreditation?

All courses are different, and you should never doubt your own achievements. BPS competences are difficult; often competences add complexity to a course, which my generation did not have to factor in.

@Bluntness100

It’s dependent on the subject and uni, but they are more common than decades before where no one really did.

My daughter has a first in law from a Russel group and it was a very small percentage who got them, I think about ten or fifteen percent. Law is a subject which awards the least though, maths the highest.

A quarter to a third sounds about right to me.

I have a degree in law from a RG, graduated a long time ago. I think there were 8 or 9 firsts in my year of over 200 students. I wasn’t one of them. There definitely seem to be more now.

@goodbyestranger

Bluntness if all law was highly subjective it would render it useless, in the main. I think you're overstating the case. You need to be able to see the various sides of an argument in law, which is not the same thing at all as it being subjective.

This.

When I was at uni in the 90s, we all messed about, went to parties, took drugs, didn’t really work much. I still managed a 2:1.

These days, I don’t know any students who behaved like we did. All the kids I know at Uni now are hardworking and committed.

Degrees have not got easier, students just work harder these days. Hence the number of firsts.

That was sort of my point, Hermione.

90s student here, I didn't party at all. Like, at all. Had a serious boyfriend and a part time job. I went to every lecture, read every book and more on the reading list, prepared very well for every essay and exam. (Also had natural ability/flair/whatever).

I didn't think I "worked hard" because to me that was normal, what you did, the point of doing a degree. I didn't find it hard to do so and I loved my subject. Of course, I knew that other people skipped lectures and partied, but I didn't really take notice of how little work they did in comparison (I lived with two other hard studies, different courses).

I worked my arse off at Uni as did all my friends. I my final year I was studying around 16 hours a day except the days I had to go to work.

I come across quite a lot of young graduates at work all with the same degree as me and the ones who have firsts have quite often stayed at home, never had a part time job etc and the ones with 2:1s have had a wee bit more of a life. And often make better lawyers IMO as the work ethic is already there, which is not quite the same as the study ethic IME.

Whilst left wing academics should be free to explore writing styles and how a white posh male way of writing might help people in life and if that is bad or good, it does seem a slightly slippery slope particularly for some jobs. If my teacher mother could teach classes of 40 after the war and drum into them which prepositions to use when they were very little in primary school I think we can keep some standards of English particularly for jobs where it does matter.

Certainly with law if one word is wrong in a sentence the firm could face a £50m negligence bill so we just cannot allow people in who are unable to get those things right whether they are not "posh" or are so. One reason women have done so well in my profession (albeit loads drop out or drop back at baby stage) and more women than men qualify and get jobs is because it is more of a meritocracy in that subject than in some. What we could be saying to teenagers is here is a way to speak and talk and if you can learn this right way then you will have XYZ choices; not con them into thinking you can do well in careers where writing matters even if you cannot spell well or use words correctly (in whatever language is the relevant one). It has been a huge issue in law actually as there may be new professional exams and in tests BAME people did worse in the essay questions not least because a lot were not British born but foreign students so the suggestion was to make that exam entirely multiple choice to remove the "bias" against those who do not in my view have the skills to do a job which is often all about drafting in English.

The reason I was top (or almost ) at university (although I didn't get the one first of my year) was because I worked very hard and was probably fairly clever to start with too. I also graduated a teetotal virgin in 1982 so perhaps did not have the distractions many other students chose to have.

The research highlights the marking and various techniques some universities employ to award firsts. The research doesn’t imply more firsts are down to hard work!

The number of gifted foreign students might help boost firsts and bilingual ones on MFL courses with a distinct advantage over others. However the research doesn’t support hard work as being the reason why firsts have multiplied.

Hard work is subjective in its applicability to passing exams.

Aptitude for learning the material, access to information, hours available for study, even your physical and mental health will affect how much effective hard work you can achieve. One of the key skills is understanding the format and scope of the exam.

If I revise topics in depth that don’t come up in the exam I can say I’ve worked hard, but it’s all for nothing in terms of passing. My knowledge and understanding of those might be excellent but if I failed to follow the syllabus in terms of its breadth I would fail.

Back in the early 80s there were plenty of STEM students who worked very hard but couldn't achieve a first or 2:1. But that was fine - a 2:2 was perfectly acceptable if you didn't want to do a PhD and carry on to research type work.

Degrees have not got easier, students just work harder these days. Hence the number of firsts

At my institution, at bachelor level, marks for a cohort need to average 60-65%. If more students get firsts, it would have to be balanced by more students getting the lowest grades.

But I would think, if you're not trying your very best, how do you know what you're capable of?

I think it's also a very long-term ingrained snobbery about "trying too hard" or being a "swot." Comes from both sides of the class spectrum - and is used more often against girls & women ...

There used to be what was called a "Gentleman's Third" - Oxford/Cambridge as young men's finishing schools, really.

Whereas nowadays, we and the students are far more open about the values of hard work, applied effectively, and that learning difficult stuff is tough but brings rewards.

I don't think that's a bad thing. And if it brings more FIrsts, well then, so what?

In the end to be concerned more about your mark (which is a fairly random number in the larger scheme of things ie life) than being concerned about your learning - deep cognitive change - doesn't get you very far.

but reading these comments it seems like it's not the achievement I thought it was

Don't believe that, @Dazzedandconfused Instead, have a look at the posts from those of us who are actual university academics, doing the actual marking. We know what we're talking about and we know how hard students have to work nowadays to achieve First Class results.

Most of the posts here are very limited anecdata with a sample size of 1 or 2. And a huge dose of generalisation.

And for those harking back to the 1990s as a time when university was "harder" - I was involved in, and read, very similar debates about grade inflation - comparing the 1990s with the 1970s.

So some PP shouldn't be so smug.

But it is the academics and the universities who have cuased this decline in public trust so I am not sure we should listen to academics! They are the problem. The system of awarding firsts has been very lax and abused. It is not true that the low classifications have more students in them. Who gets a third these days? Do they even exist? The students awarded a 2:2 is a very small cohort.

The percentage of students achieving a first or upper second class honours qualification has increased two percentage points to 60% over the period 2017/18 to 2018/19

(Higher Education Student Statistics: UK, 2018/19 - Qualifications achieved)

Which means that 40% of students finished with a 2.2 or lower.

Gosh My0My it’s almost as if you’ve no idea what you’re talking about.

i am working hard at my degree (law) and i get mostly 68s in exams.

Whatever one needs for a first is not there and they just said its "needs original thinking" (this is the marking guide) which is hard to really see what that is.

And as a mature student (background in finance), I am more set in my thinking than others. I will be asking my academic tutor what needs to be done to get a first but guidance so far has been pretty low.

Way back in 1992, three people from a cohort of 100 got a first in my subject in my university. We knew they had the potential to get a first probably from t least halfway through the second year, and that the rest of us were much less likely to.

Thinking back, everything was a lot less transparent and, I suspect, more subjective. When I got my final results I was given my overall degree class, then a class for each element (9 in my case). so I know I got a first for my dissertation and 2:2 for one essay that I wrote as a single draft at the very last minute. But I didn't get told my marks for anything, so I don't know how good or bad my overall 2:1 was. We also were never given access to marking criteria, so had no real idea how to hit the mark, which I think is a key part of the recent increase in the number of firsts. In my day, our impression was that a 2:1 was for bright students who worked hard, but for a first tou had to have 'flair'.

Money talks. If you are paying out the sums that students do these days there is an expectation that you'll get something for that investment.

I’m not in the field, but before speaking to your academic tutor try and find some examples of what ‘original thinking’ in the context of your subject looks like, pieces of work which have been awarded higher marks. Then contrast them with your approach.
Asking for guidance is fine but you need to demonstrate that you have understood what is being challenged in your work. Rather than ‘what should I do’ you need to say ‘what are the possibilities here’.
Perhaps you just lack confidence? Coming from a different background like finance can be very useful in that you have an additional skill set.

My0My, my son got a third. I accept it must have been quite hard to "achieve" that but it was still pretty surprising even to me. Mind you the only qualification he has ever needed for work has been his driving test passed aged 17.