Undergraduate grade inflation/high marks

[byrdzovparadize]

Hi

I wonder if anyone has any insight/data on grade inflation or ultra high marks at university. When I was at university (lower end of russell group) back in the 1980s, it seemed a good chunk of us got 2.2s and a first was pretty rare.

Dd has just graduated from Oxford, and in one paper she got a 73. She got an email from the very well respected tutor for that module saying what a brilliant mark that was, and it was the joint highest mark for 5 years. About 40 people take the module.

Lots of dd’s friends from school went to Swansea/Essex/Queen Mary/Brighton etc She has said she’s seen lots of people get marks in the 80s across the board. One friend got an average of 84% in her degree. From memory, this girl got ABB at a level. Good for her, she must have worked very hard.

I must admit, that there seems to be an awful lot of people who get astonishingly high marks. I can definitely vouch for my kids and say they work a lot harder than I did, so other kids must do too.

It’s not just marks either, almost all of dd’s friends at those unis have got 1sts. Not a 2:2 in sight. In dd’s course at Oxford, around 5-10% get a 2:2.

I think it common knowledge that the same course at different unis are of different difficulty and it’s easier to get a higher class degree at one uni compared to another. There isn’t any standardisation like there is between different Exam Boards at ALevel/GCSE.

Yes, but employers know so it all pans out. When I went to university only 15% of teenagers went and only a third of us got a 2/1 or higher. One girl only got a first in my degree year and I didn't despite having the top mark of the year in 2 of the 5 subjects.

These days it is more like 2/3rds get the 2.1 or higher.

Firsts were pretty special when I was at uni, quite common now.

This can seem like sour grapes, but it's simply observation. I graduated in 87 from a RG. Only one person in my ( admittedly relatively small) intake in my subject got a first. Mine was a high 2:1, and suspect would have been a first these days.

My sister has recently retired as Head of Languages at a sixth form college, and she says the standard of the A levels we took is now undergraduate level.

It's definitely a thing.

I remember talking to someone who complained that a job she might apply for required a 2:1; she didn't have a 2:1, but in her day, the proportion of the population who attended university was smaller than the proportion that now get a 2:1 or better.

It definitely has changed. When I graduated in the dark ages, on my course of about 100 students, about 8 people got a first, 3 got a third, and 2:1s and 2:2s were split almost evenly. But you only needed a 2:2 to do a PhD or get a place on a graduate employment scheme.

One of my DC has just finished a BSc. On his course, about 45% of students get a first, 50% get a 2:1, 5% get a 2:2 and no one has got a third in years. Some years, there are no 2:2s awarded either. However, given that the entry requirements are A*AA, it's hardly surprising that they get good results. From what I understand, marks on their course are based on a first being "professional standard". It seems fairer that their work is judged on its own merit, rather than ranking them within their cohort and awarding degrees based on whether they are in the top or bottom 10%, as it was when I was at college.

I've read my DC's research project, it's publishable (the marker's opinion, as well as mine), it deserves a first. Although I'm slightly miffed that I didn't get a first despite despite co-authoring a paper with my supervisor based on my undergraduate dissertation

However, given that the entry requirements are AAA, it's hardly surprising that they get good results.

Well that's another thing that's changed isn't it? When I did A-levels only the top top brains got an A, and A wasn't even a thing.
Don't they say an A now is equivalent to a C from the old days? I can well believe it.

Often external examiners encourage us to “use the full range of marks” to a greater extent
Banding/ marking systems have contributed slightly to inflation eg I’d like to award a piece of work 59, but I must choose between 58 and 62.
Often ‘near misses’ are condoned and passed anyway
I was one of two to get a first in 2000. Now my list of graduates is bristling with Firsts.

In Cambridge science degrees (from personal experience)lots of people still get 2:2s and some people get 3rds, less so in the arts. Other universities have noticed their 2:2 graduates are less employable so have fewer of them.

Don't they say an A now is equivalent to a C from the old days? I can well believe it.

I hate this assumption that our young people have it easy these days. A levels got tougher 4 years ago when they reformed them and stopped doing AS exams.

DD got AAA at A level, and worked her socks off to do so. She is working really hard at university, and currently working at a first. She took three days off during the Christmas holidays and three days off at Easter. She spent the rest of the holidays catching up with lectures, doing assignments and presentations, and revising.

Mine didn't do A levels @CherryPlumCrow but their IB coursework was certainly at a higher level than what was taught at A level when I was at school.

I'm not suggesting that my one example is representative of other courses/universities but it's a very competitive course that attracts students interested in following a more academic pathway in the field at a highly regarded university, so I stand by my argument that it's logical that most of the students would achieve at least a 2:1. More logical than the bottom 10% getting a third just because that's the way the system works, even if their work is of an excellent standard, and better than the top 10% taking the same course at another university and, therefore, awarded a first.

It makes more sense to mark degrees by professional standards rather than purely ranking the cohort to award degree classifications. It makes degrees more comparable between universities. Whether it works in practice and that is the case, I don't know, but it is certainly better than the old system where there was little equivalence between universities.

Firsts are so much more common nowadays. Some university give almost 50% firsts for some courses. When I started work with one of the big accountancy firms in the late 80s I was often referred to as the girl with the first in maths because it was so unusual.

They're just marked differently, as @AlwaysColdHands says.

The way I've heard and external examiner explain it was this: these days, graduates are competing in an international market (especially, in my subject, in the US). In most of the world, this weird system where you mark up to about 75 doesn't exist. They mark out of 100.

Yes, you can write and explain, and yes, people really ought to research what the mark scheme means, but they don't always. And it isn't easy.

I've spoken to American colleagues who genuinely did not realise that a student who got 75 in their undergrad dissertation in a UK university was a very very good student. Sure, they said, we read that you don't often award over 80, but we figured most of the good ones would be getting 80. I had to explain that whole decades could go by without a single student in the faculty scoring 80.

Are firsts from some universities "worth" more than a first from others?

It’s all pretty wasteful in my opinion. Unis now cost a lot of money so have to get bums on seats. They need their graduates to be employable. some recruiters for grad schemes will filter CVs on 2.1 and above - so there is incentive on the unis to produce more 1sts and 2:1s so more people want to study there.

Companies then have to have another way of filtering, so they start their own admissions tests (just like some unis have done for certain subjects - due to grade inflation at a level).

Maybe professional exams by industry bodies may be a way of standardising between unis?

@chopc

Are firsts from some universities "worth" more than a first from others?

Clearly, an Oxbridge/LSE/Durham/St Andrews first will be seen differently from a first in the same subject at a much lower ranking university.

@milinhas

In Cambridge science degrees (from personal experience)lots of people still get 2:2s and some people get 3rds, less so in the arts. Other universities have noticed their 2:2 graduates are less employable so have fewer of them.

Cambridge engineering has a policy (I found it a while back when someone doubted me) of capping firsts at 30% and 2:1s at 50%. Whereas quite a few other engineering departments now awards more firsts than that. Those may still have pretty high entry tariffs but not as high as Cambridge (minimum A stars in physics and FM plus another A) .

Dd1 has been awarded a first from Oxford and dd3 (Bristol) will find out tomorrow what her degree classification is. Dds hardly know anyone from any university who hasn’t scored a first or a high 2:1 this year.

We don’t cap marks, but the mark for any given undergraduate cohort has to average 62% (ish) any lower or higher than that without a valid explanation is very likely to be scaled so that does average 62%. The expected average is higher for masters students.

Are firsts from some universities "worth" more than a first from others?

Yes. Not just firsts either.

Yes, lots of 2:2s on my course and only one First! I was actually one mark off a First and was advised to appeal but that would have meant missing the graduation ceremony and I decided that was more important to me!

I’ve just graduated with the OU.

For one of my history modules it gave a breakdown of the cohorts marks.

1st- 12%
2.1- 43%
2.2- 29%

The other module didn’t give a breakdown so I don’t know if that’s standard or not.

It's because higher education is a buyable commodity these days. Got to keep the customer happy.

There were around 70 people on my course in a Top10 uni in the mid 1990s. Only 4 were awarded a first.

I was in a group of 12 on my course in the 80s - no one got a first. I was top of the group and had a viva as I was borderline first, but didn't get it.

My brother got a first mind you, and from Cambridge to boot. not jealous at all

Yes, there are more firsts now.

I was the only one in my friendship group to get a first a couple of decades back - the rest mostly got high 2.1s.

But ... when I compare the level of feedback we got with what students get now - we got a few tricks and question marks and an illegible half sentence. Information and scholarly literature - we spent far more of our time tracking it down. My first years read material we wouldn't have touched until much later. And there's more transparency to module aims, marking etc. More teaching too I'd say.

I'm sure my friends would have produced the (only very slightly) stronger work needed now to achieve first class degrees, in today's conditions.