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.

Yes there are more high grades, especially at the moment as they don't want covid to disadvantage students. However my kids worked so much harder than I did and I did ok. They did very little partying and barely had even a weekend off. They totally deserve their good grades.

15% of people went to university when I went and only a third of those got a 2/1 or higher so 5% of 21 year olds were getting a 2/1 or higher. One girl on our course got a first (in law at Manchester University) and I was top in two subjects in the last year and did not get a first.

However then and now it all pans out over time - if you aren't very good that tends to show up at work and you don't last long so I have no problems with the grade inflation and young people can only deal with the system as it presents to them year by year. Unlike "Rooby" I would say the opposite for me - I worked extremely hard in my day and I would say harder than most of my children and I graduated a teetotal virgin with law prizes.

My first was handed to me on a silver platter.

I'm being facetious, obviously.

Clearly it's looked down upon because I didn't do it 20 years ago. Bet you won't think it was easy peasy if your kids manage a first

I worked my ass off to get a 1st from a top class RG uni back in the 1980s, then went on to do a masters and a doctorate. Towards the end of my academic career I was told I was marking too strictly.

Many of the undergraduates I taught were semi literate by my standards and I don't refer to the students whose first language was not English. The grades awarded nowadays are an insult to those of us who got a 1st years ago.

I graduated in 86 from Durham . In my year group of single and joint honours for my subject there were about 60. One first, about ten thirds and the rest equally divided between 2:1 and 2:2 .

But , and I think this is critical, we mostly had no idea how to get a first . I remember asking my tutor what I needed to do to get my 2:2 essay up to a 2:1 . His answer was that it was for me to find out and that if I didn’t know instinctively then I probably wasn’t 2:1 material.

Nowadays there is a course handbook that tells you exactly what criteria you need to meet to get each grade . It doesn’t make it easier but it does mean that you know what you are aiming for ! It’s also much more motivating because you can see a pathway , unlike in the past where it almost seemed like your grade was predetermined and the marking system was shrouded in mystery.

@Peaseblossum22 you have a point there. I knew my work was of a high standard as essays etc were marked and the feedback was good (UCL). But I didn't even think of looking at criteria etc. Students these days are far more clued up

I used to be at a lecturer where the year I left 76% of students got a 1st. That was a course where 50% of their overall grade was decided by grading in placement rather than theory but even so it's crazy high.

Less people have gotten a first in the past - but all you needed was a degree to get a job. Nobody really cares whether it was a first or third.
Then everyone started getting degrees and employees started specifying a 2:2 as a minimum requirement (for top employers it’s a 2:1). Unis started not giving out thirds in response.

It’s all a giant Ponzi scheme.

*employers!

Also to add that’s when major employers started doing their own filtering (with online tests, multiple rounds of interviews etc). So again a degree doesn’t really matter except for the first sift.

There’s also unis where the majority of assessment is ‘coursework’ that isn’t very academic at all

Of course you had an idea of how to get a first! Every grade you got was indicative of the level of classification you were working at!

I was in a cohort of about 75 people. Less than 10 got firsts. Stop acting butthurt that you think they're easier to get now. I did it during covid, I have just done a masters without setting foot inside the university once.

There wasn't a sudden grade inflation even with covid safety nets. Yay you got a first 20 years ago, really, well done. And that's not me being sarcastic but just as well done to the young ones who achieved them too (I'm not a young one and don't really care how others view my classification).

We were marked really harshly if anything.

76% got a first? Really?

@everydaysablessing

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

Agree with your graph. I graduated in 1995 with my BA and nobody who graduated on the same day as me got a first. The only people I knew who got firsts were in subjects like Engineering or Maths where it was theoretically possible to score 100%.

In my whole time at Uni I don't think I ever saw anyone get over 75% for any assignment or exam. Just didn't happen.

I went to uni as a mature student and to do so I stepped off the career ladder in another profession where I found myself dis-preferred for having no degree. So I was determined that if I made this sacrifice I was going to get a good degree. I would not have been happy with less than a 2/1

Before I began the official term the uni was offering a week long course for mature students so I signed up for that. We were shown the standard of work for a 1st, 2/1, etc. I looked at the examples and knew for sure that I could write to that calibre so I aimed for a first from day one, year one. I also found that I enjoyed research and learning so much that I was considering a post graduate qualification and has asked one of the profs to be my supervisor before I even got my results.

Of course you had an idea of how to get a first! Every grade you got was indicative of the level of classification you were working at!

What grades, @bottleofbeer?

We wrote weekly essays but they were rarely graded. Very occasionally, some tutors would give them a mysterious alpha/beta/gamma minus/plus type grade but no one really knew what they meant apart from alpha was better than gamma or how they related to degree classifications, and generosity in marking varied between tutors. There was no consistency. The only exams that were graded were the first year exams that you had to pass to continue, which were pass/fail/distinction (and there were only a handful of distinctions). Tutorials were more of a debate/discussion around the subject rather than specific feedback on the quality of your written work eg structure of an argument, whether you needed more depth or breadth etc. You might get a written comment on an essay along the lines of something being an excellent point/argument or a question about whether you have considered another viewpoint or a reference for further reading, if you were lucky.

There were no assessment guides or marking schemes, just a 1 hour lecture about how to write your dissertation but a lot of that was about admin, double spacing and bookbinding requirements... No one taught us how to write a lab report or write a paper. We were just expected to absorb it from reading journals.

The first time I had any real indication about what degree classification I was working at was results day!

I did have one conversation with my personal tutor, who suggested that I should either aim for a first or a third

This was the early nineties, so not a million years ago.

And I'm sure, Cheshirecat that you could do it, or you couldn't?

I don't understand the pissing contest. Well, I got a 2:2 in 1896 so it is WAY better than your more recent first.

I also expect you didn't end up to your eyeballs in debt?

The number of firsts in Oxford has increased quite a lot over the years. And the number of 2.2s/3rds has fallen. Numbers vary quite a lot across subjects. I don't think there has been significant "inflation" though. I think the students are more able that they were 30 years ago (there is much more competition for places, so they should be) and work harder. I think on the whole tutors are more conscientious about teaching too, though that is more variable and less significant. I was a student in the early 90s and have been teaching/examining for nearly 20 years.

I remember asking my tutor what I needed to do to get my 2:2 essay up to a 2:1 . His answer was that it was for me to find out and that if I didn’t know instinctively then I probably wasn’t 2:1 material.

That's an appalling answer and I doubt a tutor would get away with that now. That's the sort of thing I mean by tutors being more conscientious.

No , but my experience was a bit like Cheshirecats there was very little guidance. I did an MA recently and the difference was was amazing.

@bottleofbeer I don’t think people are saying ii is easier but it is a fact that very few firsts were awarded. We were told that they would never award more than two firsts in a year, so most of us could have worked our socks off but those firsts had long been decided . There were no such things as mark schemes, getting a first was about a certain quality which had very little to do with how hard you worked.

@chesirecat99

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

My previous post, @bottleofbeer.

I was correcting your impression that we got any guidance on what is required for a first or any feedback at all.

I've just remembered that I had to get a copy of my academic transcript a few years ago. It's a blank page with my degree classification at the top

As Peaseblossum22 said, firsts were competitive rather than for anyone who had reached a specific set standard.

Personally, I think the current system is an improvement.

Unfortunately, I am not old enough to have escaped student loans as an undergraduate. Masters degrees were all self-funded, there were no student loans. You could get a loan for the fees (£5k) from a bank at commercial rates but you had to start paying it back 3 months after graduating over the course of 3 years.

I'm possibly just brilliant then

I'm not, obviously.

Although I admit that if I'd had to go physically searching for journals instead of having them at the touch of a button, I'd have failed miserably. I'm a lazy cow.

If you didn't know know instinctively?

What was the point in teaching then? You should have instinctively got a first.

My DS has just graduated from Cambridge with a 2:1 in engineering. He had to work extremely hard to achieve this. Most of his school friends who went to other Russell Group unis have achieved Firsts and all admit they have had to do very little work to achieve this.

A 2:1 from cambridge in engineering is amazing. But let's not pretend that just because it's RG it's in the same league.

Some people don't have to work that hard to get a first. They just have an aptitude for writing like they've got a stick up their arse.