Degree grade matters more than university reputation

[thing47]

Did anyone see the report out today from The Institute of Fiscal Studies regarding the importance of getting a good degree versus which university you attended? It makes an interesting adjunct to the ongoing discussions around the importance of attending Oxbridge or an RG university.

The headline news is that getting a First or a 2.1 from a lesser known university is better financially than getting a 2.2 from a 'top' university. Degree grade is the most important thing. The authors of the report suggest this means that we shouldn't be too hung up on which university our DCs attend.

Of course the devil is in the detail (isn't it always), so in some subjects degree grade makes very little difference whereas in others it makes a huge difference. It also won't surprise any of us to learn that women who get a First don't earn substantially more than those who get a 2.1, but men who get a First do. This is partially (but not totally) explained by career choice and the fact that most of us stop, at least temporarily, to have children.

Yes, this was in the Times today, I saw it. Interesting.

well

there is a huge difference between getting a 2.1 at one of the bottom of the 150 UK universities and say 2.2 at oxford.

There is probably not much difference between the places around 20-50 on the list, so there a 2.1 is better than a 2.2.

And someone with A level results that are all As is very unlikely to attend somewhere at bottom of the top University list (and vice versa)

(and things like medicine it probably doesn't matter at all where you go, as that is more regulated)

Did it say if what your degree is in made a difference?

In the Times there was a chart and yes it had the different subjects in there...would share but is behind a paywall.. there was a difference in the subjects yes, less difference with Education and English overall, Economics and Law had the most difference...but overall the same pattern as mentioned in the OP.

It seperated Russell group, more selective and less selective. I expect more info can be found online...

@burnoutbabe not from 2013.

Large graduate schemes select people by computer and now hide the names of insitutions for social mobility reasons.

However if you were going for a role in a smaller firm then "yes" the institution you went to would matter as lots of them recruit directly from particular universities.

I don’t reckon it’s as they say. I’m a teacher and every year we get a list of the degree classes gained by our students. One of the dimmest girls I ever taught got a 1st from Oxford Brooke’s whereas one of the brightest got a 2:1 from Oxford. When we recruit we look at the University before the grade. It’s much harder to get a first from a top flight university. There’s also been huge grade inflation over the years so a first means less now.

I think it depends on the course, I know employers preferred my specialist degree from a specialist university than those with the equivalent from Cambridge (which would be Land Economy). I don’t know anyone who didn’t have a good job offer on my course before March in their final year, the jobs weren’t conditional on final grades.

www.theguardian.com/education/2022/apr/20/degree-grade-matters-more-than-university-reputation-report-finds

“But that being said, many graduates who get a 2.2 from a highly selective university might have got a higher-paying job had they attended a slightly less selective university and got a 2.1.”

^^
Basically they are comparing the very top tier of universities vs the next tier, not vs universities languishing at the bottom of the tables

I work for a global corporate finance company and our graduate recruitment is blind so there are no details of the school or Uni the candidates attended. Seems to be working well.

In the guardian?

Interesting and I think the take home is not to get a 2:2.

Are they suggesting that those that are not elite academically should hedge their bets by going to an ex poly rather than an older university as getting a 2:1 is simpler? This goes against an ethos of striving for the best you can achieve surely?

Do you look at A level grades as well @Parker231?

Yes - A level grades are required in the initial application form. The candidates then take an online test, if successful attend a day long group session with observers, if successful it’s then a one to one interview with a senior Director in the country you have applied to and then the final hurdle is an interview with a Partner in the firm.

@mids2019 you can read the report here - ifs.org.uk/publications/16031

Also remember that not every university does every subject. So while you may be better off going to a lower ranking uni if you are doing Economics so you can get your 2:1 or First, not every uni does more niche subjects like Computer Games Design.

I’m really shocked that you get a list. Do the pupils agree to it upfront? Otherwise there is a data privacy issue, surely.

I'm surprised that in teaching you'd look at the university as teaching courses are often at the more vocational universities surely.

Many of the top employers have moved or are moving to applications which don't have details such as university, the gender, or name to get rid of bias so it doesn't surprise me at all.

As for it makes a difference as seen by pupils results actually no some really excel once they find their specialism. I was a C grade A level student, 2.1 at degree, distinction at masters level. It's pretty common as is those who did amazingly at A levels to fo worse at uni!

It also mentions 'at the least selective' as well...

Just checked the Times tables- it separates them into 4 categories-

Most selective Russell group
Other Russell group
Other (most selective)
Other (least selective)

I think this report is flawed. Very few get a 2:2 from the best universities. It isn’t rocket science to think they might have been better off going elsewhere. I’ve seen a young man with a rare 2:2 in maths from Cambridge get a grad job. Took a year. He’s doing well now and sometimes things go wrong at university. I still rather suspect his mathematical brain is pretty good! As 2:2 grads are often excluded from grad employment schemes, is it really surprising they earn less? It’s not in my view.

Where employers know A level results, they get a heads up on how good an applicant might be. Tests confirm it. Or not. There is evidence the brightest do best. The IFFS reported several years ago that not all courses and universities are equal and now that a 2:2 is problematic. I think most of us knew that.

They use as baseline an upper second in the 'least selective' category and then compare this to the other groups and degree classes...concludes that "Those who got a 2.2. from selective university would mostly have been better off with a 2.1 from less selective one"

I haven't had the time to do a deep dive into the report yet, but at first glance the research looks pretty robust to me, and I used to work in educational research. The sample size is reasonable, lots of work was done to eliminate extraneous factors so it could compare apples to apples as it were so I don't think we can just dismiss the report out of hand.

As ever, there are caveats but I think the conclusion that someone who got a 2.2 from, say, Bristol might possibly have been better off getting a 2.1 from the University of West England is an interesting finding, and certainly worthy of further study.

In my experience, it is rare that a student works consistently and diligently with no complex issues throughout a 3 year degree and comes out with with a 2.2. The students who get a 2.2 are the ones who did not study / didn't submit their work / didn't show up to tutorials etc. This could be if they are lazy, but also if they have healthy issues or are having to work too much to pay their way or any number of complex family / emotional issues.

So it is hard to say that a student who got a 2.2. at Uni A would have definitely got a 2.1 at Uni B. It could be that that particular student did not have the work ethic and/or circumstances to get a 2.1 anywhere.

How strange, I'm really surprised by that.

lots Of people got 2:2 and some third when I was at uni. A first was something rare. degrees without honours were also more common.
I do think this has changed measurably in recent years. Was this research in mixed age groups?

Quick google shows in 1995 7% got first, 34.8% 2:2. In 2020 was 35% first and 15% 2:2. So basically above anything else it pays to have done your degree recently!