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.

@Musmerian how on earth is that list compiled, and by whom? Universities quite rightly won't even share information with next of kin without the student's permission - do all of your sixth formers supply you with the data themselves?

Also, sorry, but how sad for your Oxford Brookes graduate to be held up as an example of the shoddy assessment practices of a 'lesser' institution, rather than celebrated for her achievements. As someone else has already pointed out, some students only properly get into their stride having found the right area of study. And presumably the lack of intellectual prowess demonstrated at A level is contextual to having qualified in the first place to progress to A levels somewhere where the prestige of the candidate's alma mater is the most important thing considered when recruiting teaching staff.

Is this not playing at the edges, it’s about selective v slightly less selective, and as such some truth in it?

it’s basically saying a 2.1 from Loughborough maybe better than a 2.2 from Birmingham, it’s not saying a 2.1 from Cumbria is better than a 2.2 from Oxford.

@parietal

That is exactly my point. Decent reasonable students get a 2:1. Very few for 2:2. We know grad schemes often xvkyfe them so lower salaries are probably what will result.

@thing47
im not saying the research is flawed, I’m saying it’s comparing a very smell percentage of not very good students with much better ones. Their conclusion is obvious to anyone! The 2:2 is not a route to a decent job from any university. In addition, if a student hasn’t worked at a RG university, this report implies they could doss at a post 92 university and get a 2:1. That strongly implies that non RG universities are weaker academically. Therefore I don’t believe anyone needed this work.

@BungleandGeorge
its well known most got a 2:2 in the 70s. Hardly anyone got a first and not many a 2:1. Times have indeed changed!

@Thestagshead
its difficult to know which universities are being talked about regarding the non RG ones. Some of these universities do have competitive courses. Some have many that are not. So looking at Bath and Birmingham would be pointless in my view. But are they talking about Birmingham and Bournemouth? Or Birmingham and St Andrew’s.

As the number of firsts has tripled in 20 years, employers don’t really know who is truly the best any longer. They use their own selection methods but an easy filter is to say the 15% who get a 2:2 are excluded.

I know an anecdote is not data but my brother has a 2:2 from a former poly and earns more in a year than i have in 5 years. He's a finance director in a specialised sector. I have a 2:1 from an RG uni.

This doesn't surprise me. If you're bright and / or privileged enough to find yourself at a RG university and then only end up with a 2:2 or 3rd then I'm sorry, but something has gone wrong; you've either been unwell and not able to complete your studies to a good enough level, not worked hard enough, or simply were never clever enough to be there in the first place. So yes, degree class does matter, wherever the institution.

My DH has a 2.1 from UWE (mentioned upthread) along with a PHD from there, and is a Chartered Engineer. He's done well. Such snobbery in this site.

When recruiting, I look at what university it is, what subject and then what grade.

People who are older than 35 are not particularly likely to have a 2:1 or above, as these grades were not given out as frequently in the past.

Many 50+ candidates are likely to have done a relevant HND from a local former polytechnic or technical college, and may be a far better match when it comes to the specific needs of the position

The insistence on a 2:1 or above is indirect ageism.

@Orangesandlemons77
UWE is a former poly. These often had brilliant engineeing courses. That’s why course matters. A 2:1 from Uwe in engineering is better than a 2:2 from elsewhere. My DHs MD is Oxford Brookes. Becoming a chartered engineer is university blind as long as the course is accredited. DH has a 2:2 and back in the day that was the mother degree. Of course it didn’t stop him doing anything and earning a lot as a chartered engineer, which he was at 24.

I also utterly disagree with the notion that it’s the richer more privileged students who get a 2:2. It’s often mental health issues that can affect anyone, students from poor backgrounds with money issues and students with other stresses that stop them being effective students. It’s not fair to say richer students are somehow failing. Drop outs are not, mostly, from this group of students.

Ahhh! Auto correct! Mother degree! Normal degree.

By “elsewhere” I really meant less competitive RG. In fact a 2:2 from a competitive RG won’t be great for grad schemes to allow a grad to get chartered.

I would say that’s largely true, a 2:2 from any university is going to get a straight rejection from most grad schemes without them even reviewing the application, having a 2:2 from Oxford makes no difference if the criteria for the grad scheme says 2:1 or 1:1.

I’ve come across a lot of people who seem to think having a 2:2 from a “top university” means the rules shouldn’t apply to them when it comes to grad schemes and grad jobs, but for every person with a 2:2 from a “top uni” there’s countless more with a 2:1 or 1:1 from “top unis” as well. Employers have to discriminate somehow.

I have a 2:1 in STEM subject from a non Russel group university, that’s in the top 50 on league tables and it’s never held me back what so ever. I was accepted onto two very competitive grad schemes, however, I’ve met a lot of people who had 2:2s from prestigious universities who were rejected outright from the same schemes. So in my experience you would be much better off with a 2:1 or 1:1 from a “mediocre” uni than a 2:2 from a prestigious one.

I can see that when applying for non grad scheme jobs where they have more time to look through applications that a 2:2 from Oxford or Cambridge might be viewed more favourably than a 2:1 from a low ranking uni, but I think overall more doors are opened with a 2:1 or 1:1 than a 2:2 regardless of what uni you studied at.

@KirstenBlest
15 years ago very many degrees were 2:1 and above. You need to go back at least 20 years to see how grades were previously awarded. The 2:1 has only come about as a grad scheme entry due to huge numbers of grads having this classification or a 1:1.

As for other jobs, of course HNDs or HNCs are valid. As are 2:2 classifications for older employees but they are not going for graduate employment schemes so the person spec would be different. Rightly so.

I think @parietal is very insightful, a 2.2 means there have been problems and challenges beyond mere student capability. So difficult of the institution may not be material.

More “anecdata”: I have a colleague whose son had mental health issues at Cambridge and graduated with a 2.2. He is still unemployed a year after graduating. It’s hard to know if these issues were created by the pressure of a big name school, or if they were destined to happen wherever he went.

Many 50+ candidates are likely to have done a relevant HND from a local former polytechnic or technical college, and may be a far better match when it comes to the specific needs of the position

This is so true. Both DH and I did HND Business Studies at the local tech. He regularly has to "explain" his lack of a degree or masters to a young headhunter, and point out that he is at the top of his industry, and only one of a handful of people in the country who does what he does........ despite not having a degree. They really struggle with the concept. One memorable one excluded DH from first cut, only to be asked by the client why they hadn't contact DH, to be told but, but, but, he doesn't have a degree!

@TizerorFizz, yes, you are right.

When I said I'd look at the uni, I meant I'd look at the uni in combination with the subject. I wouldn't assume a candidate would be better just because they'd been to Oxbridge/RG, without looking at the degree subject.
A relevant degree from a uni that is good at that subject might be a better fit than an irrelevant degree from Oxbridge/RG.

I've been going through the civil service recruitment process recently and you are specifically asked to leave the name of the university you attended off your application form. This is obvs to make the process fairer and more based on merit and interview performance. It was the first time I'd come across it.

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

When I graduated (1990s) we found out our degree class by wandering down to the Senate House where the list was posted on the wall or the gates or something for all to see - I remember meeting my friends coming back as I was going down and making "don't tell me!" squeals at them with flapping hands. How times have changed! I have a feeling they were also published in the newspaper although I may have made that up - certainly our A Level grades were printed in a booklet which we all received at our school leaving assembly, I still have it!

Actually I just Googled to see when Cambridge stopped posting up the exam results and it was 2018, so not that long ago.

The whole importance of degrees have shifted. It used to be known as getting a Desmond (2:2) it was so common but I think only 2 people got that classification on my course as a student and neither were academic and preferred to drink than make up for the lack. No one gets a third ( you aren’t allowed to fail).
I’m not sure a running technical degree matters at all. A bit like getting C or above at GCSE. No one cares as long as you pass.

This and other IFS studies looking at student outcomes have been useful. The very large samples and combined with the longitudinal aspect means that whilst some 'obvious' conclusions are confirmed, some commonly held misconceptions are dispelled. The advice given to my children at their fairly standard non-selective state school about universities, courses, Russell Group etc was crudely reductionist and often just plain wrong. So anything that ensures teachers, parents and students understand it is all a bit more nuanced has to be welcomed.

I think the most shocking thing is actually the evidence of massive 'grade inflation' across all types of university. This is the real source of the problem. Universities are given their special status because they are trusted to uphold the standards of their self-set courses and self-marked assessments. That trust and expectation has been abused. It is interesting that those courses where there remains an element of third party oversight and standard setting (eg medical, engineering, accredited chemistry degrees), then standards do not seem to vary as wildly across institutions and employers can probably have more confidence.

@PerpetualOptimist

I do think the number of firsts is a huge issue. I also agree that standardisation through accredited courses by outside bodies helps, as in engineering. My DH as a Desmond 2:2 holder is absolutely certain he’s a better engineer than many grads of today. His A level results were average too as you might expect from the 70s. The difference is thinking skills, problem solving and understanding engineering principles and considering various design solutions through knowledge. There is not necessarily a huge difference between what grad engineers are taught but apparently lots cannot apply their learning creatively to solve the problems. So DH’s company test the grad applicants in application of skills and thinking through problems to arrive at a solution . They don’t wholly trust the degrees from anywhere.

I am still in favour of a much reduced degree offering in this country and a far bigger HND/HNC type route as we had before. By all
means offer these at former polytechnics but we should be honest about what “degree standard” actually looks like and certainly awarding firsts at such high levels doesn’t help anyone. It is certainly upsetting when it doesn’t lead to a job.

A friend was also very upset when her DS with a 2:2 in Maths from Cambridge took a year to get a job. I suspect there were issues at university she didn’t know about.

Do employers class a first class degree from a high ranking RG university that requires a minimum of AAA the same as a first class degree from a university that requires BBC?

I am really surprised at this even being news! Which employer worth their reputation really gives a shit about which university their potential employees went to, over what grade they got?

I wouldn't want to work somewhere that put the name of a colleagues university solely above evidence of their ability to actually work hard (ie I'd hope they'd use other evidence of hard work to give the job too).

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

I'm assuming that poster was referring to the university where teachers had done their subject degree rather than where they did their PGCE. Plenty of non-vocational universities do or did PGCEs though - for example I did mine at KCL and dh did his at Oxford University.

I don’t think a 2.1 from a top university is equivalent to one from a lower ranking one. A friend of mine’s son’s went to Brighton and Bath Spa with one of them got CDE grades in their A levels and both came out with firsts. They had all their worst module marks ignored to calculate their overall mark and it wasn’t just one module that was discounted. My ds went to Exeter and that didn’t happen there, they were very harsh with everything. My dd at Imperial has such a heavy workload than any of her friends at other universities including Bristol.