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.

@PrincessRamone - no need to be shocked. The students offer us the information via the Alumnus association.

@MarchingFrogs - firstly the students themselves supply us with the info. Secondly the Oxford Brooke’s student may well have worked hard but iv3 been teaching a long time and can tell the difference between a slow developer and someone who just isn’t very academic. The fact is that in some less academic institutions the work is much more scaffolded and straightforward- my point is that there is absolutely not parity - not sure why you’re getting so pearl clutchy about it. Some students are just more academic than others and a first shouldn’t just be a reward for hard work. Durham University have done a study that shows how degree grades have become inflated in recent years - this is reflected in what I see. Effectively in many cases a first is the equivalent of a 2:1 30:years ago.

@MarchingFrogs - to deal with your second point of course the prestige of the Alma Mater is not the only thing we look at. However having had many student teachers and conducted many interviews over the last twenty years it is clear that some just don’t have great subject knowledge. We are an academic school with bright students and need able teachers. I follow lots of English teachers on Twitter and am often shocked by their lack of subject knowledge and the fact that many boast about the fact that they don’t read.

@KirstenBlest - absolutely. I’m 55 and very few of my contemporaries got firsts. A lower second was fine in terms of applying for jobs but that’s clearly not true for more recent graduates.

The fact is that in some less academic institutions the work is much more scaffolded and straightforward

I have heard that there is more support and "hand holding" at some of the universities that accept students with lower grades. I don't know how true this is though. At DD's university the students are pretty much told to be resourceful and get on with it.

@RampantIvy
I think it is true that students have higher expectations placed on them at the more selective universities. I notice that my DD’s former university has extended its terms. She started freshers week in early October. Teaching now starts on 26 September. The pace of learning is not the same everywhere.

It is absolutely inevitable that if a course is best accessed by students having Further Maths, but others in the same discipline, never see a student with FM, there will have to be more teaching to get to the same level as the students with FM elsewhere. Or, you just have a course that’s less demanding and has a different structure. There is always the question as to whether someone with CCC at A level and gets a first is really the same calibre as the multiple A* student at a very selective university. Employers might not think they are.

Very interesting points and observations TizerofFizz. 'Body of knowledge' is not enough; it never was but perhaps it is an easy temptation for some universities to concentrate on that rather than push students to develop skills in creative application.

Obviously it varies by sector RampantIvy but I think employers absolutely understand, in general terms, that degree classifications are not standardised across time or institution - so they often fall back on their own tests (eg major grad schemes) and/or filter by rough and ready (and most likely limiting and erroneous) assumptions about the output of certain universities vs others. It is all a mess and ultimately there are no winners when it comes to 'grade inflation'.

Something I have noticed looking at courses recently, is that one from a 'new university' with quite low grades required, mentions that it is all coursework based rather than exams. And also the uniguide site mentions 69% get a 2.1 or above..which sounded quite high (maybe not these days)

Also in my experience an ex nanny the siblings that graduated from Oxford, Durham and Edinburgh have done no better in terms of pay or opportunities than those who went to Leicester, Reading or Glasgow.
in fact the Oxford alumni was less suited to the world of work than his more interesting and socially able sister who has been a roaring success in a top London firm. Also the Leicester graduate who is earning 6 figures 8 years later in a totally unrelated field to her degree.

All other things being equal, I don't see why you'd want to recruit from somewhere where the entry requirements are Cs and Ds at A level if you could choose As and Bs.

As I said, all other things being equal and assuming no extenuating circumstances at A level.

I don't think you're comparing like with like. I suspect if they had all had equal abilities in terms of interpersonal skills, drive, emotional intelligence etc that there would have been a bigger difference.

Would all employers be aware of entrance requirements for different universities though?

Although they would have the applicants A level grades as well of course.

I suppose the main point I would take from this overall is that it's important to encourage the DC to choose somewhere that suits them?

Do they get on better with exams or coursework? Do they need more support for whatever reason (special needs, extra time in exams etc) and maybe look beyond the first universities that come to mind and broaden out to include others as well.

The point was these three different families had academically high achieving children and more average ones ( still pretty bright in fairness) . All siblings were raised the same and all privately educated, so same life chances.
As you say the individuals made the difference not the Uni ( even Oxford) or the Firsts or 2:1’s.

But that's not what we are discussing, the thread title says degree grade matters more than university reputation. I think you're saying it's personal characteristics that matter more, which I'd agree with.

Also All siblings were raised the same and all privately educated, so same life chances. you definitely can't conclude this - ten mins on the stately homes threads will tell you that siblings can have very different lives in the same family.

That of course is another flaw in the report. It cannot take account of personality, drive and enthusiasm. Personality does count for same jobs. So does being a self starter and personable. Quite a lot can be gained with these attributes. So they influence job prospects and can make up for not quite so good academic results or not a very selective university. Scarce skills will also matter.

This seems to be a very weak report. 2.2s are not good currency any more. They were ok in the 80s (although mediocre even then, but not exclusive in the way they are now for many grad schemes). It's just such a nothing conclusion. How about looking at the difference in outcomes between firsts at the different unis. Or between 2.1s? What is a 1.1 btw?!

I'm not in any way ashamed to say that when recruiting over the past decade I look at university first then class of degree to shortlist and then to inform my opinion when interviewing. But I have always kept a moderately open mind, since interviews have limitations too.

Past fifteen years to be more precise (I've been happily out to grass for a couple of years).

I received a 2:2 20 odd years back and I was thoroughly distraught. A 2:2 meant I was not eligible to apply for any graduate schemes and there were many then as there are now. After many unsuccessful job applications, I was appointed to an entry level job with a low salary and spent the next ten years trying to move on from junior roles. It really was tough.

Had I received a 2:1, I would be earning far more than I am now and be in middle management and not first level management.

How about looking at the difference in outcomes between firsts at the different unis. Or between 2.1s?

Yes, that would be far more interesting!

I think going back some years, the polytechnics concentrated more on teaching their students whereas the RG universities expected them to be able to work and research independently – this is why research quality is one of the league table metrics, research quality is actually largely irrelevant to most under-grads but it was an indication of the attitude to students. I'm not sure if that difference still pertains these days in the former polys, possibly it does.

Of course the flipside of that, though, is that 3 years of really good teaching might quite possibly bring a student up to a much higher level of knowledge (and understanding) than where they started. In such an instance, the degree grade could well be more indicative of their ability than their A level results.

So to answer your point @HHa entry requirements only tell you about the academic achievements of teenagers at A level, they don't tell you anything about the quality of the student 3 or 4 years later, or indeed the quality of the course they have taken. All the pedagogic studies tell us that educational attainment is not linear – yes you get some children who are high achievers from start to finish, but far more have peaks and troughs, often due to a whole range of personal circumstances. And of course some only start to thrive once they can focus entirely on a single subject that really interests them.

I think the report would have more credence if the Guardian didn't employ purely Oxbridge journalists (with exceptions)

With regard to Oxbridge 2:2s is it fair to exclude those grads from certain recruitment paths when they have shown themselves to be in the top 1% of academic ability at school?

Interesting that university blind applications seem to have gained popularity at a time when Oxbridge is accepting more students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Is it fair to stop looking at University hierarchy when our elite universities are aiming to rebalance their social profiles.

@mids2019
It won’t matter one jot if the Oxbridge applicants can pass the selection tests and interviews for the grad job schemes! What they need to do is apply for the jobs though!

I do think a 2:2 from Oxbridge is worth quite a lot depending on circumstances and the nature of a near miss. My friends DS with a 2:2 in maths from Cambridge got a job after a year using his skills in a very important area of transportation but most schemes wouldn’t entertain him despite stellar A levels. If employers don’t look at universities they don’t necessarily appreciate everyone.

@mids2019 it’s an IFS report