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.

Have always thought that (in quite a lot of scenarios) DC should consider ‘good honours’ more. Blind recruiting, grad schemes which require min 2:1, and subject specifics where degree class is/can be more important (as the report suggests).
May be better to be a brighter student at a (very) slightly lower Uni, than to scrape into the ‘best’ you can, and then have more of a risk of a 2:2/3rd. And I think it’s disingenuous to say that the only reason you’d get the latter is because you were ill or couldn’t be bothered. Am sure @TizerorFizz would say they’re example of a 2:2 wasn’t that.

their example

This thread has been truly insightful to read.
I have a DD1 about to graduate with a 2.1 from a middling university it all seems a bit arse about face.
Not having graduated myself (didn't finish my degree) I really don't think all degrees are equal whatever the institution they are gained from.
It really suprised me, in my naivety, that there is not a standardised marking scheme.
Not for one minute suggesting the deeply flawed system of the bell curve methods used in GCSES or A level would be appropriate, but when boundaries and standard can vary so much from place to place surely where the degree is gained should be built into 'worthiness', as should the subject studied.
This discussion is certainly going to play a part when we enter the whole UCAS hell later this year with DD2!

@drivinmecrazy
Im sure you really didn’t think History at Oxford was the same as History from, say, Northumbria? How could it be?

I would still say a 2:2 from the highest tariff universities probably still indicates a DC of great intelligence. It’s up to employers to delve deeper but of course it’s time consuming.

There is not much evidence that a 2:2 student from a top university would get a first elsewhere if illness is involved or work ethic.

@drivinmecrazy It’s not to say that ONLY the degree class matters. Sometimes the degree class matters, sometimes Uni matters, sometimes both.

The graph in the Times was interesting as it compared the different degree grades along with the different type of University (in four groups) along wiht the subject...it really seemed to vary quite a lot.

If the report is true do we have to allow students at high ranking unis to possibly restart elsewhere or on another degree of they are in danger of getting a 2:2 especially if this is used as a hard filter by universities.

If someone is academically able enough and has the work ethos to get into Cambridge the likelihood is that obtaining a 2:2 or third is due to external circumstances such a mental health episode. Why should barriers be out in the way of an obviously academic person who has succeeded in getting into one of the best universities in the world?

If hard filters are being used for degrees then should elite unis minimise the award of lesser degress?

Employers not universities

Kinda agree with @mids2019 . Whilst I don’t think we should hard filter by institution, I don’t think we should hard filter by degree class either. Cambridge don’t technically have a ‘class’ of degree - but by convention everyone mentions their final year mark. How then to sift a giant pile of CVs? How about stratified - take the best 5 filtered on institution, best 5 filtered on degree class, best 5 filtered on extra curricular/leadership, best 5 filtered on performance despite challenging circumstances? Nowadays it is fashionable to recruit diversely - and I certainly think there is good value in this as you will have different strengths and perspectives on the team which can make you stronger.

Not sure that it’s a given that you should expect a 2:1+ if you go to one of the top unis. From memory, the proportions are 85%+ down to 50%, across all Unis.
Outcomes are not, roughly, the same as prior attainment like A levels.
There is a risk that the outcome may be 2:2/3, even for someone who’s bright enough to get in in the first place. This has always been the case.
Maybe the difference more recently is that recruitment is less based on ‘RG grads are best’ (regardless of degree class).

Given that 40% of graduates are not doing graduate work, a 2:2 means you partied your way through Uni, not good enough!.

A relevant degree is worth most to an employer and from a prestigious university worth most of all. I’m sorry if others disagree, in my book you go to Uni to qualify for your chosen career, NOT for a “life experience”.

@Crazykatie Agree that it should in part be treated as gaining entry into your chosen career, if you know it at that point.
Therefore, if you know you want to get on a grad scheme where minimum is 2:1 and which Uni doesn’t come into it much, then choose carefully. Maybe even choosing somewhere to try to gain a 1st if that would help even more getting into said career.

@Crazykatie Don’t know for def but going to suggest there are more graduates than (truly) graduate jobs.

@stubiff l think that is a major problem. University degree sells a dream. It needs to be realisable though.

it has been suggested upthread (by some but not all) that 2:2 and 3 classifications are typically the result of illness or lack of effort. Whilst these aspects are factors, I do not think that is the whole story.

Take a demanding subject like mathematics. At University of Manchester (entry req: AstarAA or AstarAB if Further Maths taken), 19% come away with a 2:2 or lower (source Uniguide). University of Nottingham (entry req AstarAA or AAA if FM taken), fully 24% come away with a 2:2 or lower).

Now, both are big city unis where DC may not settle and/or party hard but these factors alone cannot explain that you face a 1 in 5 (Man) or 1 in 4 (Notts) chance of failing the magic 2:1 threshold.

Some will say Mathematics has particular issues because not all can transition from A-level maths to proof heavy university maths but other universities with high entry requirements and strong departments seem to manage to generate more positive outcomes - for example at Bristol (AstarAstarA or AstarAA if FM taken) only 12% come away with 2:2 or lower.

It may be that Manchester and Nottingham are not adept at spotting those who will take to university-level maths or fail to support students adequately when they arrive. Either way, many students will have applied 'expecting' a similar level of grading outcome as at other 'top tier' universities.

One of the useful aspects of the IFS report was that it showed the economic consequences (at least to the age of 30) of failing to achieve a 2:1 or higher and, for maths, the consequences are pretty big. There are similar wide variations within Russell Group universities in other subject areas, so this is not a maths-specific issue.

I’m 58, l got a 2:1. Dh is 62, he got a 2:1. I know loads of people in my age group with 2:1’s. They really are not that rare.

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.

l was a secondary teacher for 26 years. A levels measure academic development, not achievement imo. All ours got fairly mediocre A level results. One did a PHD in conjunction with Cambridge, one is a journo on national media, and one is high up in the civil service.

My experience as a teacher and a parent is they don’t really have that much effect on career outcome. Everyone matures at different levels and times. Those getting A’s at A level may just have hit their stride earlier. The rest catch up in a year or so.

This report makes me happy that the snobbery around Oxbridge. and RG’s is being finally kicked into touch. I love that recruiters are not allowing name of institution on applications.

@ArseInTheCoOpWindow
if the DC over 26 years have only managed those jobs, it’s not great. Unfortunately you are wrong about the best universities because not that many get 2:2s. Sometimes 10%. Employers wanting a 2:1 or above will not just accept university and classification. They test applicants to ensure they get best fit. RG grads, overall, do better. Overall they have better A levels. The best courses at non RG tend to be vocational. I’m also assuming someone with a 2:2 in nursing will still get a job. The people who lose out the most are 2:2 holders of academic subjects from low tariff universities. There is absolutely no way that people doing ok grad jobs catch up with high flyers. Look at earnings from LSE and Oxbridge and the best paid jobs in London. Most are not taken by DC catching up. They don’t. That doesn’t mean they are not happy though.

@PerpetualOptimist
I am wondering if the maths stats from Manchester and Nottingham in regard of maths and 2:2 reflect students without FM? Are the non FM students the ones who find the course more challenging? Are there fewer of them at Bristol? I do think it’s not all about illness and not working but we don’t know the composition of the students at Manchester and Nottingham to judge.

My DC are still in their 20’s🤔

Let’s hope the snobbery and privilege your referring to eventually gets kicked into touch then.

Yes they sell a dream, they also sell bums on seats, some of the courses in the minor universities are so poor, if a candidate has poor A levels or an NVQ the second or third choice will take them. So 3 yrs are wasted and massive student loan taken on, when a much better choice would have been a technical qualification.

My niece, my nephew and his girlfriend all did this, they did not have any prospects at Uni, the nephew and GF dropped out after a year, the nieces got a 2:2 and no job prospects.

Also Bristol give a reduced offer for STEP. Manchester don’t mention it. That might be informative re calibre of student and Bristol say the majority of their students do have FM.

@Crazykatie
i do agree: bums on seats = dreams. Too often unfulfilled.

@ArseInTheCoOpWindow
I don’t see why the best candidates cannot get the best jobs. Employers don’t just look at degrees. You do need to reevaluate your position: Oxbridge is now around 70% state pupils. So maybe all their hard work and talent should be jettisoned because you think students with CCC at A level from the university of nowhere are somehow better and more deserving? Why are Oxbridge even bothering to reach out to state pupils if you think their “privilege” should be kicked into touch? You should not be advising young people about universities or careers I think. Just biased rubbish.

’University of Nowhere’

Says it all.

I’d be interested to see what those 70% state schools are. Leafy suburbs I’ll warrant.

@TizerorFizz I'm sure you are right that whether a student has taken Further Maths at A-level is a factor in maths degree performance but there is not a perfect link between % FM and % 2.2 or lower. At Manchester, 52% of BSc Maths had FM, Notts it was 76% (source SACU Student), and yet the % 2.2 or lower was 1 in 4 rather than Manchester's 1 in 5.

Annoyingly I do not have a figure for Bristol (likely to be higher, I agree) but by way of context, Exeter BSc Maths is 45% FM and yet only 6% 2.2 or lower.

All the above simply illustrates that there fairly illogical inconsistency in degree classification within university types (eg Russell Group etc), across courses and over time; hence employer confusion and student dismay.

This matters more than ever because the move towards uni-blind recruitment (which is good thing in many ways) shifts from a crude reliance on university 'name' to a potentially unsatisfactory over-reliance on degree classification.

Agree with @PerpetualOptimist - easiest explanation is that degree standards are inconsistent between universities. One way of testing this may be to see performance of these maths grads on certain standardised postgrad quals (? actuarial exams)

This means logically that using 2.1 as a hard filter does not seem like a sensible strategy IF subject specific knowledge is the important thing (which I’m sure it actually isn’t for most jobs).