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.

How high up in the Civil Service can someone still in their twenties be?

I'm not surprised at this. The university that someone went to basically tells you about their potential aged 18 not about their knowledge as they come out of a degree.
I have taught at RG and non and the students who got a first at the post-92 would have got a first at the RG because they were genuinely engaged, went beyond in their prep, and worked consistently.
The real gap IMO lies in the 2:1 band which covers a very wide range of ability. I'd like us to get rid of the whole classification system which is open to gaming with algorithms to calculate the highest possible class. A basic GPA with no omissions would be so much clearer for everyone.

So, all first class degrees are equal?

IME, yes. Unless a) the university games the classification or b) you are comparing across time (grade inflation is huge)

@RetrainRetrain
I think you are kidding yourself. No one else thinks this who employs anyone.

I do think the movement to university blind but asking for 2:2 still might exclude good applicants but it’s a first filter. Why would a comment care about 2:2 degree holders when in many instances they have more than enough applicants with a 2:1 or 1st? It’s just more work for little gain.

Also employing someone really isn’t just about knowledge. Most grads who read History, English, Philisophy, Classics, MFL etc don’t apply their knowledge. They apply their transferable skills and their intellect. They have personalities and social skills which are observed at interview or before on internships. A first with no work experience or inability to transfer skills won’t look as good to an employer as someone with a far better cv snd a 2:1 from a better university..

This has been an interesting read in light of the earlier thread about the big fish little pond effect.

Given that a university’s reputation mainly rests on the quality of its research, it would be illuminating to know if those who undertake a PhD at a university with a higher ranking tend to do better. It would seem to me that it is probably at this postgrad stage that being in the vicinity of academics doing particularly innovative work could make a difference.

Might I add that

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.

from thing47 might just be the most important remark in this thread.

I am amazed by the rigid, limiting view some people in positions of influence and authority have of academic potential. What teachers get to see of their students is merely a snapshot in time of people who have very often not yet ‘crystallised out’. I hope that most teachers realise that if they have low expectations, this can too easily be a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s called the Pygmalion effect.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect

@OutwiththeOutCrowd
I think top universities see many students who have been bright throughout their school lives and before. Someone who discovers a single subject may not have the breadth of education and knowledge that employers might want. I think students can discover their academic potential but they still might not be very employable. They are simply not the same thing.

There is evidence that the University attended DOES matter. Here's a link showing the

Best Paid Graduate Salary Ranking by Universities 2021

uacu.uk/articles/3177/uk-graduate-salaries-2021/

I got a 2.2 from a rg university 25 years ago. I work in an area where I get get lots of new graduates coming to work with me with 2.1 (mostly from ex polytechnics-but not a vocational subject that they may excel in) whose subject knowledge, written and verbal communication and common sense are nowhere near as good as mine were when I graduated. It maybe the case now but I feel a bit affronted as there wasn’t problems at uni and I worked hard.

This only has ten universities on it?

And these are the top 12 highest paying degrees according to data compiled by the Complete University Guide:

Dentistry
Medicine
Veterinary Medicine
Economics
General Engineering
Mathematics
Physics and Astronomy
Computer Science
Business and Administration
Architecture
Law
Politics

Link here

University employability rankings UK

Here are the best UK universities in terms of employability*:

University of Oxford (7th)
University of Cambridge (11th)
University College London (UCL) (20th)
Imperial College London (30th)
The University of Manchester (42nd)
The London School of Economics and Political Science (48th)
The University of Edinburgh (=49th)
University of Bristol (=49th)
University of Leeds (52nd)
University of Nottingham (66th)
King's College London (68th)
University of Warwick (77th)
University of Bath (93rd)
Loughborough University (100th).

* Overall world ranking in brackets.

Link here

I think top universities see many students who have been bright throughout their school lives and before

You might think that @TizerorFizz but it isn't born out by the data. I suppose 'many' is a subjective measure but studies show somewhere in the region of 8% of children are 'bright' throughout their school lives, in terms of getting top results consistently. So yes, I suppose that is quite a large number overall, but it isn't, I think you'd agree, a very high percentage.

I agree with you that academic potential and employability are not the same thing, and don't always go hand in hand. But what I had in mind when I mentioned someone only thriving when they discover their primary interest is that I don't see for example what relevance a student's science results are if they go on to get a First in, say, History or Economics. I believe engineering is a particular field of expertise with you? Would you be too bothered about what English Literature qualifications a candidate had?

You are right @thing47, this thread does link to several other recent ones, including the 'live at home' as well as 'big fish, little fish'. Thank you for starting this one off!

Obviously care needs to be taken @pinklavenders with the top Unis by median salary list as this is also a reflection of the high levels of pay in the London-centric financial services sector and the various advisory professions that support it. This is why it is mainly composed of London unis and places like Bristol, Bath and Warwick (favourites of Home County domiciled students). There is a STEM overlay too in that Imperial is 'STEM only', Bath 'mostly STEM' and Warwick's key departments are probably Maths & Stats. Interesting, a Warwick chemistry student will typically only earn 10% more than chemistry students from northern universities after five years, which is a very modest uplift given the Home County bias of the student body. So here is evidence that, for Warwick at least, the boost of university 'name' is still very much tied to subject.

For me, this and other, related threads have emphasised that the order of importance is probably individual drive then 'maturity trajectory' (ie early or late bloomer regards academics and career) and only then course, degree classification (with all the caveats discussed) and finally overall uni rank.

I think we all know that university league tables – like reports! – need to be approached with a certain degree of scepticism. They often contain nuggets of interesting information but the 'headline' figures are often meaningless.

There are specific issues around the QS world rankings, @RampantIvy which favour big institutions over small, STEM subjects over arts subjects and rely heavily on a peer review system which potentially is open to conflicts of interest.

Re. PhDs, @OutwiththeOutCrowd my understanding is that the institution actually becomes less important, it's all about where the research relevant to what you want to do is being carried out. So you target individual supervisors working in your field regardless of where they are located, if that makes sense. But I stand to be corrected as I don't have any expertise in post-grad study.

I always wonder why dentistry is such a high value profession compared to say physics or maths.

@thing47
Ideally yes. Engineering isn’t about being a maths nerd or just being good at physics. Reading reports, making sense of reports, writing reports, use of language acquired by reading are important skills for engineers. The idea they sit around and don’t communicate is wrong. A full set of decent GCSEs is highly desirable. Companies need future leaders as well as worker bees!!

Chemistry grads might find better employment prospects in the north. Where are the bigger chemistry grad employers based? Maybe not London? The big ones are elsewhere I think - although head offices might be in and around London.,

@PerpetualOptimist
Degree classification comes first if only 2:1 or firsts can apply. Course might be wholly irrelevant. History studied really won’t matter too much. Or range of literature for an English degree. Motivation alone won’t get you an interview. You need a combination of everything. What research does show, according to the IFS, is that university matters and so does course. Employers might say it doesn’t matter about uni at application but employment stats don’t bear that out regarding earnings. RG gives a premium. Sometimes a very big premium.

i also think Vets pay is poor. Way below medics usually. Economists and Medics earn most. Also why no Scottish universities on the list? World rankings don’t mean much to employers here.

Something to do with it being a piece by an organisation selling its ability to get overseas students into.'Top' UK universities?

Until the mid 90's first class degrees were rare (<7% of degrees) and indicated very bright, a 2:1 indicated above average, a 2:2 indicated below average, and a third or pass indicated bottom 10%. Now, around a third of students get a first and most of the rest get a 2:1. All that can be deduced from a first now is that the student is above average, whereas a 2:1 indicates they are not in the top third, so at best marginally above average but more likely below. So:
a first is the new 2:1
a 2:1 is the new 2:2
a 2:2 is the new third
and there is now no way through the honours system for very bright students to distinguish themselves.
My solution would be to introduce latin honours.They're fairly widely used outside the UK.

As far as impact of institution goes, I discussed this with someone who was involved in external moderation of university exams. They reckoned that standards at oxbridge were on average half a degree class or 5% above standards at other Russell group / highly selective unis. Thus, someone at oxbridge getting a mid 2:1 with 65% might have scraped a first at another RG institution with 70%. But, interestingly, they felt the group most disadvantaged by the snobbery etc associated with oxbridge were those getting strong firsts at other institutions, whose first class degrees would have been awarded with equal enthusiasm at oxbridge, but whose (high) first class degrees from other good institutions were looked upon by some as lesser. Latin honours would address this by distinguishing the top 10% / 5% / 2% from the top third.

Thanks for sharing this interesting report on degree grades' importance over a university's reputation. It's definitely something to consider when advising young people on their higher education choices. Bestonlineuniversities.com is a great resource to explore online programs that can help students get the education they need, regardless of their university. With the flexibility of online learning, students can pursue their degrees while also working or raising a family.

My word.

When I started my maths degree course there were about 100 of us.

At the end of the third year, 10 people got a First.

Each year, between 60 and 70 got a Second - roughly equal upper and lower.

About 10 got a Third.

A handful got a Pass degree (as an aside: I remember attending a ceremony at Glasgow and being blown away by the number of non-honours students, until H explained to me that it was a totally different set-up and considered perfectly valid) and a few had dropped out. I'm not sure anybody actually stayed long enough to fail the third year.

That was 1991.

@staplesatomy57 The degrees from the better university in the report are 2:2s!!! They quality the holder for virtually no grad schemes! A 2:1 or first from elsewhere will. It’s self evident a 2:2 from anywhere isn’t very useful. So of course a lesser uni with a good classification is better! Hardly news!

As a Y12 parent, I stumbled on this thread and it has been so useful. We have decided to go for a uni where DC will get in comfortably and should be in the top half of the cohort (unless curveball). Getting a 2.1 is vital. I don’t agree with school’s advice to aim high (unless of course you want to be lawyer at top firm/work at Goldman Sachs)!