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.

There will be a lot more 2:2 and 3rd class simply due to the fact that money talks. Once upon a time uni was free but you had to achieve the grades conditional for your offer.

Now it's arses on seats. 9250 a year per student? Well, let them bomb, we still get the money.

One particularly stands out for me. A girl on my access course wanted to do a degree where the 'requirements' were 30 distinction points. She got 3 distinction points. She got in via clearance. She lasted until Christmas of the first year but still owes 9250, and the uni were paid that money.

Requirements were surely set for the very reason that if you aren't capable of meeting them then you won't be capable of achieving either the degree at all, or you're going to get a low classification?

Same for higher classifications, more people are going to uni despite the cost, so more get the higher grades.

Tutors now have very little time for students because they have so many of them so why do we still blame grade inflation so totally? Yes research is MUCH easier now than it was, but you've got way less opportunity to meet with your tutors; they have much less time to give in decent feedback too.

Works both ways.

Also, I know a few who got 2:2.

They generally couldn't be bothered. Handed in essays they did the night before and made full use of the +/- 10%.

Yes, by going 10% under.

Others tried really hard but were 3rd class students. They'd never have been accepted when you actually HAD to meet the grade requirements. They've been as good as conned. They have huge student debt for a degree that will be highly unlikely to help them in any useful respect. Other than (possibly) show they have the aptitude to keep going for three years.

Tutors now have very little time for students because they have so many of them so why do we still blame grade inflation so totally? Yes research is MUCH easier now than it was, but you've got way less opportunity to meet with your tutors; they have much less time to give in decent feedback too.

This was so true of DD's course. There were about 300 students in her cohort, and she met her first personal tutor in person just once, and that was in a group of about 6 students. She never engaged with him again because he never replied to emails or turned up for Teams meetings, so she changed her tutor to someone who she had just one Teams meeting with and that was it. When she contacted her tutor for a reference after she graduated the tutor didn't even know who DD was.

DD did so many different modules for her degree that she rarely had the same lecturer twice.

Rampantivy, my experience too.

You're a number, they have no idea who you are. Feedback which is SO important is also SO generic.

I think students from recent years get a hammering because people go on about grade inflation and how many more higher classifications are given out. Well yes, more people than ever go to university. It's a conveniently forgotten about variable.

Other factors which actively work against them are ignored.

I thought few employers are interested in someone now graduating with a 2:2.

Well a 2:2 from anywhere is not the best result so this doesn't surprise me

But tbh I would regard a 2:1 from an ex-poly in the same basket as a 2:2 from a top uni so I think to make it worth it financially to go to uni in this day and age you need a 2:1 from a decent uni in a decent subject. Times have changed.

HRTFT, but was wondering why my local ex-poly had a huge rise in 2019-20 in firsts, something like 30%. It dropped to about 23% in 2020-21. I'm not seeing more recent figures, and understand they are trying to reduce the figure further. Does anyone know why there was a huge rise in firsts given in 2019-20? I'm assuming it was something to do with Covid, but seems a bit strange.

Students who were in 3rd year in 2020 were given a safety net (most unis did this) as we literally, like lots of others, just found ourselves with the doors closed. All lectures stopped, few ended up even online as it all happened so fast. A field trip I was due to go on got cancelled and so a whole module became defunct and had to basically be rewritten. There was no preparation for this either for tutors or students, it was off the cuff and this had to be considered.

So, our worst grade from semester 2 was discounted. And if we attained a whole classification boundary in a module, lower than the one we attained in semester one, that was discounted. For example, if we got a first class module grade in semester one and in semester two, we got a 2:2, then it wasn't counted. This may have been causal in 'grade inflation' but it was the only safety net we had.

The dissertation was unchanged in grading.

I feel like I didn't explain the last part well. In semester one; a module I did got 81%. In the 'sister' module for semester 2, I got 68%. There was more than a 10% difference - basically more than one classification boundary, even though 70 or 80 would usually just be one classification.

Because it went over 80%, they considered more than a 10% difference to be two classifications lower. So the 68% module wasn't counted.

If you got 68% in semester one and less than 58% in semester two, that was dropped and so on. They said that more than a 10% difference showed that you'd been seriously disadvantaged by the pandemic as you'd achieved a much higher % in semester one and shown your ability with normal teaching.

Yes, it made a difference to my overall classification. If the grades had all been counted I'd have got 69% and a 2:1. But it was considered unfair to let me get that close when they believed that my second semester grades were negatively affected by the pandemic. I don't know what class I'd have got if teaching had carried on as normal so I'll never know if the safety net pushed me over the 1st class boundary or whether I'd have got one anyway.

More recent research on University attended v Salary:

The universities where students earn £40k on average after graduation (msn.com)

I think we have to see how popular university blind applications become and if employers permanently start to change recruitment practice. Certainly I work in a public sector environment where university attended is not a consideration (though degree classification is). The aim is to improve diversity and exclusivity and to not introduce artificial barriers into recruitment.

The approach is not universally popular and some interviewers want to get a more holistic view of the candidate including university attended and A levels. Personally using a single filter of 2:1 or 1st coupled with a personal statement is not enough information for me as a personal statement can be written by some one else as well as containing exaggerations or even untruths. Interviews are quite prescribed and you cut fully evaluate ability in a half hour coversation.

I do fear of culture is changing so that universities are viewed more equally then we have to be concerned about aspirations of reasonably academic children and the benefit of getting high A level grades. You may get an attitude of not trying your best as even if you drop a couple of A level grades then that is nothing to be concerned about because your going to a university any way and it's degree class that matters.

As Oxbridge are the only universities ensured of their reputation in this more equitable world then you will have more 'Oxbridge or bust" attitudes from academic high achievers and I don't think that is necessarily a desirable thing. It seems like as time passes the RG group has to continue to differentiate themselves some how fron newer universities now (possibly a difficult task) to continue the university status quo.

The US in my view still hold on to a more elitist version of HE and university attended has possibly more cachet in the US and teenagers are a little more open about getting into a good college of university. In the UK we are a lot more reserved I feel (possibly a difference in cultures?)

impulsivity above.....

Another complicating matter is how to evaluate degrees from foreign universities which is a feature of my work. There are may students from Asia who h age degrees from their home universities and post graduate degrees from the UK and as an employer judging the quality of degree is d difficult.

You sound delightful. Perhaps the 'dim' girl blossomed once she'd left your school and did a subject that she loved. Good for her.

Does it really matter what you think? I mean apart from your opinion which is valid but not influential.

Why do you think A level grades are relevant when you are interviewing for graduate recruitment @mids2019 ? A level grades tell you a little bit about an 18-year-old but very very little about a twentysomething 3 (or 4) years later because lots of aspects of schooling and upbringing can affect A level grades, whereas to some extent these are evened out at university when all students have the same potential access to tutors and resources.

The benefit of high A level grades are to give a pupil a wider range of options for the next stage of his or her education, they shouldn't be used as an ongoing measure of a student's ability. And indeed universities themselves don't do this – the majority do not ask for A level grades when you are applying for a Masters or other post-graduate qualification.

As Oxbridge are the only universities ensured of their reputation in this more equitable world

So LSE, Imperial, Durham, Edinburgh, St. Andrews count for nothing then @mids2019 ?

Don’t judge the degree - judge the ability of the individual to do the job. It’s already been proven that academic success doesn’t necessarily translate to success as an employee.

@bottleofbeer many thanks, I expect the blip on my local uni's stats was due to no detriment policies of some kind. I do understand 3rd years had it hard, though I think it's a bit harsh on prior and later graduates who may have worked just as hard. On the other hand, 2019-20 graduates might have just worked a lot harder than anyone else as there was nothing else to do!

Course it matters what I think. What on earth? 😂

What I mean is, it's just opinion and bias that leads you to believe a 2.1 from an 'ex poly' is equivalent to a 2.2 from an rg uni?

I mean my mum's neighbour thinks that a 3rd from Oxbridge is worth more than a 2.1 from any other uni - that's just her inherent snobbery and bias.

My DD is finding that firms are very interested in A-level grades. They have explicitly told her that they take notice of A-level grades because they are externally marked to a national standard.

They don’t seem to think that the individuals have changed much in 3 years.

@thing47 Employers do look at A level grades. They might not look at university but consider everything else! I also think someone who can study “hard” subjects and get AAA or above, might well be worth looking at. Essay skills are unlikely to diminish for example. You also get a good idea of what they might be capable of so A levels are another filter.

Interviews, tests and assessments bring out more info regarding suitability for a particular role. It’s never been about just uni but the overall fit of the potential employee. It’s not all about grades either but again assessment sorts out who is best fit. 2/1 or above is just a filter. Pointless in a way as few get 2/2 and what is a 3rd? A levels are a filter. It merely helps employers sort an interview and assessment shortlist.

@lastdayatschool

Exactly. If we continue with a mantra at secondary school level that university doesn't matter and we have more university blind applications then those universities are going to fight to maintain reputation. They are obviously good universities but it may be looked upon as elitist if you were to mention that as you are diminishing implicitly the reputations of the newer universities.

In at least my public sector role it is felt to be extremely snobbish to mention 'good' university when recruiting. As I said diversifying recruitment has meant all institutions are treated equally and unconscious bias is reduced (at least in some views 🤷)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/08/15/pwc-scraps-21-entry-requirement-graduates-boost-diversity/

Firms are looking at talent and potential - not just academic success