No need for aspirational uni - getting a 2.1 more important?

[Armyuni]

DS wants to go to uni and then join the army. He’s been to army recruitment centre and they said that he will need a 2.1 to get onto the officer training programme he aspires to. His school have told him to apply to 2 aspirational unis, 2 realistic and 1 ultra-safe. But what is the point of him applying to aspirational unis - if he just about makes the entry grades, there will be loads of students who have surpassed them so that will make it more difficult to get a 2.1 as he will be judged against his peers at that Uni? Or am I wrong in this? Is it not better to be realistic or play safe seeing as getting the 2.1 is paramount?

But you are working on the assumption that A level grades are a good predictor of degree class .The weight of evidence shows this is absolutely NOT the case.

Pick a uni that isn't that research focused - eg ex polys. They tend to 'teach' rather than 'guide' which can be an easier experience for an undergraduate. Then go on to a masters somewhere else if needed.

You also need to bear in mind that he may not be in the Army all his working life whereas the Uni he went to will always be on his CV. Every applicant should aim for the “best” according to ability in my view. And don’t worry about the cohort’s ability. Plenty of high fliers discover the proverbial wine (wo)men and song at Uni and don’t fulfill potential, others really find their feet and outperform in relation to A level results.

Uni of Leicester - training is in Nottingham and they have to leave at 3pm every Weds)

This may not be a problem as many unis don’t teach on Wednesday afternoons to leave time for sports, OTC etc.

@FuzzyDonkey My experience was very similar and I also wish I'd gone somewhere easier

You're right OP.

The majority of graduate jobs require common sense and maturity more than academics. A First from an 'elite' university and nothing else is less employable than a 2:1 from a 'lower ranked' uni with plenty of good work experience (clubs, PT jobs, volunteering, student competitions).

And once you have a few years of work experience uni doesn't matter! Unless you're in a job that requires pedigree (management consulting, maybe?) but seriously. Nobody cares.

I don't know what 'aspirational' for your son means - somewhere that wants AAA, but he's predicted BBC?

Also I will add when I went to an 'elite' uni most people were all-rounders and had lots going on in addition to studying. Depends on the course.
A-Level grades are not an indicator of potential as there are many circumstances that can prevent someone from achieving.
But if you have had no problems... are self-aware enough to know that you are not 'majorly' academic. No point in forcing yourself.
It takes all sorts to make a world

thanks for this and how right you are. Have done two uni webinars - Nottingham and Leicester - and both have no teaching on Weds afternoons. Thx for drawing to my attention - thought Weds afternoon off was a coincidence but seems widespread

should have flagged @Oakbeam in previous reply. Apols

Thanks for your positive post. DS is likely to be predicted ABB but that is generous. He spends all his time playing footie and gaming. Bare minimum of school work! He does want to go to uni though and loves his languages

That is v encouraging - but would you be able to link evidence pls? I love this supportive group but so much is anectodal (and occasionally v dodgy advice)

thought Weds afternoon off was a coincidence but seems widespread

There are a lot of inter-uni competitions so they have to be on the same day. No teaching on Wednesday afternoons is a carry over from when schools did the same.

I'm not sure that evidence will be any useful given the massive variance in courses and standard of work expected. Take even the mode of study - for the same degree (Computing). Some unis are very theoretical and exam based, others are more project based.

My autistic DH who was terrible at exams (CDD at A-Levels) came out with a First at his mainly project based uni. 'Difficulty' of coursework aside he deals with highly complex systems daily at work. He's certainly very capable.

For my own degree (accounting) the difficulty of exams vary highly. Some universities have a large proportion of grades coming from pop quizzes (which are very similar to what's asked in the textbook). Or 'reports' which are something like. List 3 instances of accounting events in the media and the consequences. Instead of 'find financial statements/accounting regulations and do a detailed analysis'. The depth of analysis required in the former is much lower.

On a more cynical note there are many, many qualifications that are equivalent to a degree or even Master's (NVQ Level 6-7). A 'degree' from university used to be for the academic. Highlighting an 'academic' skillset.

But a few decades ago we decided we wanted more 'graduates', converted a lot of polys (? not sure what the term is). Suddenly everything was made into a degree, and everything else was looked down on.

This means that a degree alone is no longer an indicator of anything. Beyond a few narrow fields. Employers have their own online tests, recruitment processes etc to determine the capability of candidates.

AND, more importantly a degree has become secondary to extra-curriculars that show employability. Maturity, teamwork, resourcefulness. Interviews are competency based and if you do not have good examples you will fail the interviews, regardless of how stellar your grades are.

By the way university exams are moderated highly and a 2:1 is an 'average' grade. Failing students and 2:2's look bad, I think most people, having chosen the right university for them will be able to get at least a 2:1 unless they have done zero work.

It's good that your son has outside interests. I have interviewed many 'smart' people with no common sense. There is an obsession with 'academic intelligence' but employers are starting to realise it's not the end goal. Especially as in the future... a lot of things will be automated. but the need to deal with people. To engage , inspire and get them doing what you want ;) that will never go away. And it cannot be 'taught' easily...

@fUNNYfACE36
Grades are a great predictor of applying to Oxbridge in the first place. If you are not going to meet the grades required, look elsewhere. I would bet the firsts from Cambridge are more academically minded than at a former poly. However the degree from the former poly is almost certainly looking at different criteria for awarding the degree.

Yeah, A levels are very, very different from higher education. It's the reason why most universities don't count level four in your final classification. First year is more about learning HOW to do university education.

It depends on so many things. I have a screenshot of the feedback I got for three different modules. Two praise me to heaven, one criticises everything as terrible. Not the standard of the content because obviously it's possible that I totally bombed the assignment with the terrible feedback; but my structure, my referencing, my style of writing. Basically, things that didn't change between the three assessments. They use a rubric but it's still very subjective and often comes down to luck of who grades them.

I did get a first and a master's distinction. Yet I fail psychometric tests which some jobs require before you're even considered for interview. And I fail them spectacularly! Yet my degrees would suggest I'm fairly intelligent. IQ tests (which are generally now rejected as an indicator of intelligence) put me as decidedly average.

You can have some extremely strong areas and some extremely weak areas.

I find logic difficult. I can't read maps. Instructions defeat me but I can write a cracking essay. I've no doubt much more intelligent people than me have lower classifications.

I was at a university of Plymouth oceanography talk and they put up a slide showing a level grades on entry on the X axis and degree achieved on the Y axis for the previous 3 or 5 years’ cohorts and it was like a monkey had flicked paint at the graph. Totally random. Some of the lowest entrants got firsts, some of the highest got 3rds, and there was absolutely no visible mean. I was amazed.