Does the difference between a low 2.1, high 2.1 , 1st class mean anything?

[eggsbenedict23]

That's all really. It's in relation to careers and earnings after uni.

But if you want to take a topic to the top career wise you really need a 1st. Eg I don’t know any economists or accountants who’ve gotten to the top of their professions without a 1st.

Many uk qualified chartered accountants don’t even have a degree in accountancy, never mind a first in it so not sure how that works. You can learn all you need to know on your training contract.

From an employer's perspective: it can make a difference, particularly if you are young or changing career path.

Eg. I had 5 really strong candidates for a graduate position in my company. 3 were great in interview; in the end I chose the person with a 1st as it was the only differentiator between them. It's also something of a promise - of someone who knows how to apply themselves and thus may be a better bet for me, as their potential employer.

Eg. I had someone interview for a more senior role. They came from a different industry and didn't have specific experience. But, they had a 1st, an MA with distinction, and they'd also done a tonne of other interesting course off their own back. That showed me that again they were a good bet, that they'd learn fast and would be proactive - which turned out to be true. They're amazing in their role.

So, sometimes it matters but often it doesn't. It's just something nice to have to pull out of your back pocket in those times you need it!

In my experience of postgrad education at masters level it is always easier than undergrad!

My ds has offers from Imperial and Oxford for a masters in maths and both require a 1st in the finals he’s sitting now. We looked at a previous FOI request and no-one got an offer with a 2.1 predicted (based on their transcript to date) even though the Oxford website specified a high 2.1 or 1st. I suspect it may vary by course though as acceptance rates differ.

But you can’t necessarily separate the two — I needed a high first to get the scholarship that funded my first masters, and I needed the starred first I got in that MA to get the scholarship that funded my Oxford MSt and DPhil, which were necessary for my career. If you need postgraduate qualifications to enter your career, not getting a 2.1 as a minimum is going to rule out a lot of MA/MSt/BSc etc.

Are you an academic?

So it's harder to get a 1st from the OU?

A 2:1 is a 2:1 unless for a masters nobody asks your actual grades

It will matter for jobs in some instances. Most employers will state a minimum 2:1 in a degree these days.

@Wenfy Arts courses - in terms of practical skills (eg writing) even a 2:2 can be useful in work. But if you want to take a topic to the top career wise you really need a 1st. Eg I don’t know any economists or accountants who’ve gotten to the top of their professions without a 1st.
Seriously? I know many. In fact I dint know that many people aged 50+ which they would be to be at the top of their profession who got a first. A couple got 3rds

My dd got 60.2 average, a 2:1 by the skin of her teeth. It counted just the same as 69.9!

You need a 2.1 minimum for the graduate scheme in my
firm, but 1st’s are common (Finance). It’s less important if they are an experienced hire.

I don't think any one has ever asked me my grade, only my degree and my college.

It's kind of stupid. Having a % would be more meaningful. 0.5% separates you from one grade to another but then within a grade there is a 10% spread.

It's important to realise that young graduates have a lot harder than we did. The years of decent college are over, these things are highly competitive now. 2:1 is a filter often applied by HR at the first instance.

What an interesting question. Is it harder/easier to achieve a 1st depending on the university?

Cambridge ranks or used to, by subject. You would compete against each other and so yes, that was very tough, given the talent.

I was more asking about the difference between a 2.1 and a 1st in terms of future career impacts?

Most people doing STEM PhDs in top research labs will have a 1st from a good university. Mostly because there many more times the number of applicants than places. The few who don't have a first will have done something else to distinguish themselves e.g. published a paper as a result of their masters degree.

@eggsbenedict23 - tiny in my experience of law

They don't really care. Degree classification isn't a huge indicator of work/career performance in most instances unless it's a very specific professional orientated degree e.g. medicine. Specifying 2:1 or 1st is just a way of filtering the huge wave of applications they get.

I agree with you but I do wonder if it’s the best filter in terms of getting the best workplace performers. If I look back at my Cambridge cohort and look who actually did best in terms of career ( eg most impressively), some of the most impressive now got 2:2s. The firsts mainly went into academia/ think tanks or just sort of faded away. The 2:1s prob did better on average ( even accounting for there being more of them).

it seems the workplace now is full of very bright people but not many people who know how to just get stuff done without crying about it.

Of course another factor is that there are a lot more firsts than 30 years ago so a lot of my cohort who got 2:1s would get a first now so not really comparing like with like.

So I just looked it up- when I was at Uni ( 90s) less than 8% degrees were awarded a first and now it’s about a third. That’s really some impressive grade inflation.

@illiterato I don’t think it’s (necessarily) grade inflation.
When I was first at Uni in 1990s, I had to do all my research in the library. If I wanted access to a journal article that wasn’t there I had to request it and it could take weeks to arrive,( and not always be relevant).
Studying again in 2020s was so different. Google Scholar and access to other online resources meant my knowledge base was much wider and it was faster.

First degree was a 2:2, second time I got a first. I don’t think my ability was very different but I just had access to research was better.

part 2 architecture.