Degree classifications and uni blind recruitment

[Stilton65]

Wondering if anyone can explain this to me? I've read on a number of threads on here that many employers are moving to uni blind recruitment and that it is therefore, in some cases, more advantageous to get a 1st than to go to a higher ranked university and get a 2.1 (obviously both would be great!). My understanding is that there is meant to be parity across the universities in terms of what would be worthy of a 1st or a 2.1 and so on and that they are externally audited?

I came across this article in the TES showing % 1sts etc from Sept 24 TES . Screenshot below ranks the ones that give the highest proportion of firsts - the top seems to have been cut off but the 2nd % column (Imperial 52) is % 1st. Imperial and UCL are very high up but Oxford is 16th, Cambridge is 22nd and LSE 23rd. So it's much easier to get a first at many unis with relatively low offer requirements than some of the most competitive, and I do find it hard to believe that these final degree classifications are equal?!

I can understand the rationale behind blind recruitment but I don't see how it can be taken seriously with data like this? Anyone?

I see your point, however employers aren't just going to look at one metric. It will be work experience, qualifications, and most importantly their own tests and interviews.

From my DDs experience of blind recruitment this year (teaching, big 4, civil service) once you tick the box you are on track for whatever degree class they want (no one has specified a 1st) no further look at uni performance (each recruiter has their own tests). Offers have specified the minimum degree class (never a 1st).

It can be taken at least as seriously, if not more seriously, than recruitment where alumni from certain universities are known to have a higher chance of being interviewed or recruited by panels made up of people from the same university.

The degree classification is such a small part of the recruitment process (I hire a lot of graduates). We have a minimum requirement but I barely look at the classification. It’s more about projects, work experience and overall demeanour in the interview. Does their attitude fit with our company ethos? How do they think in their feet? Some positions have an aptitude test, so this is taken into consideration too. I’ve never picked someone with a 1st over 2:1 just because of their degree ever.

I’ve never put my degree classification on my cv after my first job.

@Stilton65 It is not new research, but the IFS did research on what degrees, and from where, get the best salaries. There was a clear advantage for RG (plus a few more) and the research demonstrated an Economics degree is worth a lot more from the LSE than it is from a lowly ranked uni. Employers are highly likely to filter out the grad from the lower ranked uni. It might not be by the name of the uni, but by a lot of other info and tests. So it’s absolutely not true that at 2:1 from Oxford is less than a 1st from Northampton. It’s simply not true.

There is, of course, ambition in the mix. Who wants the better paid jobs? Are they well placed to get them? Do they even apply?

Employers have also found that when they are uni blind, their recruitment stats barely change. They are not suddenly rejecting Oxbridge candidates in favour of grads from low tariff unis. Some companies have found their elite uni recruits actually goes up.

So what counts is a 2:1 or better. Lots of grad schemes won’t look at a 2:2. They might look at work experience but not everyone will. However the IFS still found the uni matters so a first from X uni near the foot of the league tables is not as good as a 2:1 from an elite uni. There are cases where that’s not true of course because some courses are job specific and brilliant but, in general, degrees are not equal. If they were how would the CCC A level student get into Oxbridge?

As long as you have a 2:1, most employers won’t care about uni further than that. So with lots of employers it won’t matter if you get a 1st or a 2:1 as long as it’s at least a 2:1. Other areas will be more important, mainly work experience and anything else that gets you get skills. Someone with a 1st but nothing else useful in their CV won’t be top of the list against someone with a 2:1 who’s had a part time job at school and uni, or Summer internships.

Ok thanks everyone that is helpful. So a first only really an issue if trying to go into academia?

@TizerorFizz interesting re outcomes of blind recruitment and that it’s still worth taking ranking into account

Some employers will definitely still value a first and/or a top-3 uni in their first sift, others won't. In fact, the majority won't, and that's not just because it is elitist, but because if they're too picky then they might not get a big enough pool of suitable applicants.

I do think that, left to their own devices, people recruit in their own image, so a lot depends on HR policy being influential enough to override that.

(That said, I currently work for a University, which says all the right things about equalities, but it's the most nepotistic place I've ever known!).

I don't think it's easy to get a 1st from Imperial but rather it attracts top applicants so they'll do well anyway?

Getting a First is important for doing your Masters at a university that ranks more highly than the university in which you did your undergraduate degree ie if you want to do a Masters at Cambridge or Oxford when you did your undergraduate degree at UCL or Bristol you'd better get a First. Employers care about more than just academics and so tend to place less emphasis on absolutely top grades but in their general assessment of suitability for the job obviously being applied and hard working (traits that are also captured by high grades) tend to be pretty important.

Totally agree. However I would say the same about Oxbridge and LSE and they give out a much lower % firsts (low 30s)

Hi, OP -

You raised an excellent question about degree standards. I am in STEM and in my subject my university ranks just below the big four: Cambridge, Oxford, Warwick, Imperial. Our standard entry requirement is similar, also.

However I have seen examination papers from some of these universities that even our top students would find very difficult, and our typical 2.1 student almost surely could not pass. I am fairly confident that this would be true of students in the subject at our level across the country.

It isn’t because of curriculum, which is easy to articulate; it is down to more sophisticated teaching and learning methods ( though Oxbridge have a somewhat more accelerated curriculum). On a given topic, we in turn teach somewhat more material at much more depth and with much more synthesis than many other universities. Exams and degree classifications reflect these differences.

It is a polite veneer that degrees are equal. I don’t know whether it is helpful but on the whole I agree with blind recruiting. As @TizerorFizz said implicitly, a good education tends to show and it also gives potential a chance to shine.

@Ceramiq is right that a First does mean a lot if you aspire to upgrade for your Masters, however. Her examples are good, but it is even more important if you want to make the leap from eg the post 1992 universities to RG+ (which can def be accomplished).

Frankly dd has given a swerve to some companies with very “blind” recruiting systems. One employer wanted no educational information, but was asking questions about parents’ circumstances.

On the issue of all degrees being equal - well, that’s a laugh. It’s just preposterous!

However I have seen examination papers from some of these universities that even our top students would find very difficult, and our typical 2.1 student almost surely could not pass. I am fairly confident that this would be true of students in the subject at our level across the country.

I had an instance where I had, at the last minute, had to recruit a new member of staff to teach a specific module. They had previously taught essentially the same thing for some years at another university. Because of time constraints we reused an old exam of theirs. Practically all our students (STEM, big four as above) achieved a 1st, most very high firsts. We ended up having to scale the results.

Same teacher, teaching the same thing using the same materials, same exam. Different university, different students, vastly different results.

Parents circumstances?? What's that got to with anything?

"Same teacher, teaching the same thing using the same materials, same exam. Different university, different students, vastly different results."
That's probably why the UK, Hong Kong, and Shanghai governments tend to welcome graduates from roughly the same world top 50 universities for jobs.

I wonder if there is also a reluctance by some who get a first at a top uni (Oxbridge) to restrict where they apply because they tink they should get higher ranking/paid positions? Could be totally wrong but I had in my mind that perhaps they might only, for example, apply for 'top 4' because anything else is below their achievements? In the same way my DC didn't apply to top 4 as they knew the competition would be extremely high?

Might not be a thing but it would answer where certain companies were still getting a certain candidate profile despite being uni blind,

I would also add that it must be obvious in other ways which uni a candidate went to, especially at interview! I do think there are ways around this and have a bit of a feeling that it's just another way of pretending everything is equal.

Degrees are not equal.

As others have said it is a polite fiction.

A first in maths from a top four is significantly better and significantly harder than a bottom ranking uni, or even a middle ranking one.

@poetryandwine One of the amazing things about the UK university system is how undergraduates who excel at mid-ranking universities can upgrade to the very top institutions for their Masters degree. This is far from a given in many countries' systems.

@Ceramiq Most UK master's programmes are referred to as watered-down degrees or "milk cow programmes" and are not highly regarded internationally. In many countries, Master's programs are two to three-year programs rather than one-year courses in the UK.

@poetryandwine "It isn’t because of curriculum, which is easy to articulate; it is down to more sophisticated teaching and learning methods ( though Oxbridge have a somewhat more accelerated curriculum). On a given topic, we in turn teach somewhat more material at much more depth and with much more synthesis than many other universities. Exams and degree classifications reflect these differences."

This is of course true. However, IME and that of our children, academics who are themselves pure products of the Oxbridge system tend (generalisation but it happens too often not to have some truth to it) to be less good at teaching through lectures and seminars than academics coming from some other universities (particularly the best US universities). I am sure that the tutorial/supervision system is fabulous for those within it and am convinced it allows for very deep/fast learning for those students with the aptitude but for obvious economic reasons this is not a scaleable teaching pedagogy. A couple of our DC did really rate their US trained academics for their teaching skills in the lecture + seminar context (in top UK universities but not Oxbridge).

Me personally, I'd rather have a 2.1 from Cambridge than a 1st from Bristol.

A first is useful in a highly competitive career! Think London lawyer or barrister. It’s a big help. But not from the uni of Blog. High paying city careers - a first helps but for many careers it doesn’t matter. Just not a 2:2. So the career matters. To any employer with lots of international recruitment, uni matters. Many people would think, correctly, that Harvard is better than Wrexham on the global stage. It would be odd not to.

@Fdsdpacy That is not a great example. It wholly depends on the career and ambition. My DD has a 2:1 from Bristol and is doing far better than many she knows with 2:1s from Oxbridge. A first from Bristol is definitely useful for the right career! It really won’t wholly be down to degree classification. As many people are saying, it’s the whole person that matters and there’s 1 mark between a first and a 2:1!

@TizerorFizz just me personally I'd rather have a Cambridge degree than a degree from Bristol. Like for my own personal satisfaction is what in trying to say

LOL, I got a First from Bristol and my sister got a 2:1 from Cambridge shortly afterwards. She says that she wouldn't have felt the need to prove her intellectual credentials by undertaking a Masters and PhD if she'd got a First (which she missed by an injudicious module choice).