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 have a DD who epitomises this. Mid-ranking post-92 uni for first degree (biomed) actually missed a First overall but scored very highly on her dissertation. Moved to a genuinely world renowned uni for MSc (masters rankings are a bit vague but only Oxford, Harvard and Johns Hopkins usually appear above it for her field of STEM, Cambridge certainly doesn't).

She got the equivalent of a First (which only 10-12% do each year). Talking to potential PhD supervisors and not one was remotely interested in her under-graduate degree because of how far beyond that she has now gone.

Sure, all the programmes are selective but they don't select for the same things. INSEAD places great weight on international exposure for example ie having lived/worked significantly outside country of passport when applying. That is INSEAD's prerogative; Harvard places greater weight on senior leadership qualities and likelihood of working for US companies after graduation.

I've detailed issues around QS rankings in the past on these boards, but one solid example is that a key metric is the number of academic papers an institution publishes (no quality control, incidentally, just a raw figure).

As it's generally easier to publish in the STEM field (lots of specialist journals, constant new bits of research etc), it has been suggested that QS rankings will disproportionately reward science-based courses and institutions over humanities-based ones. There are other similar concerns like the one @poetryandwine talks about.

@Ceramiq doesn't all tertiary education in the US take a wider perspective than it does in the UK? Even the top schools want to see extra-curricular, don't they? So I can see why leadership qualities might be highly regarded. Whereas to coin an admissions tutor at Cambridge I know, he 'couldn't give a monkey's what students do in their spare time'.

Not saying one is right and one wrong, mind, just that it highlights a different approach. As you rightly say, it is an institution's prerogative to decide what factors matter most to them. As I understand it, PhD students in the US are expected to teach; it's a factor which put DD off actually as she wants to spend all her time learning new stuff herself not teaching others what she knows so far.

Thank you @poetryandwine.

A family friend who taught MFL for years said I would be horrified at the standard these days. University level French for example is more like the A level we worked to. Although MFL has gone the way of all things as it's 'too difficult'.

I see these kids coming out the other end into the Civil Service. There are some absolutely shining exceptions, but the vast majority can barely construct a sentence. Or spell. Or have no idea how to accept hierarchy and authority. It's very grim.

MFL in the UK were always terrible. Both my sister and I studied MFL as undergraduates for at least part of our degrees and the standards were already dismal in the 1980s. And I agree, standards have worsened.

@Words Did you do medieval French for A level? How many plays and books did you read? Did you expand your knowledge by a year abroad af A level? It’s a bit of a lazy assertion I think!

The point about MFLs that no one gets is that, like most unis, there’s a pecking order and the top unis keep up standards. However what world stage are MFL grads on? Most in the uk don’t see the degrees like this. Or even vocational. They, like history and other “arts” degrees are stepping stones. You are not recruited for MFL abilities. It’s everything else that you learn that gets employment. It’s not like sciences!

Oh dear please don't call them 'unis'.

No medieval French but a fair bit of 17thc . Read widely outside the syllabus of course. It was encouraged and expected.

No time abroad. That wasn't available to the Lower sixth in my day. I wish it had been as the emphasis in those days was very much on written rather than oral.

I have a first class degree, a PhD (both from a top 10 uni) and work in the HE sector - please could you restate your specific question more clearly and I'll have a go at answering it.

@Words. Cannot say I am a fan of uni either but it saves typing.

Of course you didn’t spend a year abroad in 6th form! My point was that degree students do. So they hone their skills above A level. No medieval French either - so your A level didn’t match a degree there either. You read some books. So did my DD and yes, her teachers did expect it and she did 2 MFL A levels. I don’t think anything was superior back then. A good MFL degree from a top class UNIVERSITY is still a robust academic degree which can open doors if you are able to push through them.

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,

Intesting use of"but" @Stilton65 given its a listing of 147 universities

Oxford in 16th - or in other words in the top 20% of universities awarding a 1st

Cambridge in 22nd - or in other words in the top 20% of universities awarding a 1st

LSE in 23rd - or in other words in the top 20% of universities awarding a 1st

So something of a leap to conclude from that it's much easier to get a first at many unis with relatively low offer requirements than some of the most competitive. and then to extend that into I don't see how it can be taken seriously with data like this

Strangely neither conclusion shared by the actual article, full text below for those not registered for the TES.

Two-thirds of UK universities awarded fewer top class degrees last year, figures show, although more than 90 per cent of students at some of the country’s most elite institutions received a first or a 2:1 degree.

Following years of rising grades, recent data revealed that the number of students awarded first-class honours degrees has fallen to its lowest level since before the pandemic.

Much-delayed data finally released by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (Hesa) shows that 77.1 per cent of first-degree students at UK universities were awarded a first-class or upper second-class honours degree in 2022-23 – down from 78.7 per cent in 2021-22.

An analysis of institutional level awards by Times Higher Education shows Imperial College London awarded 93.7 per cent of its students a first or a 2:1 – a slight increase on the year before, and the highest proportion of all UK universities.

It was followed by the University of Oxford (93.6 per cent), and the University of Cambridge (91.7 per cent).

At the other end of the scale, University College Birmingham (52.7 per cent), Regent’s University London (54.5 per cent) and Buckinghamshire New University (55.5 per cent) recorded the lowest number of firsts and 2:1s.

The analysis includes every English institution recognised as a university by the Office for Students (OfS), along with selected others across the UK. A small number were excluded for reporting fewer than 100 total degree classifications.

All 147 universities included in the analysis awarded at least 50 per cent of students a first or a 2:1 in the most recent year’s figures – just as they did in 2021-22. However, around two-thirds (65 per cent) of them handed out fewer of these top degree marks than they did the year before.

The news of grade deflation was previously welcomed by Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi), who said the change has made top grades a “little more meaningful for employers”.

And the OfS said the figures are testament to the sector’s commitment to addressing unexplained increases in grades in recent years.

Students at Imperial also received more firsts (52.1 per cent) than any other university in the analysis. In contrast, just 14.1 per cent of students at Arden University received a first.

And Imperial was not alone in the capital for awarding top degrees, with the analysis showing that 32.7 per cent of students at London universities received a first in 2022-23 – the highest of all UK regions. Those in the East Midlands were awarded the lowest proportion – 26.2 per cent.

https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/media/gzcftkrn/analysis-of-degree-classifications-over-time-2024.pdf

@boys3 My point was simply that there isn’t a clear relationship between % firsts and uni ranking/grade requirements for entry. If all degrees are (in theory) considered equal then you would expect to see a clearer correlation between how selective a uni is academically and % firsts? Cambridge (ranked 3rd) has the same proportion of firsts as the Uni of Wolverhampton (ranked 115th).

Appreciate where you are coming from on this @Stilton65 If I get the chance today I’ll create a couple of visualisations of the full data set which should demonstrate the degree (no pun intended) to which any relationship is evident. For simplicity I’ll use the CUG rankings for the ranking and ucas entry points.

In the meantime Fizz referenced the IFS up thread. This is their summary of their own degree classification report.

https://ifs.org.uk/publications/how-much-does-it-pay-get-good-grades-university#:~:text=Obtaining%20a%20lower%20class%20degree,does%20not%20matter%20at%20all.

And this is their full report. As ever with the IFS the devil along with inconvenient truths can be found in the detail.

https://ifs.org.uk/sites/default/files/output_url_files/How-much-does-it-pay-to-get-good-grades-at-university.pdf

I think the year (22-23) in the report may be a bad example of taking conclusions from or making assumptions that that is the norm.
Can provide more data on Mon/Tue but using the underlying OFS data, a number of Unis had a significant drop off from the 18-19 % to 22-23(spikes higher inbetween due to Covid). IIRC Lancaster was one, from 30-odd % to 20-odd %, so they might be a lot lower in the list than normal.
Unless @boys3 wants to dig into it as they will probably be better at it than me!

All degrees are not in theory considered equal. That has absolutely never been the case.

@poetryandwine said :
"
Most strikingly, the questions cannot vary too much from year to year, and/or must be very similar to coursework. Anything else generates complaints to the Staff-Student Committee and the Director of Undergraduate Studies comes down hard on the lecturer.

For the past few years the only way to know who the top students were has been by the quality of their UG dissertations, because most choose to do them. AI has not developed to the point where it can write the technical aspects of these dissertations but I suspect it is being used inappropriately to improve some of them now. The oral exam usually catches this out and the dissertation mark suffers, but prosecuting the academic dishonesty is very difficult. All most depressing."

I find this mind boggling. The insistence on the same questions being on the paper every year (chimes with what I have been told about coursework in school being resubmitted 'for correction' by the teacher.

This isn't quite so bad, but is only one small step away.

As for the use of AI . I have no words.

What has become of academe? It is churning out many, ( not all) young people, burdened with debt, yet with the inability to think truly critically, with all the implications that has for the future of society, culture and politics.

Agreed, @Words

The academic rigor at the top universities is significantly above the standard of more middle of the road universities. My DCs have told me this through the experiences of their friends and their own, comparing the work load, level of support and expectations between the likes of UCL and Imperial compared to Manchester Uni and again between Man U and Man met. Brands are important.

TBF our students are highly able compared to a cohort from the general population, so the issues with exams are relative. But it used to be acceptable to develop an exam problem by laying out the major steps; now more guidance is required.

And the difficulty level used to vary more. You could compose an exam thinking ‘everyone needs to demonstrate most of this basic knowledge to pass’, ‘a 2.2 student ought to make decent progress on 2 of these 3 questions’, etc, culminating with something (for not too many marks) only top students would be expected to get full credit on. Now, anything requiring a stretch is elitist.

@poetryandwine It used to be that it was the elite, academically, who got firsts though. It’s certainly not that now by any stretch of the imagination. It’s perfectly possible to get a first when, by any reasonable measure, dc are just above average intelligence. Then there’s some difficulty in getting a job because most employers want more than a degree and definitely prefer their own tests to sift candidates. It can be very demoralizing to get a first and take a year to get a job.

Agreed,@TizerorFizz

I think too many Firsts are setting up false expectations, amongst other things

PS The job market is tough; I have a lot of sympathy for applicants. But the false expectations are a real problem.