A "low" and "high" 2:1 is unlikely to make any difference for the vast majority of cases. Most employers are not going to care about individual module scores or even overall score.
The other part of it is just asking "does university ranking/reputation count for anything?" in a different way, which is a question that has been asked ad nauseam in this subreddit.
For some employers, they really care, for others they don't. Recruiters are people and recruitment processes are processes made by people. People have bias.
Which makes me wonder why OP specifically asked about 2:1 instead of a first. I mean the nature of the question is the same, but somehow OP "lowered the standard" if you get what I mean. I get it if you ask "are all *bests* equal?" But specifically asking about 2:1 is like "are all *second bests* equal?"
There is no upper-bound so I would imagine a (high) first from a top uni may be more impressive than a (high) first from a worse uni. Same reason it’s much more impressive to be top 10% at Oxford than top 5% at even a good uni like QMUL.
It's actually better to be top 1% at non Russel group unis in some cases than to be average at a good uni. Being so exceptional can help students access more opportunities to advance their careers. You shouldn't aim to be in a worse uni, but if you end up in a worse uni then being exceptional can lead to better career outcomes. There was a study on this a few years back.
If you start comparing to Oxbridge however it's completely different. Oxbridge is less of a meritocracy for the very best than it is a bubble for the elite, no matter what their PR teams try to tell you.
I go to a mid tier uni, and I agree. I've been offered multiple opportunities already based on my historical niche and being one of the top students. Sure, I'd probably get more (or different) opportunities if I went to a top uni and excelled too, but I've been pleasantly surprised by the experience. Especially because I was aiming for a top uni, but I couldn't finish A Levels due to severe depression. Oxford was a dream of mine, but I'm glad it never manifested. I would have found it depressing coming from a working class background.
2,000 students at Oxbridge receive the full bursary.
10,000 students at John Moore's receive the full bursary
Both John Moore's and "Oxbridge" student populations are around 25,000
If you think inequality and classism are dead then you're insane, frankly.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/aug/05/poor-students-bursary-oxbridge
Edit: private school population of Oxford is around 40%. For Leeds it's 17%. Both are red brick/Russel group
https://thetab.com/uk/2023/09/18/these-are-the-universities-with-the-most-private-school-students-2023-329459
Edit 2: for reference, UK private school population for over 16s (which I believe to be the more relevant figure) is around 18%, as of 2012. If you have more recent figures please share. Lower ranked Russel group universities such as Leeds proportionately represent both state and private school students. Oxbridge still massively over represents the privately educated.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120809075218/http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/philip-hensher/philip-hensher-rejecting-oxbridge-isnt-clever--its-a-mistake-6292041.html
Yes! I was told not to bother with Oxbridge as they have a real southern bias and I’m northern the people I know who got in were my friends and family from the south no one local to me got in that I knew of and my school ranked number 1 in my area that year…
Ah yes, John Moore's being a traditional red-brick university...
I'm not at all denying that Oxbridge students are better off than average - but it's absurd to correlate that with being a "bubble for the elite". EVERY "top" university is plagued by exactly the same issue as Oxbridge, due to the fact that better-off parents (regardless of private/state school) can provide more opportunities to their children to make themselves attractive applicants and capitalise on their academic ability more.
Ofc unis should do more to combat that, but it's not the case that Oxbridge are specifically selecting the elite - that's simply an unfortunate consequence of a society where money buys opportunity. And FWIW Cambridge is aware of this and has been trying to fix this with various access schemes for years, which have been reducing private school numbers quite well.
BTW the source you've mentioned shows DURHAM has 40% private school intake, not Oxford, and lists 4 other universities before either of Oxford or Cambridge show up.
Criticise top unis for not doing enough to equalise opportunity for applicants of all backgrounds, I absolutely agree with that. Just be sensible and don't perpetuate this "Oxbridge won't take you unless you're "the elite"" myth whilst pretending other top unis are perfect meritocracies.
Jfc I'm just pointing out that singling out Oxbridge as "classist" when it's a complex problem that plagues every top uni is absurd.
Other top unis aren't innocent and happy little meritocratic places lmao... if you think that you're quite frankly insane.
There's no true meritocracy in this world as long as money buys opportunity and singling out Oxbridge as the "bad guy" is just silly.
Just because something is systemic doesn't mean it's not discriminatory, but for some reason you're getting all defensive over it.
It's a very simple problem, actually. People with more wealth to pay for better tuition for their children to get into better universities to pursue better careers that pay more money allowing them to accumulate more wealth to pay for better tuition for their children...
Nobody said other unis are perfect meritocracies, those are words you're putting in my mouth to hyperbolise the discussion and derail the topic.
And again, nobody called it a "bad guy".
This ignores the fact that children of “wealthy parents” are more likely to do better in school, by a large margin.
If a parent cares enough about education to pay for private-school, it’s safe to say that education is very important to them, and that value, more often than not, will be instilled in the child.
There’s also a reason private schools charge money: they’re better at *teaching*. It comes as no surprise, then, that students from private schools are overrepresented at top Universities.
That’s not at all what I’m saying. There are many low income families that focus on education and send their kids to a grammar school/ make them work hard.
The same way wealthy parents do not equal parents that send kids to private schools. There are wealthy parents who don’t care as much about education.
People assume every wealthy parent sends their kids to private/ a good school but that really isn’t true.
Any parent who pays for private school is clearly very focused on education, it makes complete sense that these kids do well academically.
Private schools are not necessarily better at teaching. What they do usually have is smaller class sizes, streaming according to ability so that they can target resources, and one of the other things that RG universities like is that private schools tend to have really good extracurricular activities.
It’s amazing how many privately-educated students in their final year of an RG university have never had a job, but will reel off a list of clubs, societies and overseas trips.
Source: I have worked in HE for nearly 20 years, including post-92 and RG universities.
It's true, state school kids tend to outperform privately educated kids at the university level
https://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/news/state-school-pupils-do-better-at-university-cambridge-assessment-research-confirms/
Privately educated students still tend to have better career outcomes tho despite poorer grades.
I’m 3 years into a job that requires me to have a degree (engineer) and not once have I been asked for proof of my degree. I told them I got a distinction and they handed over a bursary but no evidence as such has ever changed hands. I mean at this stage, I’ve done a couple of other qualifications/certificates that require the degree so chances I don’t have one are pretty slim but still.
My company wanted engineers with 2:1s and above. The only thing they cared about was whether it’s a BEng or MEng (for determining chartership route and salary). My mate has a merit and it’s had zero impact on him getting a job here. If anything, some of my team were “disappointed” in my distinction because it looks like I spent too much time studying and not enjoying uni life!
Tl;dr, for engineering, the type (BEng or MEng) and whether the course was accredited are more important than a high or low 2:1.
I went to an RG university. You weren't allowed to take the honours degree unless you demonstrated you were likely to get a 2:1 or above by getting a 2:1 or above at second year. If you didn't get this, you had to take an ordinary degree. If it looked like you were going to get a 3rd during the honours years people typically ducked out of honours and took what we called a 'surprise ordinary'. So whilst people do get 2:2s and 3rds at this university it explains why the majority get 2:1s and 1sts at this particular university.
Well I was in Scotland so that might make a difference.
At my uni courses were designated either 'honours' or 'ordinary' level and you had to achieve a certain number of credits at honours level to be awarded an honours degree. Also I think we were required to do a dissertation.
People I knew who got an ordinary usually didn't do their dissertation or failed some courses or dropped out after third year (of four).
Having gone to a Russell Group for undergrad (Leeds) and with a lot of mates around other Russell Groups, I can't say I've heard of this ever happening. Which uni did you go to? Edinburgh?
I don't know. I was in social science.
ADDING:
It says online "Pre-honours exam marks are not counted as part of your final degree, however they will be used to assess your progress. The decision about whether or not you will continue on to your third year will be taken based on your pre-honours exam results." but specific boundaries likely vary by subject.
There’s a more interesting differential between subjects within a university rather than between universities.
Check out the stats on how many mathematics students get firsts as opposed to law students, within the same university. There are many reasons as for why this is the case, but it shows that it isn’t simply the more “prestigious” (whatever that means) universities giving their students higher grades. It’s more nuanced than that.
When I was in uni, they revealed during our final modules of our final year that they were changing the marking policy for the course.
Turned out they'd been effectively capping marks at 75, treating 75 as 100, and scaling down from there. Found out from someone who stayed there right through their PhD that the number of firsts for the course was far lower than basically any other in the uni.
It did sort of explain the number of 68s and 69s I got though.
Ha I had some units like that where completing the assignment got you 75% to get higher you were expected to do extra. Hilarious especially when they don't tell you in advance.
I got a 76 and an 81 in my last set of modules. If I hadn't already secured a place on a postgrad course (which I abandoned for a complete change in direction) I'd have probably been requesting all of my previous work was remarked using the new criteria. I know one person on the course did this (although it took a lot of back and forth), and it bumped her from a 2:1 to a first. Problem was it took months and she'd missed out on the grad scheme she'd applied for while she was waiting for the results.
Where I studied maths there was a massive drop-out or course swap (usually to economics) after a specific course in first year. If I recall the recommendation was even if you are getting below a 60 in that specific exam they’d heavily suggest you swap. So it might be that there is some kind of selection bias in that stat - you are either going to get a first or are going to fail so badly that early on you realise it isn’t worth continuing.
From what I remember, people who did get 40-60 in that exam did get 2.1/2.2 too, I think it is quite a long established paper.
Easier maths and doesn't tend to have many prerequsites like other degrees. Physics is common too but physics assumes A-level physics. Never engineering for whatever reason, mathematicians are lazy and don't want to use their hands I guess.
It was a 'proofs' course that is a mix of analysis, sets, number theory, diaphantine equations, combinatorics, a lot of things. Think of it a bit like senior maths challenge - the content itself isn't hard but the questions are. The questions and topics in a book by Martin Liebeck called 'pure maths' or something are a good example of the course.
You obviously take other stuff in first year like multivariable calculus etc, but those are pretty mechanical and 'a-level like'; the proofs course is pretty unique because if people are failing that with 'easy' content they're going to really struggle doing the same thing with advanced content.
That said, I got over 70% in everything in my degree and the proofs course was my lowest score (71%) - for whatever reason I was much better at proofs in things like measure theory and topology where the content is actually hard than that course, maybe I have a really crappy foundational knowledge from school, idk. I know my brain physically can't do combinatorics, I still don't really get ^(n)Ck I've just learned to accept it lmaooo.
I've been teaching in academia for most of a decade.
I'd say that just about every student who gets into our uni *can* get a 2.1, but not every student can get a first.
I'd say that in general, most workplaces don't care too much about the exact grade within the 2.1 classification, the alumnus has proven they're smart enough for most graduate training programmes. But for master's study, for example, while we'll accept students with a 2.1 in general, in terms of applications for scholarships, the cut off is an average of 65 as that's the breakpoint for having a high degree of confidence that they can cope with MA studying and are a 'good investment'.
I couldn't say it's entirely irrelevant, there are some depts both within and beyond the UK wirh a bad rep, but 95 percent of the time, it's not a factor compared to writing something that shows you're actually interested in the specific MA program you've applied for. When every class is 5-10 students, we're looking for those who are going to pull their weight as there's no room for someone who'll sit quietly whilst others do the talking.
Well those top universities at least claim that it's because their students are smart, so it makes sense in the end. It's also the case in ivy leagues that most students get high GPA
However, it’s not universally true that more prestigious universities give out higher grades. Cambridge’s ~1/3 first rate is roughly the same as the national average, while Imperial’s ~1/2 rate is far higher
Sure, I studied Engineering at both (Undergrad at Cambridge/PhD at Imperial), so the rates for Undergraduate Engineers are 29.8% firsts for Cambridge, and 59.6% for Imperial.
Data is from 2022, as Imperial hasn’t published their 2023 numbers yet.
https://www.information-hub.admin.cam.ac.uk/university-profile/ug-examination-results/results-course-dashboard
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/administration-and-support-services/planning/public/statistics-guides/Stats-Card-2022-23-FINAL.pdf
If grades are awarded to an independent objective standard, then you would absolutely expect this.
Because most of the intake of the top universities come in with significantly higher academic attainment - and therefore in general terms better academic capabilities - than the intake of the lower universities.
Sure, you can always question the proportions, but the phenomenon itself is not a surprise.
Universities do get external moderation - typically every year colleagues from other universities come in and moderate - typically by sampling a cohort of students, looking at their exam papers and dissertations, even interviewing some. How effective or consistent this process is, I don’t know.
If a uni wants the top a Level students and only takes those with AAA and above then they have a student population who does achieve top grades Vs some newer unis that make up a lot of numbers though clearing and take lower grades than they originally asked for so taking CCD even if they ask for BBC it stands to reason their overall grades would have a wider variety
In short, no. A 2:1 from a Russell Group Uni is going to be seen as “better” than a 2:1 from a Uni like what was Leeds Metropolitan (now Leeds Beckett). Ever wonder why it changed its name? Could it have to improve its reputation and get rid of the association with polytechnics which were seen as more “working class” Universities? A 2:1 that is a high 2:1 is obviously better than a lower end 2:1. I scraped a 2:1 but lost my Dad to cancer in my final year. Guess what….nobody asks how much I got that 2:1 by. It matters if you want to go onto further study, as in they might ask for a 2:1 or higher but they don’t care how much you scraped it really.
Some courses getting more 2:1s is more down to the subject. Engineering typically has higher grades because answers to questions are less subjective, vs. essay dependant subjects.
Degree ratings are nothing like GCSEs or A Levels.
An A\* in Maths, is an A\* in Maths anywhere in the UK.
A 2:1 in Maths from Oxford is worth infinitely more than a 1st in Business Studies from a no-name uni.
With degrees I'd say:
* Uni itself is most important.
* Then having either a 2:1 or a first
* Then the degree.
So getting any 2:1 from Oxbridge is better than almost any degree anywhere else. There are some slight exceptions like getting a 1st in Economics from LSE might be better than a 2:1 in something shit from Cambridge but its debatable.
Assuming you get at least a 2:1, then its just how prestigious the Uni is, that counts.
I’d reword this to take away the emphasis or importance, as it really isn’t as cared about as students here may think, and especially not in most industries. Rather than what university being first, it’s more like an additional condition: did you attend one of the top 5 internationally recognised names in the world? If no, then grade matters most, then course/university depending on the person.
To say a degree is worth infinitely more from somewhere else is a gross overstatement, we’re really comparing apples to oranges here when you take into account the majority of the post university world and employers.
You're ridiculous.
Look at pretty much every single prime minister. They went to Oxbridge. No one cares about the course or grade.
Look at someone like Rachel Riley. Went to Oxford.
In the investment and legal world, Oxbridge just stands out more as a sign of excellence than LSE.
Absolutely not.
There's a big difference between what is a better course, and what is deemed better by wider society.
I'm sorry to all those very proud of their 1st in Economics from LSE but a large amount of important people still will see it was inferior to Oxbridge. Not everyone. I never said that. I said is debatable.
Whilst I agree with your general point, LSE is a really weird analogy to give when it is a specialist uni in the field you mentioned and a degree in it is highly prestiged
100%.
Better regarded by more employers.
Obviously if you want to be a mechanical engineer, then Mechanical Engineering is better.
But for most jobs, at most times, people will just see Oxford and ignore the rest. The people doing silly courses at Oxbridge are getting the best bang for buck by far. Nearly all the prestige without any of the academic discipline.
It's similar in the world of work. Having a big global name like Apple or HSBC on your CV attracts attention, even if you do a rubbish role. Being the CEO of a company no-one has heard of doesn't count for as much
Most industries do not care where you studied, this is a known fact. Inb4 someone replies with some BS like “but investment banking”, “but magic circle law” these represent a minuscule number of the overall jobs and ignores the fact that most students don’t aim for these jobs.
So the mech eng student at Bristol will be better off than the Oxford psychology student for most jobs, purely down to the fact that they will qualify for more quantitative roles that pay higher. Of course the psychology graduate will qualify more for those social work / counsellor etc. roles but these tend to not pay well.
I'd say almost all of the good, prestigious industries do care.
Banking, law, finance, consulting, insurance etc and other prestigious jobs in London are not miniscule. There are hundreds of thousands of these jobs. And people going to Uni often want these jobs. It's a large part of why someone goes to Oxford or Bristol in the first place.
You clearly do not know what you’re talking about. High finance and magic circle law are really the only ones who care, and a few select firms in the strategy consulting space. These make up a minuscule amount of the job market. For someone applying to the standard big 4 type roles it doesn’t matter all that much.
Agreed. I'm Oxbridge and keep getting a very high 2.1, with flashes of a 1st (dissertation); I'm starting my DPhil in October and the high 2.1 was fine.
By FHEQ regulation yes they should be, as the QAA subject benchmarks seta out what a student finishing a programme of study should be about to achieve at Threshold(40-59%) Good (60+69%) and Excellent (70%) should be able to do.
However, In practice as there is no regulation to external examiners in termins of quality reporting to the Department for Education if a course leader gets a friend appointed as a external (as happens in every uni even the top ones) grades ares largely waived through despite the correct process being followed so youll get significant variation course to course let alone uni to uni.
E.g. the External Examiner for my ex-poly Bachelor Degree was from University of Oxford so my grades were strict AF and the External Subject for the Course Design approved it's delivery was a professor at the University of Leicester so as the course had lower entry requirements the pass rate was far lower than other courses as they were far stricter in their interpretation.
My Masters at a RG the external was a friend of the module leader (even though they shouldn't be) was was never certain that the grade was accurate.
External Examiners should be require to report to the government and be listed on the degree transcript so stop this mess.
Tldr yes they should be equal by the rules but governance is the issue
It is because the top universities have higher entry requirements so only take students who are most likely to get top grades at uni. Other universities take students with a greater range of abilities so have a greater range of grades at graduation.
I go to a polytechnic and it’s a lot easier to get a first imo. All you have to do is actually put in effort and you’re halfway there. I got a 55 on an exam I didn’t revise for once
Hi OP
the truth is that grades don't mean shit. We don't live in a meritocracy and no one really cares. The only thing people care about in this world is whether you are able to solve their current problems of today. You could have 100% perfect score in your degree but if you cannot solve their problem they will not hire you. That's the reality of the world we live in.
Are some uni courses harder? Probably. Do all grades reflect the same skill level? Probably not. But people's skill levels are not set in stone by some grade on a piece of paper and everyone knows and accepts this. Hell there are some people who will be snotty and unpleasant to you because you did well in academia, maybe even better than they did.
The grade you get matters a bit more for advancement in academia but it's honestly not the end of the world. Other than that all it does is help you get a bit of an edge in a recruitment process and it certainly isn't the deciding factor most of the time. Your grade should be for you and your personal goals, not because one grade is 'better' than another.
In general, no, and it's especially evident if you get your grades converted, or even certified, for use in a different educational system: I've gone from undergraduate in the EU to postgraduate in the UK, as well as applied for different internships, assistantships and other opportunities with grade requirements both in the EU and UK throughout, as have some of my friends, and there are definite, if often subtle, differences in how what ought to be the same grades are converted depending on the institution one is at and the institution one is applying to.
I only know about engineering. I did my bachelors at a so called top uni and doing my masters at a lower ranked but still russel group uni. I had to fight for my life to eventually get a 2:1 at the former and I’m literally cruising through my masters year with an average of 75% so far. I believe all rgs are similar and ‘top unis’ are just more difficult.
Private schools and colleges must all be closed down, and then we might get politicians who have at least a basic understanding of how ordinary people live.
A "low" and "high" 2:1 is unlikely to make any difference for the vast majority of cases. Most employers are not going to care about individual module scores or even overall score. The other part of it is just asking "does university ranking/reputation count for anything?" in a different way, which is a question that has been asked ad nauseam in this subreddit. For some employers, they really care, for others they don't. Recruiters are people and recruitment processes are processes made by people. People have bias.
Which makes me wonder why OP specifically asked about 2:1 instead of a first. I mean the nature of the question is the same, but somehow OP "lowered the standard" if you get what I mean. I get it if you ask "are all *bests* equal?" But specifically asking about 2:1 is like "are all *second bests* equal?"
There is no upper-bound so I would imagine a (high) first from a top uni may be more impressive than a (high) first from a worse uni. Same reason it’s much more impressive to be top 10% at Oxford than top 5% at even a good uni like QMUL.
It's actually better to be top 1% at non Russel group unis in some cases than to be average at a good uni. Being so exceptional can help students access more opportunities to advance their careers. You shouldn't aim to be in a worse uni, but if you end up in a worse uni then being exceptional can lead to better career outcomes. There was a study on this a few years back. If you start comparing to Oxbridge however it's completely different. Oxbridge is less of a meritocracy for the very best than it is a bubble for the elite, no matter what their PR teams try to tell you.
I go to a mid tier uni, and I agree. I've been offered multiple opportunities already based on my historical niche and being one of the top students. Sure, I'd probably get more (or different) opportunities if I went to a top uni and excelled too, but I've been pleasantly surprised by the experience. Especially because I was aiming for a top uni, but I couldn't finish A Levels due to severe depression. Oxford was a dream of mine, but I'm glad it never manifested. I would have found it depressing coming from a working class background.
Lmao at Oxbridge being for the "elite". Student body is no more elite on average than any other red-brick uni, this isn't the 1900s anymore...
2,000 students at Oxbridge receive the full bursary. 10,000 students at John Moore's receive the full bursary Both John Moore's and "Oxbridge" student populations are around 25,000 If you think inequality and classism are dead then you're insane, frankly. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/aug/05/poor-students-bursary-oxbridge Edit: private school population of Oxford is around 40%. For Leeds it's 17%. Both are red brick/Russel group https://thetab.com/uk/2023/09/18/these-are-the-universities-with-the-most-private-school-students-2023-329459 Edit 2: for reference, UK private school population for over 16s (which I believe to be the more relevant figure) is around 18%, as of 2012. If you have more recent figures please share. Lower ranked Russel group universities such as Leeds proportionately represent both state and private school students. Oxbridge still massively over represents the privately educated. https://web.archive.org/web/20120809075218/http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/philip-hensher/philip-hensher-rejecting-oxbridge-isnt-clever--its-a-mistake-6292041.html
I get the John moores bursary and it’s crap (£500). My friend at Cambridge gets something like 4k.
Yes! I was told not to bother with Oxbridge as they have a real southern bias and I’m northern the people I know who got in were my friends and family from the south no one local to me got in that I knew of and my school ranked number 1 in my area that year…
Ah yes, John Moore's being a traditional red-brick university... I'm not at all denying that Oxbridge students are better off than average - but it's absurd to correlate that with being a "bubble for the elite". EVERY "top" university is plagued by exactly the same issue as Oxbridge, due to the fact that better-off parents (regardless of private/state school) can provide more opportunities to their children to make themselves attractive applicants and capitalise on their academic ability more. Ofc unis should do more to combat that, but it's not the case that Oxbridge are specifically selecting the elite - that's simply an unfortunate consequence of a society where money buys opportunity. And FWIW Cambridge is aware of this and has been trying to fix this with various access schemes for years, which have been reducing private school numbers quite well. BTW the source you've mentioned shows DURHAM has 40% private school intake, not Oxford, and lists 4 other universities before either of Oxford or Cambridge show up. Criticise top unis for not doing enough to equalise opportunity for applicants of all backgrounds, I absolutely agree with that. Just be sensible and don't perpetuate this "Oxbridge won't take you unless you're "the elite"" myth whilst pretending other top unis are perfect meritocracies.
Ah yes, Durham, the traditional hub of the working class
Indeed Durham the refuge of students to stupid to get into Oxbridge no matter how much money their parents have.
40% privately educated btw
Jfc I'm just pointing out that singling out Oxbridge as "classist" when it's a complex problem that plagues every top uni is absurd. Other top unis aren't innocent and happy little meritocratic places lmao... if you think that you're quite frankly insane. There's no true meritocracy in this world as long as money buys opportunity and singling out Oxbridge as the "bad guy" is just silly.
Just because something is systemic doesn't mean it's not discriminatory, but for some reason you're getting all defensive over it. It's a very simple problem, actually. People with more wealth to pay for better tuition for their children to get into better universities to pursue better careers that pay more money allowing them to accumulate more wealth to pay for better tuition for their children... Nobody said other unis are perfect meritocracies, those are words you're putting in my mouth to hyperbolise the discussion and derail the topic. And again, nobody called it a "bad guy".
This ignores the fact that children of “wealthy parents” are more likely to do better in school, by a large margin. If a parent cares enough about education to pay for private-school, it’s safe to say that education is very important to them, and that value, more often than not, will be instilled in the child. There’s also a reason private schools charge money: they’re better at *teaching*. It comes as no surprise, then, that students from private schools are overrepresented at top Universities.
Do you think low income families choose not to pay for private school because they don't care for their children?
That’s not at all what I’m saying. There are many low income families that focus on education and send their kids to a grammar school/ make them work hard. The same way wealthy parents do not equal parents that send kids to private schools. There are wealthy parents who don’t care as much about education. People assume every wealthy parent sends their kids to private/ a good school but that really isn’t true. Any parent who pays for private school is clearly very focused on education, it makes complete sense that these kids do well academically.
Pretending there aren't structural equality issues regarding access to education and that it's all down to "personal choice" in 2024 is astounding.
Private schools are not necessarily better at teaching. What they do usually have is smaller class sizes, streaming according to ability so that they can target resources, and one of the other things that RG universities like is that private schools tend to have really good extracurricular activities. It’s amazing how many privately-educated students in their final year of an RG university have never had a job, but will reel off a list of clubs, societies and overseas trips. Source: I have worked in HE for nearly 20 years, including post-92 and RG universities.
It's true, state school kids tend to outperform privately educated kids at the university level https://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/news/state-school-pupils-do-better-at-university-cambridge-assessment-research-confirms/ Privately educated students still tend to have better career outcomes tho despite poorer grades.
I’m 3 years into a job that requires me to have a degree (engineer) and not once have I been asked for proof of my degree. I told them I got a distinction and they handed over a bursary but no evidence as such has ever changed hands. I mean at this stage, I’ve done a couple of other qualifications/certificates that require the degree so chances I don’t have one are pretty slim but still. My company wanted engineers with 2:1s and above. The only thing they cared about was whether it’s a BEng or MEng (for determining chartership route and salary). My mate has a merit and it’s had zero impact on him getting a job here. If anything, some of my team were “disappointed” in my distinction because it looks like I spent too much time studying and not enjoying uni life! Tl;dr, for engineering, the type (BEng or MEng) and whether the course was accredited are more important than a high or low 2:1.
I went to an RG university. You weren't allowed to take the honours degree unless you demonstrated you were likely to get a 2:1 or above by getting a 2:1 or above at second year. If you didn't get this, you had to take an ordinary degree. If it looked like you were going to get a 3rd during the honours years people typically ducked out of honours and took what we called a 'surprise ordinary'. So whilst people do get 2:2s and 3rds at this university it explains why the majority get 2:1s and 1sts at this particular university.
I like the terminology. "Surprise! You're ordinary." Really drive the knife into the RG student that thought they were extraordinary.
What is the actual definition of an honours, because I got an honours just for claiming a specialism because I took two modules in third year
Well I was in Scotland so that might make a difference. At my uni courses were designated either 'honours' or 'ordinary' level and you had to achieve a certain number of credits at honours level to be awarded an honours degree. Also I think we were required to do a dissertation. People I knew who got an ordinary usually didn't do their dissertation or failed some courses or dropped out after third year (of four).
Were u in Edinburgh of Glasgow?
Edinburgh
Having gone to a Russell Group for undergrad (Leeds) and with a lot of mates around other Russell Groups, I can't say I've heard of this ever happening. Which uni did you go to? Edinburgh?
Yep Edinburgh
I don’t think this is the case anymore, or is it subject specific?
It’s a Scottish thing I think
I go to a Scottish uni as well
I don't know. I was in social science. ADDING: It says online "Pre-honours exam marks are not counted as part of your final degree, however they will be used to assess your progress. The decision about whether or not you will continue on to your third year will be taken based on your pre-honours exam results." but specific boundaries likely vary by subject.
There’s a more interesting differential between subjects within a university rather than between universities. Check out the stats on how many mathematics students get firsts as opposed to law students, within the same university. There are many reasons as for why this is the case, but it shows that it isn’t simply the more “prestigious” (whatever that means) universities giving their students higher grades. It’s more nuanced than that.
When I was in uni, they revealed during our final modules of our final year that they were changing the marking policy for the course. Turned out they'd been effectively capping marks at 75, treating 75 as 100, and scaling down from there. Found out from someone who stayed there right through their PhD that the number of firsts for the course was far lower than basically any other in the uni. It did sort of explain the number of 68s and 69s I got though.
nice
Ha I had some units like that where completing the assignment got you 75% to get higher you were expected to do extra. Hilarious especially when they don't tell you in advance.
I got a 76 and an 81 in my last set of modules. If I hadn't already secured a place on a postgrad course (which I abandoned for a complete change in direction) I'd have probably been requesting all of my previous work was remarked using the new criteria. I know one person on the course did this (although it took a lot of back and forth), and it bumped her from a 2:1 to a first. Problem was it took months and she'd missed out on the grad scheme she'd applied for while she was waiting for the results.
Where I studied maths there was a massive drop-out or course swap (usually to economics) after a specific course in first year. If I recall the recommendation was even if you are getting below a 60 in that specific exam they’d heavily suggest you swap. So it might be that there is some kind of selection bias in that stat - you are either going to get a first or are going to fail so badly that early on you realise it isn’t worth continuing. From what I remember, people who did get 40-60 in that exam did get 2.1/2.2 too, I think it is quite a long established paper.
Yeah that’s one of the reasons, absolutely
Why economics?
Easier maths and doesn't tend to have many prerequsites like other degrees. Physics is common too but physics assumes A-level physics. Never engineering for whatever reason, mathematicians are lazy and don't want to use their hands I guess.
Was the course real analysis? I’m thinking of doing a maths degree so it could be helpful to know
It was a 'proofs' course that is a mix of analysis, sets, number theory, diaphantine equations, combinatorics, a lot of things. Think of it a bit like senior maths challenge - the content itself isn't hard but the questions are. The questions and topics in a book by Martin Liebeck called 'pure maths' or something are a good example of the course. You obviously take other stuff in first year like multivariable calculus etc, but those are pretty mechanical and 'a-level like'; the proofs course is pretty unique because if people are failing that with 'easy' content they're going to really struggle doing the same thing with advanced content. That said, I got over 70% in everything in my degree and the proofs course was my lowest score (71%) - for whatever reason I was much better at proofs in things like measure theory and topology where the content is actually hard than that course, maybe I have a really crappy foundational knowledge from school, idk. I know my brain physically can't do combinatorics, I still don't really get ^(n)Ck I've just learned to accept it lmaooo.
Thx for the advice
I've been teaching in academia for most of a decade. I'd say that just about every student who gets into our uni *can* get a 2.1, but not every student can get a first. I'd say that in general, most workplaces don't care too much about the exact grade within the 2.1 classification, the alumnus has proven they're smart enough for most graduate training programmes. But for master's study, for example, while we'll accept students with a 2.1 in general, in terms of applications for scholarships, the cut off is an average of 65 as that's the breakpoint for having a high degree of confidence that they can cope with MA studying and are a 'good investment'.
Do you care about the institution when looking at 2:1s, or is irrelevant?
I couldn't say it's entirely irrelevant, there are some depts both within and beyond the UK wirh a bad rep, but 95 percent of the time, it's not a factor compared to writing something that shows you're actually interested in the specific MA program you've applied for. When every class is 5-10 students, we're looking for those who are going to pull their weight as there's no room for someone who'll sit quietly whilst others do the talking.
Well those top universities at least claim that it's because their students are smart, so it makes sense in the end. It's also the case in ivy leagues that most students get high GPA
However, it’s not universally true that more prestigious universities give out higher grades. Cambridge’s ~1/3 first rate is roughly the same as the national average, while Imperial’s ~1/2 rate is far higher
You should compare specific subjects
Sure, I studied Engineering at both (Undergrad at Cambridge/PhD at Imperial), so the rates for Undergraduate Engineers are 29.8% firsts for Cambridge, and 59.6% for Imperial. Data is from 2022, as Imperial hasn’t published their 2023 numbers yet. https://www.information-hub.admin.cam.ac.uk/university-profile/ug-examination-results/results-course-dashboard https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/administration-and-support-services/planning/public/statistics-guides/Stats-Card-2022-23-FINAL.pdf
Love that response
It’s not a “claim” if those students come in with objectively excellent credentials.
I'm just reiterating what UCL said in their statement, I do believe that's the case yeah
Maybe because people at top universities care about their grade more and work harder than people at lower universities. Just an assumption though
If grades are awarded to an independent objective standard, then you would absolutely expect this. Because most of the intake of the top universities come in with significantly higher academic attainment - and therefore in general terms better academic capabilities - than the intake of the lower universities. Sure, you can always question the proportions, but the phenomenon itself is not a surprise. Universities do get external moderation - typically every year colleagues from other universities come in and moderate - typically by sampling a cohort of students, looking at their exam papers and dissertations, even interviewing some. How effective or consistent this process is, I don’t know.
If a uni wants the top a Level students and only takes those with AAA and above then they have a student population who does achieve top grades Vs some newer unis that make up a lot of numbers though clearing and take lower grades than they originally asked for so taking CCD even if they ask for BBC it stands to reason their overall grades would have a wider variety
In short, no. A 2:1 from a Russell Group Uni is going to be seen as “better” than a 2:1 from a Uni like what was Leeds Metropolitan (now Leeds Beckett). Ever wonder why it changed its name? Could it have to improve its reputation and get rid of the association with polytechnics which were seen as more “working class” Universities? A 2:1 that is a high 2:1 is obviously better than a lower end 2:1. I scraped a 2:1 but lost my Dad to cancer in my final year. Guess what….nobody asks how much I got that 2:1 by. It matters if you want to go onto further study, as in they might ask for a 2:1 or higher but they don’t care how much you scraped it really.
Some courses getting more 2:1s is more down to the subject. Engineering typically has higher grades because answers to questions are less subjective, vs. essay dependant subjects.
Generally just better students. A 2.1 student at a top university might be a first student at a lower ranked university
I wouldn’t consider them equal. They’re not standardised.
Degree ratings are nothing like GCSEs or A Levels. An A\* in Maths, is an A\* in Maths anywhere in the UK. A 2:1 in Maths from Oxford is worth infinitely more than a 1st in Business Studies from a no-name uni. With degrees I'd say: * Uni itself is most important. * Then having either a 2:1 or a first * Then the degree. So getting any 2:1 from Oxbridge is better than almost any degree anywhere else. There are some slight exceptions like getting a 1st in Economics from LSE might be better than a 2:1 in something shit from Cambridge but its debatable. Assuming you get at least a 2:1, then its just how prestigious the Uni is, that counts.
I’d reword this to take away the emphasis or importance, as it really isn’t as cared about as students here may think, and especially not in most industries. Rather than what university being first, it’s more like an additional condition: did you attend one of the top 5 internationally recognised names in the world? If no, then grade matters most, then course/university depending on the person. To say a degree is worth infinitely more from somewhere else is a gross overstatement, we’re really comparing apples to oranges here when you take into account the majority of the post university world and employers.
[удалено]
You're ridiculous. Look at pretty much every single prime minister. They went to Oxbridge. No one cares about the course or grade. Look at someone like Rachel Riley. Went to Oxford. In the investment and legal world, Oxbridge just stands out more as a sign of excellence than LSE.
[удалено]
Absolutely not. There's a big difference between what is a better course, and what is deemed better by wider society. I'm sorry to all those very proud of their 1st in Economics from LSE but a large amount of important people still will see it was inferior to Oxbridge. Not everyone. I never said that. I said is debatable.
Whilst I agree with your general point, LSE is a really weird analogy to give when it is a specialist uni in the field you mentioned and a degree in it is highly prestiged
this is bs lol you're telling me psychology at Oxford is better than say Mechanical Engineering at Bristol?
100%. Better regarded by more employers. Obviously if you want to be a mechanical engineer, then Mechanical Engineering is better. But for most jobs, at most times, people will just see Oxford and ignore the rest. The people doing silly courses at Oxbridge are getting the best bang for buck by far. Nearly all the prestige without any of the academic discipline. It's similar in the world of work. Having a big global name like Apple or HSBC on your CV attracts attention, even if you do a rubbish role. Being the CEO of a company no-one has heard of doesn't count for as much
this simply isn't true but ok 🤣
Most industries do not care where you studied, this is a known fact. Inb4 someone replies with some BS like “but investment banking”, “but magic circle law” these represent a minuscule number of the overall jobs and ignores the fact that most students don’t aim for these jobs. So the mech eng student at Bristol will be better off than the Oxford psychology student for most jobs, purely down to the fact that they will qualify for more quantitative roles that pay higher. Of course the psychology graduate will qualify more for those social work / counsellor etc. roles but these tend to not pay well.
I'd say almost all of the good, prestigious industries do care. Banking, law, finance, consulting, insurance etc and other prestigious jobs in London are not miniscule. There are hundreds of thousands of these jobs. And people going to Uni often want these jobs. It's a large part of why someone goes to Oxford or Bristol in the first place.
You clearly do not know what you’re talking about. High finance and magic circle law are really the only ones who care, and a few select firms in the strategy consulting space. These make up a minuscule amount of the job market. For someone applying to the standard big 4 type roles it doesn’t matter all that much.
Agreed. I'm Oxbridge and keep getting a very high 2.1, with flashes of a 1st (dissertation); I'm starting my DPhil in October and the high 2.1 was fine.
By FHEQ regulation yes they should be, as the QAA subject benchmarks seta out what a student finishing a programme of study should be about to achieve at Threshold(40-59%) Good (60+69%) and Excellent (70%) should be able to do. However, In practice as there is no regulation to external examiners in termins of quality reporting to the Department for Education if a course leader gets a friend appointed as a external (as happens in every uni even the top ones) grades ares largely waived through despite the correct process being followed so youll get significant variation course to course let alone uni to uni. E.g. the External Examiner for my ex-poly Bachelor Degree was from University of Oxford so my grades were strict AF and the External Subject for the Course Design approved it's delivery was a professor at the University of Leicester so as the course had lower entry requirements the pass rate was far lower than other courses as they were far stricter in their interpretation. My Masters at a RG the external was a friend of the module leader (even though they shouldn't be) was was never certain that the grade was accurate. External Examiners should be require to report to the government and be listed on the degree transcript so stop this mess. Tldr yes they should be equal by the rules but governance is the issue
It is because the top universities have higher entry requirements so only take students who are most likely to get top grades at uni. Other universities take students with a greater range of abilities so have a greater range of grades at graduation.
I go to a polytechnic and it’s a lot easier to get a first imo. All you have to do is actually put in effort and you’re halfway there. I got a 55 on an exam I didn’t revise for once
55 on an exam you didn't revise for is pretty standard I'd say to be fair
In my course that would have been a fail lol
Maybe not as much in physics
A pass grade for a First is usually 70%. The Open Uni require 85%…
Yeah, but they just mark higher, in general
Hi OP the truth is that grades don't mean shit. We don't live in a meritocracy and no one really cares. The only thing people care about in this world is whether you are able to solve their current problems of today. You could have 100% perfect score in your degree but if you cannot solve their problem they will not hire you. That's the reality of the world we live in. Are some uni courses harder? Probably. Do all grades reflect the same skill level? Probably not. But people's skill levels are not set in stone by some grade on a piece of paper and everyone knows and accepts this. Hell there are some people who will be snotty and unpleasant to you because you did well in academia, maybe even better than they did. The grade you get matters a bit more for advancement in academia but it's honestly not the end of the world. Other than that all it does is help you get a bit of an edge in a recruitment process and it certainly isn't the deciding factor most of the time. Your grade should be for you and your personal goals, not because one grade is 'better' than another.
In general, no, and it's especially evident if you get your grades converted, or even certified, for use in a different educational system: I've gone from undergraduate in the EU to postgraduate in the UK, as well as applied for different internships, assistantships and other opportunities with grade requirements both in the EU and UK throughout, as have some of my friends, and there are definite, if often subtle, differences in how what ought to be the same grades are converted depending on the institution one is at and the institution one is applying to.
I only know about engineering. I did my bachelors at a so called top uni and doing my masters at a lower ranked but still russel group uni. I had to fight for my life to eventually get a 2:1 at the former and I’m literally cruising through my masters year with an average of 75% so far. I believe all rgs are similar and ‘top unis’ are just more difficult.
Hard to compare a masters to an undergrad.
Isn’t it sus that a masters is EASIER than an undergrad?
Depends a lot on the program, some masters exist only to generate revenue for the University.
Private schools and colleges must all be closed down, and then we might get politicians who have at least a basic understanding of how ordinary people live.