Why is a 2.2 degree considered bad?

I recently graduated with a 2.2 in Bsc Biomedical Science. I personally am proud of what I achieved because I know I worked very hard throughout my degree and due to the extensive and diverse nature of the curriculum it is difficult to get a 2.1 degree.

I am hoping to understand this fascination of getting a 2.1 as a minimum. I am aware of graduate jobs for private organisations which require a 2.1 minimum, which I believe is really stupid. They should look into the background of a degree rather than standardise everything. Your opinions please?

Reply 1

Phugoid

I think anything less than a 1st class degree is awful.

In my personal opinion, if you dedicate 3-5 solid years to your life to one big continuous goal/project, why would you be satisfied with anything less than a 1st class degree? I would feel like I had wasted my time.

A 2.1 is, essentially, a C grade. Cs are never viewed favourable.

Reply 2

cpj1987

15

I certainly don't consider a 2:2 degree to be bad. Sure, it won't get you onto many graduate schemes, but it's still a degree with a grade and what you learnt whilst studying is still valuable.

Reply 3

BigFudamental

13

I agree that it's ridiculous that a good 2.2 in a tough subject is in many ways worse than a bad 2.1 in some ridiculous doss subject. Basically it saves people time to be able to generalise, so they do it.

Reply 4

youareafever

6

I think it depends on what course you are doing,
personally I think you have the right to be happy, seeing as that particular course can be quite difficult,
with me on the other hand, I'm doing english literature and language and really should be aiming at a 1st.

Reply 5

Picnic1

19

There used to be a daft idea, probably amongst the likes of Oxford and Cambridge especially, that the only grades of degree worth getting were a first or a third. A first shows that whatever you did was worth it. A third shows that you probably at least had a good social life and got the most out of university in that way. The idea being that anything in between doesn't clearly indicate what you hoped to achieve at university! Daft isn't it-especially these days when so many are going to university. A 2.2 is always better than a third and probably hard worked for.

Reply 6

JohnnytheFox

13

The majority of graduates obtain a 2:1 or above, so by getting a 2:2 you're below average. I imagine that's why it's seen as unfavourable.

Reply 7

yoyo462001

16

Well its like everyone said its because its below average, obviously a 2:2 in maths is probably going to hold more weight than a 2:1 in golf management. Either way a 2:2 isnt the end of the world.

Reply 8

Ultraviolet Midnight

5

I don't know, I don't get it either... the university grading system is flawed with regards to differentiating between 2.1 and 2.2s anyway. Separating those is like bisecting a bell curve at its peak - people of similar abilities end up getting different grades, which isn't necessarily fair (although I realise that the peak might be shifting more towards 2.1s now).
I think if you've worked hard and got a 2.2 in a good subject, then it certainly shouldn't be frowned upon or considered substandard.

Reply 9

Bread and Circlejerks

yoyo462001

Well its like everyone said its because its below average

The problem is that, although a 2:2 is "below average" pretty much across the board, a 2:1 can be well below average in particular subjects. For example, 96% of students in English at York last year received 2:1s or higher. So it's possible in such cases to get a 2:1 and still be amongst the very worst people (bottom 5%) in your class.

And yet such people (I believe, I am not an expert here) will be able to get onto certain graduate schemes; whereas a person who gets a 2:2 but is in, say, the 65th percentile of his/her class will not.

Reply 10

Ham22

15

depends on the degree i think personally.

im doing art and to be honest, you're a moron or a lazy sod if you don't get at least a 2.1.

if you did a hardcore degree then a 2.2 is still an achievement. i know very bright people who got Desmonds because they took quote unquote hard subjects- and they are now doing well career wise.

Reply 11

Maturity

14

I am wondering. Generally speaking how hard is it to get a first?
I know it does depend on the individual to an extent.
Usually I am guessing these kind of students put more hours into study?
If this is the case I would just like someone to sum up say how much altogether a week/ month in hours and how much more than a 2.1 and a 2.2 classification?
I understand there are many variables to consider but as a generalistation.

Reply 12

BigFudamental

13

I think the real problem is the excessively rigid cut-off point that has been artificially created at the 2.1/2.2 boundary. In terms of work and ability a low 2.1 can pretty similar to a high 2.2 but graduate employers have completely blown up this small disparity.

Reply 13

moonlight_freakout

6

it's a bad way to categorise people. it clearly depends on a) what subject you did
b) where you studied it
c) what your syllabus was like

But i'm sure that when you'll look for a job they'll take that into consideration. plus i LOVE your subject and of course it's a challenging course, so don't worry and BE PROUD of what you've achieved :smile:

Reply 14

IceDiveFresh

jackanswers

I recently graduated with a 2.2 in Bsc Biomedical Science. I personally am proud of what I achieved because I know I worked very hard throughout my degree and due to the extensive and diverse nature of the curriculum it is difficult to get a 2.1 degree.

I am hoping to understand this fascination of getting a 2.1 as a minimum. I am aware of graduate jobs for private organisations which require a 2.1 minimum, which I believe is really stupid. They should look into the background of a degree rather than standardise everything. Your opinions please?

Question is in bold, answer in italic.

Employers don't standardise everything to make it easier, certain degrees will be more valuable than others to certain employers but there will be plenty of biomed students who got a 2.1 whereas you have a 2.2 so they'll be picked above you.

2.2 isn't bad per se its just lower than average, say what you like about the difficulty of the course in comparison to others (even though its obviously subjective) but even comparing yourself to other biomed students you have a lower than average grade.

Reply 15

Ham22

15

Maturity

I am wondering. Generally speaking how hard is it to get a first?
I know it does depend on the individual to an extent.
Usually I am guessing these kind of students put more hours into study?
If this is the case I would just like someone to sum up say how much altogether a week/ month in hours and how much more than a 2.1 and a 2.2 classification?
I understand there are many variables to consider but as a generalistation.

i read somewhere it was 40hours a week for a 1st, 35 hours for a 2.1. 30 hours for a 2.2. and 25 hours for a third. thats including lecture time.

that actually dosnt sound completley right, but its something like that. A lecturer told me that we should be aiming for a 40 hour week- like a normal working week.

edit: i think 5 hours difference per week for each grade boundary is perhaps too small? maybe its more like -10hours for each starting from 40 hours. i know a first is definatley 40hours of work per week.

sorry to be clogging this thread with *****. :s-smilie:

Reply 16

jackanswers

OP

I think it shows ignorance and quite frankly stupidity if people say you’re below average without taking into account what degree someone is or has studied. For example I can never accept a 2.1 in golf management or business administration to be better than my biomedical science degree. That ridiculous.

I have studied numerous medical health disciplines in my degree, including biochemistry, immunology, microbiology, medical genetics, molecular biology etc... These disciplines are very intellectually stimulating and encompass difficult concepts and mechanisms to understand. I can guarantee most people will not be able to understand a module let alone the whole course I have studied.

Reply 17

jackanswers

OP

moonlight_freakout

it's a bad way to categorise people. it clearly depends on a) what subject you did
b) where you studied it
c) what your syllabus was like

But i'm sure that when you'll look for a job they'll take that into consideration. plus i LOVE your subject and of course it's a challenging course, so don't worry and BE PROUD of what you've achieved :smile:

Thank you. Your comment was very refreshing to hear and had very intelligent points, which I totally agree with with. However the present system does not take all of those factors into account, especially the level of difficult associated with a course.

Reply 18

i.am.lost

18

Well certainly at the unis I've looked at, the top 25% are awarded Firsts, the next 33% are given a 2:1, the next 33% are given a 2:2, and the bottom 10% either get a Third or fail. Thus, if you get a 2:2 you are well in the bottom half of your class. So, of course it's not highly regarded.

Reply 19

Dan_Manchester

5

i.am.lost

Well certainly at the unis I've looked at, the top 25% are awarded Firsts, the next 33% are given a 2:1, the next 33% are given a 2:2, and the bottom 10% either get a Third or fail. Thus, if you get a 2:2 you are well in the bottom half of your class. So, of course it's not highly regarded.

Exactly this.

Why is a 2.2 degree considered bad?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you