2:2.

I completely disagree. I know, having spoken to people directly involved with recruitment in competitive industries, that they are focussing more on what else the candidate has to offer. In someone else's words; "anyone can do nothing but work and get a first. If everyone devoted all their time to their studies then a first would be expected. It's those that do a lot more than that who are of interest to us. Ideally, a 2.1 would be our preferred candidate grade because it suggests that there is just more to them than work".

Yeah, a 2.1 isn't a 2.2, but a first without experience isn't worth as much as it would have done in the past.

In my experience, degree classification is a better reflection of how hard you worked than your innate abilities. A first requires graft much more than it requires genius. I wouldn't be too bothered if my kid's teacher had slacked a bit at uni.

I can assure you that a first in the right course and the right university can get people places, my sister has limited worldly experience however got a 1st in Economics from LSE and is now earning £120,000 a year at the age of 29 working in a hedge fund. Her educational background got her there, it would be naive not to acknowledge this.

No-one should downplay academic achievement, I find it very laughable how everyone I know who got a mediocre grades at university somehow consider teaching, these people never wished to be teachers however they saw it as an 'option' when they had nothing else to do.

It's no surprise the education system is now in pits, with all these idiots who partied through university, gained mediocre grades all turn to teachers training as a last resort, in former generations people actually wanted to teach and make a positive difference, now it is simply a back up or 'option' for the dullards who didn't do well. Got a 2:2 ? Teaching is an option! I'd not want my child to be taught by such people.

A mediocre role in marketing and going to become a teacher as a last resort is not a huge success story for a 2:2 student.

I got a 2:2 in my MSci, but I got a 2:1 average over the bachelors years.

I know a (very small) number of people this has happened to, and it's an absolutely absurd situation to be in that should not really be possible. With the system as it is it would be better if they considered 2.2 to be a fail mark at MSci and just awarded the bachelors.

Many people will neg me but the truth of the matter is that I have a 2:1 equivalent degree with a signed transcript by my university to prove it. I am very happy with my Master's certification but there is no way I'm going to let bachelors 2:1 people have an easy ride when I too also got the same qualification (and tried to better it by staying an extra year). It's just a matter of explaining it to an employer.

Whilst it might be a slightly different case, I feel this is echoed in the case when you have those who were working towards a First and somehow end up with a 69/68% and those who end up with a 60/61%. GPA introduction FTW. (This however, is another discussion in itself...)

GPA has a lot of other problems, like it being impossible to recover dropping a grade in any course. It rewards extreme consistency over anything else.

How does it come to a different end result?

You add all the course Grade Points together, divide them and come up with an overall GPA. In America they still have classifications of cum laude etc.You do the same for percentages and classifications.

What am I missing?

The main problem is that we have only 3 actual degree results - Excellent (1st), Mediocre (2.1), and Fail (< 2.1). If we had an honours class system where all four classes were in the current 2.1-1st range, it would allow more distinction and hopefully not have cliff-face drops in degree worth over fine boundaries.

GPA Explanation

I would say that it's clearly very important to graduate recruiters as they consistently specify they want at least a 2:1 for graduate schemes. There's a reason the 2:2 is known as the drinkers degree, because as a general rule (and of course on the internet everyone has gigantic mitigating circumstances so I'll take it as read you have them and you don't need to tell me. OP, for example states he has OCD, fair enough I can see that makes things difficult) people who get 2:2's don't work all that hard. It's got to make you think twice about someone who knew that 3rd year was the most important year of their university life and still buggered about.

I suspect that anyone would play down the importance of classification to someone who got a 2:2 or a third. This thing of everyone having the ability to get a first is just nonsense. Absolute rot. The thing about all this is that I actually was constructive, and suggested he aim for programs which don't ask for a 2:1, I'm not saying a 2:2 isn't saveable, I'm saying that it is important. And it is seen as important by the actual people giving out the jobs.