How much more advantages is a First class degree compared against a 2.1?

From my experience those who get firsts are generally no harder workers than those who get 2,1s or 2,2s as there is little real difference between them beyond marginal grading brackets.
The established rule is in fact that 1sts are obtained by those who 'do well in exams' (often a little weird), and they are often the type that are least competent generally, just the type that can pass exams. It certainly shows little else.
I read a good article once that 2.2s reflect a more rounded student who actually balanced themselves and their life better at University.

Now though in this age of Universities popping up all over the place and cashing in on the limitless horde of often vacant-minded students, it's more relevant WHEN you studied, as everyone knows what a conveyor belt process getting GCSEs, ALevels, and Degrees became after the mid-1990s.

The best employers look beyond the always subjective exam grade, so as long as a student gets their degree and builds their experience from ground level, they should be looked at as favourably as anyone who happens to have got a first.
I've known many students choose the easiest degree modules in order to get a higher grade, so it can really be meaningless.
Trust me

From my experience those who get firsts are generally no harder workers than those who get 2,1s or 2,2s as there is little real difference between them beyond marginal grading brackets.
The established rule is in fact that 1sts are obtained by those who 'do well in exams' (often a little weird), and they are often the type that are least competent generally, just the type that can pass exams. It certainly shows little else.
I read a good article once that 2.2s reflect a more rounded student who actually balanced themselves and their life better at University.

Now though in this age of Universities popping up all over the place and cashing in on the limitless horde of often vacant-minded students, it's more relevant WHEN you studied, as everyone knows what a conveyor belt process getting GCSEs, ALevels, and Degrees became after the mid-1990s.

The best employers look beyond the always subjective exam grade, so as long as a student gets their degree and builds their experience from ground level, they should be looked at as favourably as anyone who happens to have got a first.
I've known many students choose the easiest degree modules in order to get a higher grade, so it can really be meaningless.
Trust me

It depends what grade you get within the boundary. Someone with 67-69% is of a similar standard to someone with a first but there is a considerable difference between someone with 60% and someone with 70%. A 60% is below average in terms of grading considering most people get 2:1s, whereas someone with a first is at least in the top 20% in their year, and probably higher.



It's bigger than it seems because realistically your degree is marked out of 70, at least for arts/social science students. To get a first, you have to pretty much consistently get 70 because any less will drop your average whereas a 2:1 student has much more room to manoeuvre. Also, if you take these figures, the difference between each grade boundary is more than 10% because it's not out of 100.

From my experience those who get firsts are generally no harder workers than those who get 2,1s or 2,2s as there is little real difference between them beyond marginal grading brackets.
The established rule is in fact that 1sts are obtained by those who 'do well in exams' (often a little weird), and they are often the type that are least competent generally, just the type that can pass exams. It certainly shows little else.
I read a good article once that 2.2s reflect a more rounded student who actually balanced themselves and their life better at University.

Now though in this age of Universities popping up all over the place and cashing in on the limitless horde of often vacant-minded students, it's more relevant WHEN you studied, as everyone knows what a conveyor belt process getting GCSEs, ALevels, and Degrees became after the mid-1990s.

The best employers look beyond the always subjective exam grade, so as long as a student gets their degree and builds their experience from ground level, they should be looked at as favourably as anyone who happens to have got a first.
I've known many students choose the easiest degree modules in order to get a higher grade, so it can really be meaningless.
Trust me

It depends what grade you get within the boundary. Someone with 67-69% is of a similar standard to someone with a first but there is a considerable difference between someone with 60% and someone with 70%.

Assuming those with firsts are just squeaking into that top bracket. Although that is common in arts/social sciences there are exceptional students who do manage averages in the high 70's or even low 80's. I wouldn't put 2:1 students on a par with them.

Yeah, that's why I said those with 70% rather than those with firsts. The highest mark I ever heard anyone get on my course was 80 and that was in a module meant for students in the year below. Although marks given vary between courses and universities, I would be very surprised to see an arts student with an 80% average.

I have just got my results back and finished my degree with a high 1st. I averaged 80%, but it's not like I'll get any more credit than someone who got 70%, (even though a 10% difference is practically a degree classification in any other case).

It's had its perks so far, I am entitled to a £9000 bursary on my PGCE, but I can't imagine it will be noticed once I've gained that qualification. I've never really believed that grades define a persons success or opportunities and I still think that's the case. The highest grade I got at GCSE level was C and that bare minimum allowed me to get to college, get a job and then go to uni (where I've probably outperformed people on my course that got As at GCSE and A Level).

grades don't really mean anything, they are a lazy aid created for employers to make a quick judgement on a person.

I am just stating the facts. Facts which a surprising majority of you are too blind to see.

What "facts" are you stating? I didn't see any. I only see you calling people "naive" - people who have in many cases already graduated and been through the graduate milkround... and thus have direct experience of the differences in value between different degree classifications, of which you don't.

I was inspired to post a new thread in response to this:
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2170604

For a forum that prides itself on being the keen students and the intelligent ones so to speak I am completely in awe of the stupidity being spouted out over the four pages in that thread. Clearly a first is more advantageous than a 2:1. People are saying that a First is just for those who work hard. Nonsense! Exams at university are entirely different to those at school. It is just sheer naivety and inexperience/ignorance if you think it is "those that revise well get firsts".

Another point raised was that a First is only of real value if you go into research. Where did you source this lunacy? If you look at internships at the top firms (and I mean the top) in London, the vast majority of those are filled by those who are either A) Oxbridge Students or B) Have Firsts in their degrees.

You may think I am just someone who thinks I am superior or whatever. However, I do not hold a First and I did not go to Oxbridge. I am just stating the facts. Facts which a surprising majority of you are too blind to see.

Oh the negs I am going to receive for bursting some peoples bubbles, and maybe rightly so in the way that I went about it.
Having said this, a 2:1 is a great achievement and unless you want to go to the very top (which you still can with a 2:1) you will most likely end up doing very well with your life.