Do some universities give out too many firsts?

I know this may sound harsh, or bitter or even a little snobby, but I was discussing this with friends yesterday and they seem to agree that lower ranked universities can be just too lenient with handing out Firsts. I'm on my second year after taking a gap year, and so most of my school friends are receiving their final year results around this week or so. And I've been so surprised by the amount of people posting Firsts on Facebook, and they
all go to these lower ranked unis in our area (don't want to name them incase it offends). These people struggled with A-level content and so ended up on courses with really low entry requirements. Yet now I'm seeing that a load of them have ended up with Firsts.

I know it's great that they've done well, but I just feel like whilst they are all having these firsts, my other friends who went to god universities are ending up with 2:1s. Which they are happy with because they know it's a great achievement, but I feel like it's tainted a bit by the amount of people who did less well at A-level, went to a lower uni, and ended up with a better grade. I know obviously those lower universities have to have easier/ lighter workloads considering their lower entry requirements, but I can't help but wonder whether all these people should really have gotten Firsts.


I have 2 friends for example, one that does biochem at a good uni, and one that does a biology type course at a much lower uni. Throughout the years I've heard pieces about their course, and the one who does biochem had such a higher workload, and the work sounded so much more complicated. She is a really bright spark, did really well at A-level and has done well and earned a 2:1. The other friend at the lower uni really struggled with the content of A-level biology, really struggled to pass, and has ended up with a first. Her workload was a hell of a lot lighter and her content much easier than my other friends...


Am I wrong in feeling that it's a bit unfair that the one gets a First just because she didn't do as well at A-level and went to a uni with lower requirements? I know that if she did my other friends course, she would have really struggled.

I just feel like it's a bit of an injustice, I know obviously the course has to be easier for those with lower A-level grades, for if it was the same level of difficulty they'd struggle to have a decent pass rate. But I always feel that sometimes it becomes too easy, and the grades are too lenient.



For a lot of higher ranked unis, a First grade is really exceptional, it means going above and beyond the course, but I'm not sure I get that from the lower unis.

I know this may sound harsh, or bitter or even a little snobby, but I was discussing this with friends yesterday and they seem to agree that lower ranked universities can be just too lenient with handing out Firsts. I'm on my second year after taking a gap year, and so most of my school friends are receiving their final year results around this week or so. And I've been so surprised by the amount of people posting Firsts on Facebook, and they
all go to these lower ranked unis in our area (don't want to name them incase it offends). These people struggled with A-level content and so ended up on courses with really low entry requirements. Yet now I'm seeing that a load of them have ended up with Firsts.

I know it's great that they've done well, but I just feel like whilst they are all having these firsts, my other friends who went to god universities are ending up with 2:1s. Which they are happy with because they know it's a great achievement, but I feel like it's tainted a bit by the amount of people who did less well at A-level, went to a lower uni, and ended up with a better grade. I know obviously those lower universities have to have easier/ lighter workloads considering their lower entry requirements, but I can't help but wonder whether all these people should really have gotten Firsts.


I have 2 friends for example, one that does biochem at a good uni, and one that does a biology type course at a much lower uni. Throughout the years I've heard pieces about their course, and the one who does biochem had such a higher workload, and the work sounded so much more complicated. She is a really bright spark, did really well at A-level and has done well and earned a 2:1. The other friend at the lower uni really struggled with the content of A-level biology, really struggled to pass, and has ended up with a first. Her workload was a hell of a lot lighter and her content much easier than my other friends...


Am I wrong in feeling that it's a bit unfair that the one gets a First just because she didn't do as well at A-level and went to a uni with lower requirements? I know that if she did my other friends course, she would have really struggled.

I just feel like it's a bit of an injustice, I know obviously the course has to be easier for those with lower A-level grades, for if it was the same level of difficulty they'd struggle to have a decent pass rate. But I always feel that sometimes it becomes too easy, and the grades are too lenient.



For a lot of higher ranked unis, a First grade is really exceptional, it means going above and beyond the course, but I'm not sure I get that from the lower unis.

I do think that former polytechnics make First class degrees more attainable in order to give their own undergraduates a better chance in the job market as they're quite well aware, of course, that a Russell Group 2:1 is much superior to a former poly 2:1.

Is there any data for this? Otherwise it's just a rant based on anecdotal evidence. I actually remember seeing statistics which indicate the opposite. I'll see if I can find them.

It does seem a little odd. It is probably one of the reasons that employers want to know which University the applicant attended. A 2:1 from Cambridge probably being of more worth than a First from an ex-poly.

Its not a case of Polys handing out too many firsts and more a case of courses at polys being easier than at other Unis.

Its because there isn't really standardisation to the courses.

My undergraduate was at Bristol, and was actually more challenging in content than at other red bricks, like Leeds or Sheffield, and you could tell. People from Bristol did better on the Masters than people from other Russell groups, and no one from a poly managed a distinction at all.

Of course, a problem also becomes apparent if the employer/interviewer is someone who went to a poly and cannot see things objectively. So, the problem at it's core comes from the fact that the poly is giving out these grades in the first place.