Shall I bother to apply for a PhD if I'm not going to get funding?

You do realise that this would be a first overall, given that universities allow for one or two percent of give, especially if the overall average is above the desired mark?

You do realise that this would be a first overall, given that universities allow for one or two percent of give, especially if the overall average is above the desired mark?

Hey ho,

I just graduated with a 2.1 (69 overall with a 2.1 in second year and 1.1 in final year) in History from the University of Exeter and have a place at MPhil American History at Cambridge. Considering people with firsts are unable to score funding for a PhD, should I even bother to spend all that time applying for them?

I feel like even if I get a distinction from Cambridge, it wouldn't matter since people are very fussy over BA grades.

Thanks for your time!

Hey ho,

I just graduated with a 2.1 (69 overall with a 2.1 in second year and 1.1 in final year) in History from the University of Exeter and have a place at MPhil American History at Cambridge. Considering people with firsts are unable to score funding for a PhD, should I even bother to spend all that time applying for them?

I feel like even if I get a distinction from Cambridge, it wouldn't matter since people are very fussy over BA grades.

Thanks for your time!

This is what she said, a 1.1 in the final year and 69 overall. There is a 2% give way at my university, with the final year's grades being the deciding factor. And being that she said she passed the final year with a first, that means in theory she would have definitely got a first overall, no questions asked. You guys are just too gullible i'm afraid!

This is what she said, a 1.1 in the final year and 69 overall. There is a 2% give way at my university, with the final year's grades being the deciding factor. And being that she said she passed the final year with a first, that means in theory she would have definitely got a first overall, no questions asked. You guys are just too gullible i'm afraid!

Take a look at the posters history on TSR, they are clearly a graduate. Just because you know slack-arse institutions that give away grades for free, doesn't mean all do. It's perfectly possible to get a first in your final year or dissertation but get a 2.1 overall, not everywhere rounds up so generously.

This is what she said, a 1.1 in the final year and 69 overall. There is a 2% give way at my university, with the final year's grades being the deciding factor. And being that she said she passed the final year with a first, that means in theory she would have definitely got a first overall, no questions asked. You guys are just too gullible i'm afraid!

I didn't go to a slack arsed institution. This is very offensive. They didn't give me my grade for free.

I didn't say anything about the institution you went to, your grade, or how you earned it.

I said you were using evidence from low grade institutions and that most institutions (ie higher quality ones) did not have such a flexible approach to grading standards.

....

Please reread your original post very carefully:
(Original post by threeportdrift)
Take a look at the posters history on TSR, they are clearly a graduate. Just because you know slack-arse institutions that give away grades for free, doesn't mean all do. It's perfectly possible to get a first in your final year or dissertation but get a 2.1 overall, not everywhere rounds up so generously.

You called my university a 'slack-arsed institution' which gives away 'grades for free'. This smacks of not just ignorance to the thousands of hard working alumini who quite rightly earn their grades on derby, year on year, but also the system of cross marking which operates at Derby, and i can guarantee that there are no 'easy marks' given. It is obvious you consider the fact that i graded with a 2.1 a fluke, whereas the op was clearly worthy of more than this.

I will shut up now.

Please reread your original post very carefully:
(Original post by threeportdrift)
Take a look at the posters history on TSR, they are clearly a graduate. Just because you know slack-arse institutions that give away grades for free, doesn't mean all do. It's perfectly possible to get a first in your final year or dissertation but get a 2.1 overall, not everywhere rounds up so generously.

You called my university a 'slack-arsed institution' which gives away 'grades for free'. This smacks of not just ignorance to the thousands of hard working alumini who quite rightly earn their grades on derby, year on year, but also the system of cross marking which operates at Derby, and i can guarantee that there are no 'easy marks' given. It is obvious you consider the fact that i graded with a 2.1 a fluke, whereas the op was clearly worthy of more than this.

I will shut up now.

Universities of a lower quality are inevitably more generous with grades. It is obviously more difficult to get a 2.1 at Oxbridge than Derby, for example.

In 2010, in Cambridge University (excluding subjects with an undivided Class II):

Class I: 22.9 %
Class II, division 1: 57.6 %
(total 80.5%)
Source: http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/camd...ate.html#exams

Derby:http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/derby

According to these statistics it is something like 15% harder to get a 2.1 at Derby than it is at Oxbridge. So you are wrong there again.

The exams and coursework will be harder at Cambridge though - university exams of course aren't standardised, so it will naturally be more difficult to get a good grade at a university such as Cambridge. Derby is obviously still a great university, but it's different to Cambridge, as reflected by the course entry requirements - Derby requires 300 points for law, for example (so BBB), while Cambridge requires A*AA. Overall, therefore, it's harder to get a 2:1 at Oxbridge than at Darby.

The exams and coursework will be harder at Cambridge though - university exams of course aren't standardised, so it will naturally be more difficult to get a good grade at a university such as Cambridge. Derby is obviously still a great university, but it's different to Cambridge, as reflected by the course entry requirements - Derby requires 300 points for law, for example (so BBB), while Cambridge requires A*AA. Overall, therefore, it's harder to get a 2:1 at Oxbridge than at Darby.

I'm pretty sure that all uni exams have to be checked and moderated by an external lecturer so although not standardised they are of similar difficulty. Especially if the course is accredited because then they are also monitored and checked by another external orginisation too.

The exams are often moderated externally, but they're written by the lecturers at each university, who are the experts in their field. Exams are in no way standardised like A levels and there's no set curriculum, so the difficulty of exams at Cambridge and ex-polys will be worlds apart. Some degrees are accredited, like law, but the checks that occur aren't overly significant - they'll check that certain modules are passed, but what's on the exam paper and the difficulty of the papers is up to the individual university; just because Cambridge and Huddersfield offer qualifying law degrees, and they both offer contract law, doesn't mean that the papers will be similar.

I'm pretty sure you'll find that accredited degrees will have the core papers checked to make sure they have what they say on the tin... Also you'll find that as you move up the rankings of unis (generally) you see more people getting higher grades. If your theory were correct we'd expect to see relitively similar distributions in each uni which isn't the case.