Is a Master's degree easier to attain than a bachelor's degree

I studied 3 years and achieved a 2:1 in computer science. I then decided to do an extra year in order to achieve an integrated Master's degree. I was told the grade I achieve is essentially irrelevant. If I get a pass, Merit or Distinction I would have still achieved a Master's degree. This system seems flawed. It was pointless me trying to achieve that 2:1 as I won't get that qualification (BSC), I'll just get one at the end of the 4th year as it's an undergraduate Masters. I may aswell had cruised through university achieving just a pass, as I'm going to get a Master's degree anyway. Can anyone explain why the system is this way? It seems flawed. I suggest everyone does that extra year because even if you get a pass. Your 4 year degree (with a pass) will be worth more than somebody elses 3 year degree (with a first). How is this fair? Why is this the case?

First off, an undergrad Masters doesn't generally carry the prestige of a postgrad Masters.

Secondly, you can say you got a 2.1 for your undergrad element - many applications will ask that or you will be asked at interview etc.

Thirdly, many (most?) integrated Masters do report grades in the undergrad format ie 1st, 2.1. The Pass, Merit, Distinction rubric is used more commonly (and inconsistently) for postgrad Masters.

I can say I got a 2.1 for the undergrad element? That makes me feel better but the problem is I won't have any proof because I will just get the one qualification after this fourth year. Anyone could say that they got a 2.1 for the undergrad element and be lying, because you only get the one qualification. This is what I mean. I feel like there should be two seperate qualifications, one after the third year and one after the fourth. Otherwise, what's the point in trying to achieve such a high grade like a 1st, for example, when you can just do an integrated masters, achieve an average of say 40-50% (which is a pass), and then technically you've got a higher qualification (Masters) than the person that chose to just do the 3 years and work harder for a higher average of 70+%. Acheiving an average of 40-50% throughout the 4 years is easier than trying to achieve an average of 70+% for 3 years yet you'll get a better qualification (Master's > Bachelor's) My university uses the Pass, Merit, Distinction rubric for those doing the additional integrated masters year. However, those only doing the 3 years use the 1st, 2.1, etc. rubric.

Have you checked your degree certificate even mentions a final grade? None of mine do.

Employers use your transcript to check what your grades were and the transcript shows the grades you got for every module, year and overall.

You can't get 40-50% every year and continue on to the integrated year. Usually you have to get a 2.1 in your 3rd year in order to be allowed to continue to the Masters year.

I studied 3 years and achieved a 2:1 in computer science. I then decided to do an extra year in order to achieve an integrated Master's degree. I was told the grade I achieve is essentially irrelevant. If I get a pass, Merit or Distinction I would have still achieved a Master's degree. This system seems flawed. It was pointless me trying to achieve that 2:1 as I won't get that qualification (BSC), I'll just get one at the end of the 4th year as it's an undergraduate Masters. I may aswell had cruised through university achieving just a pass, as I'm going to get a Master's degree anyway. Can anyone explain why the system is this way? It seems flawed. I suggest everyone does that extra year because even if you get a pass. Your 4 year degree (with a pass) will be worth more than somebody elses 3 year degree (with a first). How is this fair? Why is this the case?

To the OP, I am not sure why you look down on those with 2:2s and thirds. Ok, you have a 2:1, but if we take your snobbish attitude towards grades, about 75-80% of undergrad degrees these days are either firsts or upper-seconds. So what makes you think that your 2:1 is anything special? By your reckoning, only a first is worth gloating over, and even that is absurdly high these days, with around 15-20% of degrees being firsts.

Let's just congratulate those that have completed their course, whatever grades they might have achieved. The classification of a degree will only help you in the first of couple of years of your career at most. After that, it's how you cope with the job.

The grade you achieve certainly isn't irrelevant because a lot of graduate opportunities require a 2:1, which a merit roughly translates into. Based on that I don't know if a pass, which could be said to be equivalent to a 2:2, is worth more than a 1st class BSc.

In terms of getting onto the masters year, you usually need to be achieving at least a 60% average (and sometimes in certain modules too) to be invited onto it. What you initially apply for via UCAS is fairly irrelevant as it's your grades at university that determine whether you are able to stay on to do the masters year. This isn't an issue for you given your grades so far, but if you were cruising along with a 50% average you likely wouldn't have been able to do the masters year.

It isn’t a snobbish attitude. I just see getting a higher grade as better. Otherwise, why are we encouraged to aim for a higher grade? Clearly there’s a reason.

Er...could it be that aiming for higher grades equals doing your best under the circumstances? Why not look at it as a form of self-actualization rather than as some sort of contest? I also think you are inferring that because you have a 2:1, you are somehow 'better' than those with a 2:2 or third. If you really want to go down this route, then unless you graduated from Oxbridge with a high First, you are still a loser in some people's eyes. Even if we discount 'brand' snobbery and say that all degrees are equal for the sake of argument, a 2:1 these days is hardly anything special, given that it's 'harder' (statistically less likely) to get a 2:2 than it is a 2:1.