Is a 2.1 even anything to be proud of anymore?

Really? My tutors did the opposite; provided us with mark schemes, deviated from the course handbook in lectures and tutorials to go into wider/more critical debate, and kept regular office hours for any questions regarding essay technique, topics you didn't understand etc. Some of them provided model answers.

Employers know how hard Oxbridge is and clearly you don't I have heard loads of stories of people failing never mind getting a third and easily getting a first elsewhere.Employers recognise that the student must be a genius to get into Oxbridge and being the worst 1% of the very very best and most intelligent in the country is still very very good.

Employers know how hard Oxbridge is and clearly you don't I have heard loads of stories of people failing never mind getting a third and easily getting a first elsewhere.Employers recognise that the student must be a genius to get into Oxbridge and being the worst 1% of the very very best and most intelligent in the country is still very very good.

I've learnt that doing an insane amount of work will not guarantee you a 1st.

Luck plays a huge part.

Employers know how hard Oxbridge is and clearly you don't I have heard loads of stories of people failing never mind getting a third and easily getting a first elsewhere.Employers recognise that the student must be a genius to get into Oxbridge and being the worst 1% of the very very best and most intelligent in the country is still very very good.

I'm starting to think this too. I don't think it's the amount of work that's let me down, because frankly I've worked till I'm sick and blue in the face at times (especially last term).

I put it down to luck too. Things like having a better mental state, having a group of intelligent course friends who I could work with, knowing someone a bit older than me who's done the same course as me. Sometimes you need someone to explain something in that slightly different way to get it to click. You can't buy these sort of things, nor can you work for them. You've either got it or you haven't. Life is more about who you know rather than what you know.

I'm talking about the people marking your work either think your work is 1st class or it isn't.

In other news, with my ex-poly, non-first arts degree I've got a place on a ridiculously competitive grad scheme, so possibly my last post was a pile of ballsap.

Maybe I've been on the elitist side of TSR too much but the more I think about it isn't 2.1 just like a…B? As in, second-class student, second-class employee, second-class citizen, second-class partner/date.

If everyone is getting 2.1s and the market is saturated with them, then why should one be proud of being distinctly average? (Yes I'm aware that a 'C'student is what's stereotypically considered average but in reality B is the new C)

I'm getting depressed thinking of my graduation ceremony and going up to get the piece of laminated paper they call a certificate which says 'well done, you, you spent 3 years of your life working for us and as it turns out, you did okay'
(Context: Brother came joint top of his year in MEng at an RG uni, now preparing to broadcast his PhD thesis on international business trips)

Especially in Arts. AFAIK 2.1 STEM> First in Arts :/

How can you neg that? An accredited STEM degree is definitely worth more than a first in Arts.

Same. Don't understand all this talk about getting 2:1s being so easy. Certainly hasn't been for me.

It's so difficult to know how to improve for the next piece of work. You can find out where you went wrong after you've received the mark, but the next piece of work will be totally different, so how will that help you? Also university tutors are really against helping you 'jump through hoops' for exams. They believe university is a learning process rather than a place where you go to pass exams, so they're thoroughly against helping you in any shape or form with exam technique or providing any form of mark scheme. It would have helped immensely if I could see a few 'model answers' for some questions, just to get an idea of what a 1st/2.1 standard is and what was expected of me. But I was never allowed to. Many times I'd do a test or exam, and thought I'd revised hard, revised everything well, written a good answer, but it turned out to not even reach a 2.1 standard. It's no good knowing what a good answer is AFTER the work, because the result is final and that piece of material won't come up again.

I'm banging my head against a metaphorical brick wall right now, wondering if I could have done better.

On my course a 2:1 is what nearly everyone gets. We're just too tightly grouped to have a good spread of 1st down to 2:2 and 3rds

Out of 90 students I'd imagine 10 will get Firsts, and they'll have nearly killed themselves to get them. I wasn't prepared (nor physically capable) of doing that quantity of work.


I'm borderline 1st/2:1 material having spoken to my head of year, and the piece of work I just submitted is 70% of my entire grade.

I feel that I did my utmost best on it, could've done better if I had been given some advice on tactics, but on my own I did the best possible. I worked 15 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 4 months on my project

If I don't get a 1st I won't feel bad, because it will have been impossible to physically get a 1st due to the calibre of the other students, who worked even more insane hours. The important thing is to feel that you did the best you could possibly do, because that's the only factor you can control. Since your grade is based on how you fit on their distribution curve you could get a 1st with one class, but in a class with a higher level of talent you'd get a 2:1 instead

As long as it helps you get the job you want, does it really matter if a 2:1 is something to be proud of or not? And lots of 2:1 grads get brilliant jobs every year.