Do some universities give out too many firsts?

I don't disagree, I just thought it was worth noting. There's some very bright people out there who get written off or devalued for going to a lower uni despite being perfectly capable.

As expected, you're equating good A level performance to actual intelligence rather than quality of education. I'm sure there's a correlation somewhere, but not only do they ask for entirely different abilities, good A levels are heavily reliant on where you go to school and what your parents do.

The fact that someone has 3 A*s then pops out a 2.2 doesn't at all qualify them to be one of the most intelligent people in the country. It shows they were well taught, and then couldn't cope at degree level. It's why people from private schools do significantly worse than state school students with the same A level grades (as I'm sure the Sutton Trust report says somewhere in the small print), because A levels can be spoonfed and degrees cannot.

I'm not sure why people have such difficulty splitting the two levels of qualification.

This is pretty much what I was going to write.

It's surprising, given the huge difference between A level and degree level, that some people with actual first-hand experience of both still assume that good A levels entitle them to a good degree.

If you get a 2.2 at Cambridge you're not better than someone who got a first from London Met. You're a failure. You probably either wasted your potential or went to a very good school at which everyone got 4 As, and couldn't cope when you had to do things for yourself.

There's absolutely no reason why someone at a lower-ranked university couldn't produce work to the same standard as someone at a high-ranked one. Everyone has access to the same books, journals and research papers for their independent studies, and if you rely solely on lecture/seminar content you probably don't deserve a very good grade anyway.

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...

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.

As expected, you're equating good A level performance to actual intelligence rather than quality of education. I'm sure there's a correlation somewhere, but not only do they ask for entirely different abilities, good A levels are heavily reliant on where you go to school and what your parents do.

The fact that someone has 3 A*s then pops out a 2.2 doesn't at all qualify them to be one of the most intelligent people in the country. It shows they were well taught, and then couldn't cope at degree level. It's why people from private schools do significantly worse than state school students with the same A level grades (as I'm sure the Sutton Trust report says somewhere in the small print), because A levels can be spoonfed and degrees cannot.

I'm not sure why people have such difficulty splitting the two levels of qualification.

Try spoon feeding STEP.STEP is exactly the sort of qualification that ensures that people get into Cambridge with actual mathematical talent and not route learning and spoon feeding and similar entrance tests in other subjects do exactly the same thing.
At state schools you are also spoonfed and if people struggle to get good grades at A-Level when they are spoonfed then how are they going to do well without spoon feeding, it is undeniably harder to do well when not spoonfed when you have to self teach the content.The difficulty of the degree increases from a lower ranked university to a higher ranked university otherwise virtually all those applying to a lower ranked university would fail or get 2:2s and virtually all those applying to Cambridge/Oxford would get firsts, these are the most clever, independent people who have been selected based on their ability to not simply be spoonfed through entrance tests.

On average ex-polys give out less firsts then well ranked unis. They award more 2:2s and 3rds. This is because students on average haven't done so well at A Level and are likely to struggle harder at degree level.

To suggest that firsts are easier to obtain, or more are handed out at ex -polys is an obvious fallacy.

It is born out of one thing and one thing only= Students who achieved excellent grades at a level, going to university and realising they aren't in the top tier (1st class) any more. So to make themselves feel a wee bit better they have to say that firsts are handed out to easily at 'lesser' universities.

This is pretty much what I was going to write.

It's surprising, given the huge difference between A level and degree level, that some people with actual first-hand experience of both still assume that good A levels entitle them to a good degree.

If you get a 2.2 at Cambridge you're not better than someone who got a first from London Met. You're a failure. You probably either wasted your potential or went to a very good school at which everyone got 4 As, and couldn't cope when you had to do things for yourself.

There's absolutely no reason why someone at a lower-ranked university couldn't produce work to the same standard as someone at a high-ranked one. Everyone has access to the same books, journals and research papers for their independent studies, and if you rely solely on lecture/seminar content you probably don't deserve a very good grade anyway.

You might be surprised to know that a lot of large corpororates look specifically at ex Poly's for IT

I can't say this for all subjects ofc

I'm at Oxford doing maths, and looking at the exam papers from some other universities they are significantly easier. There are people who would fail a maths degree here but get a first at several other places. The 2 degrees just cannot be compared at all.

Try spoon feeding STEP.STEP is exactly the sort of qualification that ensures that people get into Cambridge with actual mathematical talent and not route learning and spoon feeding and similar entrance tests in other subjects do exactly the same thing.
At state schools you are also spoonfed and if people struggle to get good grades at A-Level when they are spoonfed then how are they going to do well without spoon feeding, it is undeniably harder to do well when not spoonfed when you have to self teach the content.The difficulty of the degree increases from a lower ranked university to a higher ranked university otherwise virtually all those applying to a lower ranked university would fail or get 2:2s and virtually all those applying to Cambridge/Oxford would get firsts, these are the most clever, independent people who have been selected based on their ability to not simply be spoonfed through entrance tests.

+1. The team I work with comprises entirely of graduates from Ex-Polys. We had one guy that came from a Russell Group university and he was next to useless - hugely arrogant, had a huge issue with our "inferior" education, and refused to listen to what he was being taught, but as soon as he was put in an environment where he had to engineer a solution, he couldn't apply any of the theory his degree had taught him and didn't have specific skills that we needed from him, because he was a cookie cutter Comp Sci generalist. He had absolutely no business acumen, or other soft skills either.

I'm sure he has a prospective career in academia ahead of him, but he's no consultant. He was sacked after 6 months.

Frankly, both your posts are the epitome of unsubstantiated twitter; by contrast, those who state that Cambridge degrees are much, much harder than London Met degrees have reams of evidence to support that statement.

I would provide that evidence, but I rather doubt you will take any notice of it.

On average ex-polys give out less firsts then well ranked unis. They award more 2:2s and 3rds. This is because students on average haven't done so well at A Level and are likely to struggle harder at degree level.

To suggest that firsts are easier to obtain, or more are handed out at ex -polys is an obvious fallacy.

It is born out of one thing and one thing only= Students who achieved excellent grades at a level, going to university and realising they aren't in the top tier (1st class) any more. So to make themselves feel a wee bit better they have to say that firsts are handed out to easily at 'lesser' universities.

Exactly.

These are the complaints of people that went in to the university system and found that they weren't actually as good as they thought they were:

- "why is it fair that graduate employers ask for 2:1s as a filter when a 2:2 from my university is better than a 2:1 from loads of others"

- "why is it fair that arts and science subjects count the same whereas its much easier to get a 1st in an arts subject"

- "why is it fair that we fund ex-polys to do mickey mouse degrees because now there are so many graduates on the market I can't get a job with my degree from a brilliant university, because they are beating me to the grad jobs!"

I've never seen anyone who was actually a top student make these complaints, they just go to their good uni, get a first, get a good job, and focus on their own lives not moaning about fantasy injustices.

Oxbridge degrees are certainly harder, but Oxbridge degrees also have increased supervision and help compared to other universities in order to compensate. In lower ranked universities people are expected to be far more independent.

As expected, you're equating good A level performance to actual intelligence rather than quality of education. I'm sure there's a correlation somewhere, but not only do they ask for entirely different abilities, good A levels are heavily reliant on where you go to school and what your parents do.

The fact that someone has 3 A*s then pops out a 2.2 doesn't at all qualify them to be one of the most intelligent people in the country. It shows they were well taught, and then couldn't cope at degree level. It's why people from private schools do significantly worse than state school students with the same A level grades (as I'm sure the Sutton Trust report says somewhere in the small print), because A levels can be spoonfed and degrees cannot.

I'm not sure why people have such difficulty splitting the two levels of qualification.

It depends what you mean by that - the tutorial system at Oxbridge means that students get a lot less in the way of contact hours, but what contact hours they do get are intensive, individual and flexible to the students' needs. This is only possible because the students are expected to (and capable of) doing a large amount of the necessary study independently.

You mean more right?