Given that the majority of students graduate with a 2.1, is the current system the best way to differentiate students? I just got a 2.1(as did most people i know) and it feels less valuable given that roughly 50% of graduates get a 2.1 overall.
Don't get me wrong i'm not complaining about the current system but it wouldn't make more sense to have more grade bands for the higher marks. e.g. 1.1 and 1.2(both first class honours); 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 (all second class honours).
So for example, a 1.1 would be 75+, a 1.2 would be 70+, a 2.1 would be 65+, a 2.2 would be 55+ and a 2.3 would be 50+. Plus anything above 40 would be a 3rd/pass.
Given the current employment situation (especially for graduates) it would make more sense if degrees had a more comprehensive grading system.
Does anyone else agree? or do you think the current system is the best way to do it?
Should degree classification boundaries be re-evaluated? Watch
- Thread Starter
Last edited by Ngoode; 01-07-2014 at 13:19.
- 01-07-2014 13:13
- 01-07-2014 23:39
See, I think splitting the classifications further is just needless complication (generally). Employers don't always know exactly what they even translate to now.
I think that sort of grading is very good for academic routes - where academic performance correlates or is a necessary prerequisite. It's important to distinguish between the most academically capable.
For employment in the real world I don't think there's that much difference between two candidates (i.e. 67 vs 63) in terms of their ability to do the job, based on academics. It doesn't really correlate, especially when degrees can be irrelevant to the working area [unlike a PhD in the same field]. Their own assessment centres and interviews will still weight out when they make the end decision. They probably want the person with certain qualities and a bit of common sense, more than anything.
I think there's a bit of a buffer in the current system too, if you have a poor module or a bad day. The narrower you make the gaps the more likely one module can influence more heavily. It will depend on how they classify at each university, but as that's also different and even the degree content can vary significantly so I don't know, maybe the current system offers a bit of wiggle room?
- 01-07-2014 23:46
I'd like to see a way of differentiating between a low and high 2:1, but I think the other classifications are fine as they are.
- 01-07-2014 23:56
my gut feeling is that a gpa type system is coming in
presumably there'll be some sort of report on the trials after July
- 02-07-2014 04:28
Getting above 70 is difficult enough, so I don't think firsts should be further categorized.
I agree with above poster though, seems unfair that someone who narrowly missed a 1st and someone who barely scraped a 2:1 should be put in the same boat.