Anonymous #1
#1
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#1
My understanding is that if you get a 3rd class degree it isn't going to aid your career progression all too much as any 'degree-entry' jobs normally look for a 2:1 up.

Why are third class degrees a thing then? I have friends who struggled enough after getting a 2:2.

Why should anyone who only gets 40% have a degree (i.e. having not met requirements for that level of study for the majority of the course), surely that diminishes the value of one? Is it because of this that people see Masters degree grading more valuable as its pass (2:2), merit (2:1), distinction (1)?
0
reply
Zarek
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 week ago
#2
It still represents learning and life experience, there’s always a bell curve of academic performance. It can also denote you didn’t make quite the right choice of course. While it probably doesn’t help with job hunting once you have that first job it becomes largely an irrelevance. Plenty of successful people with 3rds or indeed with no degree.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#3
Report 1 week ago
#3
(Original post by Anonymous)
My understanding is that if you get a 3rd class degree it isn't going to aid your career progression all too much as any 'degree-entry' jobs normally look for a 2:1 up.

Why are third class degrees a thing then? I have friends who struggled enough after getting a 2:2.

Why should anyone who only gets 40% have a degree (i.e. having not met requirements for that level of study for the majority of the course), surely that diminishes the value of one? Is it because of this that people see Masters degree grading more valuable as its pass (2:2), merit (2:1), distinction (1)?
Tradition. I believe 3rd classes werent as redundant before grade inflation.
Your last paragraph doesnt make sense.
2
reply
nexttime
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 week ago
#4
Its very rare now due to massive grade inflation, but that was not always the case.

Having literally two grades for 80% of degrees - 2.1 or 1st - is clearly stupid.
5
reply
Anonymous #1
#5
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#5
(Original post by Zarek)
It still represents learning and life experience, there’s always a bell curve of academic performance. It can also denote you didn’t make quite the right choice of course. While it probably doesn’t help with job hunting once you have that first job it becomes largely an irrelevance. Plenty of successful people with 3rds or indeed with no degree.
Hi - just quickly want to highlight I don't believe people need a top degree or a degree at all to be successful. I'd just presume the majority of people want to undergo a degree so that they can open more doors. You can further your learning and interest in a subject away from the commitment and cost of a degree.

As an employer, I'd look at someone with a 3rd and think, 'why didn't they get higher?' and think I would feel more negatively towards that than someone who doesn't have a degree if you know what I mean?

I don't use my degree at all and neither do a lot of the people I know, but my 1st shows evidence of undertaking that commitment and thriving in it.
0
reply
InArduisFouette
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 week ago
#6
(Original post by Anonymous)
My understanding is that if you get a 3rd class degree it isn't going to aid your career progression all too much as any 'degree-entry' jobs normally look for a 2:1 up.

Why are third class degrees a thing then? I have friends who struggled enough after getting a 2:2.

Why should anyone who only gets 40% have a degree (i.e. having not met requirements for that level of study for the majority of the course), surely that diminishes the value of one? Is it because of this that people see Masters degree grading more valuable as its pass (2:2), merit (2:1), distinction (1)?
I note you posted anonymously , probably becasue you know full well that the way NQF4-6 level work is graded in the UK does not reflect your assertions of 'not meeting the requirements for that level of study' arguably 3rd indicates exactly that that the study has 'met the requirements' but has not exceeded them / demonstrated a greater depth of knowledge than is required.
0
reply
remussjhj01
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 week ago
#7
I guess it's kind of like how we have D and E grades at a-level/Pass grade at BTEC. Even though almost no uni or job would consider these 'good' grades or an actual 'pass' even, but we still have them to show that they're not TOTALLY useless at that subject, and do have some knowledge.

So I would say a 3rd is the equivalent of getting a D/E at a-level. You still kind of understand some aspects of the subject, but not as well as you could. An ord degree (so below 40% in 3rd year) is kind of like a U I guess, or I suppose you could also argue it's an E since you do still get an award. Depends how you look at it.
0
reply
Anonymous #1
#8
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#8
(Original post by 999tigger)
Tradition. I believe 3rd classes werent as redundant before grade inflation.
Your last paragraph doesnt make sense.
I never considered this. Makes sense.

Last paragraph - poorly structured by myself. What I mean is, to obtain a 3rd class degree you need to pass 40% of the course... why does that allow someone to get the qualification when they didn't pass a majority/at least 50% like with a 2:2.

At Masters level, there's pass, merit, distinction. Anything below a pass leads to a certificate. I know this doesn't equally translate to a 2:2, 2:1, 1st but in the eyes of graduate entry jobs a 2:2 seems to be the 'pass' equivalent for job consideration in a lot of fields.

I hope that makes more sense.
0
reply
Anonymous #1
#9
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#9
(Original post by nexttime)
Its very rare now due to massive grade inflation, but that was not always the case.

Having literally two grades for 80% of degrees - 2.1 or 1st - is clearly stupid.
Yeah I agree about the inflation - it's not something I've ever considered before really. All I know from my parents is that when they were at university-level age, 'barely anyone' went as it wasn't as accessible as it is now.

70% = 1st
60% = 2:1
50% = 2:2.

Why is there an option to award someone with a degree when they don't pass at least half of it to the required standard?

Is a 3rd class degree now outdated? Should we look into 80% + as a 1:1 and 70% as a 1:2 etc. It's an interesting point for debate I think.
0
reply
Anonymous #1
#10
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#10
(Original post by InArduisFouette)
I note you posted anonymously , probably becasue you know full well that the way NQF4-6 level work is graded in the UK does not reflect your assertions of 'not meeting the requirements for that level of study' arguably 3rd indicates exactly that that the study has 'met the requirements' but has not exceeded them / demonstrated a greater depth of knowledge than is required.
Don't really understand your initial point.

Fair enough I think I'm getting a little mixed up in my working here. I still don't understand why someone who does not meet the requirements of that level and standard of academic study for the majority (i.e. 60% fail) should get a degree though. I feel it devalues it.
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 week ago
#11
(Original post by Anonymous)
Last paragraph - poorly structured by myself. What I mean is, to obtain a 3rd class degree you need to pass 40% of the course... why does that allow someone to get the qualification when they didn't pass a majority/at least 50% like with a 2:2.
Candidates can get a grade C at certain science GCSE papers by getting 20 marks out of 60 - just 33.3%. It isn't unusual at A level either to need very few raw marks to get a 'reasonable' result. Marking is more complicated that just 'needing a majority'
2
reply
Anonymous #1
#12
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#12
(Original post by remussjhj01)
I guess it's kind of like how we have D and E grades at a-level/Pass grade at BTEC. Even though almost no uni or job would consider these 'good' grades or an actual 'pass' even, but we still have them to show that they're not TOTALLY useless at that subject, and do have some knowledge.

So I would say a 3rd is the equivalent of getting a D/E at a-level. You still kind of understand some aspects of the subject, but not as well as you could. An ord degree (so below 40% in 3rd year) is kind of like a U I guess, or I suppose you could also argue it's an E since you do still get an award. Depends how you look at it.
This is an interesting perspective. GCSEs too, I think under the new system they need a 4 to pass but a 1 still gets them a 'GCSE'.

Degree is optional study though so it's different in a way, or maybe it's not. I don't have any knowledge in other country's grading systems but I do wonder what a minimum pass is in countries outside the UK.
0
reply
Anonymous #1
#13
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#13
(Original post by Reality Check)
Candidates can get a grade C at certain science GCSE papers by getting 20 marks out of 60 - just 33.3%. It isn't unusual at A level either to need very few raw marks to get a 'reasonable' result. Marking is more complicated that just 'needing a majority'
Wow, surely that highlights wider problems? Should exam boards be allowed to adapt their grade boundaries each year? How is it possible for anyone to track actual student improvement or highlight schools that are not teaching to a sufficient standard?

Don't forget, at GCSE level there are pre determined statistics for the percentage of pupils in each cohort who can achieve in certain grade brackets (8-9 etc.) and is closely linked to SAT results. At degree level - as far as im aware - this isn't the case and grades are simply what a person scores. Boundaries aren't moved, if you get 70% you get a first and that's regardless of whether 90% of others on that course get 70% above too.
0
reply
nexttime
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 week ago
#14
(Original post by Anonymous)
Yeah I agree about the inflation - it's not something I've ever considered before really. All I know from my parents is that when they were at university-level age, 'barely anyone' went as it wasn't as accessible as it is now.

70% = 1st
60% = 2:1
50% = 2:2.

Why is there an option to award someone with a degree when they don't pass at least half of it to the required standard?

Is a 3rd class degree now outdated? Should we look into 80% + as a 1:1 and 70% as a 1:2 etc. It's an interesting point for debate I think.
Why do you pick 50%? That's just completely arbitrary. There are plenty of instances where you're trying to achieve something really hard so to be successful in 30%, 20% or lower is a great achievement. You're just picking random numbers.

We should just release the exact number to the employer, why bother with grades. But if you are going to have grades, you need to at least have a bit of differentiation - no individual grade should contain more than say 25% of the population.

But its all kind of meaningless without some way to compare grades from different unis, which is completely lacking at the moment. As long as you have unis like Surrey trying to give out 50% firsts, the whole system is just a joke and barely worth paying attention to.

If only employers realised that.
0
reply
Anonymous #1
#15
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#15
(Original post by nexttime)
Why do you pick 50%? That's just completely arbitrary. There are plenty of instances where you're trying to achieve something really hard so to be successful in 30%, 20% or lower is a great achievement. You're just picking random numbers.

We should just release the exact number to the employer, why bother with grades. But if you are going to have grades, you need to at least have a bit of differentiation - no individual grade should contain more than say 25% of the population.

But its all kind of meaningless without some way to compare grades from different unis, which is completely lacking at the moment. As long as you have unis like Surrey trying to give out 50% firsts, the whole system is just a joke and barely worth paying attention to.

If only employers realised that.
I picked 50% because that would mean someone has passed and met the requirements to prove they're capable of that level of study for at least half of the programme of learning.

Hypothetical: If I was training on a medical course and say needed to learn and pass exams in 10 areas of the body, but only passed 4, that demonstrates I don't know the majority. If I passed 5, then at least what I don't have sufficient knowledge in is equally balanced by that which I do.

Surrey at 50%???
My understanding was that all brick universities held the same grading system - probably why I'm not making much sense.
0
reply
InArduisFouette
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 week ago
#16
(Original post by Anonymous)
Don't really understand your initial point.

Fair enough I think I'm getting a little mixed up in my working here. I still don't understand why someone who does not meet the requirements of that level and standard of academic study for the majority (i.e. 60% fail) should get a degree though. I feel it devalues it.
Thank you for confirming you are ignorant on how marking works in the UK

as NQF6 a piece of work ( that isn't either an entirely equation based maths paper or a multiple- guess exam ) that gets 100% is a peice of work that is is worthy of publication as it stands.

this is not the USA .
0
reply
bones-mccoy
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 week ago
#17
(Original post by Anonymous)
At Masters level, there's pass, merit, distinction. Anything below a pass leads to a certificate. I know this doesn't equally translate to a 2:2, 2:1, 1st but in the eyes of graduate entry jobs a 2:2 seems to be the 'pass' equivalent for job consideration in a lot of fields.
It depends on the masters itself in terms of worth

At my uni, a distinction is 70%, merit is 60-69%, an accredited pass is 50-59% and a regular, University pass is 40-49%. So whilst you only need 40% to pass the degree, you need at least 50% in every module to end up with an accredited pass, meaning you can then go onto further training in order to become a psychologist. Whilst 40% clearly isn't something anyone aims for, it doesn't mean you can't do anything with the degree, just means you're more limited in terms of a career.
0
reply
InArduisFouette
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 week ago
#18
(Original post by Anonymous)
Wow, surely that highlights wider problems? Should exam boards be allowed to adapt their grade boundaries each year? How is it possible for anyone to track actual student improvement or highlight schools that are not teaching to a sufficient standard?

Don't forget, at GCSE level there are pre determined statistics for the percentage of pupils in each cohort who can achieve in certain grade brackets (8-9 etc.) and is closely linked to SAT results. At degree level - as far as im aware - this isn't the case and grades are simply what a person scores. Boundaries aren't moved, if you get 70% you get a first and that's regardless of whether 90% of others on that course get 70% above too.

marking in HE, as it is as GCSE , A level and FE qualifications is criteria based , with an element of norm referenced minor modification to ensure consistency year to year
0
reply
EierVonSatan
Badges: 21
#19
Report 1 week ago
#19
(Original post by Anonymous)
Why is there an option to award someone with a degree when they don't pass at least half of it to the required standard?

Is a 3rd class degree now outdated? Should we look into 80% + as a 1:1 and 70% as a 1:2 etc. It's an interesting point for debate I think.
The score isn't a true percentage, so try not to think of it as ''getting more than half wrong''. In many subjects/tasks/assignments, getting above 85% isn't a thing, and neither is getting 15% so it is misleading in that sense.

The classification system is not fit for purpose on it's own any longer, in my opinion.
0
reply
Anonymous #1
#20
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#20
(Original post by InArduisFouette)
Thank you for confirming you are ignorant on how marking works in the UK

as NQF6 a piece of work ( that isn't either an entirely equation based maths paper or a multiple- guess exam ) that gets 100% is a peice of work that is is worthy of publication as it stands.

this is not the USA .
Why is someone asking a genuine question because they don't understand something a reason for you to call them ignorant? Quite a hostile word to use. I've expressed it's something I don't understand and that's why I'm asking. At no point did I say 'this is how it should work' etc.

I've always been told - by university professors, career consultants and more that a 3rd class degree wouldn't help with career progression into a graduate level/degree requiring role. Obviously that can't be the case.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What are you most likely to do if you don't get the grades you were expecting?

Go through Clearing (252)
39.69%
Take autumn exams (189)
29.76%
Look for a job (21)
3.31%
Consider an apprenticeship (25)
3.94%
Take a year out (110)
17.32%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (38)
5.98%

Watched Threads

View All