Do we need new University Classifications.
I have come to the realisation that scraping a 2.1 at University is very straightforward. There is a world of difference of effort that takes place between getting a degree average of 60.1% and 69.4%. I know at some Universities exam boards even give first-class honours to students achieving 68% or higher. But, personally, at My University, they do not.
My point is maybe we need a new system of degree classifications. There is a huge rise in students attaining first-class honours. Nowadays, almost everyone gets at least 60 percent or more.
Those really really bright students who graduate with like a 88% percent average still have the same grade as those students getting 70.1%. Something is not right here and has got to change. Academics should come together and give new degree classifications, new names, new brackets of scores, and get rid of the old. Everyone can easily get a 2.1 (60%) with minimal effort, while those who work hard and get 69% are put in the same category, which really is not fair.
Also, this year in particular there was soo much cheating going on with the pandemic, where everyone did much better than they would have in class because of "cheating" and "collusion" on their online exams which makes me wonder, isn't a degree pretty much worthless now anyway?
My point is maybe we need a new system of degree classifications. There is a huge rise in students attaining first-class honours. Nowadays, almost everyone gets at least 60 percent or more.
Those really really bright students who graduate with like a 88% percent average still have the same grade as those students getting 70.1%. Something is not right here and has got to change. Academics should come together and give new degree classifications, new names, new brackets of scores, and get rid of the old. Everyone can easily get a 2.1 (60%) with minimal effort, while those who work hard and get 69% are put in the same category, which really is not fair.
Also, this year in particular there was soo much cheating going on with the pandemic, where everyone did much better than they would have in class because of "cheating" and "collusion" on their online exams which makes me wonder, isn't a degree pretty much worthless now anyway?
Reply 1
Original post by Anonymous
I have come to the realisation that scraping a 2.1 at University is very straightforward. There is a world of difference of effort that takes place between getting a degree average of 60.1% and 69.4%. I know at some Universities exam boards even give first-class honours to students achieving 68% or higher. But, personally, at My University, they do not.
My point is maybe we need a new system of degree classifications. There is a huge rise in students attaining first-class honours. Nowadays, almost everyone gets at least 60 percent or more.
Those really really bright students who graduate with like a 88% percent average still have the same grade as those students getting 70.1%. Something is not right here and has got to change. Academics should come together and give new degree classifications, new names, new brackets of scores, and get rid of the old. Everyone can easily get a 2.1 (60%) with minimal effort, while those who work hard and get 69% are put in the same category, which really is not fair.
Also, this year in particular there was soo much cheating going on with the pandemic, where everyone did much better than they would have in class because of "cheating" and "collusion" on their online exams which makes me wonder, isn't a degree pretty much worthless now anyway?
My point is maybe we need a new system of degree classifications. There is a huge rise in students attaining first-class honours. Nowadays, almost everyone gets at least 60 percent or more.
Those really really bright students who graduate with like a 88% percent average still have the same grade as those students getting 70.1%. Something is not right here and has got to change. Academics should come together and give new degree classifications, new names, new brackets of scores, and get rid of the old. Everyone can easily get a 2.1 (60%) with minimal effort, while those who work hard and get 69% are put in the same category, which really is not fair.
Also, this year in particular there was soo much cheating going on with the pandemic, where everyone did much better than they would have in class because of "cheating" and "collusion" on their online exams which makes me wonder, isn't a degree pretty much worthless now anyway?
Yes, a degree is easy to get. It just gives you "bragging" rights and can talk about something at a job interview, and you get to live the "Uni experience". You get to make "family proud" to. But at the end of the day you are spending $50,000+ on a piece of paper with your name on it, and employers look at this piece of paper as "your ticket" to being allowed in. Because without it. How would employers know who is good and who is not? Who is stupid and who is not? It goes down to the type of University you went to (top 10, mediocre, rubbish). And then it portrays to the kind of job you can potentially get. From an employer's perspective, let me give you an example- 3 candidates for a job. One goes to a top Uni. One a mediocre one. One doesn't go to uni. On paper, you are going to go for the top uni candidate right? Your classification doesn't matter, because as you said everyone nowadays gets a first or 2.1. The Uni Brand name is what differentiates people. They want someone who went to a top Russell group institution, then say London Southbank for example....
Reply 2
Why is more people getting a first class honours or 2.1 a problem?
Reply 3
Original post by Debranoel01
Why is more people getting a first class honours or 2.1 a problem?
Something called "grade inflation". A first-class today is not what it was 20 years ago. The same goes for a 2.1. It is just much easier to get those grades now. The Government has tried and failed to crack down on this problem, but has failed miserably. Funny how somewhere like Surrey University where they hand out firsts like it is nothing to half of their students.... but a place like Oxbridge, Warwick, LSE etc hands it out to about 30 percent of theirs...
Reply 4
Original post by Anonymous
Something called "grade inflation". A first-class today is not what it was 20 years ago. The same goes for a 2.1. It is just much easier to get those grades now. The Government has tried and failed to crack down on this problem, but has failed miserably. Funny how somewhere like Surrey University where they hand out firsts like it is nothing to half of their students.... but a place like Oxbridge, Warwick, LSE etc hands it out to about 30 percent of theirs...
But that person already said that employers don’t really care about what degree of classification you get as many people have it. They mainly judge you on what university you went to so why is this a big problem? I’m confused.
Reply 5
I rather like my university's system in the US. You get A+ - F grades in each class then your total GPA is recorded.
Original post by Anonymous
I have come to the realisation that scraping a 2.1 at University is very straightforward. There is a world of difference of effort that takes place between getting a degree average of 60.1% and 69.4%. I know at some Universities exam boards even give first-class honours to students achieving 68% or higher. But, personally, at My University, they do not.
My point is maybe we need a new system of degree classifications. There is a huge rise in students attaining first-class honours. Nowadays, almost everyone gets at least 60 percent or more.
Those really really bright students who graduate with like a 88% percent average still have the same grade as those students getting 70.1%. Something is not right here and has got to change. Academics should come together and give new degree classifications, new names, new brackets of scores, and get rid of the old. Everyone can easily get a 2.1 (60%) with minimal effort, while those who work hard and get 69% are put in the same category, which really is not fair.
Also, this year in particular there was soo much cheating going on with the pandemic, where everyone did much better than they would have in class because of "cheating" and "collusion" on their online exams which makes me wonder, isn't a degree pretty much worthless now anyway?
My point is maybe we need a new system of degree classifications. There is a huge rise in students attaining first-class honours. Nowadays, almost everyone gets at least 60 percent or more.
Those really really bright students who graduate with like a 88% percent average still have the same grade as those students getting 70.1%. Something is not right here and has got to change. Academics should come together and give new degree classifications, new names, new brackets of scores, and get rid of the old. Everyone can easily get a 2.1 (60%) with minimal effort, while those who work hard and get 69% are put in the same category, which really is not fair.
Also, this year in particular there was soo much cheating going on with the pandemic, where everyone did much better than they would have in class because of "cheating" and "collusion" on their online exams which makes me wonder, isn't a degree pretty much worthless now anyway?
A lot varies on subject & university.
Some universities also have extremely generous algorithms and super soft rounding rules.
This problem is not solely with university classifications though A-levels & GCSEs have similar things but with the need for a 2.1 to be a competitive graduate it is more pronounced.
the simple solution: introduce credit weighted GPA, you end up with a percentage score as your degree with all years & every module counted. Universities should also publish cohorts average grades and standard deviation.
I think schools should adopt similar grading strategy, I would also have 1 exam board & no resits (with the exception of fails which are then capped, like you get at universities).
Reply 7
Using a unified percentage grading system would require alignment of assessment content and markschemes way beyond that already done.
University degrees aren’t national exams with an exam board and a marking scheme. They’re quality assured by the university concerned with cross checking between universities done by external examiners. Asking EEs to verify that the quality of work required across 4 classifications is fairly straightforward and something that EEs can do with a good level of confidence. Asking them to verify that the difference between an average of 68% and 65% is on a parr between 2 universities using different content and assessment is an unmanageable task.
If you want to make a case that universities should have their degree awarding powers removed and they can only award degrees designed, assessed and moderated by a government mandated exam board then good lick with that. It’s a fundamental redesign of HE to solve a problem that you haven’t actually quantified.
And if you don’t understand why it isn’t straightforward - look at the marking regime and classification methodology for OU.
University degrees aren’t national exams with an exam board and a marking scheme. They’re quality assured by the university concerned with cross checking between universities done by external examiners. Asking EEs to verify that the quality of work required across 4 classifications is fairly straightforward and something that EEs can do with a good level of confidence. Asking them to verify that the difference between an average of 68% and 65% is on a parr between 2 universities using different content and assessment is an unmanageable task.
If you want to make a case that universities should have their degree awarding powers removed and they can only award degrees designed, assessed and moderated by a government mandated exam board then good lick with that. It’s a fundamental redesign of HE to solve a problem that you haven’t actually quantified.
And if you don’t understand why it isn’t straightforward - look at the marking regime and classification methodology for OU.
(edited 3 years ago)
Reply 8
Original post by PQ
Using a unified percentage grading system would require alignment of assessment content and markschemes way beyond that already done.
University degrees aren’t national exams with an exam board and a marking scheme. They’re quality assured by the university concerned with cross checking between universities done by external examiners. Asking EEs to verify that the quality of work required across 4 classifications is fairly straightforward and something that EEs can do with a good level of confidence. Asking them to verify that the difference between an average of 68% and 65% is on a parr between 2 universities using different content and assessment is an unmanageable task.
If you want to make a case that universities should have their degree awarding powers removed and they can only award degrees designed, assessed and moderated by a government mandated exam board then good lick with that. It’s a fundamental redesign of HE to solve a problem that you haven’t actually quantified.
And if you don’t understand why it isn’t straightforward - look at the marking regime and classification methodology for OU.
University degrees aren’t national exams with an exam board and a marking scheme. They’re quality assured by the university concerned with cross checking between universities done by external examiners. Asking EEs to verify that the quality of work required across 4 classifications is fairly straightforward and something that EEs can do with a good level of confidence. Asking them to verify that the difference between an average of 68% and 65% is on a parr between 2 universities using different content and assessment is an unmanageable task.
If you want to make a case that universities should have their degree awarding powers removed and they can only award degrees designed, assessed and moderated by a government mandated exam board then good lick with that. It’s a fundamental redesign of HE to solve a problem that you haven’t actually quantified.
And if you don’t understand why it isn’t straightforward - look at the marking regime and classification methodology for OU.
I agree
Original post by PQ
Using a unified percentage grading system would require alignment of assessment content and markschemes way beyond that already done.
University degrees aren’t national exams with an exam board and a marking scheme. They’re quality assured by the university concerned with cross checking between universities done by external examiners. Asking EEs to verify that the quality of work required across 4 classifications is fairly straightforward and something that EEs can do with a good level of confidence. Asking them to verify that the difference between an average of 68% and 65% is on a parr between 2 universities using different content and assessment is an unmanageable task.
If you want to make a case that universities should have their degree awarding powers removed and they can only award degrees designed, assessed and moderated by a government mandated exam board then good lick with that. It’s a fundamental redesign of HE to solve a problem that you haven’t actually quantified.
And if you don’t understand why it isn’t straightforward - look at the marking regime and classification methodology for OU.
University degrees aren’t national exams with an exam board and a marking scheme. They’re quality assured by the university concerned with cross checking between universities done by external examiners. Asking EEs to verify that the quality of work required across 4 classifications is fairly straightforward and something that EEs can do with a good level of confidence. Asking them to verify that the difference between an average of 68% and 65% is on a parr between 2 universities using different content and assessment is an unmanageable task.
If you want to make a case that universities should have their degree awarding powers removed and they can only award degrees designed, assessed and moderated by a government mandated exam board then good lick with that. It’s a fundamental redesign of HE to solve a problem that you haven’t actually quantified.
And if you don’t understand why it isn’t straightforward - look at the marking regime and classification methodology for OU.
They could publish averages & standard deviations, so it’s possible to quantify how a student has performed relative to their cohort. I do think it’s now clear universities have worked to boost percentage of grads getting 2.1s as this is effectively what is perceived as an acceptable grade in the job market and by league tables.
It’s almost impossible to differentiate students academic performances now unless they are really at the top end.
Reply 10
Maybe you think it’s easy to get 2.1 at university because you’ve went At time during COVID. Where university is easier and you have online exams with more time.
You will struggle to change any grading system that disadvantages pretty much no-one. Most people will get a 2:1 and above and be happy. Those with high firsts can write their percentage on their CV and will have their transcripts for postgrad admissions, those with low 2:1s will hide that they scraped into the grade where required.
Well, it is often presented as a very complicated and multidimensional problem with no easy solutions—this is something you might hear from university officials or the government.
In reality, it isn't that complicated. The core issue lies in the capitalistic approach to higher education in the UK.
Most European universities offer free education, and as a result, their degrees are much more rigorous and selective. When something is free, you can impose highly selective assessments without worrying if the pass rate on an exam is only 20%. You can simply organize multiple exams, and most students will eventually pass after several attempts, forcing them to actually learn the material they are being assessed on.
In the UK (as well as in the USA and Canada), when you charge a student £40k+ for a degree, things become more complicated. £40k is the price of a car, so if you think of a university as a car dealership, they want to sell as many cars as possible while convincing the buyers that they are getting excellent value for their money.
What this means is that assessments for modules must be very loose and normalized, so the weakest student can still receive a passing grade of 40%. In this way, everyone who attends university will finish their degree, the student is happy, and the university is happy because they pocket £40k. Who isn't happy? The actually talented students. It's difficult to normalize the assessment to a 40% pass rate without severely lowering the quality of education.
Now, what about those students who score above 70%? If the university has already normalized assessments so that everyone gets at least 40%, most decent students will end up with scores of around 70%. But why not toughen up the criteria or introduce additional categories (e.g., >80% and >90%) to create a finer distinction? There are two reasons: first, it would become clear that a 40% score is essentially worthless, and weaker graduates would feel demoralized. Second, people really don't like to be told the truth—that they are most likely average and lack exceptional talent. When someone pays £40k for a degree, both the student and their parents expect to be told that the student is a generational prodigy. In the 2000s, first-class degrees were difficult to obtain. Most students received scores between 55% and 65%, and universities were swarmed by angry parents pestering the administration with questions like,
In reality, it isn't that complicated. The core issue lies in the capitalistic approach to higher education in the UK.
Most European universities offer free education, and as a result, their degrees are much more rigorous and selective. When something is free, you can impose highly selective assessments without worrying if the pass rate on an exam is only 20%. You can simply organize multiple exams, and most students will eventually pass after several attempts, forcing them to actually learn the material they are being assessed on.
In the UK (as well as in the USA and Canada), when you charge a student £40k+ for a degree, things become more complicated. £40k is the price of a car, so if you think of a university as a car dealership, they want to sell as many cars as possible while convincing the buyers that they are getting excellent value for their money.
What this means is that assessments for modules must be very loose and normalized, so the weakest student can still receive a passing grade of 40%. In this way, everyone who attends university will finish their degree, the student is happy, and the university is happy because they pocket £40k. Who isn't happy? The actually talented students. It's difficult to normalize the assessment to a 40% pass rate without severely lowering the quality of education.
Now, what about those students who score above 70%? If the university has already normalized assessments so that everyone gets at least 40%, most decent students will end up with scores of around 70%. But why not toughen up the criteria or introduce additional categories (e.g., >80% and >90%) to create a finer distinction? There are two reasons: first, it would become clear that a 40% score is essentially worthless, and weaker graduates would feel demoralized. Second, people really don't like to be told the truth—that they are most likely average and lack exceptional talent. When someone pays £40k for a degree, both the student and their parents expect to be told that the student is a generational prodigy. In the 2000s, first-class degrees were difficult to obtain. Most students received scores between 55% and 65%, and universities were swarmed by angry parents pestering the administration with questions like,
Original post by Anonymous
I have come to the realisation that scraping a 2.1 at University is very straightforward. There is a world of difference of effort that takes place between getting a degree average of 60.1% and 69.4%. I know at some Universities exam boards even give first-class honours to students achieving 68% or higher. But, personally, at My University, they do not.
My point is maybe we need a new system of degree classifications. There is a huge rise in students attaining first-class honours. Nowadays, almost everyone gets at least 60 percent or more.
Those really really bright students who graduate with like a 88% percent average still have the same grade as those students getting 70.1%. Something is not right here and has got to change. Academics should come together and give new degree classifications, new names, new brackets of scores, and get rid of the old. Everyone can easily get a 2.1 (60%) with minimal effort, while those who work hard and get 69% are put in the same category, which really is not fair.
Also, this year in particular there was soo much cheating going on with the pandemic, where everyone did much better than they would have in class because of "cheating" and "collusion" on their online exams which makes me wonder, isn't a degree pretty much worthless now anyway?
My point is maybe we need a new system of degree classifications. There is a huge rise in students attaining first-class honours. Nowadays, almost everyone gets at least 60 percent or more.
Those really really bright students who graduate with like a 88% percent average still have the same grade as those students getting 70.1%. Something is not right here and has got to change. Academics should come together and give new degree classifications, new names, new brackets of scores, and get rid of the old. Everyone can easily get a 2.1 (60%) with minimal effort, while those who work hard and get 69% are put in the same category, which really is not fair.
Also, this year in particular there was soo much cheating going on with the pandemic, where everyone did much better than they would have in class because of "cheating" and "collusion" on their online exams which makes me wonder, isn't a degree pretty much worthless now anyway?
Well, it is often presented as a very complicated and multidimensional problem with no easy solutions—this is something you might hear from university officials or the government.
In reality, it isn't that complicated. The core issue lies in the capitalistic approach to higher education in the UK.
Most European universities offer free education, and as a result, their degrees are much more rigorous and selective. When something is free, you can impose highly selective assessments without worrying if the pass rate on an exam is only 20%. You can simply organize multiple exams, and most students will eventually pass after several attempts, forcing them to actually learn the material they are being assessed on.
In the UK (as well as in the USA and Canada), when you charge a student £40k+ for a degree, things become more complicated. £40k is the price of a car, so if you think of a university as a car dealership, they want to sell as many cars as possible while convincing the buyers that they are getting excellent value for their money.
What this means is that assessments for modules must be very loose and normalized, so the weakest student can still receive a passing grade of 40%. In this way, everyone who attends university will finish their degree, the student is happy, and the university is happy because they pocket £40k. Who isn't happy? The actually talented students. It's difficult to normalize the assessment to a 40% pass rate without severely lowering the quality of education.
Now, what about those students who score above 70%? If the university has already normalized assessments so that everyone gets at least 40%, most decent students will end up with scores of around 70%. But why not toughen up the criteria or introduce additional categories (e.g., >80% and >90%) to create a finer distinction? There are two reasons: first, it would become clear that a 40% score is essentially worthless, and weaker graduates would feel demoralized. Second, people really don't like to be told the truth—that they are most likely average and lack exceptional talent. When someone pays £40k for a degree, both the student and their parents expect to be told that the student is a generational prodigy. In the 2000s, first-class degrees were difficult to obtain. Most students received scores between 55% and 65%, and universities were swarmed by angry parents pestering the administration with questions like, "Why is my child not good enough? Your staff must be bad."
People get emotional when large sums of money are involved.
The tragedy of the current system is that, by lying to good students and telling them they are exceptional while cutting the quality of education, it actually harms those students. After graduation, they can't compare with their counterparts in Europe in terms of pre-existing knowledge and the ability to solve complex problems—especially in STEM degrees. This forces the UK economy to import talented STEM graduates and workers, rather than producing their own. As a result, finding a good tech job as a UK graduate becomes extremely difficult because these students have to catch up to the skills that European (as well as Indian and Chinese) graduates acquired during their degrees
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Help!! My University's mistake may get me into trouble...
- University of Worcester grading turmoil.
- 80% in final year
- What to expect from the UK education system as an international student
- Degree classification-University of Leicester
- Will I still get a first class honours in my certificate if I fail one assessment ?
- Huddersfield university degree classification
- Should I Re-do an LLB at a Different University?
- how does the grading system work for modules in uni?
- Application to Oxbridge as a Portuguese student
- Degree uplift
- Do grades improve in third year?
- ACORN classification confusion
- I have a love-hate relationship with Physics.
- Advice on Applying for Postgraduate
- Am I entitled to any funding?
- Changes to grading system
- grading system for a medical degree!
- Delayed Graduation/University late with results
- Degree title and classification
Latest
Trending
