What's better: 2-1 from "top" uni or first from other unis?

The problem with the Guardian rating is that it puts too much weight in NSS survey ratings. Employers don't care if students are "satisfied" with the experience they got at uni, they care if the uni produces good graduates.

For a time LSE had a reputation for ****** teaching but good graduates, why ? - because the ****** teaching meant the graduates had to be motivated self-starters and teach themselves in order to do well. Which in the end produced a much higher calibre of graduates.

I reckon any teacher that tells their pupils this should be instantly struck off, for not knowing what they're talking about.

This is a thread that repeats itself every few weeks on here- and there will be employers who will employ Oxbridge grads on the basis of the name on their degree. The employment statistics don't tend to support the idea that its worth an extra degree banding though, just that Oxbridge have a top record in employment prospects. You could probably search on first from ex-poly vs 2:2 from Oxbridge to see this debated numerous times on here, so starting it again probably isn't necessary.

What I will say is, some universities, particularly newer ones, give out lots of firsts- perhaps in an attempt to boost their ranking. Much of the Russell Group have typically less than 1/7th of students receiving top marks (in arts even less), compared with up to a third at some other places. This might well be devaluing a degree- making people think lower degrees from better unis are worth more, but the blame for this must lie with those who were prepared to indulge in degree inflation in the first place. Its bloody hard at some of the ancient universities to even get a 2:1 (and, since league tables rank on things like % of firsts/2:1s and dropout rates, you can end up lower down merely by keeping standards high), whereas thats not always the case across the board.

I reckon any teacher that tells their pupils this should be instantly struck off, for not knowing what they're talking about.

This is a thread that repeats itself every few weeks on here- and there will be employers who will employ Oxbridge grads on the basis of the name on their degree. The employment statistics don't tend to support the idea that its worth an extra degree banding though, just that Oxbridge have a top record in employment prospects. You could probably search on first from ex-poly vs 2:2 from Oxbridge to see this debated numerous times on here, so starting it again probably isn't necessary.

What I will say is, some universities, particularly newer ones, give out lots of firsts- perhaps in an attempt to boost their ranking. Much of the Russell Group have typically less than 1/7th of students receiving top marks (in arts even less), compared with up to a third at some other places. This might well be devaluing a degree- making people think lower degrees from better unis are worth more, but the blame for this must lie with those who were prepared to indulge in degree inflation in the first place. Its bloody hard at some of the ancient universities to even get a 2:1 (and, since league tables rank on things like % of firsts/2:1s and dropout rates, you can end up lower down merely by keeping standards high), whereas thats not always the case across the board.

What is a 1994 group uni?

I would like to know what my university, Dundee is on this scale. It is not russell group or ancient, yet it is not an ex-poly. It is a former college of St Andrews which gained independence in the 60s I think.

sorry guys this might piss people off

Most times a 2.1 from Oxbridge or Imperial is better than a first from any other uni.

2.1 from these three are as hard as a 1st from other unis.


I know alot of people will disagree becuase they dont go to one of the top three but its true.

People dont realise that employers dont care if you get a first, unless you are applying for directly applicable jobs like Law or engineering. If you apply for a marketing job or consulting, having a first in history or english only tells them that you are good at history or english, not at the job. They look at far more things and tick you off according to their 'soft skills' criteria.

Hence, bearing in mind which uni you go to plays a big role in top careers then i would say a 2:1 from Oxford would be better than a first from Notts or Birmingham, as some jobs are only directed at Oxbridge grads. If it were a 2:2 then No, but bearing in mind most gets 2:1's and it is hardly a bad classification then you meet their criteria.

It also depends on the subject you take. A first in History is far rarer than a first in maths for example.

And what, with your expansive knowledge of University education, are you basing this on? Can you prove this? If you can, then please proceed, I'd be intrigued to hear.

just from what ive been told, - but then again everything is hyped up.

I suppose there arent anything different about oxbridge students.

Maybe its in my head.

Don't get me wrong, there's still an edge to Oxbridge, and there still is some courses at Imperial that have top prospects, but its not as simple as saying anyone else with a first has no chance against those grads, or that they have to be as clever as anyone else just to get a 2:1. Thats not how it works. In job circles, Oxbridge has connections to the top end of lots of companies, Imperial to the sciences- but we can't say they're 'better' because of it. If you had your heart set on being a researcher into archaeology, then the first, and the better knowledge of the subject that comes with the ability to score highly in everything you do, would stand you in better stead than 2:1s, no matter the universities concerned.

People dont realise that employers dont care if you get a first, unless you are applying for directly applicable jobs like Law or engineering. If you apply for a marketing job or consulting, having a first in history or english only tells them that you are good at history or english, not at the job. They look at far more things and tick you off according to their 'soft skills' criteria.

That's not strictly true though. You are right that employers are interested in the whole candidate, not just academic performance. You need to have the soft skills, work experience, etc to make a well rounded CV. However, to suggest that a first is not an advantage to have when compared with a 2:1 is simply not true, of course it is, not just because of how it looks on paper but the improved ability that it represents (it doesn't just tell you that they are good at their subject, degrees represent more than that). A first is an advantage but if you have a very weak CV in other areas it might not cover those up when compared to a 2:1 candidate with a well-rounded CV.