If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
To be fair, an article never gets published without going through an editor, so that one slipped past our journos too - thanks for pointing it out
Hence 'a lot' and not 'all'
No two people are ever going to have the same personality though. And while that may be the case some of the time, my department has recruited twice this year, and both times it came down to two, identical skills and experience, both did great in the interview. In both cases the final decision was made on the basis of who would best fit into the team. Their grades didn't even come into it.
I don't have the luxury of an editor at work, so I'm used to being my own eagle eyes. Just call me Pedant McGrammarnazi
i recently got a third in graphic design, and i did feel pretty pissed off at myself for a while. sometimes it bugs me a little, but i don't see it as a disaster.
first, my reasoning is that my poor result was a mixture of:
all this added up to me doing almost no work whatsoever through december to march. i then thought "what a fucking idiot i am", and worked my arse of for the last 3 months, but it was too little too late. i take full responibility for it. i dont feel as though i failed the course, just that i failed myself. i didn't attend my graduation cos i didnt feel i deserved to. in hindsight im still glad i made this decision.
does all this mean im stupider than the average graduate?
does it fuck. it means i had a few problems and did jack shit for 4 months of the 3rd year.
im still the same kid who was years ahead of everyone in primary school. im still the same kid who got 9 good gcses without revising (i bet you've heard that before, but its true. they were a piece of piss). i was shithot at my college course. honestly, i was proper fucking good. and was full of ideas heading into this course 3 years ago.
but the downside to this was because i spent my school years doodling on the tables and getting A grade gcse maths and the like without trying, when i went to uni and i actually had to work for my marks i wasnt used to it. it took me until march this year for me to start producing some pretty decent stuff. but like i said; too little too late.
i dont think a degree grade is anywhere near a rounded representation of someones abiltity. university can be sooo far away from the real world. ive had guest speakers come in and say that some employers dont even look at the grade. but obviously, some do, and they're the ones who probably won't give me a chance, (yeah yeah. i know. my fault....).
i went to uni because i didnt want to get a job, i wanted to learn more, and i wanted to move out of the sticks. i didnt think 'ooh, i want another grade on my cv'. i really dont see things like that. i would have rather learnt a lot and get thrown out than learn bugger all and get a third.
but i am disappointed that i learnt more in college than at uni. i am disappointed that some people think they're better than me cos i got a third, and im disappointed that my mum didn't get my graduation photo on the wall.
i don't see my grade as much of a failure, because i know i can justify why i got it. i know what i'm capable of and in the end thats all that really matters to me, and i wont let it a number cast judgement on who i am
anyway, those positives i mentioned. i see the loaned £12,000 as a sort of payment for not having to get up for 9 everyday, having much more free time, being able to live in a city, relieving the boredom of staying at home, and being able to concentrate on myself rather than trying to achieve the dreams of someone higher up the ladder.
what i am going to do this next year is sort my portfolio out (i've still got the talent i had when i was 17), spend 3 months in japan, and 3 in ghana teaching basketball. i can still turn up for an interview with a better portfolio than a lot of people. the main thing is ive spent 5/6 years after school studying art/design, and i still feel i have the ability to do something good. it only takes one person to give me a chance.
by the way, if you did get a 2:2 or 2:1 or even higher, well done:thumb: . seriously. i do wish i got a better mark. but now its a whole new ballgame....;)
i do not believe degrees show a persons true intelligence. a degree is far too specialised to do that. there are many different factors to take into account. you get a better idea of intelligence by simply spending a few hours with someone.
kermit you're the one perspon i really supposed would get top grades. i dropped out from UWE after recieving several top 2:1s and one first for criminal law (coursework). nevertheless i dropped out due to 'mental health' problems HA, i now have to explain a failure on my record that i shouldnt otherwise have to comment on, you know?
Excellent - new usertitle?
Oh, I do know.
I had a nervous breakdown during my dissertation, and it showed in my result. The uni were so good, and my ability was taken into account, but I just missed out on a 2.1.
I probably worked harder for my 2.2 than a lot of people work for their 1sts.
I'm not bitter about it, though, I am proud I didn't quit. It's just hard explaining away a 2.2 without sounding like a pyscho, especially as the world is a harsh place and employers offering graduate training contracts couldn't give a toss why I didn't get a 2.1. Not that I want a graduate training contract anyway, I'm not dedicated enough to any company to give my life to them.
1. quite serious money problems
You think all other students are living a life of riley? Being a student is difficult. Almost every student I know/knew has/had serious money problems, up to and including not being able to pay bills (me included). Part of being an adult is being able to prioritise money and expenditure and be able to manage your money.
2. girl problems (but hey, who hasn't?),
Yes, who hasn't indeed? But I don't think this should impact on how well you do. It is your degree, and you are the only one in control of it.
3. Being completly uninterested in at least half the material, and wishing i was doing a photography or illustration project,
My own course work meant that out of 8 papers I did, I was only *really* interested in 2 papers, *mildly* interested in another 1, and hated the other 5 papers. Didn't stop me getting a 2:1. And I'm sure this sentiment is echoed by many students everywhere. Nobody loves (or even likes) every single piece of coursework that they have to do. But the fact that it is part of the course *they* signed up to do, they may as well try and make the best of it.
4. The course being set up without any relevance to the real world.
Well, this I can understand, but then, aren't most uni courses?
5. Half the teachers being a bit shit (although half were very good, they were quite often unable to get hold of).
University is a solo endeavour. You work for yourself. You are supposed to learn by and for yourself. The teachers are there to guide you, not spoon-feed you info. Fair enough if half of them are shite, remember lecturers don't get trained to teach the same way high school teachers are trained, so they probably did their best. And anyway, you still had recourse to 50% of decent lecturers.
6. My inability to start a 16 week project until the 8th week.
Again, this is down to priorities.
7. There usually being something more appealing to do, like £ a pint night
Again, priorities.
I apologise in advance if this is harsh, but university is about priorities. About making the right decisions and just 'getting on with it'.
Well, probably not, but that's hardly the point, is it? The point is you had the same opportunities as almost every other student to get a decent degree and instead you decided not to bother (you admit this). By virtue of your choices, you have a degree that doesn't reflect your intelligence maybe, but your lack of participation in the academic aspects of university life.
Fair enough you can justify it, but it doesn't change things. You might have been capable of getting a 1st, but the point is you didn't. You might know what you are capable of, but it's kind of shutting the doors after the horse had bolted.
Fair enough, but I still think grades are an important determiner of many things. If they weren't, surely there would be no point in having them?
i suppose my 6th and 7th reasons are not reasons at all, just products of the first 5.
same applies to me really.
ive been learning by and for myself since i was a kid. i suppose i was looking for someone to teach me the info and let me explore it. i ended up spending a lot of time doing my own thing, almost studying my own projects and doing them instead of doing the monotonous shite i would get marked for.
i didnt call half the teachers shit because of their teaching ability, more their knowledge on the subject. i understand they were (usually) trying their best. and with 90 people trying to find the few good teachers i rarely saw them. (i can take some responsibilty for that too)
I got a 2:2. I never started a single assignment earlier than the evening before it was due, i wrote my 10,000 word dissertation in a weekend (in fact i started the research and practical work a year, yes a yes late yet got a 60% overall
I think it takes a *lot* of intelligence on my behalf; of my subject to be able to get that grade after putting naff all effort into it.
One of my friends got 2:1's, and she tried really, really hard, and well done to her, she deserves that. Yet from experiences with group work with her, she doesn have much of a clue about the subject, and i had to teach/show her things which did get annoying. When the group work was marked, the things that i wrote got very positive comments and the bits she had done got negative comments. Which means she must have got her high marks by gathering information well, presenting it well, and writing it well. Whereas i knew the information from what was learned in lectures and from my own experience on the subject, but was crap at putting my knowledge into an assignment because i rushed it all the night before.
So what if an employer in the field was faced with me and my 2:2 or my friend and her 2:1. If the employer is going to use the degree marks to decide who to employ based on their intelligence, then that employer will be making the wrong decision.
Im not saying that im more intelligent of everyone who got a higher mark than me, that would be stupid and a bigfatlie, im just using this friend as an example, to explain my point that a degree classification cannot be an accurate way of judging someones intelligence in a subject.
For anyone that thinks anything below a 2:1 is a failure, then thats a really stupid attitude to have. A failure would be a fail. I would be happy with a third if i had got a third.
If i had bothered to try, i dont doubt that i could have got a first, however i would of had to have tried fucking hard, like really really hard, i would of had to have spent all my spare time reading and re-reading things.
To get a 2:1 i would have needed to start my work in good time, the knowledge was already there. But i couldnt be bothered, i knew i could pass with minimal effort and i had the best final year of my life! Thats much more important to me, i met some great people, had great experiences and i would much rather have all these memories than a first. Before anyone tries to twist my words, im not saying that all people with a first had no lives, but in my case to get a first i would have had to have given up my life and put all my efforts into studying.
For some assignments that i had particular intelligence in, i got marks of a first. I frequently got marks of a 2:1. For subjects that completely bored me, i normally got marks of a 2:2.
I think that hands on experience is just as important , if not more important than knowing facts and figures.
At the end of the day, i attended all lectures, learned the same amount of stuff as the people who got firsts and 2:1's, yet i had a final year of being a first class slacker. It doesnt matter to me what grade i got because ive still learned all i could have from the degree
I hope i dont ever need to explain my degree to anyone. I dont want to come across as being bitter, or trying to make up stories to justify my so called "failure" of a degree. In my final year i suffered alot of shit and an equal amount of health problems and numerous hospital trips. I guess if all this hadnt happened then i may have got a 2:1, maybe if shit hadnt been going on i would have had motivation started my work earlier, but who knows? Even if i had started my work earlier and got a 2:1, i would have still had the same amount of knowledge as now with my 2:2. So what would be the point?
I don't mean to be rude, but a lot of people who get 2:2s or less say that. It doesn't really mean anything.
It depends how you judge intelligence. I'd say there's a fair amount of intelligence involved in realising how important your degree grade could be and working hard to do your best.
and of course what he's saying means something.
Why the hell wouldn't people want to do their best?
Sure enough, they may not want or feel an urgent drive to be the best of the best of the best. A lot of people [myself included] don't have that fierce ambition in them. But to not want to try to the best of your abilities seems incredibly foolish and wasteful to me. It's not about having something to prove, it's about appreciating your advantages and doing justice to yourself and your intelligence.
At the end of the day, anyone can hark on about how intelligent they are, but a lot of people won't get to experience their intelligence, sparkling wit and wealth of knowledge first-hand. Especially in terms of employers, who, unless they can rely on your excellent work experience, references etc, will only be able to go by your academic achievements.
It doesn't really mean anything as anyone could say: "I could have got a first if it wasn't for blah blah blah"....
the final year at uni is a stressful time for nearly everybody and people go through shit..you can get exenuating circumstances and I know people that went through death etc and still did well.
Personally I didn't see the point of spending 3 years of my life, and thousands of pounds, to not try my best to get the best result I could get.
it does, i wouldnt just say it to try to 'justify' my grade. Im not some sort of idiot that just cant accept the fact i cant do better. I know my own abilities and i had/have the knowledge to get a first. Its not about tooting my own horn or trying to explain myself, if i thought i wasnt capable of a first or a 2:1 then i wouldnt say i was. If i thought i was stupid then i would have no problem saying so!
Why should i not be proud of my grade? i think i did amazingly fucking well to have got a high 2:2 the way i treated my final year. Im very proud of that fact. But this doesnt mean i should deny that i am capable of a first or a 2:1.
Just because im capable of something it doesnt mean i have to try my best all the time. I dont see my three years of university as a waste because i learned so much and enjoyed every minute.
At the end of the day, ive still learned the same amount i would have learned as if i had achieved that first, and it was the knowledge, learning, and life experience that i went to university for- not to work my utter arse off in order to 'prove' my intelligence level to other people. My friends from uni know what im capable of and when they asked me what degree i got, their faces kinda fell when i enthusiastically said "i got a 2:2". But why? I still gained the same amount of knowledge.
this is where different people have different opinions- for instance me and you.
I dont care about grades in the slightest, as long as i pass i dont much care. Obviously it mattered at college level so i could get a high enough grade to get into uni, but with a 2:2 i can still go on to do a masters anyway.
What matters to me is the amount of information i learn. I learned that for myself.
Expressing what i have learned in a paper or an exam is not of much importance to me. You could argue, why did i go to uni then? Well the answer is i went to uni to learn. Not to prove myself.
I am damn proud of my degree, and so i should be, and so should anyone else that passes
to learn? Thats what i paid for anyway
(sorry, im not ganging up on you with all my quoting and replying, its just i dont like to be steriotyped into one of those people that 'didnt get an upper class degree so has to try to pretend they could have got it if it wasnt for this and that and that etc' because the only reason i didnt get an upper class degree, is because i didnt start my work early enough. Ive been told that by my course tutor.
Obviously people see degree classifications in all different lights, and thats fine, but it doesnt mean i should not be proud of the grade i got and it doesnt mean i need to make excuses for it.
And what really annoys me is when people who got higher class degree's think they are more intelligent than people who got lower class degree's, its simply not true.
Many law firms will not accept anything less than a 2.1 for a funded graduate training contract. But the Civil Service only asks for a 2.2, and spends its time putting candidates through a pretty gruelling application in order to see who genuinely is the best.
I don't think that at degree level there is that much between any classification of degree. A 2.2 isn't greatly higher than a 3rd, and isn't greatly lower than a 1st. A lot of it is about application rather than how intelligent a candidate is, which is why many people with 1sts are simply not as rounded as those with 2.1s. To get a 1st you need to study an awful lot, and that doesn't leave room for helping the starving kiddies or playing rugby for the uni.
I don't have a chip on my shoulder, I got a 2.2 and that was the best I could have hoped for. For a long time I thought I was going to get nothing. But I know I could have got a 2.1 or even a 1st if I hadn't had crippling depression, and I know that my 2.2 is more of an achievement for me than a 1st for others. It does annoy me that employers toss so many able candidates out on the scrapheap because they can't be arsed to interview them, but I am not naive enough to think they care. Why would they when they already have 40 or 50 applicants for every role?
It's interesting to see the diverse opinions here. Right now I'm eager for a 1st or a 2.1 at least so I can go on to a particular postgrad course (who won't accept anything less than that) but I wonder if the next two years will weigh me down to the extent that I'll be happy with a 2.2.
After you get your first proper job, no-one really cares about classification. However, this is course / profession dependent obviously
Also, what Kermit said made sense. People with 2:1s are seen as more rounded individuals that people with firsts. Simple fact. People with 2:1s are seen as those who went to university and enjoyed the social side but knew when to work. People with firsts are seen as those who studied 24/7 for their good grade. This isn't the case for all those with firsts, some are just naturally talented. However, the generalisation does exist. And can make a difference to your applications.
I don't think it is bullshit, though. The difference betwen a 1st and a 2.1 is tiny, for most people the difference comes down to application and a nice slab of luck. You won't get a 1st if you're stupid, of course you won't, but not that many people doing university degrees are stupid. For most people the difference between a 1st and a 2.1 is application and luck, not intellect, and its the same between a 2.1 and a 2.2. It's the nature of examinations, there has to be a cutoff somewhere.
The fact that your friend did a lot of extra-curricular stuff doesn't mean that he didn't apply himself very hard when it counted.
I don't agree with stereotyping either, because it makes my life harder applying for jobs. But is there, which is all I was saying.
And I still think the difference between getting a 2:1 and a first is huge. Of course it can come down to a single mark at the end of the day, but look at it this way. Do you think there is a huge difference between comfrotably getting a 2:1 (say 65) and comfortably getting a First (say 75) because that's the real measure between the grades, not the difference between 69 and 70. Even the difference between 69 and 70 can mean a difference of something like 6 or 7 marks on an individual module.