Talk:British undergraduate degree classification

International Comparison (old)
This section is clearly biased toward UK degrees. Statistics have been selected that inaccurately reflect the standing of a UK degree. For instance, the UCL entry criteria do not represent commonly recognised equivalence rates between the two systems; but are useful for the authors attempt to bolster the reputation of UK degrees against their US counterparts. Traditionally, conversion points for the two systems have been 1st = 3.5 and above, 2:1 = 3.0 and above, 2:2 = 2.0 and above, 3rd = 1.00 and above. Both systems have experienced inflation over recent years. However, statistics show that these grades are still comparable when considering the percentage of students who achieve each grade level. The median grade for US GPAs has crept up to around 3.1 (); while close to 60% of UK students receive a 2:1 degree. This indicates that 3.0 is still a good estimation of a 2:1.

Exeter University’s conversion system seems to be more realistic. As already stated, UCL's system uses a slightly unusual scale. It is a misleading scale to use in this instance.



Finally, I am a UK citizen with degrees from the UK and Canada. The comment above, that a narrowly focused UK three year degree is more valuable than a US 4 year degree, is a peculiar concept. Global university rankings certainly do not support this view.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimacdon (talk • contribs) 20:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My experience (extensive) of the rest of Europe, and my knowledge of Canadian and Australian (and some US) graduates supports your point of view. It is in any case effortlessly demonstrated that the UK is expert in overstating the standing of its education system, but also (very importantly) playing the "game" in order to score higher rankings than are representative. It is for example easily demonstrable that universities in The Netherlands place much more serious demands on students (on balance) but select, teach, spend, and grade in ways that simply less easily score "points" on the extremely US-centric league-tables that exist. They also do not play the "higher ed rat-race" by for example, publishing 100 papers, instead of a single book. It is also common practice to compare unlike with unlike, by trying to put Cambridge and Oxford up against the lower quality end of the American system (which if anything seems to have an even wider "range" from "serious" to "trivial" institutions, if you follow my meaning). UK are imbued with a culture of talking oneself up, because Britain has made so much money out of talk. Constantly bragging about having a lot of foreign students for example, without stopping to think that perhaps English as the most widely spoken second language, attracts people to a country where they can already understand what is being said. The constant offensive and unsupportable-in-fact attempts to suggest that they can do in 4 years (including one pointlessly easy one) what others take 5 6 sometimes 7 years to achieve, are most remarkable in how long they have been (at least somewhat) accepted overseas.


 * For the record, the US is also extremely guilty of the same "bolstering" with graduates from the Technisch Universiteit Delft (where I studied) being refused for having "low grades" while in fact they were looked upon as academic giants, whose academic results were considered to truly beggar belief. The US, when dealing with mainland European degrees applies a sort of handicap that essentially makes our "A-" look like an American C+. This produces a very great deal of resentment and irritation, needless to say. 81.159.23.115 (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC) Princeofdelft (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem?
Could some other editors please compare this article with what I have found here:[]. Is there some kind of a copyright violation? For example:
 * Wikipedia - Regulations governing the progression of undergraduate degree graduates to postgraduate programmes vary between universities, and are often flexible. A candidate for a postgraduate master's degree is usually required to have at least a 2:2 degree, although candidates with 2:1s are in a considerably stronger position to gain a place on a postgraduate course and to obtain funding.


 * International Staff - Regulations governing the progression of undergraduate degree graduates to postgraduate programmes do vary between universities, and are often flexible. A candidate for a postgraduate master's degree is usually required to have at least a 2:2 degree, although candidates with 2:1s are in a considerably stronger position to gain a place on a postgraduate course and to gain funding.

There are several other examples to be found. International Staff claims copyright at the bottom of the page. What does everyone think? Rtdixon86 (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

International Comparison
The 'NQF' section at the end of international comparisons is poorly worded and is irrelevant to this article on degree classifcation rather than a misplaced discussion on the merits of degree types and levels. Talk of 'NQFs' should be confined to their respective place, i.e. degree levels and types. (Henry C) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.91.52 (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Third Class Degrees
I think that the international comparison should be removed altogether. Particularly for the United States, which has so many colleges and universities, it is simply not possible to provide a universal conversion. Moreover, the link that much of this data is based on is only for one school... and their conversion places a third class degree as equivalent to a GPA which is not sufficient to graduate at any U.S. School. Is it truly such an odd system in commonwealth countries that 1st class graduates are all equivalent to the top 1% or so of U.S. university graduates while 3rd class graduate would not have graduated had they been in the United States? aigiqinf (talk) 06:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

International comparisons are largely nonsense. I am very familiar with several European countries' systems of grading etc and the WES results are just plain wrong. I am inclined to say that they just don't know what they're talking about.

The most important thing to remember about the UK (where I myself am from) is that they consistently overestimate themselves. The suggestion that all British "first" degrees are equivalent to the top 1% of US graduates is totally laughable. For goodness'sake, many American B.S. or B.A. degrees have requirements that would get one a masters in the UK so one isn't even comparing like with like.
 * Err...you do know that there is no "UK" educational system? Scotland and England are slightly different, as are the structures of the degrees.2.101.150.34 (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

If there is a comparison it should take note of these facts. Your concerns are quite valid. Sadly, one need only pander to the criteria of league tables and the like to create evidence to support your cause in higher ed, similarly, constant special pleading ("oh but we're more intensive"--not true either) seems to be effective in getting UK grades and qualifications overvalued abroad. There is of course no conclusive proof, which is why they keep getting away with it.

You're also right to note that in many countries a third would be a fail. The "pecentage scores" aren't to be compared like-for-like, especially not against systems that grade on a curve, but a 3rd is still by all definitions "poor" no one is AIMING at a third the same way an American might AIM at a B+ or whatever. Princeofdelft (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

GPA equivalence table confusedness
I suppose it's a problem in the source, but the GPA equivalence chart says a First is like a 4.0 and a 2:1 is like no more than a 3.67 GPA. Either nobody in the UK is equivalent to an American getting 3.67-4 (an amusing thought), or the chart should have that range covered by either the First Class or 2:1 ranges. Since 11% of British undergrads get them, it sounds like it could plausibly correspond to 3.67-4 (or maybe the cutoff's a bit higher, in which case the upper end of the 2:1 range is past 3.67). End idle observation. 108.205.50.246 (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

History section?
This article shoud have history section. It would drastically improve the quality of the article. Mootros (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this is great suggestion. I also believe that, but for the difficulty in finding information, regardless of the quality of the source, this would have been added. Google Scholar, like the rest of the Web, has plenty on bachelor's degrees and honours degrees; but, as far as I can see, there is nothing on the origins or history of them. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

' ... a minor form of hubris'?
Surely, the use or omission of postnominals depends on context. On a professional letterhead it is appropriate, but in personal correspondence many people consider it pretentious. Moreover, the standard of many English bachelor's degrees is so low that it is faintly laughable to use postnominals unless they are actually required for professional purposes. It has nothing to do with being or not being a 'gentleperson' or with showing respect for one's alma mater. After all, there was a time when the title page of school text-books included things like Sometime Exhibitioner of New College, Oxford under the author's name. That has gone out of fashion. Usage changes.

Oh, and by the way, is one really expected to show respect for one's alma mater even if one learned very little there and if the course was poor? Norvo (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"Standard of many English bachelors degree is so low..." English degrees are rated the highest around the world and are some of the most challenging. The use of post nominals does depend on context but any English degree is impressive enough to add greater weight to any formal letter or official correspondence.

When did Oxford split the Second Class into 2:1 and 2:2?
The article states that Oxford did not divide the Second Class degree into upper and lower seconds until the late 1970's. Is this correct? The citation provided states "the 1970's" without specifying early, middle or late. I suspect that, perhaps, an informal division may have applied before an official division. I know that two of my closest friends who graduated in 1971 were informed that they had obtained upper seconds, but in at least one of these cases the information came in the form of a letter from his tutor. When he decided to do a second degree many years later after retiring, and was told he would need to show that he had at least a 2:1, he found that the University records did not make the distinction and he had quite a job to provide some form of written evidence. Nandt1 (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Oxford didn't split the second class into two parts, it renamed its second class 2:1, its third class 2:2, and its fourth class 3. It always seems to me a great pity that the rational numbering 1,2,3,4 was overcome by the irrational 1,2:1,2:2,3; it would have made more sense if everyone had gone over to 1,2,3,4. I know the renumbering was pretty recent, but not exactly when it happened - certainly after 1971. However, before the renumbering it was common for tutors to have to point out that Class II was what the funding body wanted when it said a 2:1 was required to gain a research grant, so what was in a letter from a tutor or what it was interpreted as is not necessarily the same as what was shown in the posted class lists. Michealt (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

My father had a 2:1 from Oxford and graduated in 1962 or 63, so the classification was earlier than the 1970s. FreeFlow99 (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

My husband and I both graduated in 1981. The second class was not split then. I am puzzled by the reference to someone's father getting a split degree in the 60s. He may have extrapolated from his grades for the benefit of employers. In the 80s I had to produce my degree certificate to "prove" my degree was neither a 2:1 or a 2:2. Christina19451945 (talk) 07:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Moderations and Prelims
The statement in the article that "At Oxford, where examinations are split between Prelims for the first part and Honour Moderations for the second part, the results of the Final Honour School are generally applied to the overall degree" doesn't correspond with my experience. Of course things may have changed, but at least until recently the first exam was either Prelims or Mods, depending on subject, so Mods wasn't the second part and no-one took both Prelims and Mods unless they changed subject from one that had prelims to one that had Mods. The second part was always Finals. Michealt (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree and that can also be found at . I decided to update the article to reflect this fact. Catrincm (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Other British Undergraduate degrees
Many British Universities (eg Oxford, Warwick, and many more in all England, Scotland, and Wales) award undegraduate master's degrees such as for example M.Eng, MMaths, M.PhysPhil, MChem, MBiochem, MPhys; if the article is to live up to its title the classification of these degrees should be covered as well as undergraduate bachelors degrees, but currently it isn't covered at all. Michealt (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 10:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I looked up this article after finding Michael Gove had been awarded what was described as a 2.1 degree from Oxford. If this is correct, when did Oxford begin to split its Second Class Honours degree awards? The article doesn't say. My own Second was just that - undivided. i missed the glory of a Fourth. No option of a 2.1 was then available. Enlightenment, please86.138.156.52 (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Organization
I came to the page to learn what a "double first" is. This article is so disorganized and confusing that it would be better of it did not exist. Avocats (talk) 07:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

why is the 2.2 getting cussed more than the third??
it is stated that a 2.2 is known as a drinkers degree(something ive never heard of.. we call it a desmond tutu). However it sais that a third is known as a gentlemans c. This makes it sound like a third is better than a 2.2 which is obviously nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.14.189 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Comparison with United States
Grade equivalencies given by Durham University and by the UK NARIC were removed from the summary table by with the explanation that "the source is not a formal one". Grades left in the table were supplied by University College London, London School of Economics and the University of Oxford (the latter two both only for one level). Some of the Durham grades were, confusingly, left in the table but no longer associated with a citation giving their source.

The NARIC grades are used extensively throughout the comparison section of this article, and the Durham grades are also used in the Canadian equivalencies table; both are also mentioned in the text with reference to the US. None of this content was removed. The Durham source is particularly useful here as it is the only UK source to be based on equivalent educational attainment rather than on preparation for advanced studies in a particular field, where the lower degree of concentration in the US (the major typically making up ~50% or less of the course compared to close to 100% in the UK) might also be factored in.

I have restored the table to its previous state as the sources removed were as reliable as other sources that were left in and the edit was inconsistent with the rest of the article. If there is a good reason for the removal of these sources, I invite to discuss it here. Robminchin (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Oxford degree classification
The fourth class dwegree was abolished in 1968 (See article on Philip Pullman, with reference.) The 2nd class degree was first split in 1986. (See for example here:.

Thus the fourth class degree is NOT (as implied by the previous wording of the article) equivalent to the new 3rd class.

Just goes to show that, as ever, the Guardian is not a reliable source.Ehrenkater (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You need reliable references in the article to back this up (not an online chat room) – it could well be correct, but at the moment the only source cited says both shifts happened in the 1970s so until equally reliable sources cam be found that say otherwise the text should say the same. Robminchin (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I graduated in 1983.
 * my degree cert shows 2nd class.
 * no split.
 * so definitely not awarding 2:1 in the 1970s 2A00:23C4:40C8:D901:2CAB:88B7:C918:767B (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Pass/Honours//HSC/A Level
Scottish (and Australian) universities ordinarily award a Pass degree after three years, which can be upgraded to Honours after a further ("Honours") year. Students enter university after HSC, which is not at the same level as A level used to be—English students with A levels who attended Scottish universities used to outclass the Scots students in the first year and were a wee bit unpopular for that.

Has there been criticism that A level has now become more shallow and that accordingly universities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland should no longer award Honours after three years? (Writing from an Australian university.) Errantius (talk) 04:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Desmond etc
I think the references to Cockney rhyming slang degree names, which are rather prominent in the article, are rather anachronistic and thereby irrelevant. It might've been the rage in the 90s and 00s but I don't know that modern graduates actually refer to their degrees in this way. Solipsism 101 (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * This seems to have been discussed a number of times before. I think they've been removed at least once, although that may have been for lack of references. However, it doesn't seem that they harm the article, and plenty of Wikipedia users and editors were around in the 90s and 00s. As to whether modern graduates refer to their degrees in this manner, I'm not sure that's particularly important, but they do still appear in blog posts on university slang (e.g. from 2018), so the evidence would seem to be that they are still in use and are not anachronistic or irrelevant. Robminchin (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The RS we use for all of this is from a December 2000 Telegraph article (here). I am not sure a blog post paid per click is evidence of modern-day relevance; it refers to Geoff Hurst, Desmond Tutu, Douglas Hurd, Thora Hird, Dan Quayle which seem to have something in common, namely they're references prominent in the 80s/90s or earlier. A concluding non-Cockney rhyming section satisfies the nostalgia factor, but I am not sure it needs to be introduced with a photo sidebar and included in each sub-heading for each class. The debate suggests people are confused that we given prominence to a rather esoteric set of rhyming slang which most readers have only heard of because of this article (I suspect this includes the blog post writer). Solipsism 101 (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * ps – they're not Cockney rhyming slang, just rhyming slang. Robminchin (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I hadn't seen the photo sidebar – it doesn't show on the mobile site. I agree that that is certainly excessive and should go. Robminchin (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)