Talk:British undergraduate degree classification/Archive 1

Conversion between GPA and honours classification
As an American student interested in pursuing a postgraduate degree in England, I am confused about the conversions of this system. Is there a cooresponding GPA (grade point average) and honours classification?


 * Check out - FrancisTyers 30 June 2005 18:10 (UTC)
 * Roughly speaking I think generally a first is considered to a 3.7 or greater GPA, and a 2.1 is 3.3 or greater. BovineBeast 20:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a difficult comparison, as a number of factors in Britain work to counteract the grade inflation prevalent in the US. In the UK, there are nationally approved, standard curricula, and students are not examined by their teachers, but by appointed examiners from both inside and outside the examining institution.  Take Harvard as an example, where a majority of students receive a 3.75 GPA or above.  These same students would almost certainly not all be eligible for an 'equivalent' first at Oxford or Cambridge.  Addtionally, students in the UK spend 3-4 years focusing exclusively on their degree subjects, and the curricula are designed to give them a solid foundation in the core concepts and problems in their area of study;  whereas in the US, there is often a balance of elective coursework, and students are given the opportunity to explore coursework outside their area of study.  The end result would be that a UK student with a degree roughly equivalent to an American peer in terms of placement in the graduating class (e.g. a UK 2:1 and a US 3.5 GPA) is likely to have a very different command, in terms of quality and quantity, of the subject matter.  216.168.238.7 21:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "A majority of students [at Harvard] have a GPA of 3.75 or above"?? No way in hell. Yes, there has been grade inflation at US universities, but not that much. I believe the average Harvard GPA (don't know if it's the mean or median) is around 3.4. But given lack of comparability of systems,I would think simplest thing is just to follow Marc K's suggestion and show percentiles. Then Americans can figure out equivalents for themselves. Something is needed, though, to give non-Brits some sense of what these words mean-- how impressed should we be if someone has a first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdronsard (talk • contribs) 20:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oxford seems to think that 3.85 GPA is the lower level of a First. It's not stated explicitly, but it's clearly implied. See their guidelines for admission to the DPhil in MML (medieval and modern languages) for this year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.169.117.168 (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If you an American seeking work in the UK, or have a UK degree and are seeking work in the USA, you must realise the degrees are DIFFERENT but not necessarily equal or unequal. A UK degree MIGHT result in more in depth subject knowledge in your degree subject; however, UK students do not (usually) take any class outside of their degree subject and are thus not necessarily as well-rounded students. For instance, my husband is finishing his PhD in physics. He is having a very difficult time writing because he hasn't taken a subject which requires essays since he was 16 (as he only took Physics, Maths, and Chemistry A-Levels from 16-18). Furthermore, I am an American who received a 1st class degree in history at Royal Holloway University of London. In my three years, I had 7, 6, and 4 hours of contact time respectively. In a US university, I would have had 20 to 25 hours of contact time a week, with 25% of that being history in the 1st two years and 75-100% of that being history int he final two years.


 * That's odd, I took A-level Maths, Physics, and Chemistry, then did Physics at university (25 hours of lectures/lab per week) - every single one of those courses required more than one written essay. I now work in a patent firm alongside people from many different companies including America, and cannot say that I see any great superiority in writing between my American colleagues and my British ones. Perhaps your husband is not quite so representative of the British science graduate as you seem to think? FOARP (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

My son is graduating (from a US university) in a few days. I was looking around to compare US degree qualifications to the UK and was very surprised to see that 2:1 was quoted as beginning at 60% and 45% achieving this level. When I got my degree, and later working (within an academic department) at a UK university, the scale was exactly the same as the Open University scale shown in this article, and a much smaller proportion of students achieved the classification. Not only my university used this scale, it was widely used by most universities. It appears that the 2:1 classification has been severely devalued over the past 40 years, and the comment about employers dropping a 2:1 requirement makes some sense, since it is no longer a useful distinction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.77.163 (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Second class degrees
Who are these employers that distinguish between 1st/2:1 and 2:2 and below? - FrancisTyers 8 July 2005 14:10 (UTC)


 * Just a general thing. A job ad might specify a 2:1 or above. That just happens to be where the line is commonly drawn. - 81.174.247.96 00:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I've heard of employers specifying 2:1 but 2:2 would be fine with the appropriate skill set. I've never heard anyone refer to a 2:2 as a drinkers degree. I think this particular part is too cut and dry. The truth is less clear cut. (lol, cutting). - FrancisTyers 08:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * KPMG for one. I'm currently applying for graduate jobs and a lot of the dedicated Graduate Training Schemes require a 2:1. Whether they are in fact flexible if anyone without one tries I don't know. I think once people are on the career ladder experience counts a lot more for professional jobs than degree classification, but that 2:1/2:2 split does seem to exist. 82.71.84.41 19:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Drinkers Degree" section is inaccurate and degrading. "Icairns" needs to do his homework before saying such a thing. People with 2:2s can succeed on POSTGRADUATE degree courses. There are schoolteachers with Third Class Degrees ..... only a fool would write these people off. One woman on my degree course got a Third Class Degree, and she wasn't stupid at all. You can't judge someone solely on their degree classification


 * I got a 2:2 and I'm on a Postgrad course. I knew people who were doing Postgrad study with a 3rd. It really depends on the number of enrolments and the quality of your dissertation I think. Particularly since its possible to tell where you screwed up in your academic transcript. - FrancisTyers 17:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * To me it appears that the term "drinker's degree" used in the Guardian link is referring to a 3rd class degree. Although it could be taken to refer to a 2:2 depending on how you choose to interpret it. I have heard it used to describe a 2:2 before. I scraped a 2:1 yesterday woohoo! Well it was Maths, fricking hard work I can tell you. 86.10.102.39 06:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The term "drinkers degree" is in common use across the UK both in universities and the workplace, the fact some people don't like it is irrelevant. If wikipedia is to represent a full body of knowledge it should be included. (Boddah 12:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC))


 * I agree with Boddah - The term "drinker's degree" was common at the University of Sussex when I graduated in 2005. The 2:2 was also referred to as the "Sportsman's", as the Wednesday away games and partying of a Uni sports team-member tended to impact on study time. It was considered a forgone conclusion that the captain of any team was doomed to a 2:2, as they were expected at every social event, without fail.
 * Has anyone else heard of the 2:2 referred to as a "Sportsman's"? Unclejimbo83 09:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"Who are these employers that distinguish between 1st/2:1 and 2:2 and below?" The legal profession definitely seems to distinguish. I went to a Law Society recruitment event in London recently and there were some very disappointed students.The speaking panel made up of City lawyers all agreed that if you wanted to work for a City legal firm you would need to meet a minimum standard of 2.1. -- I havent heard anybody calling a 2:2 a drinker. Some people got a 2:1, others got a 2:2, thats it. Some people do well in the exams, others do well in their essays and dissertations, and some manage to keep a balance. Some people are hard working and still get a 2:2, thats what they got. I got a 2:2 and was accepted for a MSc by Research by a reputed UK university. So, I totally disagree that the term :Drinkers degree: is used "widely". If yu got a 2:2 perhaps you should check what went wrong, and learn from it, but only an idio woul;d equate automatically such a student to a drinker. If we were drinkers, we would be out of Uni long ago.

--

There seems to be a degree(!) of confusion here, mostly it seems in the minds of indignant holders of degrees less than 2:1. Please, you apparently rather humourless lot, understand the following: if you don't like that a 2:2 or a Third is referred to humourously and disparagingly... tough. That these terms exist, and are in common use, is a fact. Yes, blah blah, a 2:2 is good, blah blah, you can be a postgrad with a 2:2, blah blah some teachers have thirds. All irrelevant. Some people get better degrees than others, and the lower classes are given comedy nicknames to imply that holders were either too thick, too distracted by sports or too drunk to do better. All adults understand that these are jokes, not to be taken seriously. The fact is that if you got a 2:2, you didn't do as well as someone who got a 2:1. Get over it. You got an honours degree, move on.

Other observations: cannot speak for current practice, but as long ago as 1990 the major accountancy firms specified particular A-level grades AND 2:1 or above, and they were NOT flexible. "Sportsman's" in reference to 2:2 was common parlance in my UK peer group 20 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.147.34 (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

--

I'd also like to object to this arbitrary distinction between drinkers and those who choose mainly to remain sober. I got a First, and also drank quite a lot; it's demeaning to me to take that away from me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.252.189 (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.174.129.162 (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I too passed with First Class Honours despite drinking VERY heavily throughout all three years, and have never in my student or professional experience (in the HE sector) heard anyone refer to a Second Class Honours degree as a 'drinker's degree'. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.84.248.99 (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there scope to make a list of successful people who obtained various level degrees to show that its not necessarily the end of the world if you don't get a first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.82.217 (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Countries using this system
The first paragraph ends with "It is similar to the Latin honors system used in North America" however this 'British' system is used in Canada and not the Latin honors used in the USA. I have no knowledge of how degrees in Mexico (the other country in North America) are classified.


 * I don't really know what is used in Canada. I've attended convocations at four different Canadian universities (including my own) and have seen nothing with the level of complexity of either the American or British system.


 * Typically a distinction is made between "honours" and "general" degree programs, where only the former is suitable as a prerequisite for graduate work. Often, graduates with averages above some threshold are also granted special recognition, e.g. "with distinction" or "dean's honours list".  There are usually a couple medals or awards for really outstanding graduates.


 * I suppose this resembles the British system more than the American: however, I've never heard of the level of stratification seen in the British system. --Saforrest 17:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Rhyming slang
"An interesting form of rhyming slang has developed from degree classes, relying on the names of famous people that sound similar to the classes"

Perhaps I am just pig-ignorant, but are there any references for this? I've never heard of them, and "'2:1' sounds like 'Attila the Hun'" just sounds... bizarre.

--Telsa 16:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of "Attila the Hun", but I've heard of the others. Damien/Desmond/etc. - FrancisTyers 16:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * this guardian article references "Desmond" at least - FrancisTyers 16:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

"Mr Magoo"? This one doesn't even sound particularly like the thing it's meant to reference. Evidence of use? TSP 23:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right, I've deleted it. For interested parties, try putting "got a desmond" into google. - FrancisTyers 23:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard of an "Attila" - but I can confirm the others are all well-used. In my day a third was a Richard and a 2:1 was a Simon (le Bon).

yeah this whole section is dodgy. Desmond is pukka as far as I know. The sole source for the other rhyming slang is an ancient, unsources website. & I always thought a gentleman's was without honours - ie no effort put in whatsoever.

The Fred Durst reference must surely be at least chronologically wrong, as Limp Bizkit were barely heard of in the UK before the turn of the millennium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.237.105 (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Schott's Original Miscellany gives "Geoff/Damien Hirst" for 1st, "Attila the Hun" for 2.1, "Desmond TuTu" for 2.2 and "Douglas Hurd" for 3rd. Can't remember the page number from there though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.233.134 (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

A friend of mine got a Gentleman in maths from Oxford in about 1970. "Gentleman" = Third Class honours; "Slog" = Second, and "Natural" = First. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.151.245 (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Third Class Degrees
"Few third class degrees are in fact awarded [...] It is therefore rare for a graduating class to include more than a small handful of Thirds."

This seems like too broad a generalisation. Certainly in science subjects at my university (Durham) thirds were fairly common - probably (vying with firsts) the smallest classification, but certainly not rare enough to justify the above description. I understand that thirds (and firsts) are much rarer in arts and social sciences, however. Does anyone have aggregated statistics on the number of degrees of each class given each year? A brief bit of research suggests that the volume "Students in Higher Education Institutions", published each year by HESA, would have the information in; but I don't think it's online. TSP 22:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Did Douglas Hurd get a third? 131.111.135.137 (talk) 08:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The text indicates that Oxford abolished 4th class degrees at the same time as splitting second class degrees. This is not accurate, When I graduated in 1981 there were no 4th class degrees, but second class degrees had not yet been split into 2:1 and 2:2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.225.191 (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Kenya?
it states in the article "In Kenya, there are First Class Honours, Second Class Honours Upper Divisions and Lower Divisions and Pass instead of Third Class." Is this relevant considering its an article about the British Undergraduate degree classification?Alex 02:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

yes. they use the British system.

Diploma
I am very doubtful about the latest addition about the diploma. Here no "consolation prize" is given if you fail the 3rd year. Someone from Britain may confirm? Maybe editors can cite their sources or give examples of universities who act this way? i.e. an undergraduate course supposedly leading to a degree giving out certificates and diplomas. VodkaJazz 19:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not so much a consolation prize for someone who fails their exams, but is intended as an exit point for those who do not wish to progress further. Davidkinnen 21:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Notation
Two different forms of notation are used in this article for second class honours. The first is used almost throughout - the 2:2 and 2:1 notation, the other is used in the non-bulleted portion of the "Undergraduate degree honours slang" section - 2:i and 2:ii. Elsewhere, I have seen 2:2 written as II.2. Why are there different forms of notation? Do different universities use different notation? If not, what is the "correct" notation? 86.137.199.185 13:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think probably they're all acceptable. My university uses IIA and IIB in its exam results, which is completely different.  But everyone still calls it a 2.1 and a 2.2.  BovineBeast 09:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Attilla???
Never heard of an Attilla the Hun – has someone just made this up?!

I thought that a 2:1 was the only one without a rhyming slang alternative. 195.188.183.124 13:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

A 2:1 was always a Harry after Harry S Truman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekjc (talk • contribs) 21:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Attilla - Source
Here goes a source for the Attilla and other degree classification nicknames.

http://metro.co.uk/2015/09/03/dont-worry-about-getting-a-22-degree-employers-seem-not-to-be-bothered-5374215/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackem Beefy (talk • contribs) 06:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Rachel Orr?
Who is Rachel Orr and there is any objective evidence (i.e. from the Cambridge University Reporter) that she got a triple starred first? I'd also like more substantive evidence of Maurice Zinkin's triple starred first than a Telegraph obituary. Pmcray
 * I'm with you on the Rachel Orr point; IMHO we should just delete that point as non-notable and lacking sources unless someone comes up with something soon. OTOH, I think the Telegraph should sufficiently research its sources to meet WP:V --Harris 12:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

How is it possible to obtain a triple starred first? Surely degrees like history do not have a part III?

At Cambridge, all subjects except history and english have examinations at the end of every year. There is typically Part IA in first year, Part IB in second year and Part II in third year. For some subjects this is Part I, Part IIA and Part IIB. Some subjects such as physics are a four year course, so I suppose it's possible for someone to actually get a quadruple starred first.

Note - This isn't quite right - even if you get firsts in all three undergraduate years (normally parts IA, IB and II), it's still termed a double first, as it would have been if with a first in either IA or IB and then one in part II. Many 4th year courses are separate masters (e.g. MSci for natsci) so the use of the "multiple firsts" term doesn't follow on to that year.

Degree classification boundries
Is it not common for degree classifications to be calculated as:
 * >=70% - 1st
 * 60-69% - 2:1
 * 50-59% - 2:2
 * 45-49% - 3rd
 * 40-44% - Pass
 * <40% - Fail

I'm sure there are Universities that do not use this system and there are some that base you overall mark more on your work over the course of the degree than the exams but is this not the system used in the majority of universities in the UK? Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? --AlexSpurling 11:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that's fairly normal. Plus at Oxbridge ~25% get a first, so it can't be entirely based on percentile. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BovineBeast (talk • contribs) 12:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC).


 * I think he is talking about "marks", not percentile. Which University fails 40%?


 * These marks are standard at Bristol and everywhere else (Birmingham, Cambridge, Sheffield, Nottingham and Loughborough) that I know, including the 40% pass mark. 78.150.58.174 (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * University of Manchester (at least the physics dept) has: first class honours = 70-100%, upper second class honours =60-69.9%, lower second class honours = 50-59.9%, third class honours =40-49.9%. Undergraduate Student Handbook. People on the boundaries can get vivas, and may be moved up. --87.127.117.246 (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * At Oxford the boundaries were slightly different. To get a first, 2.1, 2.2, third, one had to get, for my School at least, an average of 68.5, 58.5, 48.5, and 38.5, I think (though the lower boundaries may have been higher than this my 0.5 to 1.5 marks), but in addition a certain number of papers had to be at certain marks, so one couldn't get a first with an average of 68.5 or above unless something like three papers were at 70 or above and no papers were below 50 - something like that. So there somebody could get a 2.1 with a higher average mark than somebody with a first depending on what marks were obtained in particular papers. Thus at Oxford, at least, classification is based on more factors than average mark. However, 70, 60, 50, 40, were seen to be equivalent to 1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.
 * The Pass School was rather different. It wasn't awarded to somebody who got very low average marks in the Honour School but somebody who took a considerably reduced number of papers. So whereas one would take maybe seven or eight papers for an Honour School one took four or five, perhaps, for a Pass School. I think the idea was that one decided before taking the exams that one was going for either the Honour School or the Pass School, but I suppose the examiners might exceptionally award a Pass degree to somebody who took the Honour School but failed several papers.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

At former polytechnics (that is, at 'post-1992' institutions), the honours grading system laid-out above is not only 'common' but, as far as I am aware, universal. Given that these constitute the majority of HE institutions in the UK, it is fair to say that this is the 'normal' way of determining honours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.84.248.99 (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)