How are third and pass degrees regarded these days?

studentphil

I am still awaiting tomorrow to see if any good advice turns up from the tutor or not.

studentphil

I only want a 2.2 to ensure I can do a Masters in the future to be honest

alibongo42

Don't believe what they tell you about minimum entry requiements for Masters degrees.

I got an Unclassified Honours in Chemical Engineering. This is lower than a third, but because of the way engineering degrees are structured (or mine anyway), you MUST do four years to get the subject degree at any level, and I still managed to get honours.

I applied for a Masters in Information Management at the same Uni I did my undergrad course. It was clearly stated in the prospectus that 2:2 was the absolute mimimum requirement. I applied anyway (at quite a late stage), and was accepted.

Not sure whether I was accepted because they lacked engineers on the course, or because I was from the same Uni and my tutor wrote something supportive in my reference. We were often reminded on the Masters course that we had been lucky to get on the course, it was difficult to get on etc. etc.

What I'm really trying to say is that if you find a Masters course you really want to do, and believe you are capable of, then forget the degree requirement and apply anyway. From my experience, they still consider you as a candidate even if you don't tick all the boxes.

freebie_junkie

pavlovs_dog wrote:

sorry to get on my soapbox here (you may want to go make a cuppa, this could be long :rolleyes: )...

ive never understood the mentality of people who go to uni purely for the social life. granted, i am an old fart trapped in a young body, and my approach to academia the exception rather than the rule.

that said, if daddy can afford for you to spend three years cultivating sclorosis of the liver well then thats all well and peachy for you, but it really gets my goat then when these people have the audacity to look down their noses at the weirdos who (god forbid) have gone to uni to get a DEGREE :eek: ! what an "old fashioned" idea :mad:

its these people who invariably turn up to seminars and tutorials having never been to a lecture (or at least, attended in a concious state), do no reading, and make no contributions. the time 'wasted' on such people could be much better invested assisting the people who have gone to uni to better themselves in the face of great challenges, be that a physical disability, or learning disability. i read the thread about dyslexia with interest, recognising the situation all too well from what goes on amongst my peers. those who really need help get nowt, whilst the uni throws good money after bad helping those who have no intention of doing work, or scrape through on the bare minimum

im a great believer that education is for all, and everyone should have access to it. but i vehemnently disagree with blair and his 50% must go to uni plan, because it is killing the academic vibe that unis need to flourish. not everyone is suited to the uni environment.

if a desmond (2:2) is the best classification you can get because that is the best of your ability, then well done to you for going for it. but the people who get 2:2's because they never went to lectures, never did any work, and spent their uni careers doing the stereotypical things that has given us the reputation we have should never have gone to uni in the first place.

if you're going to go to uni nowadays, you have to make it count. with so many people out there with that scroll of paper, you need to stand out from the rest. if you're not going to invest your time and attention to your degree, you'd be better off working and gaining experience, so you can impress that way. from what i gather, the only thing worse than a 'poor' degree is a complete lack of experience. im certain as an employer, when looking at CVs i would generally favour limited experience over a poor degree classification, as to me (unless there are extenuating circumstances, such as those i have already touched upon) a poor degree class screams lack of motivation, which is not a quality i'd look for in an employee. granted, that may change in interview, but first impressions still count for a lot...

im just liek you, a grouchy old lady trapped in a young persons body! haha! cant stand all them idiots whose parents pay their way thru uni and they rarely go to leactures coz thats not what tehy went to uni for! duh what else woudl you bloody well go for?!

Descartes

melancholly wrote:

i'm sure that you've heard that somewhere - i've just never heard any maths graduate from cambridge say that though.... including 2 maths students who did part III and are now doing PhDs..........
i'd avoid saying anything along these lines anyway, however true you may think it is - oxbridge students get enough unfair labels already and saying that a third from there beats a 1st anywhere else only helps perpetuate the arrogance myth and can often put people off from applying!

You are wrong. Speaking from experience I know it happens.

Rosie75

Descartes wrote:

You are wrong. Speaking from experience I know it happens.

conversely, I've come across several ex-Oxbridge students with firsts who, at postgraduate level, simply weren't of the same calibre as firsts from other top-ten universities and didn't get distinctions for their MAs whilst the ex-Sussex, Birmingham, York, etc. firsts did. Don't assume that Oxbridge mark more stingently - I imagine that they, like any other university, have external examiners who oversee marks and ensure that they are comparable to those of other institutions.

elisebutt65

studentphil wrote:

I only want a 2.2 to ensure I can do a Masters in the future to be honest

Good grief, is that all you need to do a Masters??? Not being aggressive or anything but I have to get a 1st to get onto my PG course at Birmingham!! I was just shocked that you could do a Masters with that grade:eek:

talksalot81

Rosie75 wrote:

conversely, I've come across several ex-Oxbridge students with firsts who, at postgraduate level, simply weren't of the same calibre as firsts from other top-ten universities and didn't get distinctions for their MAs whilst the ex-Sussex, Birmingham, York, etc. firsts did. Don't assume that Oxbridge mark more stingently - I imagine that they, like any other university, have external examiners who oversee marks and ensure that they are comparable to those of other institutions.

This made me think a bit... I have actually been given the impression that Oxbridge is rather more like the school system than most other universities. In many ways you are forced into working. In other unis, people often work on their own initiative as to whether they should work or not. So I can actually see good explanation for your comment.

Rosie75

talksalot81 wrote:

This made me think a bit... I have actually been given the impression that Oxbridge is rather more like the school system than most other universities. In many ways you are forced into working. In other unis, people often work on their own initiative as to whether they should work or not. So I can actually see good explanation for your comment.

Also, in my discipline (not saying this is necessarily the case with other subjects), the academics at Oxbridge are not cutting-edge or particularly research active. Some of their graduates turn up for postgraduate study with little idea of most recent research developments or current thinking in the discipline.

melancholly

Rosie75 wrote:

conversely, I've come across several ex-Oxbridge students with firsts who, at postgraduate level, simply weren't of the same calibre as firsts from other top-ten universities and didn't get distinctions for their MAs whilst the ex-Sussex, Birmingham, York, etc. firsts did. Don't assume that Oxbridge mark more stingently - I imagine that they, like any other university, have external examiners who oversee marks and ensure that they are comparable to those of other institutions.

postgrad courses sort the wheat from the chaff and all that!

Descartes wrote:

You are wrong. Speaking from experience I know it happens.

i have a cambridge first (so do have some experience in the matter myself) but i KNOW that it alone is not enough to guarentee a job - it's about so so so much more than that. some employers even discriminate against oxbridge because of stereotypes about the students from there - comments like these only fuel that type of feeling. if a first can't do it, then i find it bizarre to assume that a third will.......... i can only say from my experience, that people with thirds from cambridge did not have the easiest ride in the employment market when they started out. they got jobs, yes, but they did not stroll into whatever they wanted because the certificate said cambridge - thankfully those days are long gone.

i had a wonderful time there and think it's important to get across to everyone that the place is full of normal people from a variety of backgrounds.... it's really difficult to do that when a minority of people have a real superiority complex after getting in. i don't come from an academic family and i managed to go there and do well - it really isn't all brideshead revisited any more!

i'm not saying that a cambridge degree is a bog standard qualification - i do think that there are special things about going there, especially the one-on-one time with staff. however, it is clearly not the case that the degree is worth that much more than other top universities. oxbridge doesn't come as the top 2 unis in the league tables every year - LSE and Imperial have been known to split them! it's a great place, but it's not fair to tell people who didn't go there that any grade of oxbridge degree is worth more than anything they could ever achieve. it's just not a true reflection of the situation and does come across as quite arrogant - even if you think it, it's not always appropriate to say it!