Even before the August headlines: "A-Levels are getting to easy" and "90% of pupils are achieving at least 3 'A' grades", today's Sunday Times has a piece by a University Lecturer questioning whether the 2:2 degree is an endangered species.
The writer suggests that with the increased pressure on examiners to award either a first or a 2:1, there isn't even need to have either a 2:2 or a Third as part of the classification system. Having looked at degree classifications for the past couple of years at my university for my course, I can, to an extent, see where he is coming from. There is quite a large body of students achieving a 2:2, which makes me think that the class isn't as redundant as the writer makes out. The largest block consistently is the 2:1 block; a much smaller proportion of Firsts are awarded. With only a handful of fails, I'm guessing that's due to mitigating circumstances as much as anything else.
More annoyingly, the writer suggests that the way forward is to bring in...you guessed it...the starred First and the starred 2:1. Now, what I strongly concede is that there is, in my opinion, a world of difference between the lowest 2:1 and a very high 2:1 that could easily have been a First. In my opinion, if that is given recognition, we are on the right track. Is it? Well, as far as legal careers go, it is. Most legal recruiters require you to disclose a breakdown of your module results. Why is this so important? Its because - and this isn't picked up on by the writer of the article - different universities have a different systems for classifying what degree classification students receive. There is, I believe, far more consistency in what exam scripts qualify as a First or a 2:1 than the number of a First class results you need to have to secure a First overall between universities.
What made me cringe even more when reading this article was the writer's account of a growing number of students wanting their 68 turned into a 70 or their 58 into a 62; also, the growing number of students claiming "mitigating circumstances" (aka "benefit-seekers"). All things which I can't imagine myself doing unless under very particular circumstances.
So, in all, this piece left me feeling very unsatisfactory. I hated how A-Levels were being belittled when I was sitting them and I'd hate for the feelings expressed by this University Lecturer to lead to similar unpleasantry; for me and a lot of others I'm sure.
Bitsy the Raconteur Press Editrix
13 hours ago
3 comments:
He's got a point - one examiners decision to "not quite" award a 60%+ mark can end someone's career there and then.
However, you still need to work for your 2:1.
Which came first?
Examiners being reluctant to award 2:2s because of employment options; or employees insisting on the 2:1 because they know that Tutus are - in some capacities - no better than a fail?
I entirely agree. It's all very maddening. If you do well then you get your achievement eroded over time, and if you do badly you're stuck with a label for the rest of your life. The whole system sucks.
Luckily there comes a time in life when it all becomes irrelevant anyway. I'm at the bar and have a 2:2... and I'm in a decent London set. At 2004 call I'm probably just about the last to make it through without at least a 2:1...
I dunno - where's it all going to end?!?
Post a Comment