Stricter grading would mean fewer Firsts

The education system in the UK is again getting a bad rap in that recruiters are claiming that degrees students are being awarded are irrelevant. This is not because the education system is of poor quality but because, even though it’s one of the best in the world, the universities seem to have changed their policies with regard to their grading system.

Back in my day it was hard to get a first class or even a 2:1 honours degree, much less even an honour. In the 1990s a first class degree was usually awarded to the top 8% which is very low when you think about the number of students actually enrolled at a typical university.

Now the number of graduates with a first or 2:1 is astronomical in comparison, rising to 30 to 40%! You might think that, well, that’s because people are getting smarter and, therefore, the grades are getting better. No. In fact, after interacting with many graduates from the past 20 years I feel that they are not getting smarter at all. And, to be honest, this all boils down to two very key reasons and, again, this is just my feeling.

It really all started at school back in the mid to late 90s when the school system abolished O’ levels and replaced them with GCSEs. This was unlike any education system known in the UK. Instead of one big exam at the end of the 2-year course, it was replaced by the GCSE in which course work contributed to a fair portion of the final mark. Who was actually doing the course work? Was it the pupil, a sister or a brother or an educated parent? There was no way to know...But kids with high marks in GCSEs started to leave school in droves whereas with the previous O’ levels, passing with even a C was a nightmare.

Some kids just kept repeating then eventually giving up. Back in those days, there weren’t that many O’ level passes. But when the GCSEs were introduced everyone passed and got into university. The numbers applying became astronomical. But those coming in didn’t really have basic grounding in English and maths which became apparent as they entered the workforce.

Later ‘home students’ stopped receiving free education and the system mimicked the US system of student loans. To stop students dropping out because passing was hard, I honestly think universities adjusted their pass marks during mid-term exams to encourage them to stay rather than drop out which would mean take away their fees as well. Result? More students passed with honours and Firsts.

What does this mean? Many recruiters across the UK have cottoned on to the problem as they see it. With so many graduates applying with Firsts and 2:1s, these qualifications seem to have lost their impact. When recruiters now see a First or 2:1 on a CV they now say ‘what’s so special about that?’

But surely that’s not the only irrelevance recruiters have found about some graduates? Quite a few will graduate in Philosophy, History of Art, the Sciences or the Humanities but then when the time comes to start applying graduates hit quite a few roadblocks. Unless you want to teach, what else can you do with these degrees?

I found it very hard to get an office job with my Chemistry Degree. It didn’t give me any skills I could have used in an office. That degree was sort of irrelevant to most, if not all, businesses. I once worked with a colleague in the UK who had a PhD in History of Art and I’m told that one of the main skills you learn in that degree is how to spot a fake master. So what? Unless you want to work in a museum, teach or be a ‘Thomas Crown’, that skill is not much help in the office or when running a department, unless it was a high level art department in a museum or university.

Schools need to go back to the old teaching system and universities need to be stricter when marking. Not doing so isn’t doing anyone any favours, least of all to the student graduating.