Mortgage Rate Rises

I can't even imagine how you'd get a 3rd! I don't think I knew anyone who did!

That's off a good 20 people

I think at plenty of places you could literally fail your undergraduate degree and then come back and resit the failed exams or even dissertation if necessary and you'd be able to get at least a third.

Even then there is another level below that IIRC - a pass/non-honors degree. You need 360 credits for an honours degree but IIRC if you fail a few, even after resitting them, then you can still get an "ordinary degree" with like 300 credits.
 
Last edited:
I can't even imagine how you'd get a 3rd! I don't think I knew anyone who did!

That's off a good 20 people
Not caring and having the wrong priorities.

A friend of mine had a guy in his group that decides he didn't want to do any work for the final year group project. They would give him tasks and he would turn up to the group meeting having done no work. His reason for not doing the task, he was too busy working in the student union bar.
This was a master in automotive engineering degree. It was at least 4 years into the course at this point (more if you took a sandwich year) and he just could not be bothered.
 
Not caring and having the wrong priorities.

A friend of mine had a guy in his group that decides he didn't want to do any work for the final year group project. They would give him tasks and he would turn up to the group meeting having done no work. His reason for not doing the task, he was too busy working in the student union bar.
This was a master in automotive engineering degree. It was at least 4 years into the course at this point (more if you took a sandwich year) and he just could not be bothered.

I actually struggled a lot with motivation in last year. I think I knew at that point I had done the wrong course. But was too far in to bail (in hindsight I should have).

So I get it. When you start you are only just out of college/6th form and probably (I did) pick what you are good at. Not really knowing if jobs or the course is really what you want.

My grades slipped from 1st to barely scraping 2:1.
Year 1: 1st
Year 2: upper 2:1
Year 3: scraped 2:1
 
I actually struggled a lot with motivation in last year. I think I knew at that point I had done the wrong course. But was too far in to bail (in hindsight I should have).

So I get it. When you start you are only just out of college/6th form and probably (I did) pick what you are good at. Not really knowing if jobs or the course is really what you want.

My grades slipped from 1st to barely scraping 2:1.
Year 1: 1st
Year 2: upper 2:1
Year 3: scraped 2:1
I can see your point, but judging by your result, you at least gave it a shot rather than that guys particular method of just saying **** it.

However based on the entry requirements, the way the course was structured (the course IMO got more interesting as it went on) and the **** we went through (such as 9 exams in 11 days), I would have thought he would have been weeded out much earlier.
 
Last edited:
Did you actively look for anything though or do you just mean you've not happened to read any press stories about this?

I've just had a look myself and it does seem from just looking at the past 10 years the data suggests that standards have shifted a bit, more degrees awarded and the classifications are mostly 1st or 2:1.

10 years ago 33% of students would have a classification below a 2:1, now it's only 15%. I've not checked what it was like 20 years ago but I presume it has shifted over time since then too.



zvMrCCy.png



Is perhaps correct just looking at classifications alone, though if he's talking about post-conversion of polytechnics into Universities then I don't think we even need to look at the classification data, degree classifications could stay in the same proportions but the presence of many new degrees offered by institutions with perhaps lower standards is sufficient for Mason's statement to hold true.

If you're going to offer, for example, a mathematics degree at a low-ranking university attended by people with very poor A-Levels then you'd inherently have to start at a lower level and cover the bare minimum required by external examiners else the course couldn't function.
I don't normally get on board with the whole moaning that exam results are being devalued. But that looks really concerning, more than twice as many firsts being dished out as 10 years ago is a bit stupid.

Mind you, my take has always been that a 2.1 is seen as basically just as good, unless you're applying for some sort of mega technical brainbox role. Certainly that's how I formed my opinion on how hard I should try while at uni..
 
Last edited:
I don't normally get on board with the whole moaning that exam results are being devalued. But that looks really concerning, more than twice as many firsts being dished out as 10 years ago is a bit stupid.

Mind you, my take has always been that a 2.1 is seen as basically just as good, unless you're applying for some sort of mega technical brainbox role. Certainly that's how I formed my opinion on how hard I should try while at uni..
University demographics are very different now to 10 years ago.

My other half is a lecturer, and this years crop on her course is 100% foreign students, Korean, Chinese etc. They are paying a fortune and are generally studious and motivated, which can't be said for the British cohort.
 
Last edited:
Mind you, my take has always been that a 2.1 is seen as basically just as good, unless you're applying for some sort of mega technical brainbox role.

Yup, arguably if they previously wanted at least a 2:1 then these days, if they wish to implement the same standard, employers should in theory want a 1st or a "good" 2:1 and exclude a big chunk of the other 2:1 holders... in reality that just isn't practical.

It would probably harm diversity equity and inclusion initiatives if they did too ergo more people with 2:1s is good for them as they have more people "equally" qualified on paper ergo can go fishing for more "diverse" candidates, can legally implement positive discrimination based on tie-breaker situations "these two candidates are the same so we'll recruit the diverse one".

The practical solution for important roles where they really do want to hire smart/competent people is to instead be generally more selective about the institutions they hire from; filter for good universities + 2:1. This is easily seen in roles close to the money in finance/banking.

Then for meeting diversity targets they can simply broaden the criteria for roles further from the money in say operations and IT, on paper they can still end up with 2:1s there too but they're from a wider range of institutions vs the people in the more valuable roles.
 
My other half is a lecturer, and this years crop on her course is 100% foreign students, Korean, Chinese etc. They are paying a fortune and are generally studious and motivated, which can't be said for the British cohort.

That surely depends on the university, if the university requires A*A*A - A*A*A* then you'll find the British students are studious enough.

The main issue there is then that Chinese students will attend a plagiarism lecture at the start of the year, nod along then act all confused when a group of them is busted for cheating in the most obvious way. Or, in the meeting ahead of the dissertations/projects openly ask if they can hire someone to help write theirs as their English not so good - "I still do coding, I need someone write report for me, this allowed yes?".
 
Did you actively look for anything though or do you just mean you've not happened to read any press stories about this?

I haven't looked at any data because as far as I know, there isn't any in existence that would be particularly useful in properly answering this question with any kind of certainty, at least outside of us going to the trouble to review the actual courses themselves in order to evaluate their changes over time.

If we're claiming that they're easier today, then how are we measuring the level of difficulty? What subjects are we even talking about? Have the courses even changed at all? What about other changes in the university experience that could contribute to what we might consider an increase or decrease in difficulty? What about the technological changes that we would need to control for - Mobile phones? The Internet?

Claiming that degrees are easier today is a such a broad and generalising statement that I don't think we can even begin to attempt to analyse it without laying out some extremely tight definitions and agreeing on some very specific metrics.

I've just had a look myself and it does seem from just looking at the past 10 years the data suggests that standards have shifted a bit, more degrees awarded and the classifications are mostly 1st or 2:1.

I know you're only putting this data forward as something of interest, which it undoubtedly is; but as I'm sure you're aware, you cannot really draw that conclusion from changes in attainment rates alone.

The fact that a higher number of people obtained degrees, or that the proportion with higher classifications increased, does not necessarily mean that equivalent degrees were actually any easier at all.

For all we know these rises could purely be down to the introduction over the years of some genuinely meaningless, rather silly degrees; and that actually equivalent degrees are more difficult today.

Regardless, there are far too many variables to consider and it really is a good old case of correlation not necessarily equaling causation.

Other people have interpreted the meaning behind those numbers very differently. For instance:

Liz Lightfoot - The Guardian's Education Correspondent said:
They still party and have a good time, but students are working harder and more consistently, their parents believe. Partly, it is the move away from “big bang” finals to continuous assessment, they say, but also the pressure to get that all-important 2:1 or above degree classification. One-third of students were awarded firsts or 2:1s in 1970. Last year it was over two-thirds: 70%.

Are equivalent degrees actually any easier? Or is the increased competition due to the numbers at university increasing over time, causing students to work harder; and putting them under more pressure to achieve higher classifications because they know that job requirements and qualification expectations have dramatically increased along with the number of people going to University?

I have absolutely nothing to back this up in any way and this is just a gut feeling, but the claim to me smells an awful lot of the whole "Oh in my day, we had it much tougher" narrative that every generation likes to tell themselves.

I genuinely have no idea what the reality is and in truth I suspect that the actual answer would be totally different depending upon what subject or university we would care to look at in detail.

From the same article as the above quote, which I've linked to at the bottom of this post, there's some anecdotes that although they don't constitute evidence, are interesting nonetheless:

Gill Grinyer - Solicitor from Bristol said:
It’s all much more serious today. I studied history in 1973-76 before qualifying as a solicitor, and chose the University of Exeter pretty much on a whim. It sounded like a nice place but I’d never actually been there before arriving with my trunk at the start of the first term. It’s been very different with our children: we’ve trawled up and down the country for countless open days. There seems to be much more choice and it puts increased pressure on them to make the right choices. There were no mixed halls and none of the ensuites and mod cons that are the norm nowadays. We had grants and didn’t worry about funding. Student life was a lot less stressful and competitive. I don’t remember worrying about what I would do when I graduated. Today’s students are more focused on careers.


Andrew Jones - Scientist from Chester said:
I was at the University of Bristol in 1982‑88, studying for a chemistry BSc and PhD. We had to work hard, but I enjoyed it and was involved in a lot of other activities: sport, music and Christian groups. Bristol was a great place to be a student. I got a lot from university: good qualifications, friends from different places and backgrounds, a wider view of the world — and a wife. My daughter is in her final year at Oxford studying English and my son is doing his A-levels and hopes to study chemistry. They are under much more pressure than we were – we worked hard but worried less. My daughter is having a wonderful time at Oxford, and the standard of living seems much higher than in our time. The financial situation is very different: we had grants and free tuition. Now students leave with significant debts and under pressure to get well-paid jobs.

Andrew Gray - Director of Conscious Solutions Ltd in Somerset said:
I studied engineering at Cambridge, but a lot of my time was spent rowing. The terms were short, just eight weeks, and, though I did the necessary labs, my priority was the rowing team. You could do that in the late 70s because there wasn’t continuous assessment. My eldest son has graduated with an engineering degree from Birmingham and my youngest is just about to study engineering at Durham. My daughter is studying science at Edinburgh. They are working more consistently because they are examined more regularly, and the grades count towards the final degree. Apart from the money side – they are graduating with much bigger debts than I did – the university experience seems to be much the same. They are meeting lots of people and forming friendships that will probably last a lifetime.

If the claim we were discussing was that there are many more easy to achieve degrees today, then I would be in complete agreement.

But as for equivalent degrees actually becoming easier? By that I mean a Mathematics degree today being easier to achieve than a Mathematics degree 30-40 years ago; well I've not seen any reliable evidence of that at all.

Anyway, I know this is hugely off-topic and I didn't intend to drag the thread way; my apologies. But if there are any studies into this, then please send them my way.

 
Last edited:
The fact that a higher number of people obtained degrees, or that the proportion with higher classifications increased, does not necessarily mean that those degrees were actually any easier at all.

Depends what you mean, easier to study in general? Perhaps not, students could be putting in a similar amount of effort etc... Easier to obtain a 1st given the portion of them dished out has doubled in 10 years... yeah it is obviously likely to be easier to obtain a 1st now.

I don't think anecdotes hold much weight here, you get the same guff with A-level/GCSE inflation even though universities then report that they're having to cover more of the basics in say mathematics.

By that I mean a Mathematics degree today being easier to achieve than a Mathematics degree 30-40 years ago; well I've not seen any reliable evidence of that at all.

Yup, easily, I'd say it's quite obvious that it's easier to obtain "a Mathematics degree" than 30-40 years ago. That doesn't mean it's necessarily easier to obtain one from say Cambridge... but if the question is concerning a Mathematics degree then that's pretty easy to answer.

There are many more institutions offering Mathematics degrees today than there were 30-40 years ago, the standards required to get into these institutions is inherently lower.. I don't just mean A-level grades (those have been inflated) but just what a student is expected to know - this ranges from Russell group universities having to make sure to cover stuff that should have been covered at A-level through to the bottom of the league table places having to seriously dumb things down.

I can't find the article now but there was one re: either Luton or London Met IIRC. (annoying this is one of those topics where google, unfortunately, returns a whole load of **** either advertising universities or irrelevant news articles or stuff about the weather).
 
Last edited:
Depends what you mean, easier to study in general?

That's precisely my point. What do we mean by easier?

Easier to obtain a 1st given the portion of them dished out has doubled in 10 years... yeah it is obviously likely to be easier to obtain a 1st now.

That doesn't necessarily follow at all. More people achieving a first does not mean that a first is necessarily easier to achieve. That's one possible cause of many.

There's far too many factors at play for those numbers to be at all useful in drawing conclusions.

Maybe the increase is down to there being a larger number of nonsense/silly subjects being available? Maybe they're just working longer and harder today?

In truth I suspect that there's a whole host of contributing factors that make comparing attainment rates over time, in isolation, fairly meaningless.

I don't think anecdotes hold much weight here...

Of course they don't, but that's all either side of this argument really has as far as I'm aware.

I reject attainment rates as evidence for the reasons I've given above, so without much else to go on, all we can do is discuss the experiences of others.

It's why I'm not drawing any conclusions myself; I simply don't think that the claim as I have interpreted it, is very easy to demonstrate; and when it's most often repeated, those who are making it usually haven't come to that conclusion based upon anything reliable or concrete.

All I know is that for me to actually believe it, I would need to see significantly better evidence than i've so far seen

Yup, easily, I'd say it's quite obvious that it's easier to obtain "a Mathematics degree" than 30-40 years ago...

You've got me wrong here...

This is why I said that we can't even begin to attempt to answer the question without properly defining what we mean.

You're claiming that it's easier to obtain "a Mathematics degree" from somewhere in the country, which very well might be true given how non-specific the claim itself is, and as you say, the sheer increase in the number of Mathematics degrees that are available, but i've been referring to the change in difficulty over time of any given degree itself, where the institution is constant. i.e The change in difficulty of a Mathematics degree from the exact same University over the span or 30-40 years.

That doesn't mean it's necessarily easier to obtain one from say Cambridge...

Precisely... My interpretation of the claim was very different to yours.
 
Last edited:
Anyway, I've unintentionally taken this thread way off topic.

Let's just leave it as this:

Whenever the claim is made, I have not seen it demonstrated satisfactorily by anyone, and remain unconvinced by the arguments I've heard to date.

Back to mortgage rates.
 
Last edited:
That doesn't necessarily follow at all. More people achieving a first does not mean that a first is necessarily easier to achieve. That's one possible cause of many.

There's far too many factors at play for those numbers to be at all useful in drawing conclusions.

Maybe the increase is down to there being a larger number of nonsense/silly subjects being available? Maybe they're just working longer and harder today?

In truth I suspect that there's a whole host of contributing factors that make comparing attainment rates over time, in isolation, fairly meaningless.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point, yes of course you can make arguments like what if everyone got way better but given the extent of the shift in just 10 years these alternative explanations don't hold much weight, it's just not plausible, it's not just nonsense subjects is a broad shift across all, there might be something to the other factors, perhaps students have improved a bit but not to the extent that double the number of 1st are getting handed out, the overwhelming factor here is simply grade inflation.

But yeah I think this is perhaps getting a bit off-topic.
 
Last edited:
I think at plenty of places you could literally fail your undergraduate degree and then come back and resit the failed exams or even dissertation if necessary and you'd be able to get at least a third.

Even then there is another level below that IIRC - a pass/non-honors degree. You need 360 credits for an honours degree but IIRC if you fail a few, even after resitting them, then you can still get an "ordinary degree" with like 300 credits.
2:1 years ago were difficult to get, 2:2 and 3rd were common, specially in language degrees.
 
Last edited:
We put our rates up, our cheapest fixed was 6.99% and we are getting so much work in. We've pulled them again today to make them even higher (I don't know what fo yet) to try and slow it down.

It's crazy, I've not known anything like it.
 
We put our rates up, our cheapest fixed was 6.99% and we are getting so much work in. We've pulled them again today to make them even higher (I don't know what fo yet) to try and slow it down.

It's crazy, I've not known anything like it.
Are you having to work past lunchtime?
 
We put our rates up, our cheapest fixed was 6.99% and we are getting so much work in. We've pulled them again today to make them even higher (I don't know what fo yet) to try and slow it down.

It's crazy, I've not known anything like it.

You are getting custom at 7pc?

Whos choosing to lock in at 7pc??
 
  • Like
Reactions: B&W
Back
Top Bottom