# What degree class did you graduate with?



## tastebud (Aug 24, 2006)

Simple poll to follow.


----------



## spacemonkey (Aug 24, 2006)

I got a desmond & deserved it. Although only one waste of space exam cost me a 2:1.


----------



## strung out (Aug 24, 2006)

don't know yet, finals next week


----------



## trashpony (Aug 24, 2006)

strung_out said:
			
		

> don't know yet, finals next week



How come they're next week? Isn't that a bit late?  

Good luck


----------



## fen_boy (Aug 24, 2006)

I got a first, mainly because I went back as a 'mature' student and did something I actually wanted to do - as opposed to the first time when I dropped out.


----------



## strung out (Aug 24, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> How come they're next week? Isn't that a bit late?
> 
> Good luck


glandular fever first time round


----------



## strung out (Aug 24, 2006)

Anyway Vixen, you forgot the degree classification of 'Pass'


----------



## trashpony (Aug 24, 2006)

strung_out said:
			
		

> glandular fever first time round



Of course sweetie - I forgot, sorry


----------



## sojourner (Aug 24, 2006)

Just missed a first due to the worst piece of work ever (my diss).  Will be bitter forever


----------



## DRINK? (Aug 24, 2006)

2.1...deserved??? dunno did jack the first year, slightly more the second and worked my nuts off third


----------



## trashpony (Aug 24, 2006)

I worked reasonably hard but did a lot of clubbing. So I think the 2:1 was justified. There was only one 1st awarded in my year though - they weren't exactly generous with them.


----------



## kyser_soze (Aug 24, 2006)

2:1, too wrapped up with now ex-wifey in the 2nd year to recover in the 3rd, and too much clubbing over all three.


----------



## lemontop (Aug 24, 2006)

2.2 but probably deserved it. I only did two years of my actual degree as I changed courses right at the end of my first year from a degree in chemistry to a bit of a bog standard humanities degree. The only purpose my degree has served is as a prerequisite for my teaching diplomas so it doesn't stress me out too much.


----------



## boohoo (Aug 24, 2006)

fen_boy said:
			
		

> I got a first, mainly because I went back as a 'mature' student and did something I actually wanted to do - as opposed to the first time when I dropped out.



same here - worked my arse off for it! Only gave out two!


----------



## two sheds (Aug 24, 2006)

a third  I always felt that a third showed skill. Any fool can get a first by working hard. A second was clearly someone going for a first but not quite good enough. A third shows you only just worked enough to get by, but with the tight-rope walking ability not to lose that one extra mark that would fail you. 

Bloody hell up to nearly 300 posts already - this is how urban sucks up all your time eh. 

... goes off to record Just William off bbc7


----------



## vince noir (Aug 24, 2006)

I didn't just get a first, I got the class prize. Well, I had to share it with some other fucker.


----------



## marty21 (Aug 24, 2006)

a desmond as well, wasn't far from a 2:1, i was robbed


----------



## foamy (Aug 24, 2006)

DRINK? said:
			
		

> 2.1...deserved??? dunno did jack the first year, slightly more the second and worked my nuts off third



same here.


----------



## boohoo (Aug 24, 2006)

It would be interesting to know what kind of degrees people did - science, humanities, arts. And how many people were put off their subject by the time they finished it!


----------



## marty21 (Aug 24, 2006)

boohoo said:
			
		

> It would be interesting to know what kind of degrees people did - science, humanities, arts. And how many people were put off their subject by the time they finished it!



social sciences  politics with american studies, the decision to take this had nothing to do with the chance to spend a year in america


----------



## northernhord (Aug 24, 2006)

A good 2:1 single Hons from Bristol University, not bad for an ex car thief from Salford


----------



## vince noir (Aug 24, 2006)

straight honours politics, it's not like I was doing anything that involved much brainpower

Worked my arse off in first year because I thought you had to and I was intimidated by all the confident public school boys in seminars. Came top of the class and realised I didn't actually have to do all that. Spent second year in the pub/smoking weed and only just scraped into honours. Third year didn't do much more, realised I could mathematically get anything from a fail to a first depending on how hard I worked in my final year (I went to a Scottish university, split finals over third and fourth year).

Fouth year I was moderately diligent up until easter, spent a lot of time getting stoned and drunk though. But when I started studying for the end of year exams I started working harder. This was basically because there was one particular desk in the library that I liked using because no-one else could see me. It got to the stage where if someone bagged it before me I wouldn't bother studying that day. So I started getting up early so I was there at opening time to bag it. That is pretty much the only reason I got a "Geoff Hurst"


----------



## sojourner (Aug 24, 2006)

Humanities here...actual title of the course was Literature, Life and Thought.  Massively interesting, I loved every single second of it, was very difficult to choose which modules to do cos I wanted to do all of them, and read all of the books on the course.  Yes, I _was_ a mature student  

I couldn't believe I was getting a grant to sit round doing what I love to do best - read loads and then talk/argue about it all!  I was in heaven!!


----------



## boohoo (Aug 24, 2006)

I studied fashion part-time for four years ( saturday and two evenings a week). Social life went out the window - you can not use a industrial sewing machine or learn pattern cutting with a hangover.


----------



## bluestreak (Aug 24, 2006)




----------



## northernhord (Aug 24, 2006)

sojourner said:
			
		

> Humanities here...actual title of the course was Literature, Life and Thought.  Massively interesting, I loved every single second of it, was very difficult to choose which modules to do cos I wanted to do all of them, and read all of the books on the course.  Yes, I _was_ a mature student
> 
> I couldn't believe I was getting a grant to sit round doing what I love to do best - read loads and then talk/argue about it all!  I was in heaven!!



Yeah I was 30 something when I did mine, similar subject matter too


----------



## bluestreak (Aug 24, 2006)

i did my degree in literature and philosophy.  while i pissed about with the first two years and effectively scuppered my chances of getting a good degree by handing in work late on one module and getting a minimum pass (which dragged my overall mark down enough - my average was actually 2.1) i pulled my finger out towards the end and realised how much fun one could have studying when one isn't actually hungover all the time.


----------



## Cloo (Aug 24, 2006)

A first. (phil/lit).. I was pleasantly surprised in the main. At first I thought the way the marks I had were weighted meant it was unlikely, then I was put right on how the weighting worked and realised just before results came out that I might have a chance, given my dissertation marks.

My folks were on holiday and it took me hours to get hold of anyone in my family to tell them!


----------



## Ms T (Aug 24, 2006)

I just missed out on a first in Modern Languages.  I felt a bit cheated, because I'd been told all along that it was only the literature papers that mattered.  I got firsts in all of them, and in my dissertation, but got a 2:2 in my French language essay, which pulled me down to a 2:1.

Does it matter now though?  Nobody has even asked to see my degree certificate.


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 24, 2006)

I got a 1st from the Open University.  Mainly in computer stuff, but also in International development studies.

You may now worship the ground I walk on.


----------



## fen_boy (Aug 24, 2006)

Mine was Computer Science


----------



## sojourner (Aug 24, 2006)

Ms T said:
			
		

> I just missed out on a first in Modern Languages.  I felt a bit cheated, because I'd been told all along that it was only the literature papers that mattered.  I got firsts in all of them, and in my dissertation, but got a 2:2 in my French language essay, which pulled me down to a 2:1.
> 
> Does it matter now though?  Nobody has even asked to see my degree certificate.


That's what happened with me too - firsts for every piece of work all the way through, bar one exam which just missed a first, and the diss which got a low 2.1.  God I was fucked off. More than that, I was crushed. 

It matters to me.  I worked my arse off, and took great pride in my work, mainly cos I never thought I'd ever be a stoodent, let alone a post grad with a real actual live degree.  Not one piece of work was ever late, was all handed in in plenty of time.  I never missed a lecture through hangovers, I attended and took an active part in every seminar, was a library junkie - I was like a sponge, absorbing everything I could, and spewing out ideas as fast as they came in.  Can you tell I miss it?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 24, 2006)

2:1 Hons Computing, only 9 of us graduated as well, a lot of dropouts. I didn't take it seriously in the first year which dragged it down overall.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 24, 2006)

sojourner: was that the john moores university in Liverpool? I know some people who did that.





I got a 2:1 in History with Afro Asian studies about a thousand years ago.



I worked reasonably hard but didn't totally knock myself out.





Unsurprisingly I did better in the subjects I a) enjoyed and b) had fewer of us on the course and more books.


----------



## han (Aug 24, 2006)

got a 2:2 *sob* in music from Brizzle University....was a bit dissapointed cos I worked quite hard in the last year!

But still managed to get on me MA so that was good, I don't think they seem to care about that these days (they used to only let you onto an MA if you had a 2:1)...


----------



## editor (Aug 24, 2006)

I got a first class hons degree but am mighty disappointed to learn that my lofty achievement only puts me in the top 18% in this poll! Outrageous!

I was hoping it would be a more exclusive club, but it looks like standards must be dropping and they're letting riff raff in now.

;D

(actually, fuck knows how I got a first in graphic design: I didn't go to a single lecture in the last year, I was barely ever in college because I was already in a job, my dissertation was about football and my entire work was on CD - websites - which half the tutors couldnt make sense of. 

Mind you, I had really, really worked my fucking arse off, so maybe the press I'd gor helped too).


----------



## Treebeak (Aug 24, 2006)

1st in Marketing and Media. Did my dissertation on Ewan McGregor.


----------



## sojourner (Aug 24, 2006)

Maddalene said:
			
		

> sojourner: was that the john moores university in Liverpool? I know some people who did that.


Yep - certainly was!  What year did they graduate?


----------



## sojourner (Aug 24, 2006)

Treebeak said:
			
		

> Did my dissertation on Ewan McGregor.


I did mine on a Martin Millar story - Ruby and the Stone Age Diet.  Wrote to him telling him what I was doing, (some wibbly postmodern analysis of it) and he wrote back to me, being very nice and encouraging


----------



## Iam (Aug 24, 2006)

Squire??

I have no degree.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 24, 2006)

2:2 in Chemistry & Biochemistry (full time) - but spent most of my spare time for the last 18 months working as a Special so that was a bit of a result really.
2:1 in Law (distance learning) - fucking hard work whilst simultaneously trying to catch armed robbers.


----------



## Stigmata (Aug 24, 2006)

2:1 in History- can't complain! I know i'd have got a First if I put more work in though.


----------



## zenie (Aug 24, 2006)

Iam said:
			
		

> Squire??
> 
> I have no degree.



Nor me 

I would like to go back one day - when I _actually_ know what I wanna do


----------



## dolly's gal (Aug 24, 2006)

a 2:1 in politics. which was a fairly massive surprise given the amount of coke i consumed in my final year.


----------



## kyser_soze (Aug 24, 2006)

dolly's gal said:
			
		

> a 2:1 in politics. which was a fairly massive surprise given the amount of coke consumed in my final year.



Back in my day students couldn't afford coke.


----------



## dolly's gal (Aug 24, 2006)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Back in my day students couldn't afford coke.



who said i paid for it


----------



## Dr. Furface (Aug 24, 2006)

two sheds said:
			
		

> a third  I always felt that a third showed skill. Any fool can get a first by working hard. A second was clearly someone going for a first but not quite good enough. A third shows you only just worked enough to get by, but with the tight-rope walking ability not to lose that one extra mark that would fail you.


A very Oxbridge attitude. An Oxbridge third would be just enough to show daddy that you did enough work at college to get a pass, and - as it's from Oxbridge - it shouldn't harm your career prospects too much. In fact, probably better to get a third from there than a first from somewhere like South Bank, hey?

EDIT: I got a 2:1 (hons) literature and philosophy


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 24, 2006)

dolly's gal said:
			
		

> a 2:1 in politics. which was a fairly massive surprise given the amount of coke i consumed in my final year.


Didn't realise that politics degrees included a vocational element ...


----------



## wiskey (Aug 24, 2006)

well despite massive debt and 4 years at uni i dont have a degree either.

i didnt know what i wanted to study which was a problem and then i left when i got ill. a bit of a disaster all round really. i would like to get one oneday when i've worked out what interests me.


----------



## snoogles (Aug 24, 2006)

Top of my class, with the highest marks ever recorded for my course  

Utterly fed up with it by the end though, so changed subject for my PhD.


----------



## beeboo (Aug 24, 2006)

Desmond for me as well. 

Was (and still am) disappointed, was always a straight-A student 'til uni, and I didn't even enjoy myself enough to make it a worthwhile trade-off.

I was tottering along for a 2:1 until the final year.  Had to change my dissertation topic at the last minute, and then had a major heartbreak and a falling out with my best friend in the final year.  Spent most of the year depressed as hell.

Still, managed to land a graduate job before I got my results when I still had a predicted 2:1 (lucky, as so many grad employers demand 2:1 as minimum).  Since then it has never been an issue - the 2:2 is down on the bottom of my CV but experience counts for much more. 

I'd like to have done better for myself though


----------



## EastEnder (Aug 24, 2006)

2:1 in Comp Sci & A.I.

Course, that was back in the days when degrees were actually a bit hard, and universities were _real_ universities not ex-polys, and you could buy a house for 20p, only there weren't any houses cos it was all fields as far as the eye could see.....


----------



## tastebud (Aug 24, 2006)

Man I can't fecking well believe I made this anonymous. What's the bloody point in that!

I didn't DESERVE my 2:1, clearly!


----------



## feyr (Aug 24, 2006)

2:2 in ancient history , with american studies and psychology as minor choices . would have like to get a 1st but i was working 2 part time jobs, and suporting a family by the end of it  did a 3rd of my MA this year with the open university,realised i wasnt going to do well because i wasnt intrested in it enough anymore, so i'm not carrying on with that. i am however starting a ba in health and social care this september,agin with the open university, and i plan on working my butt off to get a 1st


----------



## aqua (Aug 24, 2006)

I got a 2:1 Hons Psychology 

If I'd done some work I would have got a first, but hey


----------



## EastEnder (Aug 24, 2006)

aqua said:
			
		

> I got a 2:1 Hons Psychology
> 
> If I'd done some work I would have got a first, but hey


Show me someone with a 2:1 who _doesn't_ trot out the "could've got a first if I'd done some real work" line and I'll show you a pregnant gerbils motorcycling display team.


----------



## g force (Aug 24, 2006)

2:1 B.Soc.Sc (Geog/UP)

I loved my degree - economic theory, cultural studies, post-Soviet states, 80s town planning. None of that standing in a river shite for me


----------



## Cheesypoof (Aug 24, 2006)

I got a first - of course!!!


----------



## sojourner (Aug 24, 2006)

EastEnder said:
			
		

> Show me someone with a 2:1 who _doesn't_ trot out the "could've got a first if I'd done some real work" line and I'll show you a pregnant gerbils motorcycling display team.


Get those gerbils out sunshine - and read my posts!


----------



## sojourner (Aug 24, 2006)

wiskey said:
			
		

> i didnt know what i wanted to study ... i would like to get one oneday when i've worked out what interests me.


That really is the key to a good degree I think.

I could never have done a business degree, would have died of boredom within a week.  I toyed with Women's Studies, Philosophy, and straight Lit, but ended up with a fantastic degree which combined all 3 and more!


----------



## Treebeak (Aug 24, 2006)

sojourner said:
			
		

> I did mine on a Martin Millar story - Ruby and the Stone Age Diet.  Wrote to him telling him what I was doing, (some wibbly postmodern analysis of it) and he wrote back to me, being very nice and encouraging



Did send Ewan a final copy but alas, no reply. I guess he's just far too busy being lovely


----------



## EastEnder (Aug 24, 2006)

sojourner said:
			
		

> Get those gerbils out sunshine - and read my posts!


I was talking about _real_ degrees.....

Not some wishy washy, arty farty flowery bollocks.......


----------



## equationgirl (Aug 24, 2006)

Does a first in mechanical engineering count as a real degree?


----------



## EastEnder (Aug 24, 2006)

equationgirl said:
			
		

> Does a first in mechanical engineering count as a real degree?


Absolutely.

The perfect woman - knows how to use the washing machine _and_ fix it!!


----------



## Biffo (Aug 24, 2006)

2.1 BSc - but I'm more of an arty type really


----------



## trashpony (Aug 24, 2006)

sojourner said:
			
		

> I did mine on a Martin Millar story - Ruby and the Stone Age Diet.  Wrote to him telling him what I was doing, (some wibbly postmodern analysis of it) and he wrote back to me, being very nice and encouraging



I did my degree in cultural studies and my diss compared two documentaries about women in South America which included some very wobbly postmodern analysis and deconstruction bollocks. It's so earnest and worthy it makes me cringe


----------



## Hellsbells (Aug 24, 2006)

What is so bad about getting a 2.1?  

Obviously a 1st is better, but the way everyone who got a 2.1 on this thread has to say, well, i would have got a 1st if it wasn't for blahblahblah, well, it makes me feel rather thick. I'm pretty certain that even if it wasn't for blahblahblah, I still wouldn't have got a 1st, but I was still very pleased and proud to get a 2.1 thank you very much.


----------



## EastEnder (Aug 24, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> I did my degree in cultural studies


We used to call degrees like that "Andrex degrees"......


----------



## aqua (Aug 24, 2006)

Hellsbells said:
			
		

> What is so bad about getting a 2.1?
> 
> Obviously a 1st is better, but the way everyone who got a 2.1 on this thread has to say, well, i would have got a 1st if it wasn't for blahblahblah, well, it makes me feel rather thick. I'm pretty certain that even if it wasn't for blahblahblah, I still wouldn't have got a 1st, but I was still very pleased and proud to get a 2.1 thank you very much.



I'm very pleased with mine


----------



## lyra_k (Aug 24, 2006)

I lied to mess up your poll, because I'm bitter and twisted.


----------



## boohoo (Aug 24, 2006)

doesn't matter what you got it's what ya do with it!


----------



## EastEnder (Aug 24, 2006)

I keep it in a draw.


----------



## boohoo (Aug 24, 2006)

EastEnder said:
			
		

> I keep it in a draw.



I have mine in a folder which I accidently covered in a banana I had been keeping in my bag for the week...


----------



## trashpony (Aug 24, 2006)

EastEnder said:
			
		

> We used to call degrees like that "Andrex degrees"......



I knew you'd take the piss. It was English social history from the 16th century on and studying mass media. 

But I'm sure you have to be much cleverer to do a degree in IT


----------



## H.Dot (Aug 24, 2006)

I wish there was an option for those of us with professional qualifications which take just as long as degrees... </feels really thick compared to you lot>

I'm going to Uni in April though!


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 24, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> I did my degree in cultural studies and my diss compared two documentaries about women in South America which included some very wobbly postmodern analysis and deconstruction bollocks. It's so earnest and worthy it makes me cringe



You did cultural studies? We really must have a chat sometime.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 24, 2006)

I got a 2:2 for my first degree, but I was a real slacker in my first year, so I got what I deserved.


----------



## xenon (Aug 24, 2006)

2.2 Fine Art.


----------



## EastEnder (Aug 24, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> But I'm sure you have to be much cleverer to do a degree in IT


Cleverer, wittier, charmingier, sophisticatedier, debonairier, wonderfulier....


----------



## Mr_Nice (Aug 24, 2006)

Never went to Uni  done a C&G course then started work at 19


----------



## sojourner (Aug 24, 2006)

EastEnder said:
			
		

> I was talking about _real_ degrees.....
> 
> Not some wishy washy, arty farty flowery bollocks.......


Gerbils!

Now!

Or else!!


----------



## EastEnder (Aug 24, 2006)

If I had a pound for every time I'd heard that.......


----------



## tastebud (Aug 24, 2006)

I wonder how reflective of the general population these results are? Not very I reckon, probably due to the self-selecting nature of the vote. I'm pretty sure that in the general population the First Class percentage would be lower and the Lower Second higher.


----------



## EastEnder (Aug 24, 2006)

Vixen said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure that in the general population the First Class percentage would be lower and the Lower Second higher.


Feeling a bit insecure and dim, are we?

((((Vixen))))


----------



## foamy (Aug 24, 2006)

i got my 2:1 BA (Hons) in Sculpture. I also did minors in metal working and ceramics. 
I wrote my dissertation on the representation of war in the post satellite age.
Theres no way i could have got a first.


----------



## sojourner (Aug 24, 2006)

Vixen said:
			
		

> I wonder how reflective of the general population these results are? Not very I reckon, probably due to the self-selecting nature of the vote. I'm pretty sure that in the general population the First Class percentage would be lower and the Lower Second higher.


Well there's at least 2 Northern votes...don't know where everyone else is...


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 24, 2006)

I got a 2:1. I feel common now.


There were no firsts on my course and most peoples results were split quite evenly between 2:1 and 2:2 actually I think there were more 2:2's




But of course I did it when degrees were hard mwuhahahaha


----------



## sojourner (Aug 24, 2006)

Maddalene said:
			
		

> I got a 2:1. I feel common now.
> 
> 
> There were no firsts on my course and most peoples results were split quite evenly between 2:1 and 2:2 actually I think there were more 2:2's
> ...


Out of interest, what degree was it, and were there many mature students on it?

It's just that I remember a lecturer telling me that most firsts are gained by mature students.


----------



## EastEnder (Aug 24, 2006)

Maddalene said:
			
		

> But of course I did it when degrees were hard mwuhahahaha


When I was doing my finals we had to contend with trained monkeys rampaging round the exam hall, stabbing people in the eyes with frozen slices of lemon.

And you didn't actually get given your degree certificate, you had crawl naked over broken glass to collect it from a sadistic gibbon who'd pretend to give it you, then stab you in the eye with a frozen slice of lemon instead.

And you think _you_ had it hard....


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Aug 24, 2006)

Again with the obsession with class, sometimes this place makes me so mad: 

 *SEE*


----------



## Xanadu (Aug 24, 2006)

I got a third in my degree.  I did no work, and I'm not particularly intelligent, so I couldn't get away with it.


----------



## EastEnder (Aug 24, 2006)

Bob_the_lost said:
			
		

> Again with the obsession with class, sometimes this place makes me so mad:
> 
> *SEE*


Let me guess, Douglas Hurd?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 24, 2006)

I got a 2:2 because I was a lazy bastard and didn't really care. In hindsight I wouldn't have gone straight to uni, I'd have waited until I was a bit more motivated and actually done it properly.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 24, 2006)

sojourner said:
			
		

> Out of interest, what degree was it, and were there many mature students on it?
> 
> It's just that I remember a lecturer telling me that most firsts are gained by mature students.



Actually there were quite a few. Guess they must've all been thick.....


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Aug 24, 2006)

EastEnder said:
			
		

> Let me guess, Douglas Hurd?


Big fat F so far, but a change of course to an easier subject (Computer Science ) may change that.


----------



## lyra_k (Aug 24, 2006)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:
			
		

> I got a 2:2 because I was a lazy bastard and didn't really care. In hindsight I wouldn't have gone straight to uni, I'd have waited until I was a bit more motivated and actually done it properly.



Why does no-one ever say "I got a 2:2 because I'm a bit of a thicky?"    

(nothing personal to the poster quoted, just wondering in general, like  )


----------



## EastEnder (Aug 24, 2006)

lyra_k said:
			
		

> Why does no-one ever say "I got a 2:2 because I'm a bit of a thicky?"


The rules are well established:

1st: Anal swot, book worm, no life, tries _way_ too hard.
2.1: Smart without having to try, could've got a 1st, drank lots of beer instead.
2.2: Wannabe intellectual, tried hard but still got a desmond, probably works in a bank.
3rd: Would you like fries with that?


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 24, 2006)

lyra_k said:
			
		

> Why does no-one ever say "I got a 2:2 because I'm a bit of a thicky?"
> 
> (nothing personal to the poster quoted, just wondering in general, like  )



I got a 2:1 and I'm a bit of a thicky. There: I'm out and proud..


----------



## lyra_k (Aug 24, 2006)

Maddalene said:
			
		

> I got a 2:1 and I'm a bit of a thicky. There: I'm out and proud..



respect 

(no, hold on, you didn't get a 2:2, it doesn't count  )


----------



## k_s (Aug 24, 2006)

I got a 2:1 in a really hard subject without going to half my lectures and with about two week's work on a year long research project. My friends often bitch about this but i point out to them that its their fault for not being a genius like me. I expect I'd rule the world by now if I wasn't so keen on sleep.


----------



## han (Aug 24, 2006)

EastEnder said:
			
		

> The rules are well established:
> 
> 1st: Anal swot, book worm, no life, tries _way_ too hard.
> 2.1: Smart without having to try, could've got a 1st, drank lots of beer instead.
> ...


----------



## bluestreak (Aug 24, 2006)

EastEnder said:
			
		

> The rules are well established:
> 
> 1st: Anal swot, book worm, no life, tries _way_ too hard.
> 2.1: Smart without having to try, could've got a 1st, drank lots of beer instead.
> ...



i would agree with this, but i used to go with a girl who got a third to her shame.  thing is, she wasn't a thicky, made some bad module decisions and had some bad shit thrown at her during her uni times.  she worked fucking hard to get back into education and got a masters in environmental sciences nice and easily.


----------



## tastebud (Aug 24, 2006)

EastEnder said:
			
		

> 2.1: Smart without having to try, could've got a 1st, drank lots of beer instead.


This is definitely me. Naturally bright  and all that - I didn't try hard and was two marks  off a First. However this *isn't* the general 2:1 rule. I know thickies that literally just _scraped_ a 2:1. 




			
				k_s said:
			
		

> I expect I'd rule the world by now if I wasn't so keen on sleep.


This was also my problem in my undergrad days.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 24, 2006)

I got a first, largely by mistake.


----------



## equationgirl (Aug 24, 2006)

EastEnder said:
			
		

> Cleverer, wittier, charmingier, sophisticatedier, debonairier, wonderfulier....



Not the computer science/IT people I knew for four years  

But if that's what they tell you to get you on the course......


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 24, 2006)

Vixen said:
			
		

> This is definitely me. Naturally bright  and all that - I didn't try hard and was two marks  off a First.* However this *isn't* the general 2:1 rule. I know thickies that literally just scraped[/*_I] a 2:1.
> 
> 
> This was also my problem in my undergrad days._


_



I was one...!_


----------



## equationgirl (Aug 24, 2006)

Yes I'm a swot and bookworm  

Books are my friends


----------



## jasoon (Aug 25, 2006)

Apologies for my youthful naivetiy, but is a 'desmond' a 2.2, and why do they call it a 'desmon'?
thanks


----------



## lyra_k (Aug 25, 2006)

jasoon said:
			
		

> Apologies for my youthful naivetiy, but is a 'desmond' a 2.2, and why do they call it a 'desmon'?
> thanks



I'm a thickie, but i guessed that it might be because of this fella:


----------



## jasoon (Aug 25, 2006)

LOL thanks ic


----------



## Cheesypoof (Aug 25, 2006)

sorry for being a c**t but to any smug pleb who got a 2:1 and thinks they coulda gotten a first dont make me laugh
*
for most degreees you cant get a first in your degree just by working hard.* 

Lots of people can get a 2:1 you to get a 1st actually have to think outside the box, be quite brainy, you know?

With my uni for example, when i went back to the professors after getting 74 per cent in my degree they explained that i had come up with a brand new theory in industrial relations that could qualify me straight on to a PHD programme if i wanted. I pushed my brain very hard to come up with the idea which required studying in the veterinary and philosophy sections of the library - totally outside my course.

I was also assured that before they gave me the first, they sent my paper to Oxford, UCD's sister uni for marking - to have it checked by a professor there to get a second opinion.

so anyone who thinks that getting a first is easy if you get a 2:1 is talking bollocks.

and just for the record, I wasnt a swot - i worked full time in restaurants and dept stores for 3 years, gave up the job in april but really, really THOUGHT about my subjects, questioned everything and read unusual but relevant stuff for the exams at the tail end.

thats the difference


----------



## rennie (Aug 25, 2006)

I was top of my class! *polishes halo*


----------



## Roadkill (Aug 25, 2006)

2:1 in history.

My third year marks averaged out at a first, but I'd spent most of the second year lazing about...


----------



## fen_boy (Aug 25, 2006)

Cheesypoof said:
			
		

> sorry for being a c**t but to any smug pleb who got a 2:1 and thinks they coulda gotten a first dont make me laugh
> *
> for most degreees you cant get a first in your degree just by working hard.*
> 
> ...



No-one likes a smart arse


----------



## mk12 (Aug 25, 2006)

first! woo hoo!


----------



## Ranu (Aug 25, 2006)

I got a 2:2, basically because I was on the piss for 4 years at Uni.  Had a great time, made life long friends and it hasn't made a jot of difference to my life.  I'm doing very well, thank you very much


----------



## Cheesypoof (Aug 25, 2006)

fen_boy said:
			
		

> No-one likes a smart arse



I cant help being smart sweetheart, i was just born that way!  

what i said above is true though, i dont want to come across as harsh but usually you have to come up with pretty original ideas and think outside the box to get a first, and not anyone can  do that. otherwise there would be no standards and anyone who worked hard would get a first.

I'm only saying what the professors told me, cos i asked them did i just do a cracking core paper and they no, while my standard was consistent it was the new fresh twist on things that makes the breakthrough


----------



## Ranu (Aug 25, 2006)

Anyone who uses the expression 'think outside the box' doesn't deserve a 1st.


----------



## Pieface (Aug 25, 2006)

She has a point fen_boy, as irritating as it sounds 

There was a guy on my course in the year above who got a first doing things like answering a paper on Victorian Nonsense literature _in_ nonsense.   He was brilliant - I was average - I got a few firsts on coursework but I'm shite in exams.   So I got a high 2:1 but I had a lot of fun  

English Lit never got anyone a job anyway


----------



## fen_boy (Aug 25, 2006)

Cheesypoof said:
			
		

> I cant help being smart sweetheart, i was just born that way!
> 
> what i said above is true though, i dont want to come across as harsh but usually you have to come up with really original ideas and think outside the box to get a first, and even some clever students dont have the ability to do that.
> 
> I'm only saying what the professors told me, cos i asked them did i just do a cracking core paper and they no, while my standard was consistent it was the new fresh twist on things that makes the breakthrough



Didn't take it as harsh - I got a first too as did a lot of people on this thread.

I worked hard at it, but I don't reckon you have to be particularly fresh or innovative to get a first - not that I'm disputing that you were - Of course you need a certain level of intelligence, but I reckon you just need to be thorough and have an eye for what they're looking for.

That said I did invent the world's first truly sentient computer for my dissertation.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Aug 25, 2006)

yeh that's the point -  its the *ideas *you come up with is what makes you stand out, cos many students are very intelligent and will do a good paper in a high standard of English.

So they have to diffrentiate people somehow. 

Why give someone a first anyway if they are regurgitating the opinions of all these thinkers? When I used to watch the professors teach i used to think 
_'I want to be the one coming up with the ideas, I want to be the one up there'_

not
_'fuck, i gotta learn all this stuff and go do my paper so i can get a 2:1 and a job as a paper pusher.' _I preferred to take a gamble with my own original ideas, cos I reckoned thats what the professors _themselves_ probably did to get to where they were in the first place.

Know what i mean?


----------



## fen_boy (Aug 25, 2006)

I see what you mean, I just don't think at undergraduate level that you need to do it that much. For me it was more a case of ticking the boxes and felating my tutor's ego - when I look back I suppose some of my work was original, but I don't think any of it was particularly 'good' even though I got the grades.

I didn't really invent a sentient computer btw.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Aug 25, 2006)

well maybe i got 74 per cent and you got 72


----------



## Gavin Bl (Aug 25, 2006)

A First in Geography from Middlesex Poly!


----------



## tastebud (Aug 26, 2006)

I don't mean to be rude Cheesypoof but you have just stated the obvious a bit. I work in academia - when I'm employed - have been friends with lecturers, PhD students and the like, so I TOO know what I'm on about. Of course you fucking have to have a bit of imagination and creativity to get a First, jeez they teach you that rule in the first year of lectures/essay writing, tutorials etc. I think most people who are doing degrees/have done degrees are aware of this simple fact. In fact it's pretty hard to go very far in academia if you don't have the capabilities for this. Working hard at it certainly helps too!

And "think outside the box"? I'm sorry a First class student wouldn't come out with that kind of wanky bollocks. 


 

(BTW you also need to be bright. You need to be intelligent. A couple of my lecturers (quietly) admitted early on that they can almost immediately tell the difference between a bright student and perhaps a less bright student when they first read a first year essay. Clarity of expression, succinctness, creative and intelligent use of the English language go along way - you can get Firsts this way regardless of how imaginative your ideas are - for essays anyway).


----------



## Cheesypoof (Aug 26, 2006)

Vixen said:
			
		

> I don't mean to be rude Cheesypoof but you have just stated the obvious a bit. I work in academia - when I'm employed - have been friends with lecturers, PhD students and the like, so I TOO know what I'm on about. Of course you fucking have to have a bit of imagination and creativity to get a First, jeez they teach you that rule in the first year of lectures/essay writing, tutorials etc. I think most people who are doing degrees/have done degrees are aware of this simple fact. In fact it's pretty hard to go very far in academia if you don't have the capabilities for this. Working hard at it certainly helps too!
> 
> And "think outside the box"? I'm sorry a First class student wouldn't come out with that kind of wanky bollocks.
> 
> ...



I said all this a minute ago Vixen, you are pointing out the same things I did. I was addressing those who said they coulda gotten a first but got a 2.1 or 2.2 instead, not you!

As for think outside the box - yeh that expression sucks cock, soz for using it - look from an outside vantage point/ stick head above parapet woulda been a lot better


----------



## tastebud (Aug 26, 2006)

Cheesypoof said:
			
		

> I said all this a minute ago Vixen, you are pointing out the same things I did. I was addressing those who said they coulda gotten a first but got a 2.1 or 2.2 instead, not you!
> 
> As for think outside the box - yeh that expression sucks cock, soz for using it - look from an outside vantage point/ stick head above parapet woulda been a lot better


Yeah but _I'm_ one of those people that got a high 2:1 but I reckon I could've got a First had I worked harder at exams. My dissertation got a First and they were really pleased with it - this is the most important thing in my profession; being able to design and carry out an original piece of research - as were nearly all my lab reports. I'm just saying that what you said about people who got a 2:1 not being able to get a First was a bit wrong.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Aug 26, 2006)

Vixen said:
			
		

> Yeah but _I'm_ one of those people that got a high 2:1 but I reckon I could've got a First had I worked harder at exams. My dissertation got a First and they were really pleased with it - this is the most important thing in my profession; being able to design and carry out an original piece of research - as were nearly all my lab reports. I'm just saying that what you said about people who got a 2:1 not being able to get a First was a bit wrong.



well ask anyone who DID get a first and they will probably agree with me. Anyone bright can learn the stuff for a degree and get a 2:1 but as we both agree getting a first takes more than that. Maybe it sounds like you're an exception but the thing is loads of people get 2:1's and if all of them were able to get firsts, there would be no standards - come on!


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Aug 26, 2006)

Cheesypoof said:
			
		

> well ask anyone who DID get a first and they will probably agree with me. Anyone bright can learn the stuff for a degree and get a 2:1 but as we both agree getting a first takes more than that. Maybe it sounds like you're an exception but the thing is loads of people get 2:1's and if all of them were able to get firsts, there would be no standards - come on!


I dunno, I got a first, but I certainly don't think that makes me more naturally intelligent or original than my friends who got 2:1s. In fact what made my grades shoot up was just getting better at doing extra reading and giving myself "thinking time", which in turn helps you to merge more things together to come up with your own arguments. Oh, and I just happen to be quite good at exams. 

Talking of exams and extra reading, towards the end I discovered you were much more likely to get a first if, on top of some of the books they set you, you read one quite obscure thing on the subject as well. Bung in a few bits from that in your exam, looks like you've done much more reading than you have, you get a better grade. Getting on well in academia is just an example of how good you are at academia, iyswim. 

Saying all that, I did actually find a few essays from my third year and I actually was still quite proud/impressed by what I wrote. Couldn't actually understand a really technical one I found.


----------



## treefrog (Aug 26, 2006)

Ordinary degree pass, no honours as all my tadpoles died 

And the Post grad wasn't graded, just pass or fail.

so I'm a double-passer


----------



## revol68 (Aug 26, 2006)

I got big stinking third. I just never went to my classes most of the time, well about 75% of the time. Never handed coursework in on time, was restricted to 40% for about 7 modules, infact I was close to being fucked out in 2nd year. Never got a mark for 3 modules (no course work and no exam).

Still for my essay on Marx and Rosseau i got 84% (restricted to 40 though), so i know i'm not a thicky, just a very very lazy boy, who may well have been clinically depressed for 2 years.

Infact Uni was just shite, i never liked the "student" scene, the few tutorials i bothered to go to were full of people with no opinions on anything, or if they did have opinions they were inane, the tutor had to beg people to say something. I mean in niavity I imagined people studying Politics would actually have some passion about the subject, but apparently not. A few people said things but they were just swots cramming for a first and really how serious can you take a "Marxist" who get's a first, it implies that they get the "theory" but haven't got the proper distain for bourgeois institutions.  

Not that i'm projecting my own self loathing for wasting my time onto those who could be bothered. Not at all. 

People saying you don't need imagination to get a first are clearly wrong. But I do know alot of people who got firsts who are considerly dimmer than friends of mine with 2.2's and the like. And most people I know who get firsts but aren't mature students are real fucking swots and couldn't offer their opinion on a Menu without having to reference Foucault. Except of course a good firend of mine who got a first and is the smartest fucker i know. He's working in a bus station in Manchester. So if you ever need to know anything about Baudrillards "Hyper Reality" you can get that and a return to Leeds for under a tenner.

I still think a third is better than a 2.2, I mean if your going to fuck up, atleast do it in style.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Aug 26, 2006)

Agent Sparrow said:
			
		

> I dunno, I got a first, but I certainly don't think that makes me more naturally intelligent or original than my friends who got 2:1s. In fact what made my grades shoot up was just getting better at doing extra reading and giving myself "thinking time", which in turn helps you to merge more things together to come up with your own arguments. Oh, and I just happen to be quite good at exams.
> 
> Talking of exams and extra reading, towards the end I discovered you were much more likely to get a first if, on top of some of the books they set you, you read one quite obscure thing on the subject as well. Bung in a few bits from that in your exam, looks like you've done much more reading than you have, you get a better grade. Getting on well in academia is just an example of how good you are at academia, iyswim.
> 
> Saying all that, I did actually find a few essays from my third year and I actually was still quite proud/impressed by what I wrote. Couldn't actually understand a really technical one I found.



yeh the aspect of obscurity, reading outside your course but applying it to the subject, and formulating your own opinion in the end is what its about. I think some people stumble across an original idea, and if its accidental, all the more magic. i think!


----------



## munkeeunit (Aug 26, 2006)

I got a 1st this summer  

(first time I've bragged about it publicly, just had to do it the once )


----------



## treefrog (Aug 26, 2006)

Congrats!


----------



## Skim (Aug 26, 2006)

A 2:1. Just


----------



## munkeeunit (Aug 27, 2006)

treefrog said:
			
		

> Congrats!



Thank you very much


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Aug 27, 2006)

First, easily. Obviously. Had to to do fuck all for it as well except drink, chat in seminars, write a total of about 50,000 words over 3 years, and enjoy the 3 year holiday. A bit of revision near the exam too, and a bit of common sense.


----------



## purves grundy (Aug 27, 2006)

28 firsts  

thought i was one of the elite


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Aug 27, 2006)

If you get less than a 2:1 nowadays you should never have been admitted to university in the first place.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 27, 2006)

chrisshapland said:
			
		

> If you get less than a 2:1 nowadays you should never have been admitted to university in the first place.



Keep trying luv I'm sure you'll find someone to wind up.


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Aug 27, 2006)

Maddalene said:
			
		

> Keep trying luv I'm sure you'll find someone to wind up.



It's true though. The increase in the number of undergraduates means that people who used to be considered pretty thick (two Es at A-level) are getting in and hence they're the ones getting 2:2s and below.

Devaluing degrees - and it'll get worse if they get 50% of people to university.


----------



## Xanadu (Aug 27, 2006)

:d


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 27, 2006)

I got a third because, partly due to the fact I walked out of an exam after 20 minutes because it was the on the Wednesday at the start of Glastonbury and I wanted to go down and put my tent in a good place.


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Aug 27, 2006)

bi0boy said:
			
		

> I got a third because, partly due to the fact I walked out of an exam after 20 minutes because it was the on the Wednesday at the start of Glastonbury and I wanted to go down and put my tent in a good place.



You're well cool. People like you make university degrees really worth having.


----------



## munkeeunit (Aug 27, 2006)

chrisshapland said:
			
		

> It's true though. The increase in the number of undergraduates means that people who used to be considered pretty thick (two Es at A-level) are getting in and hence they're the ones getting 2:2s and below.
> 
> Devaluing degrees - and it'll get worse if they get 50% of people to university.



I think 2:2 is still a respectable degree. Considering that it's 50% + and you rarely get over 80% even though it's theoretically out of 100%  Certainly universities nowadays seem reluctant to fail anyone. Nowadays 30% seems to be a pass, which doesn't really compute. Like when they changed to G.C.S.E's and got rid of the 'F' and added on the 'G'.

I think the bottom has fallen out of degrees, and education in general, but getting the highest grades is still a great deal of effort. Although, Masters Degrees seem to be the equivalent of topping up your degree to make it equivalent of what a degree used to be.


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Aug 27, 2006)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> I think the bottom has fallen out of degrees, and education in general, but getting the highest grades is still a great deal of effort. Although, Masters Degrees seem to be the equivalent of topping up your degree to make it equivalent of what a degree used to be.




I think that for 'able' students, only the very highest degrees require a modicum of effort any more.

That you can get into a university with two Es at A-level and get a 2:1 easily is ludicrous.

I agree a 2:2 takes effort if you're one of those students who goes to uni on the back of shit A-levels or (worse) some vocational B-Tec or whatever, but if you're a normal, 'able' student, you can get a 2:1 with about ten or fifteen hours study a week (or less) - which is ridiculous. 

I completely agree re: Masters Degrees. Unless you have a first from a Russell group uni your degree is no longer anything special.


----------



## munkeeunit (Aug 27, 2006)

Vixen said:
			
		

> And "think outside the box"? I'm sorry a First class student wouldn't come out with that kind of wanky bollocks.



I'm a 1st class student, and I constantly thought 'outside the box'. 

Constantly disagreed with what was on offer, refused to simply regurgitate. Got my lecturers backs up all the time with it.

Sometimes lecturers do take that stuff personally, and will downgrade students on that basis, but sometimes people like to think they can 'think outside the box' and don't get a 1st, because in truth they can't, and just go through the motions of acting like they can think orginally, when really they are just reacting against regurgitation without offering anything original beyond that.

I have to agree that most 1st students I've come across just play it safe, but are nonetheless very hard workers.


----------



## magneze (Aug 27, 2006)

A desmond. Slightly lucky too after fucking up my first year and being put on a pass degree for the second year.


----------



## revol68 (Aug 27, 2006)

chrisshapland said:
			
		

> You're well cool. People like you make university degrees really worth having.



Mate, if you think a degree proves anything more than the ability to rearrange lecture notes your not as bright as you may think. Undergrad essays are a fucking farce. You got 2,000 words to answer a question, but anyone with half a brain is going to have to spend 1,000 words taking apart the narrow parameters of the question, leaving you fuck all space to actually bulk out an answer, hence  the  marker complains that you haven't adequately explained or explored some fucking point that they have on their pre drawn marking scheme. Hence the fannies who couldn't lateral think their way out of a tent do bettter because they hit more of the points the marker is looking for/expecting based on the lecture notes. Now someone with a bit of brains will add a few of their own sources on the end and maybe hit a first.


----------



## munkeeunit (Aug 27, 2006)

chrisshapland said:
			
		

> That you can get into a university with two Es at A-level and get a 2:1 easily is ludicrous.



I got into university with just one Grade C A-Level, and left school without taking any exams, but then talked my way into university, and convinced them of my latent abilities, and that I was worth the gamble.

Whereas, 'clearing' is nowadays a production line, with people rarely quizzed about their previous educational record, and therefore they just seem to coast lazily through university, they same way they coasted their way lazily up to university.


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Aug 27, 2006)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> I got into university with just one Grade C A-Level, and left school without taking any exams, but then talked my way into university, and convinced them of my latent abilities, and that I was worth the gamble.
> 
> Whereas, 'clearing' is nowadays a production line, with people rarely quizzed about their previous educational record, and therefore they just seem to coast lazily through university, they same way they coasted their way lazily up to university.



I agree about clearing, but, with no disrespect intended, I think you should have had to retake your a-levels to get into uni (and I admit I don't know much about your individual situation).

The reason so many people get in is because it's popular with the middle class (and hence wins elections) for their kids to all go and because the unis get so much cash per student so will take anyone.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 27, 2006)

I'm amazed any one here takes grades of A levels or degrees as a measure of intelligence.


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Aug 27, 2006)

revol68 said:
			
		

> Mate, if you think a degree proves anything more than the ability to rearrange lecture notes your not as bright as you may think. Undergrad essays are a fucking farce. You got 2,000 words to answer a question, but anyone with half a brain is going to have to spend 1,000 words taking apart the narrow parameters of the question, leaving you fuck all space to actually bulk out an answer, hence  the  marker complains that you haven't adequately explained or explored some fucking point that they have on their pre drawn marking scheme. Hence the fannies who couldn't lateral think their way out of a tent do bettter because they hit more of the points the marker is looking for/expecting based on the lecture notes. Now someone with a bit of brains will add a few of their own sources on the end and maybe hit a first.



I think you are talking about mark schemes in polys or in the worst of universities where they can't demand high standards else students will fail en masse.


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Aug 27, 2006)

Maddalene said:
			
		

> I'm amazed any one here takes grades of A levels or degrees as a measure of intelligence.



I take them as something you have to work harder to get the top ones.

Degrees less so any more. My argument is that it's very easy to do well in a degree nowadays.


----------



## xenon (Aug 27, 2006)

I did a lot better at A Levels than on my degree. Based on the number of points I had, i could have gone to 1 of the red brick uni's. AFAIK it would have been pretty hard to get in any where with 2 E's.

Clearing is just filling up spaces on courses and ensuring funding. It gives people a second chance as well though and if you're not sure what you want to study but just want to study something, it's quite a good way of seeing what's available.


----------



## xenon (Aug 27, 2006)

Actually I was quite surprised about how many peple on my degree course were really sweating about having to write a disatation.

It didn't even have to be that long and if you've done an A level in say history you have to write off the top of your head anyway.


----------



## munkeeunit (Aug 27, 2006)

chrisshapland said:
			
		

> I agree about clearing, but, with no disrespect intended, I think you should have had to retake your a-levels to get into uni (and I admit I don't know much about your individual situation).



Yes, my situation was quite unusual (without wishing to go in to details), but they'll tend to treat mature students differently, in the sense that life experiences are taken into account. Motivation to see things through needs to demonstrated, and that can be demonstrated in other ways.

Whereas, a student going straight from school, to college, to university, who hasn't demonstrated a willingness to knuckle down in any context, doesn't have so many other life experiences to draw parallels with. Self motivation is an overwhelming requirement, and that's something I was able to demonstrate within the context of a very troubled educational life and pre-history up to that point.


----------



## munkeeunit (Aug 27, 2006)

Maddalene said:
			
		

> I'm amazed any one here takes grades of A levels or degrees as a measure of intelligence.



It depends what you're measuring, if you're measuring an ability to manage an economy, peer into the interior of atoms, save the biosphere, and so on... a degree in that subject certainly helps. 

Not that you can't do these things withiout a degree, but you do have to have studied in an equivalent manner outside of the educational system to have any competence in a specialist area. Many people do just that.

As for intelligence as a person, such as an ability to empathise with others, absorb ideas and views of those around you, adapt to them and discuss them at will, that's something a degree can't necessarily teach you. You can just regurgitate your way through many degrees without coming out the other side much the wiser in these things.


----------



## revol68 (Aug 27, 2006)

chrisshapland said:
			
		

> I think you are talking about mark schemes in polys or in the worst of universities where they can't demand high standards else students will fail en masse.



I think you should start looking at the increasing rationalisation of education, with the increased numbers going to Uni, they can no longer afford the classic bourgeois education eg sherry with yout tutor etc, and so degrees are reduced to a production line, with all thid entails for marking schema etc.

It's the same with A levels, the exams aren't getting any easier, nor are our younger siblings evolving into X men, but rather the curriculum is being streamlined, teaching is getting reduced to a kind of talyorism, and so what matters is the quantitive mark for the league tables, whilst anything superflous to the exam questions is culled, hence lateral thinking and a critical engagement with the world comes a very poor second.

I have friends in academia and teaching who never stop whinging about this, they have less and less room to explore issues, to engage students own ideas and link the subject back into that.


----------



## poului (Aug 27, 2006)

Maddalene said:
			
		

> I'm amazed any one here takes grades of A levels or degrees as a measure of intelligence.





Quite. Under that pretense Cheesypoof is the most intelligent person on the boards.


And btw my experience at university is proof alone that thinking "outside the box" is NOT rewarded with the highest marks in all departmental circles.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 27, 2006)

> sherry with yout tutor etc,



What? I don't know where you went to uni but I never saw a single sherry glass in my entire time when I was at Newcastle Polytechnic in the 1980's.


----------



## munkeeunit (Aug 27, 2006)

poului said:
			
		

> And btw my experience at university is proof alone that thinking "outside the box" is NOT rewarded with the highest marks in all departmental circles.



I have to agree with that in general. I think I was unusual in that I thought 'outside the box' and was rewarded for that (on balance but certainly not always, some lectures took a very dim view of it).

But there is a big difference between thinking 'outside the box' and only having a half-baked idea not fully backed up with evidence or argument. If you're 'outside the box' but also floating in the air without a well rounded alternative argument to point to, then you arent' going to get the grades on purely objective grounds (on top of the problem of bias.)


----------



## Tankus (Aug 27, 2006)

heh........ 2:2 in geology  ...back in the early mid 80's when a degree ment somfink .......

got what I deserved ...... would have got a first in drinking if there had been an exam for that  .....full granted 3 year work avoidance ....ah joy .....and no debt at the end ...just a beer gut and a lot more friends .....

might have got a 2:1  if I tried really hard ...too stupid for a first ......


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Aug 27, 2006)

poului said:
			
		

> Quite. Under that pretense Cheesypoof is the most intelligent person on the boards.
> 
> 
> And btw my experience at university is proof alone that thinking "outside the box" is NOT rewarded with the highest marks in all departmental circles.




or maybe you just thought outside the box but were thick as pigshit.


----------



## revol68 (Aug 27, 2006)

chrisshapland said:
			
		

> or maybe you just thought outside the box but were thick as pigshit.



Are you just on a wind up?

By and large Universities work on the same lines as any other bourgeois institution, knuckle down, don't rock the boat and tell them what they want to hear, express yourself within the language and discourse of the institution and you'll get further. Actually intelligence in the sense of critical thought, drawing out connections, comes second to the ability to structue and articulate within the acceptable parameters, hence it measures your ability to apply your intelligence within certain boundaries rather than actual intelligence.

The people putting forward interesting ideas, your Derridas, Zizeks, Barthes and Blochs can only do so after paying their dues. I could put money on it that if I submitted an essay by Zizek or Barthes at Undergrad it would be marked poorly for not following conventions, it's failure to reference etc. 

The thing that really pissed me off is that when you wanted to make a point or an argument you had to find some twat to quote in order to back it up, but how are they doing anything different than you are by just saying it without reference. 

I'm of course talking about the humanities and social sciences, obviously matters of physics and biology are somewhat different.


----------



## munkeeunit (Aug 27, 2006)

chrisshapland said:
			
		

> or maybe you just thought outside the box but were thick as pigshit.



lol. That's kind of what I was trying to say, but as politely as possible.  

In economics there are plenty of people who claim to think 'outside the box' but only really deal in wishy washy ideas dreamt up when stoned, and which amount to absolutely nothing of substance beyond wishful thinking.

That said, there is a crushingly desperate need for people in economics who can genuinely think 'outside the box' and have their ideas tested to destruction (or not) by their peers. I hope oneday to be one of those people.

So far, so good.


----------



## revol68 (Aug 27, 2006)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> lol. That's kind of what I was trying to say, but as politely as possible.
> 
> In economics there are plenty of people who claim to think 'outside the box' but only really deal in wishy washy ideas dreamt up when stoned, and which amount to absolutely nothing of substance beyond wishful thinking.
> 
> ...



Or maybe Economics itself is just the new Alchemy, and which old Marx tore apart many moons ago.


----------



## munkeeunit (Aug 27, 2006)

revol68 said:
			
		

> Or maybe Economics itself is just the new Alchemy, and which old Marx tore apart many moons ago.



That's one of the problems. 

There's a surplus of those who read marx, but just quoting marx makes a scientific socialist out of no-one. The likes of Marx warned about relying on the ideas of dead people, as did most of the great economists.

A lot of qouting of 19th century thinkers, virtually no translation of how to achieve a genuine transformation of the economy in the present. The Socialist left is dead precisely because it has nothing new to offer. 

Bizarrely, the reading of Marx has largely become a kind of utopianism, as if all it will take is a critical mass of people to read their books in the present for a new society to emerge as if by magic.

That is exactly the mindset Marx rallied against, and is the point being missed.


----------



## revol68 (Aug 27, 2006)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> That's one of the problems.
> 
> There's a surplus of those who read marx, but just quoting marx makes a scientific socialist out of no-one. The likes of Marx warned about relying on the ideas of dead people, as did most of the great economists.
> 
> ...



Care to explain "scientific socialism"?

Marx is a critique of Political Economy, not another "radical" methodology for it.


----------



## munkeeunit (Aug 27, 2006)

revol68 said:
			
		

> Care to explain "scientific socialism"?
> 
> Marx is a critique of Political Economy, not another "radical" methodology for it.



No I really don't care to explain 'scientific socialism' at this moment in time. I am absolutely sick to my stomach and back teeth with arguments of 19th century ghosts being endlessly reheated in the present.

Oddly enough, that's the kind of argument which made 'scientific socialism' what it is, that it should be firmly rooted in a comprehension of the economy and how it truly functions, not just plain sychophancy towards dead thinkers.

There are endless heaps of people donning their favourite ghost outfit on google, and arguing out the meaning of 'scientific socialism' and the rest of it, as is they really are those people.

I prefer to step outside that dusty costume drama myself, while appreciating it's essence. Once summer is over I'll spend more time thinking 'outside' the intellectual prison that the ghostly arena of 'scientific socialism' has sadly become.


----------



## poului (Aug 27, 2006)

chrisshapland said:
			
		

> or maybe you just thought outside the box but were thick as pigshit.




Well, no, fuckface, my written modules all amounted to a comfortable first degree mark (unfortunately two large practical modules brought the average down to a high 2:1, but that's besides the point). I must say however that getting such marks were largely the result of observing as shrewdly as possible how the department's staff approached student work and what they prioritised before the crucial final year. This resulted in me having to curb significantly any original evaluation of the subject and even avoiding any considerable support of noted academics whose views opposed that of the module convenor.

I am prepared to entertain the notion that this remarkably totalitarian outlook was individual to my department but I doubt it - revol68's accounts sound depressingly familiar. What infuriated me the most was how I had to essentially limit myself so much to get any success and also how a few very intelligent and free-thinking friends of mine were virtually insulted by their feedback while all the straight-laced submissive fucks (who couldn't give any constructive criticism if their life depended on it) were the ones who came out with the top marks. Fucking no justice whatsoever.


----------



## revol68 (Aug 27, 2006)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> No I really don't care to explain 'scientific socialism' at this moment in time. I am absolutely sick to my stomach and back teeth with arguments of 19th century ghosts being endlessly reheated in the present.
> 
> Oddly enough, that's the kind of argument which made 'scientific socialism' what it is, that it should be firmly rooted in a comprehension of the economy and how it truly functions, not just plain sychophancy towards dead thinkers.
> 
> ...



clam down deary.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just not sure where you are coming from. I reject the idea of "scientific socialism", and "objective laws" of economics that flow from it. I'm wondering what you think?


----------



## netbob (Aug 27, 2006)

2 lots of 2:2's (mediocracy is my speciality  )

I maybe could have pulled off a 2:1 as an undergradiate if I hadnt 1) been pissed for a green plants exam (revising in pubs doesnt work), 2) got sidetracked by Richard Dawkins books when revising evolution.


----------



## munkeeunit (Aug 27, 2006)

revol68 said:
			
		

> clam down deary.
> 
> I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just not sure where you are coming from. I reject the idea of "scientific socialism", and "objective laws" of economics that flow from it. I'm wondering what you think?



I accept that capitalism will always come up against its own barriers. Namely (and put simply) that machinery replaces labour as the primary driving force of its advancement, and that there is a constant conflict where the cost of that machinery begins to outstrip the amount of labour time saved.

I'm also aware that the capitalist system has proved to be incredibly inventive in overcoming these barriers, through one mechanism or another, but that driving down wages, or shifting industry to low wage economies remains the primary way of getting out of each stage of crisis.

I think this is a very powerful analysis, and one which the capitalist system privately accepts, even though publicly it is loathe to admit to it. The reason why I am also highly critical of modern marxists and 'scientific socialists' is that they always mistake this analysis as a solution.

The solution to this problem is something which evades everyone, and everyone, across the political spectrum, is not willing to face up to this fundamental contradiction in modern marxist thinking, as well as the crisis within the capitalist system, and until they do, the need for new thinking (while retaining the essence of this analysis) will forever have a cap placed on it.

In this sense it is marxists and socialists who are putting up their own barriers, and stifling the necessary debate, every bit as much as the defenders of capitalism who are loathe to admit publicy to its underlying condition of permanent crisis.

Both camps need to admit to these shortcomings for new ideas to begin to emerge.


----------



## revol68 (Aug 27, 2006)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> I accept that capitalism will always come up against its own barriers. Namely (and put simply) that machinery replaces labour as the primary driving force of its advancement, and that there is a constant conflict where the cost of that machinery begins to outstrip the amount of labour time saved.
> 
> I'm also aware that the capitalist system has proved to be incredibly inventive in overcoming these barriers, through one mechanism or another, but that driving down wages, or shifting industry to low wage economies remains the primary way of getting out of each stage of crisis.
> 
> ...



I really don't see what your saying, that Modern Marxist's seen to think that the inherent contradictions in capital will just lead to a "solution"? If so i think that might be the case for some marxist leninists, but Marx's own thought and the thought of people like Pannekeok, Cleaver and Socialisme ou Barbarism goes way beyond this. Infact italian Operismo marxists have put forward analysis that see's this fundamental crisis in capital as it's driving force, that it's struggle to contain "labour"  is the unbalance that allows it to remain  dynamic. For example Fordism as a response to working class pressure on wages, that allowed capital to temporarily link such demands to increasing productivity, but the working class went beyond this and began to make demands that ruptured this link.

But I'm intrigued that you think it's a matter of "admitting" shortcomings for new ideas to emerge. I don't think it's a matter of new ideas, I think it's a matter of  struggle  and that there can be no solution until the working class seizing the means of production, circulation etc etc and putting them under their own control. I have no desire to see another Keynesian patch on an essentially parisitical and exploitative system, nor do I want state capitalism and "command economies", I wish to see the destruction of the commodity form, and the development of new organs and networks that alllows production for need and desire rather than for the self perpeuating vampire that is "capital".


----------



## munkeeunit (Aug 27, 2006)

Well, yes, I agree with what you are saying, but I don't see a single marxist, socialist or anarcist anywhere who I think has the necessary skills to even begin this transformation.

What you have outlined is a jump from point a to point b, and nowhere it seems is there anything of substance to adequately fill the gap from getting from one position to another, beyond the black hole of taking the leap into the dark.

We've leapt into the dark before (many times before even) and the collapse of the left is inherently bound up with it's own failure to manage an economy, whether it be a capitalist, socialist, communist, or even anarchist one.

The only consolation seems to be that these societies have been prevented from emerging by invasion, sanctions, or by the likes of Thatcher, which has some relevance, but is, at root, and avoidance of own shortcomings in bringing an alternative society into birth.


----------



## revol68 (Aug 27, 2006)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> Well, yes, I agree with what you are saying, but I don't see a single marxist or socialist anywhere who I think has the necessary skills to even begin this transformation.
> 
> What you have outlined is a jump from point a to point b, and nowhere it seems is there anything of substance to adequately fill the gap from getting from one position to another, beyond the black hole of taking the leap into the dark.
> 
> ...




See I still think your missing the fundamental point, it''s not a matter of some Marxist coming forward with the "best idea". It;s not about finding some neo or jedi to bring balance to the force. It's about the complex interactions of millions and millions of people, their struggles and them beginning to take thme into their own hands.

It;s not about "managing an economy", infact this has been the problem for the left, the belief it can "manage" an economy. The whole point is to destroy the "economy", not in a mad Max sense, but rather in the sense that the economy stops being an independent "sphere", and becomes a central part in "social life". Infact it is becoming increasinly clear that the "economy" as a "formal" category is inadequate for understanding behaviour or even "economics", that it excludes fundamental apsects for the reproduction of the production eg house work, child care and culture.

There is no definable "point of production", no territorilised production of "surplus value". The office cleaner is as intregal to the production of "surplus value" as the worker on the production line, the railway worker or postman is  intregal in the valorisation of capital, it can no longer be understood in terms of this or that company or even this or that "economy" but rather as a "social factory".


----------



## snoogles (Aug 27, 2006)

Maddalene said:
			
		

> I'm amazed any one here takes grades of A levels or degrees as a measure of intelligence.



This, rather sadly, rings true; it seems to me that it is becoming increasingly easy to get high A level or degree grades simply by cramming. However, there are some exceptions - I've yet to meet someone with a first in Physics from Cambridge who is anything less than immensely intelligent!




			
				munkeeunit said:
			
		

> I think 2:2 is still a respectable degree. Considering that it's 50% + and you rarely get over 80% even though it's theoretically out of 100%



86% average here, was the only person in my class with a 20-hour-per-week job in my final year, too  




			
				Cheesypoof said:
			
		

> sorry for being a c**t but to any smug pleb who got a 2:1 and thinks they coulda gotten a first dont make me laugh
> 
> Lots of people can get a 2:1 you to get a 1st actually have to think outside the box, be quite brainy, you know?



To be quite frank, I could have got a first doing very little. In fact, I managed 74% average in my second year, having attended the bare minimum of practicals and almost no lectures (due to the, ahem, joys of a new relationship!). I got that mark because I borrowed someone else's notes 2 weeks before the exams and I'm very good at cramming. People with firsts aren't always swots; conversely they may not necessarily have bothered to think outside the box either. It is, sadly, entirely possible to get a first from a good uni without having had much serious mental engagement with the subject at all. Similarly, someone with a slightly lower propensity for cramming could have got a 2:1 by putting in a similarly limited effort, though with more effort they might still have been quite capable of getting a first. Not that either of those situations are ideal...

Getting 86% required hard work, lecture attendance, some spark of creativity and pulling all the stops out for assignments/project work. Both marks would have been a first though.




			
				Cheesypoof said:
			
		

> I was also assured that before they gave me the first, they sent my paper to *Oxford, UCD's sister uni* for marking - to have it checked by a professor there to get a second opinion.



As far as I'm aware, Oxford is not even remotely a sister university to UCD    (take a look at the average attainment on entry to each to see why)




			
				H.Dot said:
			
		

> I wish there was an option for those of us with professional qualifications which take just as long as degrees... </feels really thick compared to you lot>



Yes, agree with you, there are plenty of professional exams (accounting qualifications spring to mind, though I'm sure there are others) which require a similar level of effort and skill to a degree.


----------



## munkeeunit (Aug 27, 2006)

revol68 said:
			
		

> See I still think your missing the fundamental point, it''s not a matter of some Marxist coming forward with the "best idea". It;s not about finding some neo or jedi to bring balance to the force. It's about the complex interactions of millions and millions of people, their struggles and them beginning to take thme into their own hands.
> 
> It;s not about "managing an economy", infact this has been the problem for the left, the belief it can "manage" an economy. The whole point is to destroy the "economy", not in a mad Max sense, but rather in the sense that the economy stops being an independent "sphere", and becomes a central part in "social life". Infact it is becoming increasinly clear that the "economy" as a "formal" category is inadequate for understanding behaviour or even "economics", that it excludes fundamental apsects for the reproduction of the production eg house work, child care and culture.
> 
> There is no definable "point of production", no territorilised production of "surplus value". The office cleaner is as intregal to the production of "surplus value" as the worker on the production line, the railway worker or postman is  intregal in the valorisation of capital, it can no longer be understood in terms of this or that company or even this or that "economy" but rather as a "social factory".




Sorry, but this is still fundamentally cut and paste rhetoric as a substitute for navigating a society towards a better place. This is a fundamental blind spot suffered by everyone. These are quality pointers you are giving, but they are not in substance a means by which to keep 6 billion people alive, without severe risk of the global economy, and it's inhabitants spiralling out of control and into the abyss.


----------



## revol68 (Aug 27, 2006)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> Sorry, but this is still fundamentally cut and paste rhetoric as a substitute for navigating a society towards a better place. This is a fundamental blind spot suffered by everyone. These are quality pointers you are giving, but they are not in substance a means by which to keep 6 billion people alive, without severe risk of the global economy, and it's inhabitants spiralling out of control and into the abyss.



Well i think the forms of organsing production that the working class have thrown up in struggle and against capitalism are the basis. I mean no ones going to sit around ponitificating about Mattick or Keynes whilst starving, they will organise their production. No one needs some grand "economic theory" to implement, rather it is this search for the CORRECT "economic theory" that is the fundamental problem, it represents the alienation of peoples desires and needs, reified into an abstract concept. There can be no "right" economic theory, because fundamentally it's about people being able to support themselves and their desires and these desires cannot be frozen. Therefore the only correct theory is one that is reflexive, that is continously revisable.


----------



## munkeeunit (Aug 27, 2006)

There is still the undeniable fact there are now over 6 billion mouths to feed, and that this figure will keep on climbing. Capitalism, no-matter how inadequately, just about manages to feed the overwhelming majority of those 6 billion, and no-matter how miserable their existence, they will not leap into the dark of rhetorical dreaming, which is likely to lead to a mass die off of humanity.

That's the bottom line, and nothing on the left (including anarchism) even begins to offer a viable alternative to that. Your views may work on a localised level, but with half the world living in cities, detached from the landscape, you cannot wish that away. Wishing it were not the case, and assuming 6 billion people can seamlessly be fed by some magical transformation, no-matter how much you wrap it up in scientific rhetoric, is fundamentally utopianism.

I wish to escape both capitalism and the leap into the dark you are offering.

That takes a route from one point to another. Call it a master plan if you like. I prefer to call it keeping 6 billion people alive.


----------



## revol68 (Aug 27, 2006)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> There is still the undeniable fact there are now over 6 billion mouths to feed, and that this figure will keep on climbing. Capitalism, no-matter how inadequately, just about manages to feed the overwhelming majority of those 6 billion, and no-matter how miserable their existence, they will not leap into the dark of rhetorical dreaming, which is likely to lead to a mass die off of humanity.
> 
> That's the bottom line, and nothing on the left (including anarchism) even begins to offer a viable alternative to that. Your views may work on a localised level, but with half the world living in cities, detached from the landscape, you cannot wish that away. Wishing it were not the case, and assuming 6 billion people can seamlessly be fed by some magical transformation, no-matter how much you wrap it up in scientific rhetoric, is fundamentally utopianism.



What scientific rhetoric? I think my whole point is the rejection of a "scientific" approach to "economics", that it is something to be implemented, like an object, a technology, but rather is something that is produced by complex social relations.

I do not offer some "working model", that is the most idealist and niave utopianism one can engage in. All I can offer are possibilities and I take these from history, from the paris commune, the workrs councils that arose across Europe, the Soviets and Factory Committees before their suppression by the Bolsheviks, the syndicates and communes of the Spanish urban and rural proletariat in the Spanish Civil Wat, who built schools, hospitals and rationalised bread production and transport. These are not complete examples and they never could be. Just as capitalism did not come about throught the application of some  Adam Smith but rather through tensions and ambiguities within the Feudal order, and expanded out (never as a perfect conceptual system).


----------



## munkeeunit (Aug 27, 2006)

I'm not denying that those examples exist, but you'll have to do a lot better than that to convince a significant number of people to leap along with you. Expecially considering that the complex array of materials used to create communities are primarily still generated from within and by capitalism and it's global reach, connectivity, and use of materials the world over.

It may well be that the tensions within capitalism reach breaking point before the left (including anarchism) becomes a more coherent force, in which case we'll be forced to all take that leap anyway, and thankfully examples do exist, but not currently of a consistently or quality to keep 6 billion people fed, let alone the 60 million of the UK.


----------



## jasoon (Aug 28, 2006)

Got a 2.2 in a really difficult 4yr Masters vocational course with little effort.  Would have easily been a 2.1 if it was a soft, 3yr subject.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 28, 2006)

2:1 in Fine Art many years ago.


----------



## Julie (Aug 28, 2006)

2:1 for both degrees. Very happy with that


----------



## poului (Aug 28, 2006)

*e45c645eeyr*

Those of you still foolish enough to still think that the university system is an objective meritocracy should read Malcom Bradbury's splendid "The History Man" - still rings very true today.


----------



## tastebud (Aug 28, 2006)

Personally, academic success has never particularly impressed me. I don't really believe that this means that someone is overly intelligent. At least, not intelligence that ever really interests or impresses me.

Someone like Jeffrey Lewis impresses me 
Interesting people impress me.


----------



## Meltingpot (Aug 28, 2006)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> There is still the undeniable fact there are now over 6 billion mouths to feed, and that this figure will keep on climbing. Capitalism, no-matter how inadequately, just about manages to feed the overwhelming majority of those 6 billion, and no-matter how miserable their existence, they will not leap into the dark of rhetorical dreaming, which is likely to lead to a mass die off of humanity.
> 
> That's the bottom line, and nothing on the left (including anarchism) even begins to offer a viable alternative to that. Your views may work on a localised level, but with half the world living in cities, detached from the landscape, you cannot wish that away. Wishing it were not the case, and assuming 6 billion people can seamlessly be fed by some magical transformation, no-matter how much you wrap it up in scientific rhetoric, is fundamentally utopianism.
> 
> ...



True, but the problem is that a lot of the food grown gets wasted under capitalism because it's not "economical" to grow it where it's most needed or transport it long distances.


----------



## snoogles (Aug 29, 2006)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> There is still the undeniable fact there are now over 6 billion mouths to feed, and that this figure will keep on climbing.



Perhaps we should think less about how to feed the 6 billion and more about how to reduce their number. I' m with Malthus on this one.


----------



## revol68 (Aug 30, 2006)

snoogles said:
			
		

> Perhaps we should think less about how to feed the 6 billion and more about how to reduce their number. I' m with Malthus on this one.



So wrong then?

Fucking Malthusians!

You do realise we produce more than enough to feed 6 billion people. The question is not how to feed them, or even how to feed less, but rather what is stopping them eating now.


----------



## munkeeunit (Aug 30, 2006)

Meltingpot said:
			
		

> True, but the problem is that a lot of the food grown gets wasted under capitalism because it's not "economical" to grow it where it's most needed or transport it long distances.



Yes, this is one of the key faultlines within capitalist system as we know it. There's a lot of talk about 'peak oil' which I don't entirely accept. Ways will be found to eek every last drop of oil there is available, but what we are still left with is the end of cheap oil.

It's not just the 30,000 miles the components your sandwich travels which uses up the oil. The food is grown with oil (pesticides and fertilers), packaged in oil, displayed on stands made from oil, on floors made from oil, the assistants are dressed in clothes made from oil, the car you travel is not just run on oil, but increasingly made from oil...

You get the picture.

But the problem usually missed in all this, is that while the end of cheap oil also eventually means the end of cheap food (at least in terms of the price marked on the plastic packaging), the end of cheap food also spells the end of consumerism as we know it.

Back in the 50's as much as 50% or so of income was spent on food. That figure is now more like 15%, and the rest of that income has been freed up to buy the consumer goods which keeps the rest of the economy ticking over (also oil dependent on every level).

The end of cheap oil will change everything, and whether food prices are hiked through the roof by legislation in opposition to the 'logic' of capitalist economics, or by the end of cheap oil itself, the effect is still the same. 

The rest of the economy is pushed off the cliff along with it.

There is no obvious escape route, at least within the 'logic' of capitalism as we know it.




			
				snoogles said:
			
		

> Perhaps we should think less about how to feed the 6 billion and more about how to reduce their number. I' m with Malthus on this one.



And the 'logic' of an enforced population reduction would risk making the nazi experience look like a clumsily organised tea party.

'Final Solutions' are no solution either, except of the most potentially sinister variety.

Who gets to live? Who gets to die?


----------



## hatz (Aug 30, 2006)

I got a 2.1 in History from the LSE last summer. I don't think I could have got a 1st by any stretch of the imagination. I was damn pleased with my 2.1 (though completely unenamoured by the university experience as a whole) as I worked pretty hard in my 3rd year and had 2 jobs at the same time. Maybe if I'd gone to university as something other than an immature 18 year old with delusions of maturity, as well as a slightly better mental health that meant I didn't try to kill myself in the 1st and 2nd years, then things might have been a bit different. I should have perhaps put more thought into what I wanted to study instead of thinking "well, I don't like my other a-levels so I'll do history..."

Anyway, I'm glad I'm out of there, and it's got me exactly where I want to be - I start my MA in Chinese Studies in just over 3 weeks time (yay!!)

As regards getting firsts etc... I reckon it depends in part on the subject studied. For example there were lots of people studying economics who got 1sts... now maybe they were just smarter than the history students... but I think having a "right" and a "wrong" answer means it is easier to at least see what needs to be done to get a 1st, rather than a more abstract target as in an arts/soc sci subject. Perhaps that is me making excuses, but that's how it seems. In my department, there were 3, maybe 4 people who got a 1st. 2 of these weren't particularly "clever" if you were just to talk to them. One in particular had just done the reading and had the right quotes at his fingertips (though there must have been more to it than that, clearly, if they got a 1st overall). One person that does stand out who got a first was very clever AND worked very hard. In fact, he was one of the most determined people I've ever met, scarily so.

Oh, and as for going to uni with 2 E's at a-level... One of my offers when I was applying was EE. I think it's because they can't give unconditional offers before you have sat your a-levels. It certainly wasn't a normal offer for that uni anyway (I think the dude who interviewed me liked me!!).

I've just rambled pointlessly. Feel free to ignore.


----------



## munkeeunit (Aug 30, 2006)

hatz said:
			
		

> As regards getting firsts etc... I reckon it depends in part on the subject studied. For example there were lots of people studying economics who got 1sts... now maybe they were just smarter than the history students... but I think having a "right" and a "wrong" answer means it is easier to at least see what needs to be done to get a 1st, rather than a more abstract target as in an arts/soc sci subject.



Yes, I have to agree with this completely. Most people who study economics I wouldn't even call them economists. They are merely trained to manage the economy as it is, not as it will be as it begins to pull apart at the seams.


----------



## Culdee (Aug 30, 2006)

Another annoying First type here, Russian Studies. Actually, thinking about it very annoying - I didn't shade down the social life at all, only attended 50% of the time, wrote essays the night before in a fug of weed smoke just putting down any old bollocks that would come into my head. I have to say I didn't find it particularly difficult at all - did maybe one month of what could be termed 'hard work' in 4 years. Bah, those were the days.


----------



## dolly's gal (Aug 30, 2006)

^^^

you must just be weeealy weeealy clever then!


----------



## Culdee (Aug 30, 2006)

Nah, just smug I think. Lot of good it's done me though.


----------



## snoogles (Aug 31, 2006)

revol68 said:
			
		

> You do realise we produce more than enough to feed 6 billion people. The question is not how to feed them, or even how to feed less, but rather what is stopping them eating now.



My main concern r.e. population isn't really anything to do with feeding people (I'm fully aware that we are more than capable of producing enough food to feed everyone on the planet). It's basically that the more people there are, the more energy is required (currently coming from fossil fuels) and the greater the environmental impact. We're killing our planet, with potentially devastating results for us. Perhaps if there were fewer of us, our long-term existence would be more feasible... 

Admittedly, that wasn't really the topic under discussion  




			
				munkeeunit said:
			
		

> And the 'logic' of an enforced population reduction would risk making the nazi experience look like a clumsily organised tea party.
> 
> 'Final Solutions' are no solution either, except of the most potentially sinister variety.
> 
> Who gets to live? Who gets to die?



I never said there should be an enforced population reduction! 

Doing things like improving womens' rights and levels of education in developing countries does a lot to lower birth rates. The birth rate in a lot of developed countries is below replacement level; this is hardly enforced! Ideally, we would improve living conditions for everyone and the birth rate would drop as a consequence (no need to have umpteen children if they are not needed to work farmland or to act as your pension), although the death rate would also drop, a net population decrease would probably occur. Not many women *want* large families...

On a bit of a side note, in principle I don't really have a problem with China's one-child policy (aimed at population reduction) and neither does the international community; I think the consensus was that we have a right to reproduce, but not necessarily the right to have absolute control over the number of children we have.




			
				hatz said:
			
		

> As regards getting firsts etc... I reckon it depends in part on the subject studied. For example there were lots of people studying economics who got 1sts... now maybe they were just smarter than the history students... but I think having a "right" and a "wrong" answer means it is easier to at least see what needs to be done to get a 1st, rather than a more abstract target as in an arts/soc sci subject.



You're probably right. I chose a science subject in part because it was relatively easy to get high marks; if you got a question right, they had to give you 100%, whereas other people could write really good essays but have their lecturer wave his hand around and go "hmm, nice essay, that's 65%". Just seemed a bit too subjective.


----------



## Relahni (Sep 1, 2006)

Another smug Geoff Hirst.

Turned up to dick all seminars - the one I did was a joke.  Too many people talking shite, a lecturer that hid behind his newspaper.  

Plus I was too shy for seminars.

Reading books is best.


----------



## oryx (Sep 1, 2006)

I'm amazed & impressed by the number of people in the poll who got a first or 2:1. I thought a 2:2 was the norm. That was what I got. Until I looked on here, my mum and a few mature students I was at college with were the only people I knew to get firsts! 

Never mind being disapointed, when I got my results I was over the moon to get the old 'Desmond' (Tutu!). I spent my first and third year fucking about drinking and, in the third year, going to London & to parties & doing speed (E wasn't known then & coke was the expensive drug of rock stars   ). 

Second year I was going out with a mate of guineveretoo  who was bright, political, sound & kept me on the straight & narrow (apart from the ale) & I got very good marks.

I find this all anecdotal for me. In the job I work in (housing) it is far more important that you have a good strategic/administrative/people-orientated flair than a first in some academic subject. I do find the writing discipline useful for reports, letters etc. Though my sister left school at 16 and her standard of English is massively superior to many I know with degrees. Having an English teacher for a mother, who went through all your homework with a red pen before the teachers saw it may have helped, though.


----------



## liberty (Sep 6, 2006)

2.1 Photography


----------



## tom_craggs (Sep 6, 2006)

Vixen said:
			
		

> Personally, academic success has never particularly impressed me. I don't really believe that this means that someone is overly intelligent. At least, not intelligence that ever really interests or impresses me.
> 
> Someone like Jeffrey Lewis impresses me
> Interesting people impress me.



Its true, academic success has no relationship to a persons overall intelligence. Most of my mates didn't go to University and they certainly are as intelligent as anyone I went to University with. 

I guess it can means a perosanl is academically intelligent but this is not the same thing. Having said that there are plenty of interesting people who achiece academic success, likewise there are plently of boring people who achieve acadmic success, not really sure what my point is...I'll shut up.


----------



## snoogles (Sep 6, 2006)

tom_craggs said:
			
		

> Its true, academic success has no relationship to a persons overall intelligence.



I'd have to disagree with that. High IQ scores are well known to be an excellent predictor of academic success. Whether intelligent people necessarily have any common sense, though, is another matter  

*goes off to hunt for reference*


edit: spelling


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 6, 2006)

Logic isn't a strong point on here sometimes.

It doesn't mean that your thick if you haven't got a first, but you're more likely to be clever if you do.


----------



## tastebud (Sep 6, 2006)

snoogles said:
			
		

> I'd have to disagree with that. High IQ scores are well known to be an excellent predictor of academic success. Whether intelligent people necessarily have any common sense, though, is another matter
> 
> *goes off to hunt for reference*
> 
> ...


Perhaps but I just know that I've met a lot of dull academic types. They get good grades yeah, but often bore me to tears personality wise.

But then it does take quite a lot to impress me!


----------



## tom_craggs (Sep 7, 2006)

Vixen said:
			
		

> Perhaps but I just know that I've met a lot of dull academic types. They get good grades yeah, but often bore me to tears personality wise.
> 
> But then it does take quite a lot to impress me!



I think this may be a generalisation though...sadly the world is full of dull people...academic or otherwise...


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Sep 7, 2006)

I got a 2:2 in French and Politics from Leicester Uni.  Thing is, I didn't doss _that_ much.  I know people who dossed way more and got 2:1s... So I must just be thick 

If I had got a 2:1, I may not be doing TEFL in China now.  Then again I wouldn't have met Mrs RD, and hence wouldn't have RD Jr.


----------



## 118118 (Sep 7, 2006)

fractionMan said:
			
		

> Logic isn't a strong point on here sometimes.
> 
> It doesn't mean that your thick if you haven't got a first, but you're more likely to be clever if you do.


I see that reifying 'intelligence' _is_ something that is done on here (something that psychologists are taught not to do)  

(if you had said you're more likely to get a first if you are clever, that would be fine, but IQ is just a abstract concept - it is just a tool to predict success - anything else is a reifictaion, I think)


----------



## 118118 (Sep 7, 2006)

Its also a incredibly good predictor of how much you will earn  (more than it is for academic grades/academic grades are, iirc).

Fail to a 2.2, for me


----------



## treelover (Dec 9, 2006)

mature student: 2.1 social/cultural studies, very disappointed in uni really, was expecting heated arguments/clashes on ideas, all night meanderings on philosophy, etc,  nah, didn't happen, most students seeing their degree instrumentally and many of the lecturers politically spineless. I often wonder if european uni's were different.



Btw, have to disagree with that somewhat, what about many mature students , some will have laterlly developed the skill to write such work or have it naturally, but for many it was in the later semesters they would shine




> (BTW you also need to be bright. You need to be intelligent. A couple of my lecturers (quietly) admitted early on that they can almost immediately tell the difference between a bright student and perhaps a less bright student when they first read a first year essay. Clarity of expression, succinctness, creative and intelligent use of the English language go along way - you can get Firsts this way regardless of how imaginative your ideas are - for essays anyway).


----------



## treelover (Dec 9, 2006)

As has been said on here many times, a very right wing tool at that, look at charles murray and the bell curve.




> (if you had said you're more likely to get a first if you are clever, that would be fine, but IQ is just a abstract concept - it is just a tool to predict success - anything else is a reifictaion, I think)


----------



## weepiper (Dec 9, 2006)

I got a First in English and Celtic, at Edinburgh 

I pissed about in 1st and 2nd years (the subject wasn't really inspiring me at that point) and worked my arse off in 3rd and 4th years as I was much more interested in it by then and actually wanted to do the reading. I chose to do an extra exam instead of a dissertation so I could take an extra subject.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 9, 2006)

fuck all uni's for the middle classes...


----------



## Belushi (Dec 9, 2006)

2.1 in Politics.


----------



## Red Horse (Dec 16, 2006)

A tutu in South-East Asian studies... i challenge anyone to top that for useless degrees


----------



## 118118 (Dec 18, 2006)

Treelover: maybe its like, if you load the dice then your more likely to role a 7. So therefore if you role a 7 your more likely to have loaded the dice 

Thats probably not right, but who cares: you are right that it is instrument that shouldn't be used. Science is not value free! *Ahem*


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 20, 2011)

Cheesypoof said:


> sorry for being a c**t but to any smug pleb who got a 2:1 and thinks they coulda gotten a first dont make me laugh
> 
> *for most degreees you cant get a first in your degree just by working hard.*
> 
> ...


what did you find in the veterinary section of the library which helped with your brand new theory?

incidentally, given your claim about the proportion of people getting 2:1s and 1s the results of the poll - though not perhaps statistically significant - are suggestive.


----------



## FiFi (Aug 22, 2011)

My degree is a 2:1 in Public Health Practice(Hons)/SCPHN (HV) from Southampton
I finally received it after nearly 20yrs slogging my guts out gaining the required 120 credits to be accepted onto the course. This had to be done 1 course at a time while working fulltime

They don't give out degrees in Nursing easily! 

And the "could have got a 1st if I'd worked harder" idea is Bobbins! I was headed for a 2:2 at one point in the year, but worked my socks off to get the 2:1.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 22, 2011)

I voted "First Class Squire"


----------



## 8115 (Aug 22, 2011)

I got a first, like every other fucker in my year.


----------



## stuff_it (Aug 23, 2011)

I don't think I'll be getting a first, but I keep nearly getting the marks for one so I suspect I'm looking at a solid 2:1 eventually.


----------



## mrs quoad (Aug 25, 2011)

*oop, didn't mean to post that


----------



## weltweit (Aug 25, 2011)

I am annoyed with myself that I did not get a first. I put it down to not realising that the first year counted towards the final assesment and not doing enough in that year.

I could have got a first.

Could have been a contender


----------



## sim667 (Aug 30, 2011)

2.1 in photography.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 30, 2011)

Cheesypoof said:
			
		

> sorry for being a c**t but to any smug pleb who got a 2:1 and thinks they coulda gotten a first dont make me laugh
> 
> *for most degreees you cant get a first in your degree just by working hard.*
> 
> Lots of people can get a 2:1 you to get a 1st actually have to think outside the box, be quite brainy, you know?



Well I got a 2:1 and think I could have got a first. I let myself down in a couple of subjects through not applying myself sufficiently in the first year. But it seems my dissertation was well received and my work in years 2 and 3 was top notch.


----------



## JimW (Aug 30, 2011)

First in Chinese classical and modern with Tibetan. As a mature student, anything less would have been a bit rubbish.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Aug 31, 2011)

Middle-class tossers


----------



## Lea (Sep 1, 2011)

JimW said:


> First in Chinese classical and modern with Tibetan. As a mature student, anything less would have been a bit rubbish.



Wow sounds impressive. And 2 very different languages as well. Are you fluent in both?

Got a 2:2 in Law with French. Didn't do well with the law subjects but the french helped to bring up the grade.


----------



## DownwardDog (Sep 2, 2011)

1st in Aeronautical Engineering. Never worked as hard before or since.


----------



## purves grundy (Sep 2, 2011)

1st in Philosophy. It was completely strategic - I doubt I've had an original philosophical thought ever, except perhaps on mushrooms.


----------



## JimW (Sep 2, 2011)

Lea said:


> Wow sounds impressive. And 2 very different languages as well. Are you fluent in both?
> 
> Got a 2:2 in Law with French. Didn't do well with the law subjects but the french helped to bring up the grade.


Missed your question lea - forgotten almost all the Tibetan sadly as never used it in anger bar reading the odd name, but I work using the Chinese now as a translator.


----------



## Hellsbells (Sep 5, 2011)

I got a 2.1, which i was very pleased with. Not that anyone in the last 10 years has EVER asked me.  I always thought you had to be incredibely brainy & hard working to get a First. I was neither when I was at uni!
Same with getting an A for GCSEs or A levels (A*'s never existed when i was at school).


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Sep 6, 2011)

2:1 in Info systems.    Worked hard in the last year but ended up losing interest in one or two modules.


----------



## Riklet (Sep 8, 2011)

Just graduated with a 2:1 in social philosophy & sociology, which is all well n good really... I got about 67% average overall between the two subjects, n was pleased etc.  It would have been nice to get a first, but I didn't really perform well enough in my second year overall -- sociology was stacked 50:50 between 2nd and 3rd year, so to get a first would have taken some high first results consistently throughout my final year.

Really enjoyed my ('_devalued arts 2:1_') degree n don't feel ready to forget things from it, and stop learning tbh! I have done well enough that getting a (full) scholarship for a combined masters/PHD is actually a possibility, as long as I have a good proposal worked out.  Which I currently don't, and really should get working on...


----------



## october_lost (Sep 8, 2011)

I fluffed the opportunity I had and looking back I probably should have put in for EC's. The final disertation I handed in was the worse piece of work I handed in, in the whole four years at Uni. So I am not particularly proud of getting 2:2 having bombed out in the last year.


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 9, 2011)

1st Informal Education.
What a fucking joke that course was


----------



## Kate Hillier (Mar 22, 2012)

I got a 2:1 with Honours my parents were told that had I had self discipline I would've got a First.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 23, 2012)

Kate Hillier said:


> I got a 2:1 with Honours my parents were told that had I had self discipline I would've got a First.


Who told your parents that?


----------



## dessiato (Mar 23, 2012)

My first time I studied Chemistry, the skills I learned from this I applied to my Business (Marketing) course when I was studying as a mature student. By applying my time management skills to my studies I was, without any real effort, able to improve my grades significantly. As a result I coasted through compared to others, and out performed them. But it was easy to be organised and work effectively which seemed to be a skill lacking in my younger colleagues. Perhaps this is a basic skill that should be taught to all students.


----------



## Kidda (Mar 26, 2012)

I got a 2.1 in Youth and Community work, a degree i use everyday. 

I drank loads, partied hard, missed loads of lectures due to hangovers/still being up, did all my assignments the night before the deadline after scrambling around that day to get relevant books and wrote my dissertation in the pub. 

I fucking loved uni.


----------



## butcher (Mar 26, 2012)

BSc (hons) Plant Biotech 1st, MSc. Plant Genetics (Cantab).

Enjoyed it but don't use it now.


----------



## Mephitic (Mar 26, 2012)

cse grade 4 in home economics.   (this thread is a bit of a wankfest)


----------



## friedaweed (Mar 26, 2012)

Jedi in youthwork. I'm not their father


----------



## OneStrike (Mar 26, 2012)

I got a 2.2 in economics and business law.  It would have been a high level 2.1 had i not been so wasted in the final year.  I missed most lectures and stuff for all 3 but in the final year i lost jobs that i forgot i had, so remembering the dates of deadlines and exams was beyond me!  Good times though


----------



## butcher (Mar 27, 2012)

Mephitic said:


> cse grade 4 in home economics. (this thread is a bit of a wankfest)


 
I do have a CSE grade 5 in Woodwork, only just scraped it tho'.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 27, 2012)

butcher said:


> I do have a CSE grade 5 in Woodwork, only just scraped it tho'.


If you hadn't scraped it you might have got a higher grade.


----------



## Meltingpot (Mar 27, 2012)

I may have answered this before. I got a 2/2 in combined science (2/2 in psychology, 3rd in pure maths), and worked damned hard for it (in my final year at least). No "wankfest" on my part.


----------



## elfman (Mar 27, 2012)

1st class but only because the other bad students made me look better than I actually was.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 27, 2012)

Mephitic said:


> cse grade 4 in home economics. (this thread is a bit of a wankfest)


Does that mean you cook as badly as I type?


----------



## jusali (Mar 29, 2012)

I got a dessie in 3D Design


----------

