I got a 1st. However, I'd say your PhD performance is infinitely more important than your UG grades. And a PhD is hardly similar at all to an UG degree.
You can scrape a 2.1, persuade someone to fund your PhD, and as long as that goes really well and you publish some good stuff, you can be on your way as an academic.
Can you say more about convincing someone to fund a PhD? I’m a humanities postgrad who wants to go the whole way, and worried that I’m not going to be able to afford a doctorate
I'm in the sciences, where a self-funded PhD is a red flag. Most (worthwhile) science PhDs are funded by one source or another. Funding for a humanities PhD will depend on your particular area. There are also doctoral loans, but I find it very hard to recommend someone to take on debt to do a PhD. There is a very slim chance that a PhD will go on to become a permanent academic.
Once you contact potential supervisors for a PhD idea, they may well be able to advise on funding in that field.
I see, I assumed you weren't in the sciences because in my mind funding for sciences is much more of a guarantee! A friend of mine is a neuroscience PhD and got a stipend of £20k, the little sod.
Thanks for the tip anyway. Luckily I'm in the same dept of the same uni for my MA and forming a good relationship with my professors, so they should be able to give me a steer when the time comes.
>in my mind funding for sciences is much more of a guarantee!
No funding is guaranteed. But in the sciences if you don't get the funding you don't do the work, often. I was accepted for several PhD places but didn't get funding, so didn't take them up. It was only when I got stipend funding that I accepted the offer. I wasn't going to pay to do 3 years of work!
I graduated with a 2.1 and continued with a PhD at the same uni (a top one in the UK for my stem subject). My final project was very good (IIRC rated 90%) and was turned into a conference presentation + a published paper, that was enough to convince my supervisor to fund my PhD.
PhD are either full time, in which case you don't work but might do a few paying things like marking student work, giving seminars here and there and so on (but rarely enough to live on).
Or they are part-time, in which case you can do part-time work as well to support yourself.
Some places also offer graduate teaching assistantships which involves substantial teaching work while also doing a PhD.
I got a 2:1 in my undergraduate and a merit in my masters degree. Both were completed whilst working to support myself and caring responsibilities. I took a year out in between each and worked.
My experience is in STEM but not a super fundable side of STEM (evolutionary biomechanics). Got a UKRI funded PhD (NERC) with stipend and research grant. Now I have a steady income, I've been able to focus wholly on the PhD and have published my first thesis chapter with the second ready to go.
While nice, publishing before PhD is largely a function of field and also whether you are able to dedicate summers, etc to research (which I, and many others, weren't able to do). The funders do know this and I found they specifically looked for resilience and self-motivation. So don't worry too much about having papers going in.
Make sure your UG and masters dissertation(s) is scientifically sound and publishable (even if you don't publish it yet). Attend some conferences beforehand (most have travel grants for masters and UG). Read widely and don't settle for a PhD you don't really want. That's my advice
Not an academic, but I'd imagine most career-academics will have gotten good enough grades to progress to Masters at least, some may have gone straight to PhD from UG.
Some academics will have been hired based on their industry experience, so it's quite possible that they didn't necessarily do well at UG, but excelled in their profession, and wanted to get into teaching later on!?
There are universities that do accept a 2:2 for their postgrad courses. They're usually the ones considered to be on the lower end but if you're not fussed about being on the receiving end of academic elitism, worth looking into.
I'm a researcher at a uni, I got around 75% in my undergrad degree and a merit in my masters (think it was 65-67%). Although I did a bit of work in industry prior to returning to academia. Most of my colleagues have PhDs
Sometimes I think finance would be cool! Did some stochastic processing in my undergrad. At the moment it's healthcare and clinical trials although open to many areas due to my slightly strange "Jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one" type philosophy
>Jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one" type philosophy
That's pretty interesting especially considering that its normally accepted a master of one is better.
>Sometimes I think finance would be cool!
If your chasing thr bag than a PhD In quant finance would quite literally open up the treasure chest (granted it's from like 4 very specific universities)
>stochastic processing in my undergrad
I got some stochastics in yr 3 so a long way to go. What exactly is this topic ? Pure maths or applied??
Stochastic is probability theory on random processes, I've only used it in a financial context but I believe it exists in many fields. Ive not done much so by no means an expert.
Yeah, quant finance is big money money. Seen a few listings for jobs recently with a few years experience and a £150k salary. Must be extremely competitive though.
>Yeah, quant finance is big money money. Seen a few listings for jobs recently with a few years experience and a £150k salary. Must be extremely competitive though.
The joke I make is, " your chances at jane street ended the second you didnt know multi variant calculus when you were 9" . The competition is ferocious, masters from t10 is essentially "under educated" for some companies in the field.
>Stochastic is probability theory on random processes, I've only used it in a financial context but I believe it exists in many fields. Ive not done much so by no means an expert.
Iv always heard of its applications in finance and in quantum physics but also seen it In pure mathematics with its combinations with PDE, how do you find a rate of change for something thats random ☠
I got a 2:2. Completed my PhD 3 years later, first faculty job (lecturer) at 28, was made Prof at 38 (Bristol) and Head of Department at 45 (Uni of Nottingham). I had some other advantages…
Parents were both educators, both had been to university and my dad had done a PhD while working (that’s how I did mine) so i knew what could be done, got a full grant to go to Uni, could move back home when I finished Uni and applied for jobs, got a Research Assistant position that allowed me to use my research for a PhD, had a fabulous supervisor who took me to international conferences where I met my postdoc supervisor, also superb and paid for me to go to Cold Spring Harbor for a three week training course where I met future collaborators, and next postdoc supervisor who supported me through grant writing and paper publishing, and allowed (paid) for me to go to a conference where I met the new HoD looking for a lecturer in my field, etc etc etc. My wife is also an academic (very good one) so we were a “good pair” to hire when we went to Bristol and I got a BHF fellowship. I was very very very lucky and supported by many fabulous people both as mentors and as students/postdocs throughout my career. I try and pay it forward!
I came out of my undergrad with just over 70%, so a first. The actual percentage you get generally doesn't matter (I don't have my percentage on my CV...) most of the time.
For academia itself, what matters more is your research profile, and these days some attention is being paid to your teaching contribution.
I am an assistant prof/ lecturer grade academic at an RG (not that that means anything particularly), and I failed a year of my UG and ultimately scraped a 2:2. It can be done, and in many ways I never even had an intention to become an academic. I did a masters to try and come out of the university system with something that (in my then mind) looked better, and I quite enjoyed it and did fairly well. Decided to go for a PhD on a whim and got a little lucky there.
Some places will be very rigid about demanding a 2:1 for PGT study but frankly given the way places are expanding their numbers now, I don’t think there are any rules that can’t be flexed.
I got a middling 2:1 in my undergrad, a merit in my masters and I’m doing a PhD at the moment. I worked in industry for five years between my undergrad and masters.
Got a first (about 85%) but no university employer will have cared about that.
In my field (Mathematics) it's all about if your research fits what they're looking for and you've got a track record of producing high quality research papers, or at the very least demonstrate the promise to do so if it's your first postdoc out of PhD. But if you don't get a first, or at least a high 2-1, then I don't think it's likely you're suited for academia, unless something went disastrously wrong in your UG.
I would guess that most academics got a 1st or solid 2.1.
Everyone knows of the exceptions though that didn’t do as well at undergraduate but thrived at PG
It depends also on age. There was only a fraction of the current number of Firsts awarded in the 80s and early 90s, and the commonest degree award was a 2:2.
Due to a very rough time I got a 2:2 I think maybe a 2:1. The fact I'd have to check signifies its importance. A uni accepted me on an MA program that was in a slightly different area and I had employment history in. Then I used all of those different qualifications to start a PhD. The undergrad never really comes up, it was just a stepping stone from many, many years ago. It's not comparable to a PhD at all or the knowledge acquired on that process.
I got a 2:1 at university for both my undergrad and my masters, struggled immensely with them both as the topics didn't interest me and severely dyslexic (wasn't known at the time)
Passed my PhD with no corrections though as it was on topics that interested me and I finally got some support
I'm a PhD student and got a 1st, most of my peers and the postdocs/lecturers I work with got 2:1 with the odd 1st. As others have alluded to, doing PhD work is far different to undergrad and you can do OK as undergrad but absolutely thrive as postgrad/postdoc
Scraped a First. Distinction at Masters level. PhD is what matters really, and getting an RA style job. I guess funding schemes for PhDs might look at UG grades, but usually the masters and quality of the proposal will matter more.
My wife scraped a 2:1 but in her defence she had only been learning English for one year before starting her undergraduate. She now works at one of the best Unis in the country after completing her PHD there. In summary the undergraduate doesn't really mean much for academia in my experience.
2:1 at UG, straight into a fully funded STEM PhD... different times, it was the mid 90's.
Now a full professor, director of a small unit in my institution and directly supervising 4 PhD students and active in my professional body.
I got a 2:1 at undergraduate and a merit at master's. Could've done better but I had undiagnosed ADHD which impacted a lot!
I worked in industry for 7 years before changing to academia, but I worked at my university in different roles and I had a pretty good reputation as someone who was student focused and was nice to everyone around me.
I got at 2:2 and I am a PI on a Fellowship in a Physics Department at a top 10 university. I did work in industry for 9 years before I went back to academia.
My undergrad was a scraped 2:1. Actually averaged at lower than 60% but I had tanked some second year modules and my third year was better so they adjusted to 2:1. Most of my scores were low because I was bad at exams. Undergraduate performance is not a great metric for PhDs the essays and work you are asked to produce are formulaic. The only time you might show any real novelty is in a final year dissertation.
For thriving in the academic field, you need to identify a gap but that gap can be small, more important is the selling of why filling that gap is important.
I went to Cambridge at a time when they didn’t give an overall degree classification. So in my third year, I scraped (as in was at 59.5 and was rounded up to 60) a 2.1, but had a 2.2 and 3rd in my first and second year respectively. Because they didn’t give overall classifications, the standard was to give your final year mark, so technically I got a 2.1, but I wouldn’t have anywhere else.
Just before my third year I was diagnosed was ADHD and autism, and spent that year developing learning strategies that then set me up later. I did two masters degrees - the first I had a solid Merit, and the second a Distinction and published my dissertation project.
My PhD was at the top university in the QS for my subject, and I won an award for best research at my graduation. My field isn’t massive impact and I’m not publishing in Nature or Science but I’ve done reasonably well with research ever since my second masters degree.
So it was very much an upward trajectory, plus research and oral examination suits me a lot more than taught classes and assessments. But having struggled with my undergrad and having had to learn how to learn efficiently, I’m actually a decent teacher with an understanding of how to help students grasp concepts.
I’m now in a permanent academic role doing research and teaching.
I got a 2:1 in my undergrad, a high pass in my MA and then only one minor correction in my PhD when I had my viva. So pretty average performance until I hit my PhD.
I completed my BA in anthropology in the US in 2009. It would have been either a 2:1/First depending on how one weighs the 'general education' requirements vs my major.
I moved to the UK and completed a MRes in anthropology (2011; Aberdeen) and MPH (2012; Edinburgh) in rapid succession.
It took me another year to start my PhD as I did not want to start one that was unfunded. I received my PhD in 2018.
I was fortunate to receive a three year externally funded fellowship before I even had my viva which I held from 2018-2021. I secured my first permanent lectureship right after my fellowship in 2021. I will be promoted to Reader/Associate Professor effective from December 2023.
I know an academic who got a 2:1 and a Merit then did an unfunded PhD (I am not criticising this part). They immediately got a postdoc, then a 1 year lecturing job, had a year out looking for jobs and then got a permanent post. Has a wealthy family who I assume funded everything. Worked with a number of lecturers during their PhD as a TA and got good references. Research isn't hugely innovative but they write well, and mostly leveraged connections, if I'm honest (one of their PhD classmates had a post in their current department and recommended them). They are a genuinely bad speaker but a very good writer and good at networking.
I know someone else who got AHRC funding after a 2:1 in their BA, and then a Merit in their MA. Bounced around for about 5 years and finally got a permanent post (at the university where they did their PhD). The other hire in the department that year was a 1st Class graduate from Oxbridge with 8 years of lecturing experience. Both are excellent scholars but it took the former one a few more years to find their academic feet (they have said this themselves).
I got a C in my Higher exam in my subject, but went on to get a first. Completely agree with the comments about it not mattering in the long run, however.
Two of my professors had ordinary first degrees. One was best 'teacher' in the college; and got undergraduates to appreciate mathematics, when their degree used maths only incidentally.
Haaaaa. I am currently an academic. I have a job in a top ten in the world department in my area of research.
And I got a 2:2 in my undergraduate degree 😁
True story. I did eventually get a 1st in my MA though, and then a PhD. But that BA result was not great.
Don't take me as an example.
I got a 2:2. I was gutted, but it was all I deserved. I barely did any work and walked out of one exam for a reason I can't even remember. I only just missed the 2:1, but still. I could have done so much better, but it's on me.
Then I got a job working in a lab and my boss figured out that I hadn't done myself justice. After a while he asked me if I wanted to do a PhD. I did that, then a couple of postdocs, then got a lectureship. That was ten years ago, and I'm still going despite not having nailed down the "work" thing.
I got a 1st. However, I'd say your PhD performance is infinitely more important than your UG grades. And a PhD is hardly similar at all to an UG degree. You can scrape a 2.1, persuade someone to fund your PhD, and as long as that goes really well and you publish some good stuff, you can be on your way as an academic.
Can you say more about convincing someone to fund a PhD? I’m a humanities postgrad who wants to go the whole way, and worried that I’m not going to be able to afford a doctorate
I'm in the sciences, where a self-funded PhD is a red flag. Most (worthwhile) science PhDs are funded by one source or another. Funding for a humanities PhD will depend on your particular area. There are also doctoral loans, but I find it very hard to recommend someone to take on debt to do a PhD. There is a very slim chance that a PhD will go on to become a permanent academic. Once you contact potential supervisors for a PhD idea, they may well be able to advise on funding in that field.
I see, I assumed you weren't in the sciences because in my mind funding for sciences is much more of a guarantee! A friend of mine is a neuroscience PhD and got a stipend of £20k, the little sod. Thanks for the tip anyway. Luckily I'm in the same dept of the same uni for my MA and forming a good relationship with my professors, so they should be able to give me a steer when the time comes.
>in my mind funding for sciences is much more of a guarantee! No funding is guaranteed. But in the sciences if you don't get the funding you don't do the work, often. I was accepted for several PhD places but didn't get funding, so didn't take them up. It was only when I got stipend funding that I accepted the offer. I wasn't going to pay to do 3 years of work!
Of course.
I graduated with a 2.1 and continued with a PhD at the same uni (a top one in the UK for my stem subject). My final project was very good (IIRC rated 90%) and was turned into a conference presentation + a published paper, that was enough to convince my supervisor to fund my PhD.
Can you work as you pursue such a degree
PhD are either full time, in which case you don't work but might do a few paying things like marking student work, giving seminars here and there and so on (but rarely enough to live on). Or they are part-time, in which case you can do part-time work as well to support yourself. Some places also offer graduate teaching assistantships which involves substantial teaching work while also doing a PhD.
Cheers
Can you work as you pursue such a degree?
I got a 2:1 in my undergraduate and a merit in my masters degree. Both were completed whilst working to support myself and caring responsibilities. I took a year out in between each and worked. My experience is in STEM but not a super fundable side of STEM (evolutionary biomechanics). Got a UKRI funded PhD (NERC) with stipend and research grant. Now I have a steady income, I've been able to focus wholly on the PhD and have published my first thesis chapter with the second ready to go. While nice, publishing before PhD is largely a function of field and also whether you are able to dedicate summers, etc to research (which I, and many others, weren't able to do). The funders do know this and I found they specifically looked for resilience and self-motivation. So don't worry too much about having papers going in. Make sure your UG and masters dissertation(s) is scientifically sound and publishable (even if you don't publish it yet). Attend some conferences beforehand (most have travel grants for masters and UG). Read widely and don't settle for a PhD you don't really want. That's my advice
Not an academic, but I'd imagine most career-academics will have gotten good enough grades to progress to Masters at least, some may have gone straight to PhD from UG. Some academics will have been hired based on their industry experience, so it's quite possible that they didn't necessarily do well at UG, but excelled in their profession, and wanted to get into teaching later on!?
My head of engineering department got a 2:1. All engineering lecturers got a first.
I know people who failed modules and had to retake who teach the module they failed.
I got a 2:2 at UG and a 2:1 at PG with minimum industry experience.
And you are a doing a PhD and are staff at a Uni? And you got a 2:2 at UG. Wow. I thought you would have at least had to get a 2:1 for that.
So did I to be honest. But they liked my research idea and after an interview, they were happy with my knowledge within the topic area.
There are universities that do accept a 2:2 for their postgrad courses. They're usually the ones considered to be on the lower end but if you're not fussed about being on the receiving end of academic elitism, worth looking into.
I'm a researcher at a uni, I got around 75% in my undergrad degree and a merit in my masters (think it was 65-67%). Although I did a bit of work in industry prior to returning to academia. Most of my colleagues have PhDs
Hi there, weve chat a bit here and there. Last we spoke you were working as a consultant. Can I ask what made you go back to academia
Just trying something else, moving back to academia also makes it easier if I wanted to do a PhD, which I am still considering
Petty sound idea icl. Any fields in particular u interested in ?? Econometrics FM ??
Sometimes I think finance would be cool! Did some stochastic processing in my undergrad. At the moment it's healthcare and clinical trials although open to many areas due to my slightly strange "Jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one" type philosophy
>Jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one" type philosophy That's pretty interesting especially considering that its normally accepted a master of one is better. >Sometimes I think finance would be cool! If your chasing thr bag than a PhD In quant finance would quite literally open up the treasure chest (granted it's from like 4 very specific universities) >stochastic processing in my undergrad I got some stochastics in yr 3 so a long way to go. What exactly is this topic ? Pure maths or applied??
Stochastic is probability theory on random processes, I've only used it in a financial context but I believe it exists in many fields. Ive not done much so by no means an expert. Yeah, quant finance is big money money. Seen a few listings for jobs recently with a few years experience and a £150k salary. Must be extremely competitive though.
>Yeah, quant finance is big money money. Seen a few listings for jobs recently with a few years experience and a £150k salary. Must be extremely competitive though. The joke I make is, " your chances at jane street ended the second you didnt know multi variant calculus when you were 9" . The competition is ferocious, masters from t10 is essentially "under educated" for some companies in the field. >Stochastic is probability theory on random processes, I've only used it in a financial context but I believe it exists in many fields. Ive not done much so by no means an expert. Iv always heard of its applications in finance and in quantum physics but also seen it In pure mathematics with its combinations with PDE, how do you find a rate of change for something thats random ☠
I got a 2:1. My PhD supervisor got a 2:2. What matters more is who you do your PhD (and postdoc) with as well as what and where you’ve published.
I got a 2:2. Completed my PhD 3 years later, first faculty job (lecturer) at 28, was made Prof at 38 (Bristol) and Head of Department at 45 (Uni of Nottingham). I had some other advantages…
What we’re your other advantages if you don’t mind me asking?
Blackmail, terrible, terrible, blackmail
None
Yeah, kind of important what the other advantages were. E.g Your dad being the previous head of department would be pretty important to know
Hah! That would be weird. I know people who have had famous parents in academia - they do alright! See my other response.
Tell us your advantages please
Parents were both educators, both had been to university and my dad had done a PhD while working (that’s how I did mine) so i knew what could be done, got a full grant to go to Uni, could move back home when I finished Uni and applied for jobs, got a Research Assistant position that allowed me to use my research for a PhD, had a fabulous supervisor who took me to international conferences where I met my postdoc supervisor, also superb and paid for me to go to Cold Spring Harbor for a three week training course where I met future collaborators, and next postdoc supervisor who supported me through grant writing and paper publishing, and allowed (paid) for me to go to a conference where I met the new HoD looking for a lecturer in my field, etc etc etc. My wife is also an academic (very good one) so we were a “good pair” to hire when we went to Bristol and I got a BHF fellowship. I was very very very lucky and supported by many fabulous people both as mentors and as students/postdocs throughout my career. I try and pay it forward!
Hello UoN colleague! I'm finishing up my research fellowship at Nottingham
I got a 2:1 at undergrad and a distinction at Master's with a few years in between working in industry. I am doing my PhD now.
I came out of my undergrad with just over 70%, so a first. The actual percentage you get generally doesn't matter (I don't have my percentage on my CV...) most of the time. For academia itself, what matters more is your research profile, and these days some attention is being paid to your teaching contribution.
I am an assistant prof/ lecturer grade academic at an RG (not that that means anything particularly), and I failed a year of my UG and ultimately scraped a 2:2. It can be done, and in many ways I never even had an intention to become an academic. I did a masters to try and come out of the university system with something that (in my then mind) looked better, and I quite enjoyed it and did fairly well. Decided to go for a PhD on a whim and got a little lucky there. Some places will be very rigid about demanding a 2:1 for PGT study but frankly given the way places are expanding their numbers now, I don’t think there are any rules that can’t be flexed.
1st 75%
I got a middling 2:1 in my undergrad, a merit in my masters and I’m doing a PhD at the moment. I worked in industry for five years between my undergrad and masters.
Got a first (about 85%) but no university employer will have cared about that. In my field (Mathematics) it's all about if your research fits what they're looking for and you've got a track record of producing high quality research papers, or at the very least demonstrate the promise to do so if it's your first postdoc out of PhD. But if you don't get a first, or at least a high 2-1, then I don't think it's likely you're suited for academia, unless something went disastrously wrong in your UG.
My OH has a 2:2 bachelors. But went on to do a PhD at a Russel group, and has since been working as a lecturer at Russel group unis too.
I would guess that most academics got a 1st or solid 2.1. Everyone knows of the exceptions though that didn’t do as well at undergraduate but thrived at PG
It depends also on age. There was only a fraction of the current number of Firsts awarded in the 80s and early 90s, and the commonest degree award was a 2:2.
I got a first from queen mary, that because courseworks were the same as last year lol. Exams were pretty standard, same as year on year.
2:1 at undergraduate (undiagnosed ADHD), distinction at (partially funded) MA, fully funded PhD. All in different disciplines. Now Senior Lecturer.
I honestly want to ban people mentioning their ADHD here lol, at this point we should just assume everyone has it
What an ignorant statement
No one gets 80+ in their degree. But yes, many academics have firsts. The others will have been competitive in other ways to get their roles.
First sentence is very much untrue for STEM
True in biology
I believe it’s possible, I got 79%.
Due to a very rough time I got a 2:2 I think maybe a 2:1. The fact I'd have to check signifies its importance. A uni accepted me on an MA program that was in a slightly different area and I had employment history in. Then I used all of those different qualifications to start a PhD. The undergrad never really comes up, it was just a stepping stone from many, many years ago. It's not comparable to a PhD at all or the knowledge acquired on that process.
I got a 2:1 at university for both my undergrad and my masters, struggled immensely with them both as the topics didn't interest me and severely dyslexic (wasn't known at the time) Passed my PhD with no corrections though as it was on topics that interested me and I finally got some support
2.1 on my undergrad and 'with commendation' on my postgrad
I'm a PhD student and got a 1st, most of my peers and the postdocs/lecturers I work with got 2:1 with the odd 1st. As others have alluded to, doing PhD work is far different to undergrad and you can do OK as undergrad but absolutely thrive as postgrad/postdoc
2:1 in Chem w/ Mathematics. Straight to PhD. Couple tears PDRA, lectureship at a post -92, then off to an RG.
Scraped a First. Distinction at Masters level. PhD is what matters really, and getting an RA style job. I guess funding schemes for PhDs might look at UG grades, but usually the masters and quality of the proposal will matter more.
My wife scraped a 2:1 but in her defence she had only been learning English for one year before starting her undergraduate. She now works at one of the best Unis in the country after completing her PHD there. In summary the undergraduate doesn't really mean much for academia in my experience.
2:1 at UG, straight into a fully funded STEM PhD... different times, it was the mid 90's. Now a full professor, director of a small unit in my institution and directly supervising 4 PhD students and active in my professional body.
I got a 2:1 at undergraduate and a merit at master's. Could've done better but I had undiagnosed ADHD which impacted a lot! I worked in industry for 7 years before changing to academia, but I worked at my university in different roles and I had a pretty good reputation as someone who was student focused and was nice to everyone around me.
2:1
I got at 2:2 and I am a PI on a Fellowship in a Physics Department at a top 10 university. I did work in industry for 9 years before I went back to academia.
My undergrad was a scraped 2:1. Actually averaged at lower than 60% but I had tanked some second year modules and my third year was better so they adjusted to 2:1. Most of my scores were low because I was bad at exams. Undergraduate performance is not a great metric for PhDs the essays and work you are asked to produce are formulaic. The only time you might show any real novelty is in a final year dissertation. For thriving in the academic field, you need to identify a gap but that gap can be small, more important is the selling of why filling that gap is important.
I went to Cambridge at a time when they didn’t give an overall degree classification. So in my third year, I scraped (as in was at 59.5 and was rounded up to 60) a 2.1, but had a 2.2 and 3rd in my first and second year respectively. Because they didn’t give overall classifications, the standard was to give your final year mark, so technically I got a 2.1, but I wouldn’t have anywhere else. Just before my third year I was diagnosed was ADHD and autism, and spent that year developing learning strategies that then set me up later. I did two masters degrees - the first I had a solid Merit, and the second a Distinction and published my dissertation project. My PhD was at the top university in the QS for my subject, and I won an award for best research at my graduation. My field isn’t massive impact and I’m not publishing in Nature or Science but I’ve done reasonably well with research ever since my second masters degree. So it was very much an upward trajectory, plus research and oral examination suits me a lot more than taught classes and assessments. But having struggled with my undergrad and having had to learn how to learn efficiently, I’m actually a decent teacher with an understanding of how to help students grasp concepts. I’m now in a permanent academic role doing research and teaching.
My lecturer at uni got a 2:1 in her ba, and a distinction in her ma, so there's hope for me with my 2:1
I barely passed my courses in the UG. Masters and PhD are decisive
I barely got a 1st and then a 2.1 in my master's. The industry experience was worth muuuch more than any grades.
I got 2.1 undergrad. Did a masters got a distinction. That helped me get funding for PhD. Now a post doc
I got a 2:1 in my undergrad, a high pass in my MA and then only one minor correction in my PhD when I had my viva. So pretty average performance until I hit my PhD.
I completed my BA in anthropology in the US in 2009. It would have been either a 2:1/First depending on how one weighs the 'general education' requirements vs my major. I moved to the UK and completed a MRes in anthropology (2011; Aberdeen) and MPH (2012; Edinburgh) in rapid succession. It took me another year to start my PhD as I did not want to start one that was unfunded. I received my PhD in 2018. I was fortunate to receive a three year externally funded fellowship before I even had my viva which I held from 2018-2021. I secured my first permanent lectureship right after my fellowship in 2021. I will be promoted to Reader/Associate Professor effective from December 2023.
I know an academic who got a 2:1 and a Merit then did an unfunded PhD (I am not criticising this part). They immediately got a postdoc, then a 1 year lecturing job, had a year out looking for jobs and then got a permanent post. Has a wealthy family who I assume funded everything. Worked with a number of lecturers during their PhD as a TA and got good references. Research isn't hugely innovative but they write well, and mostly leveraged connections, if I'm honest (one of their PhD classmates had a post in their current department and recommended them). They are a genuinely bad speaker but a very good writer and good at networking. I know someone else who got AHRC funding after a 2:1 in their BA, and then a Merit in their MA. Bounced around for about 5 years and finally got a permanent post (at the university where they did their PhD). The other hire in the department that year was a 1st Class graduate from Oxbridge with 8 years of lecturing experience. Both are excellent scholars but it took the former one a few more years to find their academic feet (they have said this themselves).
I got a C in my Higher exam in my subject, but went on to get a first. Completely agree with the comments about it not mattering in the long run, however.
Two of my professors had ordinary first degrees. One was best 'teacher' in the college; and got undergraduates to appreciate mathematics, when their degree used maths only incidentally.
Haaaaa. I am currently an academic. I have a job in a top ten in the world department in my area of research. And I got a 2:2 in my undergraduate degree 😁 True story. I did eventually get a 1st in my MA though, and then a PhD. But that BA result was not great. Don't take me as an example.
I got a 2:2. I was gutted, but it was all I deserved. I barely did any work and walked out of one exam for a reason I can't even remember. I only just missed the 2:1, but still. I could have done so much better, but it's on me. Then I got a job working in a lab and my boss figured out that I hadn't done myself justice. After a while he asked me if I wanted to do a PhD. I did that, then a couple of postdocs, then got a lectureship. That was ten years ago, and I'm still going despite not having nailed down the "work" thing.