Hi!

I have just graduated from UCL but disappointingly with a 2.2. I would eventually love to do a PhD but not sure what route to take to meet minimum entry standard. Whether to start a new degree course or study for a masters.I have to say that I'm a little annoyed that the research councils and universities do not distinguish between the differing standards and hence quality of degrees from different universities.

I am faced with the same problem and have been told that the best way forward would be to do a Masters and then move onto a PhD.

"I have to say that I'm a little annoyed that the research councils and universities do not distinguish between the differing standards and hence quality of degrees from different universities." - This s a very dodgy statement. So are you saying that a 2:2 from UCL is better than a 2:1 from a not so posh uni?

At the end of the day, if you had a 2.1, you wouldnt be saying it!!!

Do a masters. An MRes is ideally suited to people who wish to do a PhD as it will give you research experience and training. If you wish to change your specialty a little bit, then you may be better with a taught course (MSc), but make sure there is a proper research element within the degree.

Starting a new undergraduate course may give you the required 2(i), but any potential supervisors will probably think you're insane and you may never get an interview.

I think this is a very interesting contribution by steve.Going to a prestigious uni like UCL, doesnt really matter.A 2.2 still remains a 2.2 anywhere. I had a 2.1 from a non-UK Uni and came to UK and made a distinction in my M.Sc from one of the top UK so called prestigious uni.Therefore, put in your very best in the M.Sc degree and prove to UCL, that u deserved more than the 2.2 you got in the first degree.Move on and stop dwelling on the 2.2.

I completely understand your "Dodgy" statement as Steve put it. Of course a 2:2 from UCL is worth more than a degree from a crummy university. If you would have gone to a crap university you would have probably got a 2:1 or first but since you went to UCL the competition was much harder and the standard of teaching is amazingly high. When I did my Masters I could tell the difference in the knowledge between me and students form other universities with a higher class of degree but didn’t go to as good a university.

At the end of the day just do a Masters and then you shouldn’t have a problem getting a PhD position at an excellent university (I did! - at UCL!)

Well i see the UCL boys are sticking together. A 2:2 is not good enough, especially in science, i dont care where you got it from. The research councils set the lower limit at a 2:1 cos thats the standard that they expect, and you have to meet that regardless. No point moaning about it, just get on with it. Presumably you did your research and you knew that before you entered you final year (i know i did).......

.....I did my undergrad at a so-called "crummy" uni and am now doing a PhD at a more traditional uni & can honestly say that it makes no difference. Every uni has there own courses and teaching, and i agree that the standards vary, but at the end of the day you need a 2:1 or face the prospect of career development loans & a crap MSc! Even after that, you face an uphill struggle to get a PhD cos there are plenty of students from "crummy" uni's with 1st who are getting the places and funding.

Stella.. Do a Masters and if your lucky enough to get an interview for a phd place, please keep those comments of why a 2:2 at ucl is better than 2:1 at other places to your self, or you'll never get a place anywhere.. I think you need to be a bit more mature in your outlook or may not be suited to phd life!

I graduated with a 2.2. I got a MSc plus some work experience in the area. I spent a year applying for PhDs and got knocked back everytime. I decided to remove the mention of my actual degree class from my CV. I got three interviews in a very short time. At the interviews I discussed my MSc work and proposal but did not disclose my 2.2. until the end. I got a few raised eyebrows but each of them offered me a place and I am now in fully funded PhD.

I found the only way to get interviews was to contact the supervisors and heads of department directly, rather than be stopped by an administrator. People get grades for different reasons and in the end if a supervisor isn't willing to ask beyond the number, do you really want to work with them for 3 years?

i can totally sympathise, am in similar situation (BA cantab) there'sa whole inverted snobbery thing going on wih russel group graduates. best thing is to do a masters and apply for phDs that aren't MRC funded. no point saying where you went beyond your CV as it gets up peoples noses if they went somewhere "crummy" themselves. see previous responses.

I did an MPhil since I thought it would be the best way to redeem my having gotten only a 3rd for my first degree (I had some health problems) as well as getting some proper research experience at the same time. I was wrong however - despite the research degree and the 2 years industrial experience, I am told that I would be ineligible for epsrc funding. I know that not even managing a lower 2nd looks really bad, but surely having an MPhil. makes me *more* qualified than those with the traditional eligibility requirement of 2:1 first degree!?!?