..Also, I have taken note of what John said about not making any mention of the first degree grade on the CV. Does this always work? I would have thought that it is obvious when someone omits their degree grade on their cv, that it is because they got below a 2:1. I hope I'm wrong though!

Not sure why taking out my degree class worked so well. I wondered at the time if it was because they just assumed I was being modest or something (quite ironic really). Plus I think sometimes applications with a 2.2 on them never gets beyond the admin office and so never get a chance to be seen by academics. Who knows what goes on in the mind of postgrad admissions.

Thanks John for your reply! Incidentally, are you funded by a research council? I'm asking because I'm wondering whether in your case, the professors were able and willing to overlook your lower 2nd because of what you have done since, or whether in all cases, academics are under the tight command of research councils (in which case I'm assuming that you would have been told to bog off every time).

Nope, the University are funding me. There only are a few research councils which fund my type of research and they have a '2.1 or above' policy. The application form for one of them doesn't even have a space to include work experience, which seems a bit daft given that I think I learned way more in my 9 month research work that I did in my 5 years studying. Plus don't know if it applies in your case but I've found NHS employers are less likely to care about your degree class than are universities.

Go for a masters. If might help you to work out if you want to continue in research or not.
I guess there's always an inherent sense of snobbery amongst the UK unis. i kno of 1 guy, post-doccing in australia now; his phd was in a MRC unit, although he got a 2:2. it was because he was a cambridge grad. if research councils stipulate 2:1 min, then, clearly, not everyone is always going to follow it, in individual departments, units, and establishments. big generalisation, but it could be true. there is hope!

I went to a so called "crummy university". Did a BSc Hons in Medical Biochemistry and got a 2:1. I wish I had the opportunity to go to a posh uni. To receive a higher quality of teaching, work in better equipped laboratories, alongside students of higher caliber and motivation whom I could study, and compete with. Then maybe I could have got a 1st class degree.

Redbaron, do you not think that it's a bit naive to suggest that attending a 'higher calibre' university so that you could study alongside people who were highly motivated etc. would result in your getting a better class degree than you were awarded at your university? It really doesn't work like that!

Actually, it does. There's no better motivation than working in a competitive atmosphere in a research led department where all the lecturers are on the cutting edge of science. The enthusiam in the atmosphere is catching and makes learning easier!

I wouldn't disagree that studying alongside brighter students boosts motivation to work hard. However, students who are mature enough will be self-motivated. Furthermore, while some students may believe "in a research led department where all the lecturers are on the cutting edge of science.." as you put it is the answer, the point is whether you like it or not, the simple fact is that the difficulty level is correspondingly higher.

Karen, you're right. Studying in a top university may be better for learning, but the competition is such that it really is harder to get a top degree. Which is why I also agree with Stella in that a 1st from Imperial is probably more valued than a 1st from say Wolverhampton.

Is there any research to suggest that students with a 1st from less affluent, established or renowned universities are of a lower calibre that those from the famous UCL? Or is this assertion based purely on Stella’s prejudices? I would have thought that grades are awarded according to national standards rather than a quota system, so that competition would mean more high grades rather than making it harder to achieve a high grade? Can any academics out there help to solve this one?

It's nothing to do with prejudice at all. Some universities in fact don't base exam results on raw percentage marks but 'standardised' ones so that your mark at the end is not a reflection of your hard work or ability, but of your relative position within your year group. It also stands to reason that where a university is taking in on average brighter students, the difficulty would have to be greater in order to produce the same spread of degree classifications as other universities; whether they be elite or former polytechnics.

To clarify - Relative position in terms of ability I mean, i.e. if you are in a bright year group it will be more difficult to achieve the same standardised exam marks as if you were in a less-clever year group.

Assuming that Karen means relative position at a particular university, rather than within a national cohort, if this is the case then surely it would make sense for people to attend universities with a less academically able intake and get a 1st (big fish in a small pond an all that), rather than get a 2.2 from the famous UCL? It could set up an interesting self defeating prophecy if people fight for acceptance to the worst universities, to be assured a 1st, which then become the best universities in a sort of academic boom and bust cycle.

Are there any academics who can say for certain whether the university that a person graduated from influences whether or not they will be offered a PhD?