That is actually quite funny.
People should have the right to choose who they do and dont live with in my opinion.

When it comes to PhD funding grades are the number one deciding factor. You would only consider lesser qualified people if you were short of top applicants or if the top applicants had serious character defects. I dont know why you would consider it fair to fund a 2:1 candidate over some who was technically superior. That would be a very odd thing to do when technical excellence should be a prerequesite for such a role.

i would be genuinely inteested in hearing if anyone has experience of a first class candidate being overlooked for funding in favour of a second class student.

It's all very well saying all this (and I do understand your points) but it doesn't work like this. You dont consider all other factors and THEN look at the grades as though they were a tie breaker. You start interviewing those with the high grades first and only if you can't find someone capable do you start going down the grades list. The reason is obvious. Academia is about intellectual excellence and the only way we have of demonstrating that right now is solid grades and an ability to answer good technical interview questions which demonstrate you understand the material you have soent years learning. Maybe when it comes to other types of jobs, intellectual excellence is not the main thing but academia is a different ball game. The only reason people with a 2:1 get PhD funding is when there are not enough suitable 1st class candidates. That would appear to be a fact of life. I dont recall seeing too many posts on this forum where those with 1st class degrees are asking for help because they are losing out on funding. It is always those with second class degrees.

By the way, the original poster should definitely apply for funding. Personally I dont think we should be funding PhDs for anyone but those with 1st class degrees. We have too many PhDs and most appear to be a compete waste of time. From what I have experienced it is very rare to see anyone fail them. Academia is less fussy than me and will literally do anything for money these days.

They do. Hence I stressed the difference between sitting tenants in a shared house expressing a preference about the type of housemates they want, and student halls run as businesses stating that they would not do business with customers above a certain age.

Given your impeccable academic record, I am surprised at your poor reading comprehension.

However, assuming that your reading comprehension is as good as your academic achievements, why would this blatant age discrimination by a business opened to the public be in anyway funny? Please expend.

Why are we getting stuck on undergrad grades, and ignoring Master's? The OP asked about his chances with a 2:1 and a 'mediocre' (Good pass? Low merit?) Master's. I can see the case that someone with a 1st-Distinction combination will have an edge over someone with a high 2:1 plus Distinction. But is it the case that a 1st plus a Merit will always trump a 2:1 plus a Distinctions when it comes to funding?

I always thought that a good Master's will mitigate a less than perfect Bachelors, but it seems, not according to you. And before your ask, yes, I do know someone from my cohort with a good first from a 'top' uni getting 'only' a high merit at Master's level.

Deary me :-D
Maybe you should go to bed and come back in a less touchy mood tomorrow.
It would help if you stop taking things so personally. It's just an exchange of ideas.
That massive chip on your shoulder is not really conducive to a decent discussion.

Platitudes without content. I really had expected better from you...

I don't think you're going to hear form anyone. It would be really bad form to be informed about the candidates you beat - I certainly don't know how many were interviewed or why I was chosen over anyone else for my PhD.

I agree with you that if we were talking about a scenario where two recent graduates applied and one had a 2:1 and one had a 1st.... You would almost certainly go for the person with a 1st.

What I'm saying is that as life goes on, that having a 1st becomes less important, people have other life experiences, they evolve, hopefully become better with more skills. Basing a decision purely on degree marks and not considering anything else, I feel is a naive view. Plus, what really is the different between a 1st and a high 2:1 (which is what I have)? 5 marks on an exam paper? I certainly don't feel I was "technically superior" to others who got lower than me in my undergrad... I just remembered stuff better for the exam and probably didn't have as much going on in the background.

If what you are saying it true, my 2:1 at a mediocre university means I shouldn't be here and I should have applied for dozens and dozens of PhD before I got a second rate offer because no one else wanted it.

Hi, I can give you an example. My group hired a PhD student this year who had a 2.1 over someone with a first. The decision was based on this student was really keen, had lab experience in the area, had links with some of our collaborators and seemed a good fit with the lab.

Not going to lie, he takes longer to 'get' stuff than I expected, but overall was a good choice. Our take on the 1st class candidate was that he would get bored quickly in our not very advanced lab and that he was a bit arrogant and we didn't like it.

I also know why I was hired over other PhD candidates (although I do have a 1st) - again because of lab fit, because I also had a masters, because I had a job first (perception of maturity/experience) and because I showed a genuine interest in the project and did my homework on background reading for the project. The next candidate in line got a PhD a few years later, so I don't feel too bad :P