Degree 1st/2:1/2:2, does it affect your pay?

[little one]

Does the degree that you get; i.e. 1st/2:1/2:2, impact on your wages?
e.g. if you get a first would you get paid more than somebody who got a 2:2?
What do most pharmacy students get?
Thanks

[crit care]

nope....its the same degree at the end of the day.....

have heard people to say 1st..shows you worked hard and only worked

2:1 shows you worked hard and played hard

but mostly the degree number becomes irrelevant once you finish uni

[Nik]

Same old question, asked about as many times on the forum as the number of bones in my body. Short answer is that there's no link between degree classification and salary.

[johnep]

Only important in the old days in that getting a 1st gave you exemption from National Service. My 2:1 helped me to get a job in industry. Lots of C&D and Ph.C. qualified pharmacists around in those days and never any difference in community.
1st and 2:1 also required for getting onto a Ph.D course. I was offered research into cell walls, membranes, micelles and lecithin films, but as no grant available, not able to do. Funny, perhaps I could have been the discoverer of Liquid Crystals.
johnep

[Defblade]

I would say it would affect your chances of a job in industry and may also affect your chances of funding for a PhD (if you're mad enough to want to do one ).

Once you're in community pharmacy...... the only important thing many places is that you have a GPhC reg number.....

[culchie82]

All the people I know who set up Pharmacies and done really well were never top of the class, in fact they spent the majority of their time in the bar during their degree. In contrast, those who achieved 1sts never accomplished half as much. It seems to demonstrate that people with an element of risk in their personality seem to triumph over the cautious Carols who tend to think inside the box a lot.
That's my theory anyway

[Pharmanaut]

All the people I know who set up Pharmacies and done really well were never top of the class, in fact they spent the majority of their time in the bar during their degree. In contrast, those who achieved 1sts never accomplished half as much. It seems to demonstrate that people with an element of risk in their personality seem to triumph over the cautious Carols who tend to think inside the box a lot.
That's my theory anyway

Probably right too.

Better to risk someone else's money as well....

Many of the "names" of my generation are all comfortably not in pharmacy now.

[difdif]

what a funny question!
@Culishie: not always the case, some can comfortably get a 1st and still play hard and have a great time at uni.
1st gets you to do a PhD and helps u develop skills to work under a better sort of pressure "thinking", which is awsome! and it'll help a lot in your applications for industry as long as you have some good research ideas. But at the end you end up getting paid less than a community pharmacist..

if you plan to work in community then you only ned to pass ur 4 years and ur pre-reg exam then you'll be allright.

[culchie82]

what a funny question!
@Culishie: not always the case, some can comfortably get a 1st and still play hard and have a great time at uni.
1st gets you to do a PhD and helps u develop skills to work under a better sort of pressure "thinking", which is awsome! and it'll help a lot in your applications for industry as long as you have some good research ideas. But at the end you end up getting paid less than a community pharmacist..

if you plan to work in community then you only ned to pass ur 4 years and ur pre-reg exam then you'll be allright.

I know people who went on to do PHDs after getting a 2.1.

I suppose it depends on your definition of "playing hard". Mine usually involved going for a cheeky pint at 1 in the day and still being in the bar 10 hours later, when many of the "1st Students" were only having their first Bacardi Breezer.

[Nik]

Mine usually involved going for a cheeky pint at 1 in the day and still being in the bar 10 hours later,

Pff - lightweight