First Class Rate by Subject UK: Which Subjects Award the Most Firsts

Two students, same predicted grades at A-level, same university tier. One studies a subject where 45% of the cohort graduates with a First. The other studies a subject where it's closer to 18%. Neither worked harder or smarter than the other -- the subject itself set different odds.

That variation is one of the least discussed facts in UK higher education, and it matters directly if you're choosing between subjects or optional pathways within one.

The scale of the variation

HESA's annual outcome data, aggregated across UK institutions, consistently shows First-class rates that differ by subject group -- not by a few percentage points, but by factors of two or more between the highest and lowest.

Subjects with typically higher First rates tend to include some creative and design disciplines, certain humanities pathways, and subjects with heavily coursework-weighted assessment. Subjects with typically lower First rates tend to cluster around some STEM disciplines with closed-book, exam-heavy assessment structures -- though this varies significantly by institution and even by module within a subject.

The point isn't that any one subject is "easier" in some absolute sense. It's that assessment structure, marking convention, and cohort composition all shift the distribution -- and those factors vary by subject far more than most students realise going in.

For the institution-level version of this same pattern, see best universities for grade outcomes UK.

Why assessment structure drives so much of the gap

The single biggest lever behind subject-level First rate variation is how a subject assesses students.

Coursework-heavy subjects tend to produce higher average marks. Coursework allows redrafting, feedback loops, and time to polish -- all of which push marks upward compared with a single closed-book exam.

Exam-heavy, closed-book subjects tend to compress the mark distribution lower. Time pressure and no second attempt at wording an answer produce more variance and generally lower ceiling marks across a cohort.

Practical/portfolio-assessed subjects sit somewhere in between, often closer to coursework-heavy outcomes, depending on how marking rubrics are structured.

This is also why which university course is easiest to get a First in is a genuinely answerable question with real data behind it -- it isn't just student folklore.

Marking convention differences between departments

Beyond assessment type, marking conventions themselves differ. Some departments anchor their marking scales more tightly around the 60-69% band as the default "good" mark, reserving 70%+ for genuinely exceptional work. Others apply a wider first-class band in practice, even where the university-wide classification boundary is nominally the same 70%.

Neither approach is dishonest -- both are internally consistent within the department -- but it means a 68% essay in one subject and a 68% essay in another do not represent equivalent work, even at the same institution.

What this means if you're choosing a subject or a joint pathway

If you're already committed to a subject, this data is less about switching and more about calibrating expectations -- knowing your subject's typical distribution helps you interpret your own marks in context rather than against an imagined universal standard.

If you're on a joint or flexible degree with genuine subject choice, the variation is more directly actionable. Two halves of a joint honours degree can have meaningfully different First-rate baselines, and that's worth knowing before you weight your final-year modules toward one side.

Assessment pattern	Typical First-rate tendency	Example subject types
Coursework-heavy, iterative feedback	Higher	Some design, humanities, project-based courses
Mixed coursework/exam	Mid	Many social science and business courses
Closed-book exam-heavy	Lower, wider spread	Some maths, engineering, and science courses

Bands here describe general tendencies across national aggregate data, not guarantees for any specific module -- see module difficulty at university for how this plays out at module level rather than whole-subject level.

Where FOI data adds precision

National aggregates describe the subject as a whole. What they can't show you is your specific module, at your specific university, in the specific year you'll be assessed. That's the layer FOI-sourced, module-level data fills in -- and it's the layer that actually determines your grade, not the national subject average.

Access GradeHack's module-level FOI data to see how your specific optional modules compare, rather than relying on subject-wide averages alone.

FAQ

Which UK subjects have the highest First-class degree rates?

National aggregate data shows variation by subject group, generally correlating with coursework-heavy assessment structures. The exact ranking shifts year to year and varies significantly by institution, so a single fixed list is misleading -- check subject-level HESA data or module-specific FOI data for your actual course.

Does a higher First rate mean a subject is easier?

Not necessarily "easier" in an absolute sense -- it usually reflects assessment structure (coursework versus exam-heavy) and marking convention as much as underlying difficulty. A high First rate can also reflect a more able self-selected applicant pool.

How much does subject choice affect my odds of a First compared with module choice within my subject?

Both matter, but module choice is the more actionable lever once you're enrolled -- you generally can't switch subjects easily in year two or three, but you usually can choose which optional modules to prioritise, and those carry their own distribution on top of the subject baseline.

---

Subject-level averages set the baseline. The modules you actually take inside that subject move you above or below it -- and that's the part within your control.

See the module-level data for your subject before your next selection deadline.