Degree from higher Uni's harder than lower tier unis? How true?

Scroll to see replies

Oxford student notoriously get a lot of work, too much work if you will. There was a new report FAIRLY recently about a girl committing suicide with her timetable at her side.

Is this the article you are referring to? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/study-schedule-found-by-body-of-oxford-student-who-committed-suicide-1252199.html

Reply 21

Cabine Sono Qui

Original post by Akkuz

Incorrect.

Does it make your job harder? Probably.
Do you need to kiss goodbye to a career in a competitive industry? No.

I'm at a mid-table UK university right now and my friend got a placement at Goldman Sachs. How do you explain that one? I got a placement with one of the world's major airlines at HQ-level. How do you explain that one?

There are incredibly intelligent people at other universities besides the "top 6". You are precisely what epitomises this forum. Damn right retarded snobbery.

You can go to oxbridge and graduate with whatever you please, but you'll still be blind to the world around you.

Which university does your friend go to and what subject does he do? And was his placement in the front office, middle office or back office? Just curious, and it could explain some of the arguments in this thread.

And what does your placement entail? Again for the same reason above - we can't really evaluate your argument without going into specifics.

OP - I agree with you to some extent. Of course there will be exceptions and discrepancies, but at better uni's you will be given more challenging work.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 22

hobnob

Original post by EffieFlowers

How moral!
No need to get patronising... :rolleyes:

All I did was answer your question. If you'd prefer an 'easy' degree, then knock yourself out, just don't assume that everybody else acts from the same motivations.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'a degree is 3 years', by the way. Unless I'm very much mistaken, the OP was asking about 1-year masters degrees.

Reply 23

Ghost6

Original post by anon1212

The best universities attract top academics who naturally set more rigorous courses, and are more committed to their research duties and see teaching as an unnecessary distraction.

Not necessarily. Top academics are passionate about their fields and generally love talking about it and teaching it. Of course, their teaching ability may vary, but at the top unis you may be lectured by the very same person who invented the content of the class.

Reply 24

anon1212

Original post by Ghost6

Yep, but they then expect more understanding and knowledge of the material

Reply 25

Cabine Sono Qui

Original post by Ghost6

Agreed. From what I've experienced, professors who teach their field of expertise (and have contributed largely to it) are very engaging. Though you have to appreciate that they'll be projecting their particular views and attitudes onto you to some extent.

Reply 26

evantej

Original post by Clare~Bear

The higher unis tend to have the most intelligent pupils, so the tutors push them more because they think they have more potential. Plus the quality of teaching will be higher in 'better' unis.

A really good teacher can explain something difficult and a student understands it. The same student could be taught something easier, by a rubish teacher and not understand it.

From the above, it is blatantly obvious that you are not even at university yet...

Prestigious universities recruit a higher percentage of students with higher UCAS points, but that does not make them the 'most intelligent'. Likewise, there are people who choose to go to less prestigious universities, despite having high UCAS points, because prestige is not the be all and end all of university discussion.

Linked to your misconception about the most intelligent students is the idea that lecturers at prestigious university push their students more. This is really not the case at all. While it is wrong to generalise, lecturers at prestigious universities have the safety net of highly motivated and intelligent students who succeed in spite of them. This means teaching quality can actually be very poor in some prestigious universities, especially when a lecturer's teaching load is relatively low (when they only teach their own modules, for example) and when they routinely take research leave. In less prestigious universities they do not have the money or staff to allow incompetent teachers to exist otherwise they would create lots of extra work for themselves in the long run when it came to assessment.

Anecdotally, only one of my lecturers at the less prestigious university I attended would be classed as a poor teacher, and that was because it was her first year in her first ever post. On the other hand, my language teacher at Manchester was terrible, and a good few of the lecturers at Bristol were mediocre (there were obviously some good ones too).

Reply 27

Cabine Sono Qui

Original post by evantej

Prestigious universities recruit a higher percentage of students with higher UCAS points, but that does not make them the 'most intelligent'.

On the whole they will be though. At least the vast majority

Likewise, there are people who choose to go to less prestigious universities, despite having high UCAS points, because prestige is not the be all and end all of university discussion.

This must be a tiny proportion. Prestige derives mostly from academic strength and rigour, so it's perfectly valid to assume that the highest achieving students will want to go to the most prestigious universities in their field. (When I say assume, I don't really need to when you look at the statistics)

Linked to your misconception about the most intelligent students is the idea that lecturers at prestigious university push their students more. This is really not the case at all. While it is wrong to generalise, lecturers at prestigious universities have the safety net of highly motivated and intelligent students who succeed in spite of them. This means teaching quality can actually be very poor in some prestigious universities, especially when a lecturer's teaching load is relatively low (when they only teach their own modules, for example) and when they routinely take research leave. In less prestigious universities they do not have the money or staff to allow incompetent teachers to exist otherwise they would create lots of extra work for themselves in the long run when it came to assessment.

I agree with you here. At top universities it is not uncommon to have less than impressive lecturers due to the fact that they're primarily there for their research strength rather than their teaching strength. However this doesn't mean the lecturers don't push you intellectually. That's a different matter - the academic rigour of the course (which will usually be higher at a top university)

Reply 28

evantej

Original post by Cabine Sono Qui

[...] This must be a tiny proportion. Prestige derives mostly from academic strength and rigour, so it's perfectly valid to assume that the highest achieving students will want to go to the most prestigious universities in their field. (When I say assume, I don't really need to when you look at the statistics)

I agree with you here. At top universities it is not uncommon to have less than impressive lecturers due to the fact that they're primarily there for their research strength rather than their teaching strength. However this doesn't mean the lecturers don't push you intellectually. That's a different matter - the academic rigour of the course (which will usually be higher at a top university)

I suppose it depends which statistics you look at (by all means, specify), but you have a very academic view of higher education. In reality, most people go to university to further their job prospects and do not care about the specific nature of their fields. An English student goes to Oxford because they know it is historically prestigious, but they usually have no clue about the academics who will teach them. This is why it is rather ridiculous for undergraduates to even bother entering discussions of reputation since their experience is so limited. Postgraduates and lecturers themselves are likely to have a better idea because they have studied and worked at a number of institutions, and have a better idea of how you could quantify 'bad' and 'good' universities.

With respect to academic rigour, I think you are drawing an unnecessary division between universities. Most lecturers at less prestigious universities studied at prestigious universities. Higher education is an industry like any other and the demand for lectureships is high in most fields so most people would rather take a job than wait for their ideal job at X university (I know I would). If you think by moving into a less prestigious university they suddenly drop any idea of challenging their students, irrespective of what background they come from, you are simply wrong. Again, it depends what you mean by the rigour of the course. If you simply mean placing x workload on students then that is simplistic. Any decent course and programme leader assesses their curriculum given local circumstances: availability of material; logistic concerns; programme coherence; and staff availability. It really is not as simple as suggesting that academic rigour means making students read x amount of books per term and handing x amount of essays in per week/month/term.

Reply 29

Garam Masala

Original post by Akkuz

Incorrect.

Does it make your job harder? Probably.
Do you need to kiss goodbye to a career in a competitive industry? No.

I'm at a mid-table UK university right now and my friend got a placement at Goldman Sachs. How do you explain that one? I got a placement with one of the world's major airlines at HQ-level. How do you explain that one? (May I also add we got excellent renumertation. GS paid out £38,000 which is insane for placement).

There are incredibly intelligent people at other universities besides the "top 6". You are precisely what epitomises this forum. Damn right retarded snobbery.

You can go to oxbridge and graduate with whatever you please, but you'll still be blind to the world around you.

*Remuneration.

Reply 30

zziippoo

I do agree with the statement. I believe that students who studied in universities like Manchester Metropolitan University can take easier and higher grades than other students. First of all the first year students have really bad grades to go there. I know a guy with 1 A level with C and 5 O levels who got in ,in Accounting and Finance at Manchester Metropolitan. So the level is not the same with students who got in at LSE or Warwick.

MY question is whether or not the universities understand that and they accept easier students from "good" universities for master and if the firms prefer students from LSE than Leeds Metropolitan. Because I know a guy who applied at LSE and now he is currently in his third year at birmingham city. His offer is to obtain first and he has already a first in his first and second year. And I saw in this forum students from warwick and ucl who got the same offer.. I think is unfair.

Reply 31

The_Lonely_Goatherd

At least with the MSt Musicology at Oxford, there's a lot of truth to that. It's a piece of piss if you've done the BA at Oxford or Cambridge but coming from elsewhere it's pretty grilling. Even if you come from some of the other top departments in the country.

Obviously that's only one pathway on one course at one uni but I imagine it could be a similar case across some other subjects too :yes:

Reply 32

flipflip

Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd

How do you know that, can you prove it?

Reply 33

The_Lonely_Goatherd

Original post by flipflip

How do you know that, can you prove it?

It's what I've been informed by tutors. Besides you only need to look at the workload and the nature of it to work it out :yes:

Reply 34

flipflip

Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd

It's what I've been informed by tutors. Besides you only need to look at the workload and the nature of it to work it out :yes:

But then you're only taking someone else's opinion as fact (who possibly might be biased). Have you looked at all the other undergraduate courses offered and compared? Or are you just making assumptions?

Reply 35

The_Lonely_Goatherd

Original post by flipflip

I am reasonably familiar with the undergraduate content of the other top Music departments and how that compares to Oxford's undergraduate course and its MSt Musicology course :yes:

I'm not pulling this out of thin air. That would be rather daft of me :biggrin:

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 36

Playa10

Original post by Akkuz

Incorrect.

Does it make your job harder? Probably.
Do you need to kiss goodbye to a career in a competitive industry? No.

I'm at a mid-table UK university right now and my friend got a placement at Goldman Sachs. How do you explain that one? I got a placement with one of the world's major airlines at HQ-level. How do you explain that one? (May I also add we got excellent renumertation. GS paid out £38,000 which is insane for placement).

There are incredibly intelligent people at other universities besides the "top 6". You are precisely what epitomises this forum. Damn right retarded snobbery.

You can go to oxbridge and graduate with whatever you please, but you'll still be blind to the world around you.

You are right...it's not about the uni, but experience in the relevant field.
Did you have any experience in that field or a contact in that company?

Reply 37

hobnob

Original post by zziippoo

MY question is whether or not the universities understand that and they accept easier students from "good" universities for master and if the firms prefer students from LSE than Leeds Metropolitan. Because I know a guy who applied at LSE and now he is currently in his third year at birmingham city. His offer is to obtain first and he has already a first in his first and second year. And I saw in this forum students from warwick and ucl who got the same offer.. I think is unfair.

I'm not sure whether I follow that logic... You're saying that because at undergraduate level they recruit mediocre students and offer them easy degrees (let's just let that stand like that for the sake of argument), they have to 'understand that', embrace their own second-rate-ness and aim for mediocre students at postgraduate level, or what? :s-smilie:

Reply 38

Garam Masala

Original post by flipflip

To be fair any course at Oxbridge would be a difficult adjustment, at least at first, for someone who did his undergrad elsewhere (even Imperial/LSE). Unless I'm mistaken, postgrads at Oxbridge, as with undergrads, have short terms which can be stressful when you're cramming all this rigorous content in such a short space of time.

Reply 39

Hopsin rapper

I have got a question relating to this thread.

Do you think it is the reputation of the University as a whole, or the reputation for that University for a particular course? Eg Oxford or Cambridge is a great University in general, but for a course such as Politics I have heard Sheffield is probably the best?