[The Mr Z]

(Original post by py0alb)
Except that Oxbridge students already do get all the firsts, because the exams already are approximately standardised. You have 10 times the probability of getting a first at Oxbridge than at a significantly lower ranked university.

You're joking, right?

So the national average % of pupils getting a first in History is under 0.5%?

Well bowl me over sideways!

You're just spouting nonsense here. Oxbridge courses do not give substantially more firsts than other courses. The place Oxbridge gives a high number of firsts is sciences courses, but then all universities give a high number of firsts in sciences because sciences have a wider spread of grades.

The 30-40% figures you're quoting are for awards like Part III Theoretical Physics at Cambridge, where the course has a high first rate because only the best physics students take it - others take other courses (eg astrophysics, experimental physics) through the Natural Sciences Tripos, so by the time you get to part III the people doing that course are REALLY good at it! Only the top third of physics applicants will end up taking the Part III Theoretical Physics course - every single one of them got 4A*s at A2 and 1sts in their previous three years. And then somehow only 40% get a first in their last year? When 100% of them were previously at the 1st standard in earlier years?



Sciences also offer a much wider spread of grades in general - I could equally show you the % from Oxbridge sciences getting 2.2s and 3rds, those are higher than the national average for all subjects because science subjects give out a much much wider distribution of grades.

Arts subjects on the other hand give out about 85% 2.1s - you have to do exceptionally well at Oxbridge to get a 1st.





Did you know Medics at Oxbridge take different, harder medic exams (very noticeably harder) so that they have the same distribution of grades as other medical schools? Medicine students from Oxbridge are better at medicine for the same grades.



And you're absolutely joking if you think students from Strathclyde would do as well in Tripos exams as students from Cambridge. Absolutely having a laugh.




Long and short - university courses do NOT teach to the same standard.

[py0alb]

(Original post by The Mr Z)
You're joking, right?

So the national average % of pupils getting a first in History is under 0.5%?

Well bowl me over sideways!

You're just spouting nonsense here. Oxbridge courses do not give substantially more firsts than other courses. The place Oxbridge gives a high number of firsts is sciences courses, but then all universities give a high number of firsts in sciences because sciences have a wider spread of grades.

The 30-40% figures you're quoting are for awards like Part III Theoretical Physics at Cambridge, where the course has a high first rate because only the best physics students take it - others take other courses (eg astrophysics, experimental physics) through the Natural Sciences Tripos, so by the time you get to part III the people doing that course are REALLY good at it! Only the top third of physics applicants will end up taking the Part III Theoretical Physics course - every single one of them got 4A*s at A2 and 1sts in their previous three years. And then somehow only 40% get a first in their last year? When 100% of them were previously at the 1st standard in earlier years?



Sciences also offer a much wider spread of grades in general - I could equally show you the % from Oxbridge sciences getting 2.2s and 3rds, those are higher than the national average for all subjects because science subjects give out a much much wider distribution of grades.

Arts subjects on the other hand give out about 85% 2.1s - you have to do exceptionally well at Oxbridge to get a 1st.





Did you know Medics at Oxbridge take different, harder medic exams (very noticeably harder) so that they have the same distribution of grades as other medical schools? Medicine students from Oxbridge are better at medicine for the same grades.



And you're absolutely joking if you think students from Strathclyde would do as well in Tripos exams as students from Cambridge. Absolutely having a laugh.




Long and short - university courses do NOT teach to the same standard.

If you don't know what you're talking about, which you clearly don't, its better that you just don't post.

Hearsay, prejudice and anecdotal experience are no basis for an argument.

[The Mr Z]

(Original post by high)
I didn't know where to put this so I thought I'd just put it here.

I was recently looking at University rankings and discovered that it is almost impossible to compare universities unless there is a big gap.

This problem doesn't occur with colleges and secondary schools because you can just look at exam results which are standardized. So then I thought why aren't exams standardized? Wouldn't it be better if all university students sat the same exam? This would mean you could easily compare universities by looking at the results. However this is not the only advantage.

Another advantage is that there would no longer be as much of a discrimination in terms of where you went. If for example there were both had a 1st. One from Lincoln one from Cambridge and they were both competing for a job the person from Cambridge would obliviously stand out more and will probably get the job. If we however implement standardized exams they are both competing on an even playing field as they both had the same exam and got the same result. The university they attended isn't as relevant.

It would also create the opportunity for people who can't afford to attend university to still get a degree. This narrows the gap between the rich and the poor.

So basically to me it just makes sense to have standardized exams. I am probably wrong but these are just my thoughts

TL;DR version
Every university has the same exams (very much like GCSE and A-Level).
This makes which university you come not as relevant and creates an even playing field.
People who can't attend university due to fees etc. Can still get a degree.
You Can compare people and universities more efficiently.

Can you think of a standardised system, using 4 grade boundaries (3rd, 2.2, 2.1 and 1st) which would be able to both;

represent the difference between universities accurately

represent the difference between students at the same university accurately

considering that this has to apply to students who range from A*A*A*A* at A2 to those who got low grades in a BTEC. Has to cover Oxbridge to ex-polytechnics.



It's completely unworkable. You'd end up with Russel group unis awarding in excess of 70% firsts. You'd never be able to differentiate between the abilities of two Cambridge students on that sort of scale.

[The Mr Z]

(Original post by py0alb)
If you don't know what you're talking about, which you clearly don't, its better that you just don't post.

Hearsay, prejudice and anecdotal experience are no basis for an argument.

Boldened bit = Why you should shut up

I know exactly what I'm taking about. I know how the systems work, I know how the grade distributions look and how they arise. I know about the difficulty of the exams.

So tell me - what percentage of students studying History get 1sts at worse universities?

[Donald Duck]

Because that would require all courses to be identical, which we don't want

(No specialisation/broadness anywhere, standardization issues in between subjects)

[Dirac Delta Function]

(Original post by high)
I didn't know where to put this so I thought I'd just put it here.

I was recently looking at University rankings and discovered that it is almost impossible to compare universities unless there is a big gap.

This problem doesn't occur with colleges and secondary schools because you can just look at exam results which are standardized. So then I thought why aren't exams standardized? Wouldn't it be better if all university students sat the same exam? This would mean you could easily compare universities by looking at the results. However this is not the only advantage.

Another advantage is that there would no longer be as much of a discrimination in terms of where you went. If for example there were both had a 1st. One from Lincoln one from Cambridge and they were both competing for a job the person from Cambridge would obliviously stand out more and will probably get the job. If we however implement standardized exams they are both competing on an even playing field as they both had the same exam and got the same result. The university they attended isn't as relevant.

It would also create the opportunity for people who can't afford to attend university to still get a degree. This narrows the gap between the rich and the poor.

So basically to me it just makes sense to have standardized exams. I am probably wrong but these are just my thoughts

TL;DR version
Every university has the same exams (very much like GCSE and A-Level).
This makes which university you come not as relevant and creates an even playing field.
People who can't attend university due to fees etc. Can still get a degree.
You Can compare people and universities more efficiently.

University courses are not standardised and we don't want them to be. People have different abilities and motivations. It's bad enough we all go through the same mould through school...

[py0alb]

(Original post by The Mr Z)
Boldened bit = Why you should shut up

I know exactly what I'm taking about. I know how the systems work, I know how the grade distributions look and how they arise. I know about the difficulty of the exams.

So tell me - what percentage of students studying History get 1sts at worse universities?

Answer me this: How much have you been actively involved in the standardisation procedure yourself?


a) Substantially
b) Not at all


Quick scout of unistats for history: Nottingham Trent, 45% get 2:2s or worse. Oxford, 2% get 2:2s or below.

So you're 22.5 times more likely to miss out on a good classification at Trent than at Oxford. Thats what people pay for.

[py0alb]

Same applies to science: At University of Hull, 10% get 1sts and 55% get 2:2 or below. At university of Oxford, 38% get firsts and only 20% get 2:2 or below.

I don't have to run a null and alternative hypothesis test to demonstrate the hugely significant differences here.

[Mr. Tizzy XII]

(Original post by py0alb)
Answer me this: How much have you been actively involved in the standardisation procedure yourself?


a) Substantially
b) Not at all


Quick scout of unistats for history: Nottingham Trent, 45% get 2:2s or worse. Oxford, 2% get 2:2s or below.

So you're 22.5 times more likely to miss out on a good classification at Trent than at Oxford. Thats what people pay for.

You mentioned something about cherry-picking data? You also refuted someones argument claiming it to be anecdotal and prejudiced when practically every single one of your posts is the same. Your hypocrisy is endearing.

[The Mr Z]

(Original post by py0alb)
Answer me this: How much have you been actively involved in the standardisation procedure yourself?


a) Substantially
b) Not at all


Quick scout of unistats for history: Nottingham Trent, 45% get 2:2s or worse. Oxford, 2% get 2:2s or below.

So you're 22.5 times more likely to miss out on a good classification at Trent than at Oxford. Thats what people pay for.

I asked about 1sts. Don't cherry pick - how many get 1sts?

History Tripos gives huge regression to mean - almost everyone gets 2.1s, both 2.2s and 1sts are really rare.

There is not standardisation. If you imagine that somehow you're involved in some process that is making grades representative of ability independent of the university you went to then you're doing a really poor job of it.

The decision on how to award grades is left to the universities themselves. You have no part in how Cambridge awards grades, Senate House decides that.

Most degrees are not even comparable in content.

If they were standardised, Oxbridge would award near 100% firsts. Simply because of the huge range of degrees that system has to cover - there is no overlap between Oxbridge students and Nottingham Trent students.


Also

Thats what people pay for.

Pay for?
Pay for?

Now if there's one thing that is standardised, it's tuition fees!

[py0alb]

(Original post by Mr. Tizzy XII)
You mentioned something about cherry-picking data? You also refuted someones argument claiming it to be anecdotal and prejudiced when practically every single one of your posts is the same. Your hypocrisy is endearing.

Incorrect.

There is difference between someone saying "I personally found this hard and this easy" - that is entirely anecdotal - and someone saying "Standardisation between degree courses does occur, I have been involved in the process myself" - thats perfectly reliable evidence.

There's also an important statistical difference between saying "there is no evidence to reject the null hypothesis - here is a single example" and "there IS sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis - here are a couple of statistically significant examples".

Brush up on your hypothesis testing before continuing to complain about cherry picking evidence.

[py0alb]

(Original post by The Mr Z)
I asked about 1sts. Don't cherry pick - how many get 1sts?

History Tripos gives huge regression to mean - almost everyone gets 2.1s, both 2.2s and 1sts are really rare.

There is not standardisation. If you imagine that somehow you're involved in some process that is making grades representative of ability independent of the university you went to then you're doing a really poor job of it.

The decision on how to award grades is left to the universities themselves. You have no part in how Cambridge awards grades, Senate House decides that.

Most degrees are not even comparable in content.

If they were standardised, Oxbridge would award near 100% firsts. Simply because of the huge range of degrees that system has to cover - there is no overlap between Oxbridge students and Nottingham Trent students.


Also
Pay for?
Pay for?

Now if there's one thing that is standardised, it's tuition fees!

Before I decide whether to take your outrageous claims seriously or not, I need to to answer the question:

How much have you been actively involved in the standardisation procedure yourself?


a) Substantially
b) Not at all


If b) then simply don't bother replying.

[GreenLantern1]

(Original post by py0alb)
Every single piece of reliable, non-anecdotal evidence out there supports this viewpoint. I'm surprised you haven't been exposed to it.

People pay to go to Oxbridge because of the prestige factor, the myriad contacts, the fancy buildings, the extra curriculars, and the probability of being tutored into getting a good grade - NOT because its a harder or better course, because for the most part, it really isn't.

You are so naive it is unbelievable!!!

[GreenLantern1]

(Original post by py0alb)
If you don't know what you're talking about, which you clearly don't, its better that you just don't post.

Hearsay, prejudice and anecdotal experience are no basis for an argument.

He definitely knows what he is talking about. You don't

From your ignorance it is probably a good guess that you don' t attend Oxbridge and are at Strathclyde trying to make yourself feel bettter.

[py0alb]

(Original post by The Mr Z)
...

I'll take that as b) then.

Look, if you were to argue that

standardisation will never be perfect
standardisation is difficult across differing syllabuses
there are non-negligible year on year fluctuations

then I would agree with you.

But to flat out deny that standardisation occurs at all just demonstrates a profound ignorance of the system.

I understand that Oxbridge students get upset at this idea that they're not just "better" than everyone else like they like to think they are, but you have to accept the truth.

Senate House may confer the degree classifications, but it has to justify them to QAA and UUK beforehand.

[sevenbooks]

I think someone's bitter for not getting into Oxbridge.

[Mr. Tizzy XII]

(Original post by py0alb)
Incorrect.

There is difference between someone saying "I personally found this hard and this easy" - that is entirely anecdotal - and someone saying "Standardisation between degree courses does occur, I have been involved in the process myself" - thats perfectly reliable evidence.

There's also an important statistical difference between saying "there is no evidence to reject the null hypothesis - here is a single example" and "there IS sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis - here are a couple of statistically significant examples".

Brush up on your hypothesis testing before continuing to complain about cherry picking evidence.

You did the former in both cases. Your ignorance and pretentious manner don't go well together - as always, arguing with you is pointless.

[py0alb]

(Original post by sevenbooks)
I think someone's bitter for not getting into Oxbridge.

(Original post by GreenLantern1)
He definitely knows what he is talking about. You don't

From your ignorance it is probably a good guess that you don' t attend Oxbridge and are at Strathclyde trying to make yourself feel bettter.

If that's honestly the best argument you can come up with, don't bother.

[py0alb]

(Original post by Mr. Tizzy XII)
You did the former in both cases. Your ignorance and pretentious manner don't go well together - as always, arguing with you is pointless.

Did I? I said "I personally found this hard and this easy"? QUOTE ME then.

Otherwise I call troll.

Logic 1, Mr Tizzy 0

[The Mr Z]

(Original post by py0alb)
I'll take that as b) then.

Look, if you were to argue that

standardisation will never be perfect
standardisation is difficult across differing syllabuses
there are non-negligible year on year fluctuations

then I would agree with you.

But to flat out deny that standardisation occurs at all just demonstrates a profound ignorance of the system.

I understand that Oxbridge students get upset at this idea that they're not just "better" than everyone else like they like to think they are, but you have to accept the truth.

Senate House may confer the degree classifications, but it has to justify them to QAA and UUK beforehand.

You know what, I'm just going to go flat out here and call you either a troll of utterly clueless.

QAA and UUK just roll over and do what Senate House want because at the end of the day the MA Cantab is a Cambridge only degree and it will be awarded with or without those bodies say-so, and will be respected for what it is regardless of their say-so. The whole thing is just a formality.

Also, Cambridge doesn't technically offer a degree, it offers parts, and so is actually outside their jurisdiction. Benefit of being older than the law meant to govern you.

(Not to mention the fact that Oxford have far more influence than those bodies and could easily get their decisions overruled)

The only justification Cambridge do is for engineering degrees to IoME and so on to get the MEng classification, and the NHS for their medical degrees. And that standard of "standardisation" is just saying that they're up to a minimum standard, when infact the Cambridge degrees go far beyond that.




If you really are part of these organisations then all I can say to you is get your boots on the ground and see what the situation is really like.



You may attempt standardisation, but I will tell you that UK degrees are not standardised.

You also have to accept the argument that standardisation may have failed.