Harder to score at different Uni?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by bestofyou
Doesn't every uni have a certain % of students allowed to achieve each degree class? I have no source of course, just something I heard so that is a genuine question.
If that is the case then prehaps it is 'harder' in the sense that, as said below there are higher numbers of more able students competing for the higher degrees?
Or have I got it wrong and everyone can get a 1st if they get above 80 or what ever the cut off for a first may be?
If that is the case then prehaps it is 'harder' in the sense that, as said below there are higher numbers of more able students competing for the higher degrees?
Or have I got it wrong and everyone can get a 1st if they get above 80 or what ever the cut off for a first may be?
Original post by Suetonius
Not sure. All I know is that there are less academic people who were at my school getting 2:1s and 1sts at relatively poor institutions, and that myself and more academic people are getting that at good ones. Even if it is "skewed" so that less people at poor universities get good grades, then this would suggest that it's not by much.
The system at A Level is that they add up the number of ticks and anyone who gets 80 gets an A. That's not how it works (as I understand it!) at university.
At university, the examiners have an idea of the things they'd expect you to pick up on in your response to the question, and roughly which classification your script falls into. They arrive at your mark by placing everyone in that band "in order" and giving it a number accordingly. If everyone did "really well" or "really badly", they skew the paper to fix it. (People have pretty much written books on the skewing process in its own right!). So no, not everyone can have a First.
Original post by bestofyou
Look, I suggest you repeat your A-levels if you are that worried about attending Nottingham Trent because I assure you your lack of faith with your uni will not go away. What course are you doing btw?
There was a thread recently about a 1st from brunel vs 2:2 from RG uni.
It was decided that a 2:2 wouldn't even get you past the entry standards for postgrads and grad jobs therefore I'd say a 1st from Trent is better than a 2:2 from Notts.
There was a thread recently about a 1st from brunel vs 2:2 from RG uni.
It was decided that a 2:2 wouldn't even get you past the entry standards for postgrads and grad jobs therefore I'd say a 1st from Trent is better than a 2:2 from Notts.
Just a discussion i had in mind... nothing personal
1st from brunel vs 2:1 from RG uni
By the way, since 70% is already first class honors... is there any award for people who scored 80% and above
how bout that?
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by bestofyou
may we see your source of info for this rather strong statement?
She's in Year 10, you may be waiting a while.
Original post by Aeschylus
Didn't we have this argument 2 days ago?
No. That was a discussion about a groundhog.
Original post by The99Call
I dont understand how people can say that the degrees are the same difficulty.
For example i had to get AAA to get onto my History course.
Someone who got CCC at A level, then went to do a History degree at a different University would not be as academically able as me in the subject, therefore not expected to complete the same difficulty work as me at University. This would be unfair on the other candidate more than anything, degrees must be catered to the intellect of the particular person, surely?
For example i had to get AAA to get onto my History course.
Someone who got CCC at A level, then went to do a History degree at a different University would not be as academically able as me in the subject, therefore not expected to complete the same difficulty work as me at University. This would be unfair on the other candidate more than anything, degrees must be catered to the intellect of the particular person, surely?
Entry requirements are set by the demand for the course or the number of students a university can take. Some universities increase their grades speculatively knowing the higher grade requirements attract students with higher grades, like Veblen goods they perceive more expensive goods, to be better.
Secondly, not necessarily. Better universities tend to get higher percentages of better degrees. Additionally, performance at A-level is not indicative of intelligence or work ethic, or indeed ability at degree level. Lots of people go to bad schools, don't work hard and then really apply themselves at university. Additionally, being good at Maths and Physics doesn't mean you're good at History, i.e. BCC - with the B in History at a bad school; if that person applied themselves at university, and if they had the potential perhaps they would get a first at your university. I know someone who got ABB, got into an AAA course, go the highest grades in that year. Obviously CCC is a big swoop, I'm not sure what credible universities make those sort of offers - I don't think there are any.
Original post by bestofyou
Cambridge is in a league of its own for maths.
Engineering at University of Ulster (this is are the Jordanstown Campus which I believe was a former polytechinic business school (and a rather decent one I heard)) gives less firsts (9%) than Queens Belfast (30%)
So accoarding to your theory Ulster is better than QUB for EEE? Despite the fact that Queens is the higher ranked engineering dept. and has higher entry standards?
Unistats is not a source. It is a bunch of statisics. You can't win an arguement based of statisitcs alone, as I have just proven, because it has more holes in it than a sieve.
Engineering at University of Ulster (this is are the Jordanstown Campus which I believe was a former polytechinic business school (and a rather decent one I heard)) gives less firsts (9%) than Queens Belfast (30%)
So accoarding to your theory Ulster is better than QUB for EEE? Despite the fact that Queens is the higher ranked engineering dept. and has higher entry standards?
Unistats is not a source. It is a bunch of statisics. You can't win an arguement based of statisitcs alone, as I have just proven, because it has more holes in it than a sieve.
You're missing the point. I'm not saying that better unis always give out fewer firsts, I am saying that top unis don't give out virtually all firsts, and the least prestigious unis don't give out virtually no firsts.
Original post by The99Call
I dont understand how people can say that the degrees are the same difficulty.
For example i had to get AAA to get onto my History course.
Someone who got CCC at A level, then went to do a History degree at a different University would not be as academically able as me in the subject, therefore not expected to complete the same difficulty work as me at University. This would be unfair on the other candidate more than anything, degrees must be catered to the intellect of the particular person, surely?
For example i had to get AAA to get onto my History course.
Someone who got CCC at A level, then went to do a History degree at a different University would not be as academically able as me in the subject, therefore not expected to complete the same difficulty work as me at University. This would be unfair on the other candidate more than anything, degrees must be catered to the intellect of the particular person, surely?
The entry requirements are not necessarily indicative of how hard the course is but can be driven up by high demand as well.
most of the people on my course got at least ABB, I somehow (and I still don't really understand how) managed to get in even though I spectacularly missed my offer and got CCCD. I am consistently getting mid to high 2:1s so although I'm clearly not the best on the course I'm doing fairy well. And since its the same course its the same difficulty.
I know my personally experience isn't really evidence its just more of an example
I don't know - nobody can ever know for sure.
Ond the one hand I'd personally be more impressed by a 2:1 from Oxbridge than a First from a post-1992 Uni.
On the other hand looking at grants available for postgraduates they ask for a 2:1 from ANY Uni. At some jobs, they ask for a 2:1 from ANY Uni. They don't say 'ahh, but you canhave a 2:2 from Oxbridge'.
It's similar to the argument that some A-levels in different examining boards are easier.
However as exam papers and coursework are marked by an outside examiner in every Uni, I assume that it is regulated and if you can get a 2:1 in one Uni, you should in another. If not then some of the Unis could just say 'come to our place, we'll give you a First'!!.
Ond the one hand I'd personally be more impressed by a 2:1 from Oxbridge than a First from a post-1992 Uni.
On the other hand looking at grants available for postgraduates they ask for a 2:1 from ANY Uni. At some jobs, they ask for a 2:1 from ANY Uni. They don't say 'ahh, but you canhave a 2:2 from Oxbridge'.
It's similar to the argument that some A-levels in different examining boards are easier.
However as exam papers and coursework are marked by an outside examiner in every Uni, I assume that it is regulated and if you can get a 2:1 in one Uni, you should in another. If not then some of the Unis could just say 'come to our place, we'll give you a First'!!.
I wouldn't necessarily argue against courses at the 'elite' institutions are harder than elsewhere but I have a few points to make.
I achieved ABB at A level, a decent but unremarkable set of results and ended up at York uni for my first year of undergrad physics. There was a friend of mine on my course who had A*A*A in his A levels (his third A level was also much tougher than mine), but when the end of year results came out, we actually had the same mark pretty much - he averaged 72, I averaged 71. I moved to Liverpool for my second year (where there's no noticeable change in standard between them in 2nd year work), but the same has happened this year, but this year he got 81 and I got 79, albeit in slightly different modules. I also happen to know that he's worked harder than me. It just goes to show that A level performance doesn't show how good you'll be at uni. There are similar cases of low A level scorers getting top marks at uni, and vice versa, just from people I know.
Also, while revising for my astrophysics paper in May I stumbled across a paper used at Oxford in their equivalent module. The Oxford paper was actually a 3rd year paper but that's beyond the point, they just do the modules differently, but the questions in the Oxford paper could well have come up in my exam (and very similar ones have in the past) because the standard was the same (I did this paper as part of my revision and had no major problems). Again, I know this isn't a comparison between a bottom ranked uni and Oxbridge, Liverpool is still a Russel Group uni and such, but from some comments you get around, you'd think it was a different qualification.
Like I said, I wouldn't argue that there will be differences in standards between some unis, but A level performance doesn't always carry over to uni due to the change in teaching style (I imagine especially for subjects with fewer contact hours, where a lot of material is self taught), and at the very least, standards aren't as different as they're made out to be.
I achieved ABB at A level, a decent but unremarkable set of results and ended up at York uni for my first year of undergrad physics. There was a friend of mine on my course who had A*A*A in his A levels (his third A level was also much tougher than mine), but when the end of year results came out, we actually had the same mark pretty much - he averaged 72, I averaged 71. I moved to Liverpool for my second year (where there's no noticeable change in standard between them in 2nd year work), but the same has happened this year, but this year he got 81 and I got 79, albeit in slightly different modules. I also happen to know that he's worked harder than me. It just goes to show that A level performance doesn't show how good you'll be at uni. There are similar cases of low A level scorers getting top marks at uni, and vice versa, just from people I know.
Also, while revising for my astrophysics paper in May I stumbled across a paper used at Oxford in their equivalent module. The Oxford paper was actually a 3rd year paper but that's beyond the point, they just do the modules differently, but the questions in the Oxford paper could well have come up in my exam (and very similar ones have in the past) because the standard was the same (I did this paper as part of my revision and had no major problems). Again, I know this isn't a comparison between a bottom ranked uni and Oxbridge, Liverpool is still a Russel Group uni and such, but from some comments you get around, you'd think it was a different qualification.
Like I said, I wouldn't argue that there will be differences in standards between some unis, but A level performance doesn't always carry over to uni due to the change in teaching style (I imagine especially for subjects with fewer contact hours, where a lot of material is self taught), and at the very least, standards aren't as different as they're made out to be.
Yeah, it's definitely harder to score at different unis. Moving from third year Physics at Cambridge to fourth year Physics at UCL was a colossal step down in terms of amount of content, difficulty of content, pace of delivery etc. etc. I worked way less hard and my exam scores went from around the mid-high 50s to mid-high 80s.
With respect to the poster above, stuff like that would just not happen at Cambridge. For the first two years physics grades are given out in quotas (so 25% firsts, 35% 2.1s, etc etc), meaning only 60% of people can get a 2.1 for above, somewhat harsh on the student cohort. A score of 79 there would be totally incomparable to getting a 79 elsewhere.
Even if you just take the exams on their own at face value (which probably aren't miles more difficult question by question than others at other unis) you have to take into account the main difficulty is the amount of content and speed of delivery. The first year for each science is practically a first year course at any other uni, and as you're doing three sciences + maths, you've practically got 3-4 the amount of content of any other first year science course, all delivered in about 18 weeks, with all the material for each course condensed down and examined in one three hour exam. It's total madness to say that a score achieved at the end of the year in this course is directly equivalent to one at the end of the year in another. If it were, well then **** me I must have somehow improved a lot between third and fourth year.
With respect to the poster above, stuff like that would just not happen at Cambridge. For the first two years physics grades are given out in quotas (so 25% firsts, 35% 2.1s, etc etc), meaning only 60% of people can get a 2.1 for above, somewhat harsh on the student cohort. A score of 79 there would be totally incomparable to getting a 79 elsewhere.
Even if you just take the exams on their own at face value (which probably aren't miles more difficult question by question than others at other unis) you have to take into account the main difficulty is the amount of content and speed of delivery. The first year for each science is practically a first year course at any other uni, and as you're doing three sciences + maths, you've practically got 3-4 the amount of content of any other first year science course, all delivered in about 18 weeks, with all the material for each course condensed down and examined in one three hour exam. It's total madness to say that a score achieved at the end of the year in this course is directly equivalent to one at the end of the year in another. If it were, well then **** me I must have somehow improved a lot between third and fourth year.
Original post by Nichrome
Yeah, it's definitely harder to score at different unis. Moving from third year Physics at Cambridge to fourth year Physics at UCL was a colossal step down in terms of amount of content, difficulty of content, pace of delivery etc. etc. I worked way less hard and my exam scores went from around the mid-high 50s to mid-high 80s.
With respect to the poster above, stuff like that would just not happen at Cambridge. For the first two years physics grades are given out in quotas (so 25% firsts, 35% 2.1s, etc etc), meaning only 60% of people can get a 2.1 for above, somewhat harsh on the student cohort. A score of 79 there would be totally incomparable to getting a 79 elsewhere.
Even if you just take the exams on their own at face value (which probably aren't miles more difficult question by question than others at other unis) you have to take into account the main difficulty is the amount of content and speed of delivery. The first year for each science is practically a first year course at any other uni, and as you're doing three sciences + maths, you've practically got 3-4 the amount of content of any other first year science course, all delivered in about 18 weeks, with all the material for each course condensed down and examined in one three hour exam. It's total madness to say that a score achieved at the end of the year in this course is directly equivalent to one at the end of the year in another. If it were, well then **** me I must have somehow improved a lot between third and fourth year.
With respect to the poster above, stuff like that would just not happen at Cambridge. For the first two years physics grades are given out in quotas (so 25% firsts, 35% 2.1s, etc etc), meaning only 60% of people can get a 2.1 for above, somewhat harsh on the student cohort. A score of 79 there would be totally incomparable to getting a 79 elsewhere.
Even if you just take the exams on their own at face value (which probably aren't miles more difficult question by question than others at other unis) you have to take into account the main difficulty is the amount of content and speed of delivery. The first year for each science is practically a first year course at any other uni, and as you're doing three sciences + maths, you've practically got 3-4 the amount of content of any other first year science course, all delivered in about 18 weeks, with all the material for each course condensed down and examined in one three hour exam. It's total madness to say that a score achieved at the end of the year in this course is directly equivalent to one at the end of the year in another. If it were, well then **** me I must have somehow improved a lot between third and fourth year.
Which bit in my post does the bit I've highlighted refer to?
Also, with all due respect, you don't have 3-4 times the content of a normal undergrad science degree (also, this would surely apply to all natural science degrees, not just Cambridge). Having looked up the natural sciences course at Cambridge, from the list of courses you take in first year (of which you take 3 I believe, plus the maths one), my first year physics basically encompassed 3 of them, and the maths one. There is some other stuff which I covered as well, which isn't mentioned, but I'll assume that it's still covered, but not mentioned in the documents I've seen, or there's a bit of extra stuff in the materials science/chemistry bits in its place.
Again, 2nd year, the physics and maths options outline a lot of my second year, with some cross over into the chemistry courses, plus I've done a lot of the part II astrophysics course (as I'm on astrophysics, which has replaced the electronics modules in the straight physics).
3rd and 4th years obviously get more complicated in both unis with more options etc...but going through a natural science degree with the Cambridge specifications, I can pretty much tailor it to match my degree, it's just that what would be 3 modules at my uni, is one 'course' at Cambridge. The issue comes in that at Cambridge (and Oxford and other unis) has shorter terms than others. I have about 22 teaching weeks, with some smaller modules dipping in or out later or earlier, whereas you may have only had 18 or 19 weeks. Having said that though, I believe that I have less contact time per week, so the actual number of hours teaching is similar, Cambridge just being a bit more tiring. Cambridge themselves even say that specializing in 3rd/4th year 'gets you to the same level of understanding of a normal science degree in other universities'.
Like I said, a first at Cambridge may be harder to get than a first at another uni, especially by the 'only 25% get a first etc...' method (although I still would've had a first in my first year as I was in the top 15%, granted I'm not competing against Cambridge students), and there are obvious differences in expectations at different unis and such, but I'm still completely unconvinced that there's a huge difference. Obviously this is still comparing to Liverpool/York, which aren't the worst unis, I don't know what it's like at some of the unis more towards the bottom of the league tables.
EDIT: Your experience of the change to UCL could have also been influenced by other factors, just in a difference of how the courses are run/which modules are taught and stuff; maybe it is a bit easier, maybe it's not, but it will be different (I'm sure there are people who would have found it similar or harder).
(edited 11 years ago)
Listen to the nottingham uni song on youtube, then you will know the answer to this question..
also trent is not a uni of type of university...its a polytechnic
also trent is not a uni of type of university...its a polytechnic
Original post by DKDarkKnight
Is it harder to score a First class honors at University of Nottingham compare to University of Nottingham Trent?
Does it differ much by university ranking?
For example University of east London (Being last in UK league table) is easier to get a First Class Honors compared to University of West England and much much easier compared to University of Lancaster so forth.
Does the value of first class honors different from each other? For example, If i score a second class upper in Oxford, i am better than people who scored a first class honors in university of Nottingham Trent.
Does it differ much by university ranking?
For example University of east London (Being last in UK league table) is easier to get a First Class Honors compared to University of West England and much much easier compared to University of Lancaster so forth.
Does the value of first class honors different from each other? For example, If i score a second class upper in Oxford, i am better than people who scored a first class honors in university of Nottingham Trent.
Original post by Aeschylus
Didn't we have this argument 2 days ago?
TSR GUD house rules: If it's not on the front page of the forum, it's totally fair game to ask the question again. Hopefully the millionth time it's asked they'll get a balloon or something.
Coming soon: "Could a student with a first from London Met get into Cambridge for postrad study?", followed closely by "is it harder to get a job from a lower ranking university?" and my favourite, "the UK Ivy League".
Not to be missed.
Original post by dilburt
Listen to the nottingham uni song on youtube, then you will know the answer to this question..
also trent is not a uni of type of university...its a polytechnic
also trent is not a uni of type of university...its a polytechnic
It was a poly many years ago but not any more. In fact it's been a full status university for 20 years now. The standards there however are likely suited to fit the type of students that apply there i.e those with BBB at A-Level on average. A uni of type of uni as you put it has nothing to do with it. No doubt uni's that have similar entry requirements such as Uni of Hull, Uni of Bradford or Uni of Plymouth have similar academic standards as Trent.
Original post by Nichrome
Yeah, it's definitely harder to score at different unis. Moving from third year Physics at Cambridge to fourth year Physics at UCL was a colossal step down in terms of amount of content, difficulty of content, pace of delivery etc. etc. I worked way less hard and my exam scores went from around the mid-high 50s to mid-high 80s.
To be fair, the fourth year physics may just be easier.
At Imperial the average goes up by around 10ppt from year 3 to year 4, and the MSc is essentially the same (1 more option and a somewhat longer project) but taken over 12 months rather than 8, which would make it even easier.
It was also possible to be choosy with options, which were not necessarily harder. More specialised, yes, but unless you're taking the hard core theory options probably not harder than the 2nd year courses.
Original post by Observatory
To be fair, the fourth year physics may just be easier.
At Imperial the average goes up by around 10ppt from year 3 to year 4, and the MSc is essentially the same (1 more option and a somewhat longer project) but taken over 12 months rather than 8, which would make it even easier.
It was also possible to be choosy with options, which were not necessarily harder. More specialised, yes, but unless you're taking the hard core theory options probably not harder than the 2nd year courses.
At Imperial the average goes up by around 10ppt from year 3 to year 4, and the MSc is essentially the same (1 more option and a somewhat longer project) but taken over 12 months rather than 8, which would make it even easier.
It was also possible to be choosy with options, which were not necessarily harder. More specialised, yes, but unless you're taking the hard core theory options probably not harder than the 2nd year courses.
Seems doubtful. The average obviously goes up as the weaker students are going to have left after third year, usually only the stronger students stay for the MSci year. And how on earth does having a longer project make it easier? At UCL at least, those doing the MSc over the MSci had to do a much more involved project, something between what an MSci students and an MRes student would do, along with an additional module AND a research review that MSci students didn't have to do. I guess you could argue however that it was nicer to be able to concentrate solely on the project after exams without having to worry about lectures and the like.
Original post by The99Call
I dont understand how people can say that the degrees are the same difficulty.
For example i had to get AAA to get onto my History course.
Someone who got CCC at A level, then went to do a History degree at a different University would not be as academically able as me in the subject, therefore not expected to complete the same difficulty work as me at University. This would be unfair on the other candidate more than anything, degrees must be catered to the intellect of the particular person, surely?
For example i had to get AAA to get onto my History course.
Someone who got CCC at A level, then went to do a History degree at a different University would not be as academically able as me in the subject, therefore not expected to complete the same difficulty work as me at University. This would be unfair on the other candidate more than anything, degrees must be catered to the intellect of the particular person, surely?
Entry grades do not indicate course difficulty, just popularity. For example, my tariff for Geography at Sussex is AAB, and Chemistry at Sussex is ABB. Chemistry is harder, hands down, but because Geogrpahy is more popular the entry standards are higher.
(edited 11 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- LNAT Prep for 2023/2024 - Using Arbitio
- Kings college law rejection
- Meeting English requirements-no response from the uni
- LNAT arbitio vs real thing
- Medicine Courses With Places
- Pharmacy Foundation Year
- Foundation medicine
- Imperial Physics low student satisfaction
- Bocconi Undergrad 2020 Onwards
- USA Uni
- Medentry vs Medify Mock
- Why are my arbitio LNAT scores going lower?
- A100 Medicine open days 2024 entry
- UCAT 2024 Entry Discussions Megathread
- About applying to medicine
- Is it possible to apply for a Law degree that requires A*AA if I'm predicted A*AB
- i got a low ucat what do i do
- I want to do medicine and I think I will get mediocre AS (NOT A2) grades.
- Maths at Oxford or Cambridge?
- something you wish youknew about?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
