We should shut down the lower ranked universities and bull courses - debate

Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial, Durham, St Andrews, UCL, Warwick, Bath, Exeter, Lancaster,
York, St Andrews, Surrey, Loughborough, Bristol, Leicester, Birmingham, KCL, UEA, Southampton, Edinburgh
Newcastle, Glasgow, Nottingham, Manchester, Sheffield, Aston, Kent, Queen's Belfast, Royal Holloway,
Sussex, Leeds, SOAS, St George's, Cardiff, Queen Mary, Reading, Liverpool, Essex

These are the worthy institutions in the UK

One can not shut down London Met


Posted from TSR Mobile

Practically impossible - that's what people used to say about the NHS (and yes it has it's faults) but it works!

I didn't say my ideal solution was easy or achievable overnight - but I do strongly feel the standard diversity within higher education is staggering!

Point is not all universities are currently equal - thus not all qualifications are equal.

That wasn't rude - that was pointing out that spouting off about quality standards for degrees without understanding the system of QA within and between universities just makes you look silly.

You're more than welcome to continue to give your opinion on topics you haven't looked into (which is clear from the fact that you're attempting to compare 2 subjects at 2 classifications at two institutions). I just wanted to warn you that you're posting without doing your research and so making yourself appear ignorant.


True - the example you gave made it clear that you don't understand the system of quality standards and assurance in UK universities - not the fact that I disagree with you


If you have so much experience of UK medical school standards then why on EARTH would you enter the discussion talking about chemistry and psychology degrees. Obviously the QA and regulations mechanisms are different for medicine. I'd be very interested in your experience of differential medicine teaching.

If you continue to belittle and devalue education standards without understanding the system involved then I'm afraid it isn't me who will appear immature.


Right - so you stopped at slide 4.

Then please look at slides 8, 9 & 10, 16, 17, 18 & 19 and slide 23.

Then go away and look at the quality code and subject benchmarks for psychology and chemistry.

Then look at the external examiners reports for UWE and Oxford.

At that point you'll have some insight into how degree classifications on the two degrees you reference compare in terms of "easiness". And even then that doesn't take into account the aptitude or external support available to individual students.

As I say - you're commenting on a system you clearly don't understand (and a consequence of that is that you're belittling the achievements of huge numbers of students) - that's a pretty immature thing to be doing.

Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial, Durham, St Andrews, UCL, Warwick, Bath, Exeter, Lancaster,
York, St Andrews, Surrey, Loughborough, Bristol, Leicester, Birmingham, KCL, UEA, Southampton, Edinburgh
Newcastle, Glasgow, Nottingham, Manchester, Sheffield, Aston, Kent, Queen's Belfast, Royal Holloway,
Sussex, Leeds, SOAS, St George's, Cardiff, Queen Mary, Reading, Liverpool, Essex

These are the worthy institutions in the UK

I think the fees of unis should be scaled depending on graduate prospects for each course ( down from 9k a year ofc if at all) , maybe that could solve the problem

Yes, but then someone came up with a solution, what would yours be to the issue of the fact the only specialists capable of judging these exams for maybe 20 or 30 people are already setting them? The government could retain academics who were specialists just for that purpose, but that's robbing one university of the chance to have them teacing that subject like they're paid to do!

No, but I don't think there is any illusion that they are at the moment. Look at the tops of economics, law, architecture, accountancy, the media etc. and you'll see they're absolutely dominated by Oxbridge grads and there junior levels aren't particularly different (close to half of all Magic Circle trainees attende Oxbridge for example), there is an ackowledgement of the fact and it is implemented cycle after cycle on the milkround.

I have read the entire prezi and it taught me nothing that I wasn't already aware of as a course representative - which is mentioned in the midst.

You have however failed to explain articulately and concisely as I kindly asked.

I do not wish to read external examiner reports again - but if you can summarise the key findings to support your argument that would be helpful to this thread.

I fail to grasp your point about aptitude and external support - why is that relevant?

I acknowledge there is a minimum threshold regarding standards - I never said there wasn't one.

What I am challenging is the concept that a 2:1 is a universal standard because frankly it is not.

Nobody can argue that a 2.2 in Chemistry at Oxford is harder than a 2.1 in Psychology in University West Of England.

Firstly don't be so rude - there is no need.

Secondly just because someone holds a different opinion to you doesn't mean you know what they have or haven't done.

Finally I have a great deal of knowledge about higher education. I have presented at international education conferences like AMEE and have read a great deal about different marking criteria, examiner reports, examination assessment theory and differences between medical schools - let alone different institutes!

If you can articulately and accurately explain why a 2.2 from Oxford University is easier to achieve than a 2.1 from UWE in psychology then I am all ears.

If however you are going to continue to make personal slurs and continue to conduct yourself in an immature manner, then please keep you comments to youself.

Over 100 universities in the UK and only about 40 or so are prestigious. What is the point of all of these awful institutions?

My proposal (and I can already feel the awkward tension for some other people following this thread) is this...

A tiered system - where course expectations (both lower and higher thresholds) are standardised within their tier for that subject. So for example - a 2:1 from Oxford = Bristol = Durham = Other Similar Institute

And then in a second tier, graduates can also get a 2:1 but within a different set of standards. So for example....
UWE = Worcester = Hereford = etc

The tiers could be standardised by marking cohorts of exams from other institutes within the same tier, ensuring standards are universal with the same tier. So for example a 2.1 Oxford doesn't translate to a 1st at Bristol.

This would provide employers with confidence that graduates fell into a very defined range of ability which it not the case at the moment.

I do acknowledge your bit about employment stats in certain roles but this is not universal.

Many graduate programmes (I do know there are other alternatives but this is an example) require a 2.1 minimum or there is no interview opportunity. As long as this is a requirement, even if it is a minority of jobs, I will always be supporting an alternative method of higher education assessment.

crappy universities such as ... Bournemouth

But where do you draw those lines? I imagine the average Oxbrdge grad would take umbridge at the suggestion anywhere else is at their level. The LSE grad will point out there degree was harder than a Bristol graduate's, who in turn is complaining that they had it tougher than the Manchester grad, who thinks theirs was harder than the Leicester grad's etc. etc.

Yes, but the unis compenste for this, at Oxford only 3% didn't get a 2:1 or above in English for example, sorry but if 97% of your cohort who arrived at an equal level probably did cock around a bit much for 3 years.

http://unistats.direct.gov.uk/subjects/study/10007774FT-Q300/ReturnTo/Search

A much better method is surely only to fund certain degrees, or to fund degrees by varying amounts. Then it is cheaper to study a good degree at a good institution. Markers to measure this by could be accreditation by relevant bodies, or even employment prospects.

I agree with this, except maybe not certain courses as good universities don't generally offer completely pointless courses. It's also unfair how you need a 2:1 to apply to most jobs which is much easier to get from a poly than a Russell group this would make this less of a problem


Posted from TSR Mobile