Do some universities give out too many firsts?

I do think that former polytechnics make First class degrees more attainable in order to give their own undergraduates a better chance in the job market as they're quite well aware, of course, that a Russell Group 2:1 is much superior to a former poly 2:1.

Russell group isn't particularly superior. The only thing it denotes is a higher research spending, which doesn't really affect undergraduates. I've heard some ****ty things about Russell groups like anywhere else.

Apologies if this refers to me I didn't mean to come off as ignorant of was just what I found doing my masters, I had covered a lot of the material previously whereas people from Polys had done very little/none of it. People from other red bricks fell in between.

Oh no! I meant in general - the thread itself. I find that some subjects are better done at ex polys and some are better done at red bricks

Any "modern" industry related degrees are pretty dire at red bricks ie: robotics, networking etc... (on average), and the older degrees tend to be pretty dire at ex polys imo

This. Vocational courses are actually better at ex-polytechnics than traditional universities. So if you're looking for a job in IT, nursing, social care, marketing, design, CAD, multimedia and all that kind of thing - you'd probably be better served by going to an ex-polytechnic to make use of their practical (rather than academic) courses and industry links.

Hey! They can still be academic!

Definitely. In the same way traditional courses can also have a vocational element. The emphasis, however, is on vocation rather than academia - which is why they're so different.

Oh no! I meant in general - the thread itself. I find that some subjects are better done at ex polys and some are better done at red bricks

Any "modern" industry related degrees are pretty dire at red bricks ie: robotics, networking etc... (on average), and the older degrees tend to be pretty dire at ex polys imo

Just though I was pretty damning about polys and didn't want to upset anyone!

Ah I think youre argument might have came across as a little agressive, but in geneeral it was the tone of the thread. Dont worry

No worries.

A friends of mine went to a poly and his degree was deeply inadequate, which I guess has left me struggling and makes me pretty annoyed that courses like that exist!

A mid range 2.2 from Cambridge is better than a first from a lot of ex-polys. A 2.1 from Cambridge is as good as a first at most Russell group universities. People can deny this until they are blue in the face but the fact is that at Cambridge plenty of people who receive 4A*s at A level get 2.1s and even 2.2s. A levels are an excellent predictor of degree classification and the vast majority of these people would be getting firsts elsewhere. I read somewhere that the proportion of people who get awarded firsts in maths is the same at Nottingham trent as it is at Cambridge which is simply laughable given the comparative standards of the students upon entering university. I'd go so far as to say a third in Cambridge maths is a hard as a first in maths at many other universities. I say this as someone who thinks Cambridge awards way too many firsts. Firsts should be awarded to the top 10% imo at all universities and employers will view it wrt how hard the exams are. I know a person who got AAA at A level who was not especially clever and who always asked for help on stupid questions who now get 80% at university in economics at Exeter. By his own admission he does a lot less work than I do. I got 4A*s and study at Cambridge and 80% is simple unachievable. The person who tops the year and is therefore arguably the best student for the age group in the subject in the country doesn't get 80%.

Its not a case of Polys handing out too many firsts and more a case of courses at polys being easier than at other Unis.

Its because there isn't really standardisation to the courses.

My undergraduate was at Bristol, and was actually more challenging in content than at other red bricks, like Leeds or Sheffield, and you could tell. People from Bristol did better on the Masters than people from other Russell groups, and no one from a poly managed a distinction at all.

May I ask what course you did? And if your friend is working?

There are standardisation to courses of medicine and dentistry that are done at some ex polys.

There are standardisation to courses of medicine and dentistry that are done at some ex polys.

Depends what you mean by "standardisation".

There are minimum standards that they must meet (which are of course very high), but that doesn't mean that they are all equally difficult.

Logic would somewhat tell me that RGs are superior to former polytechnics. First we shall look at entry requirements - RGs require anything between AAA-ABB whereas former polytechnics can drop to as low as CC. Second, the standard of course work and exams are higher at RGs resulting in degree classifications that are much harder to attain. I'm not particularly bashing lower ranked universities, and no, I don't think that their students are intellectually inferior. It's just that their students can do less and still expect very good grades. If you were referring to good universities outside of the RG then I completely agree - universities such as St Andrews, Leicester, Loughborough, Strathclyde, Lancaster, Sussex, Kent etc., etc., are all rather good.