The Student Room Group

Why hasn't the UK standardised degrees yet?

Is a 2:1 in history at Oxford Brookes worth the same as a 2:1 in history at Oxford?


I often see this kind of thing being discussed around TSR, and the TES has written a really interesting article on it. So I thought I'd share. :h:

So, should degree classifications be standardised across the UK?

Are universities gaining too much from the 'conspiracy of silence' (i.e, they benefit from the ambiguity which allows them to market the value of their degrees as they wish)?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Puddles the Monkey
I often see this kind of thing being discussed around TSR, and the TES has written a really interesting article on it. So I thought I'd share. :h:

So, should degree classifications be standardised across the UK?

Are universities gaining too much from the 'conspiracy of silence' (i.e, they benefit from the ambiguity which allows them to market the value of their degrees as they wish)?

I believe that a 2:1 degree from Oxford is worth a lot more than a 2:1 from a lesser university. The best staff go to the best universities, and so do the best students. Therefore, more relevant and up to date topics are taught, and university research is more highly accredited. If I was an employer, I would rather recruit someone with a degree from Oxford than a degree from Oxford Brooke's, or even Manchester or Birmingham etc.
Reply 2
It would be impossible to do so. The standard of the difficulty of degrees, even in the same subjects, differs hugely across different universities.
Original post by a320airbus97
I believe that a 2:1 degree from Oxford is worth a lot more than a 2:1 from a lesser university. The best staff go to the best universities, and so do the best students. Therefore, more relevant and up to date topics are taught, and university research is more highly accredited. If I was an employer, I would rather recruit someone with a degree from Oxford than a degree from Oxford Brooke's, or even Manchester or Birmingham etc.


Are you aware that there was a hidden sub-text to the question? The question was asked about history and the reason for that was that Brookes' history faculty had outperformed Oxford's in the Research Assessment Exercise.


Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by nulli tertius
Are you aware that there was a hidden sub-text to the question? The question was asked about history and the reason for that was that Brookes' history faculty had outperformed Oxford's in the Research Assessment Exercise.


Posted from TSR Mobile


Is the quality of a university's research of any value to undergraduates?
Original post by Birkenhead
Is the quality of a university's research of any value to undergraduates?


That is of course a different question.

The Oxford/Brookes question had a second part "how would you know".

It really was one of the finest questions ever asked by a Parliamentary Committee and it is a pity the research assistant who devised it never received any credit.

Certainly the Russell Group today trumpets the value of research led teaching and you see academics also parroting it. A lot of people on TSR treat it as Holy Writ.

It would be interesting to research into the origin of the idea. My suspicion is that it dates back no further than 2000. I think it is a marketing idea. What have we got that the other fellows haven't got? Then that is what we must stress the value of.

I don't think the RG would have been keen on mentioning this at all in their very early days because if research was vital to university teaching that would be justification from nicking some research funding from RG universities to give it to the new universities. This was only something to be stressed once the RG was secure in the proportion of research funding received.

If you look at the Dearing Report from 1997 (paras 11.58 to 11.68) there isn't the fixation on research there currently is in HE led by Russell Group propaganda .

http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/dearing1997/dearing1997.html#11

Likewise in the Robbins Report 1963 paras 553-563.

http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/robbins/robbins1963.html#13

Robbins was against taking research out of the universities but on the RG's present view to even have suggested that would have been farcical.
Original post by nulli tertius
That is of course a different question.

The Oxford/Brookes question had a second part "how would you know".

It really was one of the finest questions ever asked by a Parliamentary Committee and it is a pity the research assistant who devised it never received any credit.

Certainly the Russell Group today trumpets the value of research led teaching and you see academics also parroting it. A lot of people on TSR treat it as Holy Writ.

It would be interesting to research into the origin of the idea. My suspicion is that it dates back no further than 2000. I think it is a marketing idea. What have we got that the other fellows haven't got? Then that is what we must stress the value of.

I don't think the RG would have been keen on mentioning this at all in their very early days because if research was vital to university teaching that would be justification from nicking some research funding from RG universities to give it to the new universities. This was only something to be stressed once the RG was secure in the proportion of research funding received.

If you look at the Dearing Report from 1997 (paras 11.58 to 11.68) there isn't the fixation on research there currently is in HE led by Russell Group propaganda .

http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/dearing1997/dearing1997.html#11

Likewise in the Robbins Report 1963 paras 553-563.

http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/robbins/robbins1963.html#13

Robbins was against taking research out of the universities but on the RG's present view to even have suggested that would have been farcical.


When I was looking at unis in the '80s I wrote to the Institute of Electrical Engineers (which is what it was called back then) and asked them if they could make any recommendations for excellent teaching, they replied with a list of research assessments - mainly places that we'd recognise today as the redbrick RGs iirc. (I don't think I kept the letter tbh). There wasn't any rationale given, I guessed it was just all they had on the matter.

Doesn't show much apart from prospective undergraduates have been getting fobbed off with research ratings for quite a long time, though not on the current industrial scale and the unis themselves weren't making a song and dance over it in their undergrad marketing iirc.
Reply 7
I think there used to be a standardisation agency for polytechnics (because they technically couldn't award degrees or something)? Perhaps it was abolished when they were abolished? I suppose you could try to find a way of assessing relative standards, but for most degrees it probably doesn't matter that much.

I think for accredited degrees (Psychology, Engineering, Medicine etc.) you can leave it to the accrediting institutions to set a sort of basic standard. That still doesn't mean the higher degree classifications are comparable, but at least you know if you pass, you have passed a minimum set standard recognised by the profession.
Impossible. What would the 'Oxbridge or I'm off the bridge' and STEMMasterRace spammers have to look down on others if this happened? :wink:

(Not referring to you Puddles, I like you Sir :hugs:)
Original post by Puddles the Monkey
I often see this kind of thing being discussed around TSR, and the TES has written a really interesting article on it. So I thought I'd share. :h:

So, should degree classifications be standardised across the UK?

Are universities gaining too much from the 'conspiracy of silence' (i.e, they benefit from the ambiguity which allows them to market the value of their degrees as they wish)?

I'm not aware of any other country that has managed to regulate degree classification/grades.

I think the problem isn't so much a "conspiracy of silence" as the huge bureaucratic burden that standardised marking would entail. Plus it's only really robust if you have a standardised syllabus which then means you're losing the diversity of the HE market.

I do think the secrecy around external examiners reports is ridiculous - for a few years they were in the public domain on the predecessor to the unistats website and they were really useful in terms of giving students *current* information on how a subject taught/marked (rather than the occasional subject reviews popping up on the QAA website).

Also the QAA needs a massive kick up the arse. The fact that they needed HEFCE to enforce http://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/lt/publicinfo/widerinfo/ for 2012 says everything about how little influence they have over ensuring universities are open about their offering and policies.
Reply 10
No. Firstly because for certain subjects the quality of the cohort at Oxbridge and the other couple of top universities for that subject is chalk and cheese in comparison to the standard of other universities, so it's hardly practical standardising examinations. The other option is to purely standardise the classification, but the reality is some universities, again for certain subjects, would never be awarding anything above a 2:2.
Original post by PQ
I'm not aware of any other country that has managed to regulate degree classification/grades.

I think the problem isn't so much a "conspiracy of silence" as the huge bureaucratic burden that standardised marking would entail. Plus it's only really robust if you have a standardised syllabus which then means you're losing the diversity of the HE market.




We used to think we did. The Council for National Academic Awards did claim to standardise degree marking for over 20 Polys. But more than that when its external examiners were reviewing the marks at Trent Poly and ensuring they were comparable with universities they weren't thinking "do I mark this to Durham standards or to Keele standards"



Posted from TSR Mobile
It would be favourable, but perhaps not workable.

I've always viewed the current system as rather unfair, and potentially damaging in some cases - at least if employers had the same views as those on TSR. If, like some on this forum say, an Oxbridge degree is worth so much more than even a top RG uni degree, how can we expect these students to have faith in their education? Why go through the bother of working so hard, even for a First, if the guy at Oxford with the exact same degree and grade as you is going to be viewed as inherently better?

Though, luckily, this kind of attitude doesn't at all seem to have permeated universities themselves at this stage. For admission to essentially any Masters or PhD course, even Oxbridge themselves would not discriminate based on the quality of the undergrad institution. I find that to be a better way of looking at things, in some regards. Anyone who comes out of university with a First has significantly achieved, usually regardless of wherever they achieved it from.

I think a more important question, in fact, is how should we judge those who go to the top universities and underachieve? I would like to think that anyone in their right mind would think a First from somewhere like Manchester - or even mid-tier unis like Reading or Royal Holloway - is superior to a Third from Oxbridge. Unfortunately, not everyone on TSR at least seems to agree.

Perhaps if groups of universities could come to agreements over standardisation it would be beneficial. I think it would be very, very good, for instance, if the Russell Group agreed to standardise their grading systems. The quality of universities within the RG is close enough that such a system would function well, I believe.
Original post by Robertus
It would be favourable, but perhaps not workable.

I've always viewed the current system as rather unfair, and potentially damaging in some cases - at least if employers had the same views as those on TSR. If, like some on this forum say, an Oxbridge degree is worth so much more than even a top RG uni degree, how can we expect these students to have faith in their education? Why go through the bother of working so hard, even for a First, if the guy at Oxford with the exact same degree and grade as you is going to be viewed as inherently better?

Though, luckily, this kind of attitude doesn't at all seem to have permeated universities themselves at this stage. For admission to essentially any Masters or PhD course, even Oxbridge themselves would not discriminate based on the quality of the undergrad institution. I find that to be a better way of looking at things, in some regards. Anyone who comes out of university with a First has significantly achieved, usually regardless of wherever they achieved it from.

I think a more important question, in fact, is how should we judge those who go to the top universities and underachieve? I would like to think that anyone in their right mind would think a First from somewhere like Manchester - or even mid-tier unis like Reading or Royal Holloway - is superior to a Third from Oxbridge. Unfortunately, not everyone on TSR at least seems to agree.

Perhaps if groups of universities could come to agreements over standardisation it would be beneficial. I think it would be very, very good, for instance, if the Russell Group agreed to standardise their grading systems. The quality of universities within the RG is close enough that such a system would function well, I believe.


I think the system as fine as it is honestly. This stuff isn't an exact science and employers don't treat it as such. It never will be an exact science so why change what clearly cannot be fixed?
For those saying all the best academics are at Oxbridge, a large proportion of my lecturers are Harvard/Oxford (primarily) graduates and I'm not Oxbridge...
A less helpful comment: Maybe politicians are too concerned about the invasion of UKIP to actually do anything productive and sensible for us... Would make sense as they tend to cover their own backs before thinking about what's right to do.

Serious note though, no excuse on the part of the unis. It will probably take the government calling for it to make it happen though, as clearly "lesser" institutions will be extremely reluctant.
Original post by EloiseStar
For those saying all the best academics are at Oxbridge, a large proportion of my lecturers are Harvard/Oxford (primarily) graduates and I'm not Oxbridge...


This, too, is the case. Even at mid-tier universities, significant proportions of academics are graduates from the likes of Oxford, Cambridge, and other international institutions of equal standing.

The quality of teaching at most good universities in the UK is relatively equal as a result. You will find brilliant academics at all of the Russell Groups and a fair few outside. The reason the universities themselves are not equal is largely because they do not - and perhaps could not - raise the entry requirements, workload and difficulty of courses to a higher level. Oxbridge dominates precisely because they choose only the best students, and seek to provide courses that consistently challenge even relative experts in their field.
Original post by Robertus
This, too, is the case. Even at mid-tier universities, significant proportions of academics are graduates from the likes of Oxford, Cambridge, and other international institutions of equal standing.

The quality of teaching at most good universities in the UK is relatively equal as a result. You will find brilliant academics at all of the Russell Groups and a fair few outside. The reason the universities themselves are not equal is largely because they do not - and perhaps could not - raise the entry requirements, workload and difficulty of courses to a higher level. Oxbridge dominates precisely because they choose only the best students, and seek to provide courses that consistently challenge even relative experts in their field.


My uni isn't even RG so whoever is making these assumptions, simply is wrong...

One of the departments at my university is well known, it has the largest proportion of funding, best academics, but we are not RG, top 50 at an absolute push. However, the research, funding etc it has been proven that undergrads are graduating with better prospects than those at Oxford and is top 5 in the UK. (Psychology by the way). Its so hard to standardise because there is such variation between university departments let alone the universities themselves!
If degree standards were comparable, then what would be the point in going to Cambridge over, say, Manchester Met? I might as well have slacked off at A Level and achieved ABB rather than A*A*A* and came out with a equal degree (that is easier) from an inferior institution.
Original post by Robertus
It would be favourable, but perhaps not workable.

I've always viewed the current system as rather unfair, and potentially damaging in some cases - at least if employers had the same views as those on TSR. If, like some on this forum say, an Oxbridge degree is worth so much more than even a top RG uni degree, how can we expect these students to have faith in their education? Why go through the bother of working so hard, even for a First, if the guy at Oxford with the exact same degree and grade as you is going to be viewed as inherently better?

Though, luckily, this kind of attitude doesn't at all seem to have permeated universities themselves at this stage. For admission to essentially any Masters or PhD course, even Oxbridge themselves would not discriminate based on the quality of the undergrad institution. I find that to be a better way of looking at things, in some regards. Anyone who comes out of university with a First has significantly achieved, usually regardless of wherever they achieved it from.

I think a more important question, in fact, is how should we judge those who go to the top universities and underachieve? I would like to think that anyone in their right mind would think a First from somewhere like Manchester - or even mid-tier unis like Reading or Royal Holloway - is superior to a Third from Oxbridge. Unfortunately, not everyone on TSR at least seems to agree.

Perhaps if groups of universities could come to agreements over standardisation it would be beneficial. I think it would be very, very good, for instance, if the Russell Group agreed to standardise their grading systems. The quality of universities within the RG is close enough that such a system would function well, I believe.


The only people who debate that an Oxbridge degree is worth more even with a lower class are people who get lower class degrees from Oxbridge because they found at they're not as clever as they think they are :lol:

Latest