got a third

It depends what he wants to do. Some places might run a graduate diploma he could do in order to gain access on a masters(and then possibly a PhD if he did well enough)

Reply 3

tomtom13

OP

what sort of uni's (lesser) would be potential ones?

Reply 4

tomtom13

OP

the graduate diploma sounds really good... how would i find information on this?

Reply 5

ermmm..

http://bp0.blogger.com/_t5d6ARpRWP4/RuzAF07PiuI/AAAAAAAAAAM/SKDP2f13eJQ/s1600-h/no+eye+deer.bmp

Your best bet is to look at different departments and see if they offer one. I believe they were designed to allow graduates to move into a different subject at a postgraduate level, but they can be used by people who didn't do as well as they hoped to improve their chances (it's basically sitting a third year of a degree).

Try searching "graduate diploma" together with the subject your friend wants to do, hopefully something will turn up.

Note that you might not be able to find one in a subject quite as specific as genetics. Instead you may have to do something broarder, like biology (A quick search reveals that Birbeck runs a graduate diploma courses in Molecuar Biology and Biomedicine, for instance).

Reply 6

shuvle

12

tomtom13

what sort of uni's (lesser) would be potential ones?

Reply 7

Spanky Deluxe

1

TBH, your friend will find it really tough to do postgraduate research. Sorry to be blunt. Yes he will probably be able to get onto a masters course but even if he gets a distinction in his masters, he still would not be eligible for any PhD funding that I'm aware of. Realistically, he would have to self fund his way through a PhD.
Honestly, his best bet if he's serious about going into research is to go back to basics and do another BSc - mind you, it would have to be in a different subject. I think this route would result in far less debt. If he works hard and tries to get research placements booked for every Summer holidays and then gets a good 2.1 or a 1st then he'd probably be able to get onto a funded PhD without having to do a masters course.
If he were to do an MSc and then self fund a part time PhD then it would take him 5-8 years of debt building times to become qualified. Chances are he wouldn't be able to do his research in a department with a good reputation and in the sciences, part time students can often be treated like second class citizens. If he starts a new BSc and makes sure to work hard then he could get qualified with a PhD in 6-7 years with only three of those years being debt incurring.
I know that it sounds incredibly depressing to think about possibly going back and doing undergraduate level again but it would be a hell of a lot less depressing than having to give up his dreams after he realises that he can't afford or can't get even a self-funded part time place after an MSc. I know of two people who have gone this route and I would strongly advise anyone else to consider doing the same.

Reply 8

generalebriety

16

Can I be rather rude and ask what he hopes to achieve amongst researchers if he couldn't learn 50% of the material handed to him for his undergraduate degree?

Reply 9

generalebriety

Can I be rather rude and ask what he hopes to achieve amongst researchers if he couldn't learn 50% of the material handed to him for his undergraduate degree?

I don't think that's entirely fair. It'd be an uphill battle, certainly, but there can be plenty of reasons why someone doesn't do well first time around. If he or she worked hard bringing themselves up to scratch and proved themselves via a grad dip or some other postgrad qualification, there's no reason they shouldn't be able to make a decent go of it.

Reply 10

generalebriety

Can I be rather rude and ask what he hopes to achieve amongst researchers if he couldn't learn 50% of the material handed to him for his undergraduate degree?

It is also worth pointing out that not all postgraduate degrees are tailored towards research. Indeed, I would say that the majority, these days, aren't as such. Taught postgraduate degrees exist for good reason.

Reply 11

generalebriety

16

MrShifty

I don't think that's entirely fair. It'd be an uphill battle, certainly, but there can be plenty of reasons why someone doesn't do well first time around. If he or she worked hard bringing themselves up to scratch and proved themselves via a grad dip or some other postgrad qualification, there's no reason they shouldn't be able to make a decent go of it.

My understanding was that they were to proceed straight to postgraduate research.

oriel historian

It is also worth pointing out that not all postgraduate degrees are tailored towards research. Indeed, I would say that the majority, these days, aren't as such. Taught postgraduate degrees exist for good reason.

Fair point, but again, what do they hope to achieve if they didn't manage to learn half the stuff needed for their undergraduate degree? It only gets harder.

Reply 12

generalebriety

Fair point, but again, what do they hope to achieve if they didn't manage to learn half the stuff needed for their undergraduate degree? It only gets harder.

Not at all. The vast majority of taught master's degrees are in fact easier than their undergraduate equivalents. There is less material to learn, for example, and they are taught in smaller class sizes so you get more out of them. Unless you got to the LSE or the like. Then they are not.

Reply 13

oriel historian

Not at all. The vast majority of taught master's degrees are in fact easier than their undergraduate equivalents. There is less material to learn, for example, and they are taught in smaller class sizes so you get more out of them. Unless you got to the LSE or the like. Then they are not.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that, most of the taught masters I looked at before applying were more or less identical in terms of the level and amount of work being done as an undergraduate masters - you chose the same number of modules as a 4th year, often from the same list (with extra lectures to cover a more advanced topic), only with a much larger dissertation and some lectures and practical sessions on research methods thrown in for good measure.

That was a science though, I'm not sure if it differs for humanities or at different institutions.

Having said that, I still don't think that it's necessarly out of reach for someone who got a third, provided they do a fair bit of work beforehand.

Reply 14

MrShifty

I'm not sure I'd agree with that, most of the taught masters I looked at before applying were more or less identical in terms of the level and amount of work being done as an undergraduate masters - you chose the same number of modules as a 4th year, often from the same list (with extra lectures to cover a more advanced topic), only with a much larger dissertation and some lectures and practical sessions on research methods thrown in for good measure.

That was a science though, I'm not sure if it differs for humanities or at different institutions.

Most things differ according to different subjects and different institutions, otherwise they'd all be the same and we wouldn't have any variety in the world of education. :rolleyes:

The fact is, learning gets easier according to experience. By the time you reach a master's level you have a great deal of experience in education and with learning styles.

Reply 15

fat_hobbit

Masters are no jokes.

I have a friend who got a 2:2 from Durham, doing one. HE tells me it was the worse decision he has made in his life.

Reply 16

oriel historian

Most things differ according to different subjects and different institutions, otherwise they'd all be the same and we wouldn't have any variety in the world of education. :rolleyes:

Now now, let's play nice :wink:

. You know full well that passage you mischievously quoted served as a caveat: I haven't a detailed knowledge of "the vast majority of taught masters", and I suspect the same is true of yourself. I was simply providing counter examples to your statement that they typically cover less content than their undergraduate equivalent.

The fact is, learning gets easier according to experience. By the time you reach a master's level you have a great deal of experience in education and with learning styles.

For what the OP is going into I'd imagine that the concepts he's going to be experiencing and working with are going to be a fair bit more difficult than during his time as an undergraduate. Whilst it's easy to assume that learning gets easier, and perhaps this is even true in some instances, for some subjects people really can plateau at one level or another.

You also have to take into account the fact that the OP has a third. Now this might well be due to personal reasons, but it could also be due to a now regretted lack of work as an undergraduate, in which case his experience of education and learning is likely to be less than that of most going on to the masters.

Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not arguing against him trying his hand at postgraduate study. If he feels he could have done better then he can, and by all means should, take a stab at it. I just don't think the suggestion that it's going to be easier than undergraduate work is particularly wise or useful.

Reply 17

MrShifty

Now now, let's play nice :wink:

. You know full well that passage you mischievously quoted served as a caveat: I haven't a detailed knowledge of "the vast majority of taught masters", and I suspect the same is true of yourself. I was simply providing counter examples to your statement that they typically cover less content than their undergraduate equivalent.

Whilst they may cover the same amount as your final year - your undergraduate degree is three years long. The average masters is just over 9 months. Thus, they do cover less in absolute terms. :p:

Reply 18