Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Can you explain US university to me?

I've been looking at Unis in the UK and USA, and USA unis are very confusing.
It seems that UK uni is 3 years and USA is 4 years - why? For some universities in the USA, in the first year I hardly learn anything relevant to what my actual degree is and instead learn stuff like "American History up to 1877". Is it possible to skip this first year or something?

What is course credit? and why do hours matter? I do IB and many unis say that I will get 24 hours course credit. They also say i have to do a specific number of hours/or get a specific number of credit each semester

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

WhoNeedsIvyLeague

UK unis are 3 years and US are 4 because students from the UK have one more year of secondary school (though I don't believe that's true for scotland). Also, UK focuses on specialization where US promotes breadth of knowledge. You can't skip the first year completely, but if you passed some AP or IB tests with high enough scores then some universities may give you some credit for them. Course credits are different from university to university and are sometimes called different things, but all you really need to know is that you need a certain amount of credits to graduate. A typical course is 3 or 4 credits (or units) though....

Reply 2

Hedgehunter

I had some American family over from LA last night and they explained a little to me about the system across the pond:

You seem to know a little about the credits system, students get these credits from the grades they get in their final High school exams and from what I could gather; "college" is the first year, and "University" is the 3 years after that? You will get credits for your IB results, I think they transfer over.

Furthermore to decide which Uni you can go to everyone takes the standard tests (SATS), which are very general at first. Then if you apply for a Msc later you take more course specific SATS. You will have to take these SATS if you want to go to a US Uni, you can take these at centres in London, Manchester etc..

Reply 3

r0x0r

Bismarck

College and university are synonymous in the US.

I disagree (though agree that it's not a different name for different years!).... In spoken usage, yeah, but, really, colleges are undergraduate institutions whereas universities comprise several colleges or schools (e.g., Colleges of Arts & Sciences, Graduate School of Arts & Sciences, Business School, Med School). Plus, to say that 'the better universities require SAT IIs' is rather short-sighted....

Also, re: skipping the first year: This is far more common with state universities and is very difficult to do at top colleges and universities. It's typically not done at top schools, for some reason.

Reply 4

r0x0r

Well, yes, the usage is confused and inconsistent (and most people use them synonymously), but in academic usage there is a definable difference!

Bismarck

Because the top colleges are snobbier and don't accept much in the way of credits from other colleges, let alone high schools.

Ha, what's that have to do with being snobby? Maybe just greedy.

Reply 5

Amanda

jhomie

The first year is pretty much irrelevant, general education courses. Why? I have no idea.

I skipped my first year mainly due to AP credits. The first year is 30 credit hours. Since you only have 24, that means you'll probably need two more general education classes in order to get sophomore (2nd year) status. You can take 2 summer courses and be a sophomore in the fall.

A full-time student is 12 credit hours (normally 4 classes) per semester. Where I go to school, you can do up to 18 credit hours per semester (I'm doing this many, it's a bit harder but if you're a good student you'll be fine). The only way you can do more than 18 credit hours is by approval from a vice president or some other higher authority.. but I really wouldn't suggest it though.

Reply 6

Ang|ophi|e

Amanda

Does this mean you will graduate in less than four years?

Reply 7

Amanda

Ang|ophi|e

Does this mean you will graduate in less than four years?

Yeah. I just started this semester and I'll graduate in the spring of 2011 instead of the spring of 2012.

Reply 8

jovana

in the uk you begin to specialize in what you are interested in / what you might study at uni while you are in secondary school. in the us you do not....you pretty much take a general course of study.

when you apply to university in the us you do not apply to a course / for a degree. you just apply to the university. then in addition to what you are actually interested in you have to take a bunch of crap that has no relevance (i.e. if you are majoring in english literature you will still have to take credits in science and math) to make up for all these extra worthless credits you have to do another year so that you take enough credits in your degree area.

coming from the uk you may be able to get out of some undergrad requirements with your A levels. that will depend on the school, you can always call and ask. since any 100-200 level course you might take will pretty much be the same as an A level course (a lot like us AP courses)

essentially its a waste of time and money to go to uni in the states. if you are interested in studying in the us i would suggest a semester / year abroad type thing or coming for graduate school.

Reply 9

WhoNeedsIvyLeague

Amanda

This may be how it is at your university, but it's certainly not true for all universities. My uni, for example, required 12 credits per quarter which was generally 3 courses, however, you could take up to 24 credits. A normal load was 16 credits. There also was no set amount of credits for a first year to take, only a total # of credits needed to graduate.

So...note to readers: realize that the credit issue is fairly complex and varies from place to place.

Reply 10

Amanda

WhoNeedsIvyLeague

24 credit hours.. wow. :eek:

Reply 11

devil09

For some universities in the USA, in the first year I hardly learn anything relevant to what my actual degree is and instead learn stuff like "American History up to 1877". Is it possible to skip this first year or something?

It depends entirely on which university you attend. Some universities have a complex system of graduation requirements; some have virtually none. My university allows freshmen to take whatever they want, as long as they take one writing course.

I had a year's worth of AP/IB credit and could've graduated a year early or with a BA/MA (this is "submatriculation"- Penn, Yale, Chicago, and a few others offer it). I chose to study abroad for a year and take more electives instead. :smile:

Reply 12

jovana

Bismarck

That depends entirely on whether you want to be really knowledgeable in one area and a complete idiot in everything else, or be less knowledgeable in one area but know the basics of most other areas.

general education can be taken on by an individual over the course of one's life. that's what libraries are for. and personally i have no interest in quadratic equations or sequencing bacteria dna and those things have served no purpose other then to take time away from things i was interested in. whereas in the uk you get more education in your particular area of interest, ideally to the benefit of your future career path as well. i mean, personally, having gone to university in the states i can say that the general style of education is not really an advantage. I've also lived in the uk for almost two years for the most part i think educational standards are much higher in the UK then in the US. university grads in the uk are a lot better educated then their american counterparts.

Reply 13

jovana

Bismarck

If only reality was that peachy. The fact is that most people either aren't willing to explore new areas or simply don't have the time. So you end up with people who don't know history, don't know economics, don't understand politics, know nothing about art, have read no literature, don't understand how science works, etc. Secondly, very few people really know what they want to do for the rest of their lives at 18. Having a general education allows people to try out different subjects so they can find out which one they enjoy most. And lastly, we don't like in the '50s anymore. Chances are you won't spend more than 5-10 years in whatever field you decide to specialize in. Then what? You've spent your entire university education studying subejct x, and in 5 years, there are no longer jobs in x (or you no longer want to work in x). What are you going to do?

As for your last part, that has far more to do with the disastrous state of the secondary education system in the US than anything else.

yes, and that remedial secondary education is the feeder for the university system. so not only will you be taking irrelevant courses, you will be doing so with a lot of undereducated idiots who would rather think about the next football game then the next exam.

also, us secondary education is also more generalized then in the uk, which means students ideally should learn their strengths and weeknesses there. if you take 4 years of math in high school and you hate it then taking a math class at university isn't going to change that, its just going to be a requirement that costs both money and time.

yes, in an ideal world people would educate themselves. if they are not willing that is their own problem and no amount of shoving it down their throats is going to change that. you cannot force people to love learning for its own sake. if people say they do not have the time then that's a bunch of ********. all it requires is that you get rid of your tv and pick up a library card. we don't live in a society where most people have to work 80-90 hours a week just to survive and their free time is spent sleeping. most people who say they have no time to read would probably have a lot more if the turned off the television or spent less time at the pub.

if you don't know what you want to do yet, don't jump into uni at 18. take a gap year or two...or even three. look into different career options based on your interests / talents, travel, read books...etc...its a waste of money to go if you don't know what you want to study. don't get me wrong, i am a firm beliver in education for the sake of education alone, but not when you have to pay thousands for it. luckily, there are other ways to educate oneself and to explore areas of interest.

and lastly, yes, people's career paths change. someone might start out a solicitor and end up an english teacher....you never know. but usually most career changes are something that grow out of your experience in a certain field. say you start out in IT doing system admin work. then you take additional certs as a sys admin and specialize in unix / solaris. then you start working for banks. then you start working for trading houses. and then you find yourself working in investment banking when you started out just maintaining networks. most career changes aren't people just making up their minds 10 years later to do something entirely different. and if you have an interest in a field, a thorough education will be an asset in that field. from there you may grow and develop and change direction, but it will be something organic that grows from what you know into other areas as you pick up new knowledge and experiences in real life situations.

having gotten a degree at university in the US, i think i am probably a better authority on the features and benefits of the us educational system vs the british system. and from my experience with uk uni graduates, they are much better prepared for the working world. and after that education in a variety of areas is open. if individuals are then not motivated or choose to occupy their time in other ways, then that is their problem.

so again, study in the us can be beneficial if its a year or term abroad type thing or if you really want to go for longer then a masters program is a better bet. the state of us undergraduate education is a sorry one. i have too many friends who went to top universities, graduated with high honours, and are now managing a starbucks or bartending.

Reply 14

devil09

jovana

whereas in the uk you get more education in your particular area of interest, ideally to the benefit of your future career path as well. i mean, personally, having gone to university in the states i can say that the general style of education is not really an advantage. I've also lived in the uk for almost two years for the most part i think educational standards are much higher in the UK then in the US. university grads in the uk are a lot better educated then their american counterparts.

I disagree. I studied in the UK last year and was not particularly impressed by the knowledge of my peers, even in my 3rd year modules (MA students were slightly better). As far as I could determine, the people in my program didn't know/study anything my fellow classics majors in the US didn't, and they knew a heck of a lot less about other subjects.

I don't think anyone has mentioned the ability of US students to double major or pick up minors, which can be pretty useful but usually takes four years.

also, us secondary education is also more generalized then in the uk, which means students ideally should learn their strengths and weeknesses there.

Since when are American students exposed to philosophy in high school? Anthropology? Geophysics? Linguistics? Aerospace engineering? There's hundreds of majors out there, and it's really not reasonable to expect a high school student to choose one based on a few high school classes and some reading.

the state of us undergraduate education is a sorry one. i have too many friends who went to top universities, graduated with high honours, and are now managing a starbucks or bartending.

I think that says more about the economy than the state of the education system. :s-smilie:

Reply 15

jovana

devil09

i did. i took philosophy as an elective after myself and several other students campaigned for it and found a professor willing to teach us. i took AP economics as an independant study. during a summer holiday i took political science classes at a university based on an interest i developed in a high school history class. i took the AP govt and politics exam after just one term in a normal civics class. and on my own time i read philosophy books, read the economist every week, read classic literature, studied art history by going to museums....etc...

my experience was the exception rather then the rule, i realize that...but what seperated me was that i never watched television and i was motivated to pursue things outside of my coursework based on interests i developed in my classes. and that is an option that every student has in high school. if some would rather play video games after school and attend keggers at the weekend then that is their choice. but should the motivated and goal oriented student be held back from a clear educational path because some students waste time in high school and rush into uni with no idea of what they want to do with their lives?

would it not be better if people in the US were encouraged to take gap years the way people in the UK are, and to have a more focused high school curriculum so that when they finally go to uni they are not wasting their parents (and taxpayers) money and not wasting the time of their fellow students who would prefer to be part of a similarily motivated student community?

of course people don't always know exactly what they want to do, but generally by the end of high school you know your strengths and weeknesses. i knew, that even if i found science interesting, biology would not be something i should major in, it wasn't where my particular skills led me. thank god i took AP bio in high school and didn't have to take any lab sciences at university, because if i had i would have had to pay thousands of dollars for the pleasure of taking a course that was not in a subject area.. although i did end up paying thousands for 2 math classes...it was a waste of time that took me away from studying something i enjoyed, it cost a lot of money, and it brought down my gpa. add to that all the other pointless 100 level courses full of idiots that i was forced to share my time with, and the ******** PC courses designed to make me multiculturally sensative. most of my classes were a waste of thousands of dollars. ******** to all that.

also, i belive in the UK you can also take elective courses if you want depending on your course.

Reply 16

Kettensägenmassaker

jovana

1. but should the motivated and goal oriented student be held back from a clear educational path because some students waste time in high school and rush into uni with no idea of what they want to do with their lives?

2. would it not be better if people in the US were encouraged to take gap years the way people in the UK are, and to have a more focused high school curriculum so that when they finally go to uni they are not wasting their parents (and taxpayers) money and not wasting the time of their fellow students who would prefer to be part of a similarily motivated student community?

3. of course people don't always know exactly what they want to do, but generally by the end of high school you know your strengths and weeknesses. i knew, that even if i found science interesting, biology would not be something i should major in, it wasn't where my particular skills led me.

1. The motivated and educated student in the US is not "held back." Because of the flexibility with IB, AP and dual-enrolled classes, a motivated American student will have plenty of opportunity to excel and complete advanced credit. I earned an entire year of university credit during my time in high school, and i was certainly not an anomaly in my community.

2. You're contradicting yourself in this paragraph. First you say US students should be encouraged to take gap years to figure out what they like/are good at so as not to waste time and money at university, and then you say that high school curricula should be more focused. Well if they're not ready to be focused at university and should instead take a gap year, it makes absolutely no sense to think that a "more focused" (although I interpret that to mean more specialized) program in high school would do them any good.

3. For students with aptitude (though not skill sets - because those are learned) in multiple areas of study, it's not particularly easy to focus on what career path will be best. I studied aerospace engineering for a time. I'm damn good at it. Then one day I realized I didn't want to spend the rest of my life in a cubicle doing really complicated math. But if I had only taken aerospace courses, I'd be screwed. I'd have to start over, essentially. As it was, I hardly lost any time at all switching to another program - all my aerospace credit was then used as elective credit.

Personally, I think at the undergraduate level that kind of flexibility is an asset. And furthermore, taking other classes outside your area of specific interest not only makes you a better educated person in the sense of breadth, but also allows you to make connections about how different disciplines interact.

the UK system isn't better than the US, it's just different.

Reply 17

parkerpen

I'm a grad in the states and did my undergrad in the UK and I can say that both systems have real benefits.

I read Social and Political Sciences at Cambridge and was thus made to take a number of courses I wouldn't have otherwise and thank goodness I did. I found I enjoyed politics (which is what I had planned to do) but loved sociology - a subject I never would have touched otherwise. During the next two years and the first semester of grad school I still find a heck of a lot from the other three courses that helps me out. In fact I would have loved to have been able to take an economics paper as well.
The undergraduates I've met here do benefit hugely from taking a wide range of papers. For instance people who take sociology have a nasty surprise two years in when they realise there is a lot of statistics. I think having taken maths in their first year means that they are a lot more prepared for this. Likewise the undergrads who have taken psychology, economics and history papers find these really useful in their sociology classes.
Of course they do learn things in less breadth and I think sometimes a lot of stuff is skated over. The British system certainly does have many benefits.

Also - yes people should hopefully continue to further their knowledge throughout their life but giving people a basic overview of psychology or economics or any subject within a structure gives people a basic understanding that they can then use later on in life.

Ultimately I think both systems have advantages and disadvantages. I have no doubt that some of my friends would have benefited hugely from studying undergrad in the states. I have no doubt that some of them had a much more rewarding time in the UK than they would have had in the US education system.

Reply 18

jovana

Kettensägenmassaker

1. The motivated and educated student in the US is not "held back." Because of the flexibility with IB, AP and dual-enrolled classes, a motivated American student will have plenty of opportunity to excel and complete advanced credit. I earned an entire year of university credit during my time in high school, and i was certainly not an anomaly in my community.

2. You're contradicting yourself in this paragraph. First you say US students should be encouraged to take gap years to figure out what they like/are good at so as not to waste time and money at university, and then you say that high school curricula should be more focused. Well if they're not ready to be focused at university and should instead take a gap year, it makes absolutely no sense to think that a "more focused" (although I interpret that to mean more specialized) program in high school would do them any good.

3. For students with aptitude (though not skill sets - because those are learned) in multiple areas of study, it's not particularly easy to focus on what career path will be best. I studied aerospace engineering for a time. I'm damn good at it. Then one day I realized I didn't want to spend the rest of my life in a cubicle doing really complicated math. But if I had only taken aerospace courses, I'd be screwed. I'd have to start over, essentially. As it was, I hardly lost any time at all switching to another program - all my aerospace credit was then used as elective credit.

Personally, I think at the undergraduate level that kind of flexibility is an asset. And furthermore, taking other classes outside your area of specific interest not only makes you a better educated person in the sense of breadth, but also allows you to make connections about how different disciplines interact.

the UK system isn't better than the US, it's just different.

if that is so true then why, by every standard used to rate educational systems, does the us constistantly come in at or near the bottom in every area compared to other western countries?

1) if your high school offers AP / IB then you are lucky, not all do. mine did, i was lucky. but that's because i went away to boarding school. most small town / poor inner city schools do not offer as many options for high achieving students because the resources are all aimed at keeping the bad students from failing rather then promoting excellence among the best and brightest.

the uk system is neat beacuse it sort of puts people into tracks...you can be done at 16 and go on to more vocational study or just get a job or you can do the A levels that will prepare you for university. nd if you decide to leave and just enter a job then theer are tons of resources for reentering educatin when you are ready.

this way the students who want more education are not held back by those who don't. and it also allows students who don't excell in traditional academia to have a better path...they can go onto a vocational area that will prepare them for a career or to study art, music, etc...at college rather then focusing on academic subjects. this means that the kids who are more academicly inclined gets those resorces, kids who may be more creative get to access those resources, people who are more mechanical get those resources etc...it is a lot more student focused then trying to incorperate everyone in the same program which means that all students get a bit shafted.

2) in the uk and in europe where education is more focused, gap years are not uncommon. they are not always just a year off sitting at home. they are often learning experiences in themselves like volunteering locally, travling and volunteering abrod, doing internships in areas of interest, doing work experience...etc...so the time spent can help students think and focus more about what they want to do as well as hopefully broaded their knowledge and experience of the world.
this doesn't happen in the us which is why so many people have a view of americas as being ignorant of the world outside their borders (which is pretty much true). and they enter uni unfocused...going because university is the expected next step, not because they know what to do. a more focused high schol is more tailed to individual students gifts, learning styles, and areas if interests. taking a gap year allows students to regroup, learn new things, and really think about what they want before they spend thousands at uni.

3) flexibility is still availible. from what i understand, you can take courses outside your area, you just don't have to. and if you don't it doens't mean you cannot be a well rouned educated individual..you just have tohave the slighted motivaion and desire to be so. if you don't have this motivation then shoving it down a students throats via required courses isn't going to help.

Reply 19

parkerpen

jovana

if that is so true then why, by every standard used to rate educational systems, does the us constistantly come in at or near the bottom in every area compared to other western countries?

American universities are ranked best in the world... So by that standard of measuring educational systems the US consistently comes top. Most of the reasons why the American education system generally does badly is beucase you don't spend very much on education in many states. Higher levels of poverty are associated with low educational attainment and you guys have a heckuva lot of poverty etc etc It has little or nothing to do with the US tertiary education system