Niche question: NatSci course accreditation by SNS - why no Cambridge?

Online I recently came across the Society for Natural Sciences, who offer accreditation to NatSci courses.

Looking at their list of uni courses with accreditation for NatSci, Cambridge is an obvious omission.
Accredited Courses – Society for Natural Sciences (socnatsci.org)

Does anyone know why?

My theories:
* Is the accreditation worthwhile in saying anything about the quality of the university course? (presumably not, given Cambridge's absence!)
* Is it just a vanity thing? But well-respected unis like UCL, Nottingham, Leeds are there - and Southampton was in the process of gaining accreditation according to their open day.
*Is the accreditation just a money-making/box-ticking exercise for the charity/the unis respectively?
* Is Cambridge deliberately staying clear from some reason (Cambridge NatSci course is definitely a bit different to others)?

I'm really interested to hear what other people think/know!

Reply 1

HoldThisL

21

accreditation is important for professionally-qualifying degrees. if you study an accredited accounting degrees you're more qualified to become an accountant than someone who did not

i don't know what that corresponds to for natsci but accreditation and professional organisations are not box checkers, money making schemes or vanity symbols

some universities will avoid seeking accreditation (or similar attributes, such as russell group) if they think its not inline with their goals. for example cambridge may prioritise teaching a broad aspect of natsci whereas soton may be willing to adjust their curriculum inline with what socnatsci.org requires

Reply 2

frisbyrat

OP

3

Original post by HoldThisL

i don't know what that corresponds to for natsci but accreditation and professional organisations are not box checkers, money making schemes or vanity symbols

some universities will avoid seeking accreditation (or similar attributes, such as russell group) if they think its not inline with their goals. for example cambridge may prioritise teaching a broad aspect of natsci whereas soton may be willing to adjust their curriculum inline with what socnatsci.org requires

Thanks for your reply. I do agree it surely can't be box checking/money-making/vanity! But I also think that, given the breadth and depth of the Cambridge course, it seems unlikely it would not meet the requirements of socnatsci.org (this is based on a quick skim of their document on what accreditation involves, admittedly). So I'm not convinced by your further suggestion that Cambridge would fear having to adject their course to qualify, either!

Is it just that Cambridge natsci speaks for itself/doesn't need to bother with accreditation? But that feels a bit...elitist?

Reply 3

HoldThisL

21

Original post by frisbyrat

Thanks for your reply. I do agree it surely can't be box checking/money-making/vanity! But I also think that, given the breadth and depth of the Cambridge course, it seems unlikely it would not meet the requirements of socnatsci.org (this is based on a quick skim of their document on what accreditation involves, admittedly). So I'm not convinced by your further suggestion that Cambridge would fear having to adject their course to qualify, either!

Is it just that Cambridge natsci speaks for itself/doesn't need to bother with accreditation? But that feels a bit...elitist?

that's just the example i gave. i doubt cambridge 'fear' anything like that. what im implying is that cambridge have no reason to go out of their way for something that doesn't necessarily help them

Reply 4

frisbyrat

OP

3

Original post by HoldThisL

that's just the example i gave. i doubt cambridge 'fear' anything like that. what im implying is that cambridge have no reason to go out of their way for something that doesn't necessarily help them

Ah. 'fear' wasn't meant to be a loaded word, and I wasn't intending to insinuate that Cambridge are on the back foot - perhaps substitute 'envisage'. (and for 'adject' substitute 'adjust'!)

I sort of would expect Cambridge to want to go out of their way to reassure students, though, given they do so much in other areas (outreach, etc) to make the application process easy. And their absence from that list in a climate where accreditation for degrees is some reassurance certainly made me wonder what's up, and hope that it wasn't just 'Cambridge don't need to do that' arrogance! I don't think it is, but no other reasons I have suggested make much sense (as you've pointed out).

It's an academic point anyway, as I'm not applying to Cambridge for Natsci. :biggrin:

Reply 5

yesjess73

9

Original post by frisbyrat

Online I recently came across the Society for Natural Sciences, who offer accreditation to NatSci courses.

Looking at their list of uni courses with accreditation for NatSci, Cambridge is an obvious omission.
Accredited Courses – Society for Natural Sciences (socnatsci.org)

Does anyone know why?

My theories:
* Is the accreditation worthwhile in saying anything about the quality of the university course? (presumably not, given Cambridge's absence!)
* Is it just a vanity thing? But well-respected unis like UCL, Nottingham, Leeds are there - and Southampton was in the process of gaining accreditation according to their open day.
*Is the accreditation just a money-making/box-ticking exercise for the charity/the unis respectively?
* Is Cambridge deliberately staying clear from some reason (Cambridge NatSci course is definitely a bit different to others)?

I'm really interested to hear what other people think/know!

They're not accredited by the natsci society but they ARE accredited by the single sciences socs depending on what third year subject you choose. By then most people have specialised so graduate with a degree accredited by the IOP, royal chem soc, psych equivalent etc. So actually it seems to be that by year three they're too narrow for a natural sciences accreditation. Don't let that put you off but do look at how the modules work as it sounds like the course isn't as broad as you expect :smile: