Are there any truly 'bad' universities in the UK?

I think he's just saying a Cambridge maths degree is harder than a Greenwich one. Seems pretty reasonable to me, it isn't exactly a terrible insult to Greenwich.

But they are not comparing like with like. The only way of proving this statement is correct is by doing a module by module comparison of each course and what is contained in the course.

The reality is that an Oxbridge degree is rated by the QA as the same level as a degree from any other university. So in that case a degree is a degree.

The public perception is that because the admission standards are higher then the degrees are higher standard as well. Which can't be true, or the QA would state so in their qualification framework, and so far as I am aware they don't.

I never said barrister. We don't all want to be the top of our game, some people would be perfectly happy just being a high street solicitor.

Also, who said anything about a 3rd? People at Hertfordshire can get a 2.1, you know...

There has been a report on one of the Cambridge courses (I think for maths) that openly says a 2.i would have most likely been a 1st at another uni. I don't have the source but it definitely exists, and has done the rounds on this forum. You're also forgetting that Cambridge maths uses the Tripos system which means that you're marked against your peers, so even if you got 80% in your exams, if everyone else got 90% you'd be getting a third or a fail.

But I'd also challenge the idea that the content in each university is the same - in my experience this is definitely not the case, and my department prides itself in the fact our 2nd years cover 4th year material at good, well thought of unis. This isn't to say we're better than other unis (and in fact I'd argue it's a bad thing sometimes), just we're implicitly taught different things. There are standards to meet yes, but universities can and will go beyond this. If every course had no scope to deviate from the standards then all universities would be the same.

Surely the whole point of education is doing the best you can, i.e wanting to be top of your game? Especially if it is an investment into the future?

My point was that you can't compare courses simply because they are not alike. Some contain stuff and others contain other stuff. It's like comparing apples and pears. They are not the same and can't be compared except on trivial grounds such as colour and shape.

So with the Maths degree - at Cambridge they may cover triangles but Bog-standard covers squares or circles. You can't then say that one is superior to the other because they are not even covering the same information.

As for the report that you mentioned, surely there is a case for Cambridge students who received a 2:1 to say to Cambridge give me my first? After all, this report says that at another university it would have been a first so why not here? They could blight someone's career by giving them an undeserved 2:1 when they should have had a first. I see that as being unfair rather than something praiseworthy.

So education only counts if you get As?

I guess those who don't get As might as well simply drown themselves as they are obviously not worthy of life. There is far more to life than education and one day, when you grow up a bit, you may begin to recognise that fact.

I understand that for many on this forum education is all they know, and the only way that they have to compare themselves against other people, but there is a non-academic world out there in which you will find yourselves one day.

Perhaps now is the time when you start to recognise how trivial educational achievement is compared with other areas of life.

I meant more in terms of ambition really. Is it really a good thing to say "I only want a B" when you could just as well go all the way and get a better return on the investment you have put in in terms of both money and effort? Its not about education achievement per se, but more about aiming for the top in anything you do instead of just settling.

You can't be the top in everything you do or it leaves you no time to enjoy any of it. I could have followed my original plan and gone to LSE, worked in the city and become an investment banker or some such job ... but I'd rather do a pleasant job that I enjoy and that will allow me to also enjoy the others thing I want in life, such as a family.

But you've(or your parents who paid tax) made an investment(time and money wise) into your A-levels so surely you should try do as well as possible. Fair enough you don't like a highly stressful job like IB but even in a more "pleasant" job you would strive to be the best in that particular field, just like in your A-levels and your chosen stream of study at university you would aim for As instead of being content with Bs.

There are no bad universities only bad courses.

Just because a uni is supposedly the 'best' in the country doesn't mean they themselves add any value to the students they take in. Simply taking in the best students and them doing well isn't a reflection of the university but on the students. I know this personally to be true. Having attended one of the 'best' universities in the country, and experienced truly awful teaching (with a couple notable exceptions). I also have a few friends who also attend these top institutions and for their courses (mostly science courses), they've experienced the same thing. That is average teaching is the norm, with few exceptional and a significant proportion of poor teaching.
I've also experienced teaching at an ex-polytechnic, which was on average at a higher standard. Perhaps this is just true of the sciences, but in general, I think if you have a university that takes on exceptional students, and they get the same grades as a university which takes on 'average students' then the former university isn't doing as good a job as the latter.

I also found it interesting going through the stats, on unistats after one of the posters in this thread posted the link (http://unistats.direct.gov.uk/ )

Here are some of the results I found:


For Chemistry:

At Oxford average Ucas points at entry were 540 equivalent to AAAAa

Firsts class: 39%
Upper Second class (2.1): 48%
Total of 2.1 and above: 87%

At Imperial average Ucas points at entry was 480 equivalent to over AAAa

Firsts class: 27%
Upper Second class (2.1): 45%
Total of 2.1 and above: 72%

At University College London average Ucas points at entry were 430 equivalent to Over AAAa

Firsts class: 28%
Upper Second class (2.1): 45%
Total of 2.1 and above: 73%

At Warwick average Ucas points at entry was 420 equivalent to exactly AAAa

Firsts class: 23%
Upper Second class (2.1): 40%
Total of 2.1 and above: 63%

At Bristol average Ucas points at entry was 450 equivalent to over AAAa

Firsts class: 19%
Upper Second class (2.1): 39%
Total of 2.1 and above: 58%

I've chosen the above institutions because they are the universities that both I and my friends have personally experienced.
-------------------

Now take note of the following:

At Hull average Ucas points at entry was 250 equivalent to CCC

Firsts class: 34%
Upper Second class (2.1): 33%
Total of 2.1 and above: 67%

At Manchester Metropolitan average Ucas points at entry was 200 equivalent to CDD

Firsts class: 30%
Upper Second class (2.1): 35%
Total of 2.1 and above: 65%

--------------
(NB I mean no disrespect to any of the institutions listed)

So according to these statistics, students who arrive at Hull and at Manchester Met chemistry course both have significantly worse A Level results than those who arrive at Bristol and Warwick. Yet by the end of the degree course, a comparable number from both universities achieve a 2.1 and above. Which would show that in this discpline, both Man met and Hull's departments are very good.

-----------------

Now lets compare Sussex (A university who's science department I know for a fact is top notch) and Southampton with the above:

At Sussex average Ucas points at entry was 410 equivalent to over AABa:

Firsts class: 35%
Upper Second class (2.1): 45%
Total of 2.1 and above: 80%


At Southampton average Ucas points at entry was 400 equivalent to exactly AABa:

Firsts class: 31%
Upper Second class (2.1): 53%
Total of 2.1 and above: 84%

-----------


So by comparing say Bristol with Southampton both students come in with relatively similar A Levels though Bristol's students Ucas points is 50 points higher than Southampton students. (400 southamton vs 450 Bristol) Yet by the end of the course, 58 % of Bristol students have a 2.1 and above vs 84% at Southamton. That is 26% more students in Southamton have a 2.1 or more than their bristol counter parts despite getting similar grades at A Level. For Sussex (80%) that is 22% more.This would suggest that Southampton and Sussex add significantly more value to their students than Bristol in the discipline of chemistry. The point is that different universities have their strengths and their weaknesses. I've gone on about Bristol chem, but Bristol Psychology has more 2.1 and First than any other course bar Oxfords, and the same is true for Bristol Biochemistry/molecular genetics.

It would therefore seem a bad decision to say that a whole university is bad. For even the newest of universities have areas where they're a strong relative to other universities. Also some courses at certain universities simply attract the best students, despite having average teaching, something I've experienced first hand.

Your entire analysis rests on the presumption that the criteria to get a 2.1 is standardized across universities, it isn't. Some university exams are harder and require a deeper understanding for the same high mark, others cover far more detailed course content than others.