Are there any truly 'bad' universities in the UK?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by ish90an
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.
It does, well done (I'm not being patronising). I don't know whether a 2.1 is truly the same in one university as it is in another. However this is what I do know:
1. All Universities for post graduate courses see them as equivalent. They require a 2.1 or above, but do not state ever specify that one university 2.1 means more than another. A student with a 2.2 would not get into such courses irrespective of the institutions they attend
2. Most graduate jobs (with the exception of law, Investment banking) require a 2.1 and do not discriminate between universities. If a student has a 2.2 from oxford, most graduate firms autofilter them out. Again this would suggest that employers see a 2.1 as higher than a 2.2 irrespective of the uni they're from.
3. A study from the BBC noted that 89% of employers do not care which university an applicant went to. Again this would suggest standardisation.
4. Universities are regulated by the QAA to ensure that standards are kept consistent throughout the university system. Universities themselves send professors to other universities to maintain this standardisation every 5 years. And a review of the content of each universities discipline is subject to this peered review. For example lectureres from Bath uni were told to increase their maths content to ensure that it was up to standard.
Here's a quote from UniversitiesUK
Universities are responsible for the standards of qualifications they award. However, every UUK university uses a common set of tools known as the QAA Academic Infrastructure to underpin their work. This sets out threshold standards for HE qualifications, including by subject at honours level.
In addition, all UUK universities use external examiners to ensure outcomes are on a consistent and comparable basis. External Examiners are drawn from other institutions, or from areas of relevant professional practice. They report to the Vice-Chancellor of the university on whether the standards set are appropriate. The aim is to ensure that the threshold standards of student performance are comparable with those of students following similar courses in other UK universities
In addition, all UUK universities use external examiners to ensure outcomes are on a consistent and comparable basis. External Examiners are drawn from other institutions, or from areas of relevant professional practice. They report to the Vice-Chancellor of the university on whether the standards set are appropriate. The aim is to ensure that the threshold standards of student performance are comparable with those of students following similar courses in other UK universities
ref:
http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/PolicyAndResearch/PolicyAreas/QualityAssurance/FAQs/Pages/Howarestandardsmaintainedinuniversities.aspx
----------------
Now I honestly do not know if a 2.1 is the same between universities personally. I think the only way to be certain is to do the following experiment:
Take a final exam of a degree at the 'top ranked' university and the 'bottom ranked' university and compare the marks achieved. If at the top uni, one got a 2.2 whilst at the bottom a first then standards are not the same, if a 2.1. at both then they are. I haven't the time to do such an experiment.
But What I will say is that if universities count degrees as equivalent, and most employers do. And if universities are forced to be regulated to ensure that standardisation takes place, then one can say that in all probability, degrees are of an equivalent standard.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Complex Simplicity
x
Look, you make a somewhat convincing argument. But that doesn't change the fact that it's wrong. Someone walking out of Maths at, say, Derby with a 2.1 would go into a Cambridge Maths exam and start crying. The fact is, different universities have different standards of degree. It might be unfair in some circumstances. But it's still true.
Original post by derangedyoshi
Look, you make a somewhat convincing argument. But that doesn't change the fact that it's wrong. Someone walking out of Maths at, say, Derby with a 2.1 would go into a Cambridge Maths exam and start crying. The fact is, different universities have different standards of degree. It might be unfair in some circumstances. But it's still true.
why thank you.
What is the basis for your statement? Forgive me, but my science instinct demands that assertions be based on evidence. Do you have any proof to back up your claims?
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Complex Simplicity
why thank you.
What is the basis for your statement? Forgive me, but my science instinct demands that assertions be based on evidence. Do you have any proof to back up your claims?
What is the basis for your statement? Forgive me, but my science instinct demands that assertions be based on evidence. Do you have any proof to back up your claims?
Go onto different universities' websites. Look at content for degrees in the same subject. I've seen someone saying on here recently that their university's second years cover material that other universities cover in fourth year (don't know what subject; I think the person went to Imperial).
There are even different exam systems; I believe in the Cambridge Tripos system students are marked against each other as an indication of how they have done, rather than just being given a percentage. The point is, you can't just say every degree of 2.1 quality is worth the same. You could even just read through this thread, as quite a few good arguments have been made for that statement.
Original post by derangedyoshi
Go onto different universities' websites. Look at content for degrees in the same subject. I've seen someone saying on here recently that their university's second years cover material that other universities cover in fourth year (don't know what subject; I think the person went to Imperial).
There are even different exam systems; I believe in the Cambridge Tripos system students are marked against each other as an indication of how they have done, rather than just being given a percentage. The point is, you can't just say every degree of 2.1 quality is worth the same. You could even just read through this thread, as quite a few good arguments have been made for that statement.
There are even different exam systems; I believe in the Cambridge Tripos system students are marked against each other as an indication of how they have done, rather than just being given a percentage. The point is, you can't just say every degree of 2.1 quality is worth the same. You could even just read through this thread, as quite a few good arguments have been made for that statement.
ok so at best we have an assertion that a person said, that their universities second year material is the same as another's fourth year.
This may be true, but it isn't evidence that the 2.1 achieved at the course is not the same. All it proves is that the material is covered at a different structure.
I know for a fact that the first year of Bristol's economics course covers the same material as st andrews second year, does that mean a 2.1 from bristol is higher? It doesn't for at the end of the course they cover the material to similar standard. Hence a st andrews economics student isn't prefered to a bristol economics student for a post graduate economics degree.
University A may state that the degree in maths should cover Matrices in year 1, whilst University B may believe that to get the most out of students, Matrices should be covered in year 3. But by the end of the course, that is when students from both attain their 2.1, both have covered similar material to the same standard. You see this is not an argument for one degree's 2.1 being worth more than the others. And that's assuming the student you spoke to, got reliable information from presumably his course organiser.
Your second point doesn't back up your original assertion. You said a graduate from 'Derby with a 2.1 would go into a Cambridge Maths exam and start crying' this refers to the content of the exam being more difficult than that of Derby university's maths exam. However, you use the 'tripos grading system' which gives people degrees based on the achievement of their peers. Thus not referring to the content of the exam but the system by which said exam would be graded. You have therefore not proven that a graduate with a 2.1 from Derby wouldn't be able to cope with the content of a cambridge exam.
So do you have any evidence to back up the statement
Derby with a 2.1 would go into a Cambridge Maths exam and start crying" ?
Finally, if one assumes that maths at cambridge uses a system that means that graduates are not comparable to their counter parts in every other university, something that is explicitly stated by UniversitiesUK, assuming this. That makes one course from one university. So there are roughly 50 courses at cambridge, and 115 uk universities. So if each uk university has 50 courses, by a crude measure that would mean a total of 5750 courses in the UK, of which, one may not follow the rule. That's 0.00017% of courses in the UK. Hardly significant.
So what you need to do is prove with evidence that the statement made by UKUniversities is wrong:
Universities are responsible for the standards of qualifications they award. However, every UUK university uses a common set of tools known as the QAA Academic Infrastructure to underpin their work. This sets out threshold standards for HE qualifications, including by subject at honours level.
In addition, all UUK universities use external examiners to ensure outcomes are on a consistent and comparable basis. External Examiners are drawn from other institutions, or from areas of relevant professional practice. They report to the Vice-Chancellor of the university on whether the standards set are appropriate. The aim is to ensure that the threshold standards of student performance are comparable with those of students following similar courses in other UK universities.
In addition, all UUK universities use external examiners to ensure outcomes are on a consistent and comparable basis. External Examiners are drawn from other institutions, or from areas of relevant professional practice. They report to the Vice-Chancellor of the university on whether the standards set are appropriate. The aim is to ensure that the threshold standards of student performance are comparable with those of students following similar courses in other UK universities.
And the following suggests that it is taken quite seriously:
The funding council have the right to remove funding should an institution fail an audit and fail to put in place satisfactory remedies.
http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/PolicyAndResearch/PolicyAreas/QualityAssurance/FAQs/Pages/Howarestandardsmaintainedinuniversities.aspx
Notice this is for all courses at all universities.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by viksta1000
any university that has to advertise itself on student forums
I;ve seen unis like Aberdeen and City advertised on here; would you say they are 'truly bad'?
Original post by TheSownRose
I;ve seen unis like Aberdeen and City advertised on here; would you say they are 'truly bad'?
Not far off. Aberdeen is one of those places that's decidedly average, but because it's "ancient" people seem to think it's world class.
Original post by ch0llima
Not far off. Aberdeen is one of those places that's decidedly average, but because it's "ancient" people seem to think it's world class.
Never asked "Would you say those are not top unis?"
Neither may be world class, but they're both average to decent unis, so IMO hardly worthy of being called 'truly bad'.
Original post by TheSownRose
I;ve seen unis like Aberdeen and City advertised on here; would you say they are 'truly bad'?
Point taken
Oxford and Cambridge- what a waste of space.
Original post by Ivanka
I think that unless we carry out an experiment, we'll never find out whether Derby students would really struggle with Cambridge exams...
What if handed out some uni Maths test at the Maths forum? I think I saw LSE sample ones somewhere here...
What if handed out some uni Maths test at the Maths forum? I think I saw LSE sample ones somewhere here...
This would be a good Idea.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Complex Simplicity
why thank you.
What is the basis for your statement? Forgive me, but my science instinct demands that assertions be based on evidence. Do you have any proof to back up your claims?
What is the basis for your statement? Forgive me, but my science instinct demands that assertions be based on evidence. Do you have any proof to back up your claims?
Quotes from the external examiner's report for Cambridge maths and english triposes that say that people with a 2.1 from Cambridge could well have got a first elsewhere.
Original post by Complex Simplicity
x
1. There is something to say that post-grad courses and employers(who are themselves divided in terms of stature; a 5 person startup in Edinburgh is not the same as Google) screen out people with a 2.2. There is however nothing to say that given everything else is equal, they won't favour someone with a 2.1 from Oxbridge over someone with a 2.1 from Derby. It is, given the average stature of firms that target Oxbridge and the kind that target Derby, likely that this does happen.
2. The standards bit is a minimum bar, but does not represent the full course structure and difficulty across all universities. e.g. CS courses at Glasgow and Caledonian are so different that Caledonian's 3rd year exams ask the same questions as Glasgow's 2nd year ones, and indeed require the same standard of answer.
Derby.
Original post by Kerny
everyone knows standards across different universities are not the same
next thread
next thread
I have posted several times the minuet danced by the VCs of Oxford and Brookes when asked by a Committee of MPs whether a 2:1 in history was of the same quality at both places and if they were how did they know?
In an hour's questioning the MPs didn't get a straight answer.
I am not going to post the debate again but I want to remark on the follow-up. This was the central question of the enquiry and formed the focus of the MP's report.
So how was this questioning covered in the academics' trade magazine, The Times Higher Education Supplement?
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=406013
"Below the fold" is the answer
Although the people on TSR obsess about this and although parents and employers are interested to a point, it isn't a big issue for universities.
Original post by TheSownRose
Never asked "Would you say those are not top unis?" Neither may be world class, but they're both average to decent unis, so IMO hardly worthy of being called 'truly bad'.
Neither may be world class, but they're both average to decent unis, so IMO hardly worthy of being called 'truly bad'.The Open University has no entry requirements. Does that make it an infinite vortex of terribleness?
I did an Open University degree myself and the standards seem pretty similar to UCL, just a mild jump up to Masters level. I was just above distinction grade at the OU, and so far remain just above distinction grade here. It's also worth noting that none of the universities I applied to were even moderately concerned about where my undergraduate degree was from, yet entirely concerned about my grades.
I did an Open University degree myself and the standards seem pretty similar to UCL, just a mild jump up to Masters level. I was just above distinction grade at the OU, and so far remain just above distinction grade here. It's also worth noting that none of the universities I applied to were even moderately concerned about where my undergraduate degree was from, yet entirely concerned about my grades.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by spidergareth
This would be a good Idea.
People would still find fault with it.
Original post by Jonty99
Quotes from the external examiner's report for Cambridge maths and english triposes that say that people with a 2.1 from Cambridge could well have got a first elsewhere.
Couldn't the same be said of any course at any university that grades students against their peers?
Whilst we're on this subject who says grading against your peers is a good thing? I'm looked at as something of a threat by some people in my class because of the standard of my work which has lead some people to avoid me and others to latch on to me for assistance.
If I was being graded against my peers I'd have an incentive to not help people in my class. The people who seem to have some slight resentment of what I can do would probably become hostile toward me as my work directly effects them I may feel guilty about making their lives harder and not try so hard.
Who has the time to deal with that bull**** when you're trying to better yourself and secure a future?
Original post by ish90an
1. There is something to say that post-grad courses and employers(who are themselves divided in terms of stature; a 5 person startup in Edinburgh is not the same as Google) screen out people with a 2.2. There is however nothing to say that given everything else is equal, they won't favour someone with a 2.1 from Oxbridge over someone with a 2.1 from Derby. It is, given the average stature of firms that target Oxbridge and the kind that target Derby, likely that this does happen.
2. The standards bit is a minimum bar, but does not represent the full course structure and difficulty across all universities. e.g. CS courses at Glasgow and Caledonian are so different that Caledonian's 3rd year exams ask the same questions as Glasgow's 2nd year ones, and indeed require the same standard of answer.
2. The standards bit is a minimum bar, but does not represent the full course structure and difficulty across all universities. e.g. CS courses at Glasgow and Caledonian are so different that Caledonian's 3rd year exams ask the same questions as Glasgow's 2nd year ones, and indeed require the same standard of answer.
1) Auto-filter implies the human element has been removed from the selection process at the point where the filtering is taking place. Once the the human element has been introduced there is no "equal" at this point a nice smile, strong handshake or big tits could trump a first from Oxford.
2) Which is a valid point if the Glasgow course covers Caledonians 3 years over the course of 2 years and covers different material during the third year. Even if it does and one of these courses is proven to be of a much higher standard it still says nothing of the capability of the students who received a first from Caledonian and only works as a comparison of these courses not the universities as a whole.
(edited 13 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- In which universities (UK & USA) can I apply with 4A in AS levels (CIE)?
- Certified translators in the UK for academic transcripts/grades
- Is SOAS the Right Choice for Comparative Literature MA? Insights Wanted!
- How accurate is ChatGPT at grading assignments?
- Studying abroad in Czech Republic, opinions?
- UCL reputation in uk
- How many people get 2:1s and better?
- Choosing acting course'22
- Easy/moderate Universities in to get into in the US
- psychology at loughborough
- Why I chose DMU: Leicester, A Student City.
- Is Oxford reapplication truly something I should do?
- predicted grade C in a levels. am i cooked for med school?
- Law 25 entry (seeking for advice
- Gcse grade from africa are equal to which grades in uk.
- University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest
- UEA or Sheffield University?
- med to vet school?
- advice please i ruined my life
- 3 C's and E's
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
