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

In bold for you to see. Focus on the question: Does a 2.1 from one university equate to a 2.1 from another university?

Some 100 firms having more recruitment fairs in one university doesn't answer the question does it? It neither confirms nor denies the question. It doesn't because a recruitment fair isn't a job offer. An attendance at a recruitment fair doesn't mean a student's 2.1 is now magically higher than another student's 2.1 in the same subject. You see, though a good read, your post is meaningless, for it doesn't answer the question.



Highlighted in bold are the baseless assertions you have again resorted to without any evidence to back this up. As has been stated above a recruitment fair is not a job offer, hence more recruitment fairs at a university doesn't mean that a 2.1 is devalued from a university with fewer recruitment fair. It's a complete red herring. Try to focus on the point, that is to disprove that a 2.1 is equivalent in the same university for the same discipline. Try again




It's a shame that you've now resorted to personal insults to back up your position.
It is the sign of desperation when clutching at straws. Try to remain objective.

Here is the report again for you to disprove, I'll go through it with you so as to make it absolutely clear:


In simple terms, Universities have the first say in the standards of degree they award, but all use the same tool which is a regulation.



External examiners are sent from each UK university to ensure that the degrees are comparable and consistent. Ie. To ensure that the degrees are worth the same.



These external examiners report to the VC of each university to ensure that the standards are comparable and consistent. Ie to ensure that the degrees are worth the same.


So to clarify, each university first regulates themselves using a common tool called the QAA. Then they send examiners to other universities to regulate them and ensure that the standards are comparable and consistent. These examiners all report to the VC of each university to ensure that the standards are comparable and consistent.

Now how in any way does that suggest that a 2.1 degree from one institution isn't comparable with that from another in the same subject? How does it say that degrees are not consistent across the university system? It says that there are several measures put in place to ensure that the standards are 'consistent and comparable for those following similar courses in other UK universities.'

Now you make a general point that this is not the case. Not that there are exceptions to this rule, but that the exceptions are the rule. That degrees are not comparable nor consistent. That a 2.1 isn't of the same standard, because all top ranked universities have a higher level of 2.1 than all bottom ranked universities because the league table says so.

My simple wish is this: prove it!

You're not really proving anything yourself here. The statements on UUK are incredibly vague, merely statements of intent than concrete proof. Have you actually ever read an external examiners report? They don't do much themselves, they simply make recommendations for what can be changed in subsequent years. They have very little power to actually change the ****ing classing of degrees, so if they felt that it's harder to get a 2.1 at one place than another, all they can do is make recommendations, they can't suddenly go "give more people a 2.1". The regulation done by UUK is much much less concrete and rigid than you think, and the external examiners are simply there to check that no completely wacky **** is going on (i.e. giving out firsts for incredibly poor pieces of work).

The simple point is is that no one can really prove it either way, external examiners reports are notoriously difficult to get hold of, but surely by actually using a bit of common sense you can see that if a cohort which has hundreds of UCAS points more than an another is getting worse degree results then there is some discrepancy in the standard required.

*awaits some smug bastard reply consisting of simply quoting the same **** on the UUK website*

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/ )


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.

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.


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.

I'm really struggling to understand why people won't accept degree difficulties vary from university to university. You need straight As/A*s to get into Oxbridge whereas you need straight Cs or Ds to get into somewhere like Derby. Do people honestly believe a Derby graduate would have a hope in hell at Cambridge exams? I'm not trying to slag off universities here either, just making the point that to say all degrees have the same general level of complexity and difficulty is insane.

I still await conclusive firm evidence to disprove my assessment. If it is brought, I will concede, however as a scientist I won't accept "everybody knows" as an answer. And as a poster, I do not think this to be unreasonable. Do you?

We still await conclusive firm evidence to support your assessment.

Yes, I think it is unreasonable not to listen to common sense. Common sense dictates that if people going to Oxbridge are getting 3 or 4 A2 levels at A or A*, while people going to some lower universities are getting Cs and Ds, and the proportion of firsts/upper seconds is not much, much higher at Oxbridge, bearing in mind that people at Oxbridge are clearly more academic and/or deal with exams better, then Oxbridge exams must be harder. Tell me which part of that paragraph you have a problem with, instead of parroting on about conclusive, firm evidence.

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.

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.

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.

We still await conclusive firm evidence to support your assessment.

Yes, I think it is unreasonable not to listen to common sense. Common sense dictates that if people going to Oxbridge are getting 3 or 4 A2 levels at A or A*, while people going to some lower universities are getting Cs and Ds, and the proportion of firsts/upper seconds is not much, much higher at Oxbridge, bearing in mind that people at Oxbridge are clearly more academic and/or deal with exams better, then Oxbridge exams must be harder. Tell me which part of that paragraph you have a problem with, instead of parroting on about conclusive, firm evidence.

You're not really proving anything yourself here. The statements on UUK are incredibly vague, merely statements of intent than concrete proof. Have you actually ever read an external examiners report? They don't do much themselves, they simply make recommendations for what can be changed in subsequent years. They have very little power to actually change the ****ing classing of degrees, so if they felt that it's harder to get a 2.1 at one place than another, all they can do is make recommendations, they can't suddenly go "give more people a 2.1". The regulation done by UUK is much much less concrete and rigid than you think, and the external examiners are simply there to check that no completely wacky **** is going on (i.e. giving out firsts for incredibly poor pieces of work).

The simple point is is that no one can really prove it either way, external examiners reports are notoriously difficult to get hold of, but surely by actually using a bit of common sense you can see that if a cohort which has hundreds of UCAS points more than an another is getting worse degree results then there is some discrepancy in the standard required.

*awaits some smug bastard reply consisting of simply quoting the same **** on the UUK website*

I suppose that the only way to ensure consistency across the university sector would be to give the same examination paper to all university candidates and remove all of the individual exams. That way the universities would cover the syllabus in their own way and the exams would be externally set. We could then directly compare just how good the old universities are at teaching the same subjects as the new universities.

And given the new fees it would be a good way of seeing if the old universities are providing value for money.

Now try again. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim, that a 2.1 is not comparable across universities in the same discipline. If you do not, I understand, just say you don't rather than make more groundless assertions. If you do, I would be more than interested to read them, and judging on their quality and reliability, re-evaluate my assessment.

Your argument doesn't hold water I'm afraid. Simply being good at school exams doesn't automatically mean that you will be good at univesity exams. I'd never failed an exam until I went to university and some of my other results were absolutely dire even in the first year simply because I did not understand what they were asking for.

You have to recognise that many, many schools now work 'to the exam' and therefore the pupil will only need to concentrate on a small amount of information. Contrast that to university where you are often just given a book list, and assignment title and are told to get on with it at the same time that you are covering other work in lectures!

And A levels allow you to resubmit work to get better grades which doesn't happen at university as resubmitted work is generally capped at 40%.

Really it is ridiculous to assume that good A levels will mean good university results. It doesn't, because you are simply not being spoon-fed in the same way that you are at school.

Fine. I have no evidence. I am a 15-year-old. I am not even in my last year of school. I may have logical arguments, I may have common sense, but apparently that's not enough to convince you. Evidence may exist; I don't know. Frankly I'm past the point of caring. I know what I believe, and I think you might secretly believe it too; either that, or you're just stupid, or obstinate. Don't bother quoting me, I've given up on convincing you.

This begs the question; if you can't evidence something, why do you believe it?

"Logic" is meaningless without premises to apply it to. In the real world, these premises come in the form of evidence. And common sense? That's an empty phrase if ever I saw one.

Because it has an average entry requirement of 180 ucas points. Garbage in, Garbage out. Simples.

This isn't a theological debate.

So how exactly are employment statistics taken six months after the completion of an undergraduate degree relevant to the question 'is it really bad'?

And it's a fair way to judge how good schools are (it's pretty accurate if you take in consideration Paris/non-Paris school as salary are higher in Paris).

It may not work for uni as degree offered are not the same, but you could compare BSc Physics in all uni this way.

You're sort of contradicting yourself in this section but OK, I'll show you why just quoting random statistics without some consideration of other factors.

Here is a random statistic for you: every British Prime Minister since 1945, apart from three, has been an Oxbridge graduate.

Make of that what you will.

And two of these non oxbridge PMs were Gordon Brown and John Major

You're sort of contradicting yourself in this section but OK, I'll show you why just quoting random statistics without some consideration of other factors.

Here is a random statistic for you: every British Prime Minister since 1945, apart from three, has been an Oxbridge graduate.

Make of that what you will.

Not all courses that require 180 UCAS points to get in is ****e.

Bishop Grosseteste University College Lincoln for Primary Education with QTS is 180 points and is one of the most competitive places to get in and offers one the best courses for becoming a Primary Teacher. Plus it's totally awesome. :P