We should shut down the lower ranked universities and bull courses - debate Watch

This discussion is closed.
FKLW
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#181
Report 5 years ago
#181
(Original post by honeyandlemon)
Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial, Durham, St Andrews, UCL, Warwick, Bath, Exeter, Lancaster,
York, St Andrews, Surrey, Loughborough, Bristol, Leicester, Birmingham, KCL, UEA, Southampton, Edinburgh
Newcastle, Glasgow, Nottingham, Manchester, Sheffield, Aston, Kent, Queen's Belfast, Royal Holloway,
Sussex, Leeds, SOAS, St George's, Cardiff, Queen Mary, Reading, Liverpool, Essex

These are the worthy institutions in the UK
Bradford?


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
FKLW
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#182
Report 5 years ago
#182
(Original post by Alltimesarah)
One can not shut down London Met


Posted from TSR Mobile
Loooooool


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Le Nombre
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#183
Report 5 years ago
#183
(Original post by DoctorInTraining)
Practically impossible - that's what people used to say about the NHS (and yes it has it's faults) but it works!

I didn't say my ideal solution was easy or achievable overnight - but I do strongly feel the standard diversity within higher education is staggering!

Point is not all universities are currently equal - thus not all qualifications are equal.
Yes, but then someone came up with a solution, what would yours be to the issue of the fact the only specialists capable of judging these exams for maybe 20 or 30 people are already setting them? The government could retain academics who were specialists just for that purpose, but that's robbing one university of the chance to have them teacing that subject like they're paid to do!

No, but I don't think there is any illusion that they are at the moment. Look at the tops of economics, law, architecture, accountancy, the media etc. and you'll see they're absolutely dominated by Oxbridge grads and there junior levels aren't particularly different (close to half of all Magic Circle trainees attende Oxbridge for example), there is an ackowledgement of the fact and it is implemented cycle after cycle on the milkround.
0
wildleaves
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#184
Report 5 years ago
#184
I think the fees of unis should be scaled depending on graduate prospects for each course ( down from 9k a year ofc if at all) , maybe that could solve the problem
0
DoctorInTraining
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#185
Report 5 years ago
#185
(Original post by PQ)
That wasn't rude - that was pointing out that spouting off about quality standards for degrees without understanding the system of QA within and between universities just makes you look silly.

You're more than welcome to continue to give your opinion on topics you haven't looked into (which is clear from the fact that you're attempting to compare 2 subjects at 2 classifications at two institutions). I just wanted to warn you that you're posting without doing your research and so making yourself appear ignorant.


True - the example you gave made it clear that you don't understand the system of quality standards and assurance in UK universities - not the fact that I disagree with you


If you have so much experience of UK medical school standards then why on EARTH would you enter the discussion talking about chemistry and psychology degrees. Obviously the QA and regulations mechanisms are different for medicine. I'd be very interested in your experience of differential medicine teaching.

If you continue to belittle and devalue education standards without understanding the system involved then I'm afraid it isn't me who will appear immature.


Right - so you stopped at slide 4.

Then please look at slides 8, 9 & 10, 16, 17, 18 & 19 and slide 23.

Then go away and look at the quality code and subject benchmarks for psychology and chemistry.

Then look at the external examiners reports for UWE and Oxford.

At that point you'll have some insight into how degree classifications on the two degrees you reference compare in terms of "easiness". And even then that doesn't take into account the aptitude or external support available to individual students.

As I say - you're commenting on a system you clearly don't understand (and a consequence of that is that you're belittling the achievements of huge numbers of students) - that's a pretty immature thing to be doing.
I have read the entire prezi and it taught me nothing that I wasn't already aware of as a course representative - which is mentioned in the midst.

You have however failed to explain articulately and concisely as I kindly asked.

I do not wish to read external examiner reports again - but if you can summarise the key findings to support your argument that would be helpful to this thread.

I fail to grasp your point about aptitude and external support - why is that relevant?

I acknowledge there is a minimum threshold regarding standards - I never said there wasn't one.

What I am challenging is the concept that a 2:1 is a universal standard because frankly it is not.

I do not mean to undermined people and have been very careful not to name particular institutes, for example the less academic university my partner attended, and have tried to give examples from my own knowledge in the area.

As I said before, I'm not proposing that these colleges should be shut, but I feel if all are to be called universities their standards should be within the same range - not simply above a minimum threshold.
0
Economists
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#186
Report 5 years ago
#186
(Original post by honeyandlemon)
Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial, Durham, St Andrews, UCL, Warwick, Bath, Exeter, Lancaster,
York, St Andrews, Surrey, Loughborough, Bristol, Leicester, Birmingham, KCL, UEA, Southampton, Edinburgh
Newcastle, Glasgow, Nottingham, Manchester, Sheffield, Aston, Kent, Queen's Belfast, Royal Holloway,
Sussex, Leeds, SOAS, St George's, Cardiff, Queen Mary, Reading, Liverpool, Essex

These are the worthy institutions in the UK
St Andrews is so good it gets in twice
0
tory88
  • Study Helper
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#187
Report 5 years ago
#187
A much better method is surely only to fund certain degrees, or to fund degrees by varying amounts. Then it is cheaper to study a good degree at a good institution. Markers to measure this by could be accreditation by relevant bodies, or even employment prospects.
0
PQ
  • PS Reviewer
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#188
Report 5 years ago
#188
(Original post by wildleaves)
I think the fees of unis should be scaled depending on graduate prospects for each course ( down from 9k a year ofc if at all) , maybe that could solve the problem
Define graduate prospects?

That's a pretty vague term.
0
EmmaBxoxo
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#189
Report 5 years ago
#189
yeah you and what army

Spoiler:
Show
All of TSR.
0
miamiparty1756
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#190
Report 5 years ago
#190
Why is my text being cut short when I quote someone?
0
Mr.AZ
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#191
Report 5 years ago
#191
Whether or not a university is good/crap, it is up to the individual to make the most of their time there through independent study from the learning resources given to them I guess.

If a university was really bad by definition, it would have closed down by now.

AZ
0
DoctorInTraining
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#192
Report 5 years ago
#192
(Original post by Le Nombre)
Yes, but then someone came up with a solution, what would yours be to the issue of the fact the only specialists capable of judging these exams for maybe 20 or 30 people are already setting them? The government could retain academics who were specialists just for that purpose, but that's robbing one university of the chance to have them teacing that subject like they're paid to do!

No, but I don't think there is any illusion that they are at the moment. Look at the tops of economics, law, architecture, accountancy, the media etc. and you'll see they're absolutely dominated by Oxbridge grads and there junior levels aren't particularly different (close to half of all Magic Circle trainees attende Oxbridge for example), there is an ackowledgement of the fact and it is implemented cycle after cycle on the milkround.
My proposal (and I can already feel the awkward tension for some other people following this thread) is this...

A tiered system - where course expectations (both lower and higher thresholds) are standardised within their tier for that subject. So for example - a 2:1 from Oxford = Bristol = Durham = Other Similar Institute

And then in a second tier, graduates can also get a 2:1 but within a different set of standards. So for example....
UWE = Worcester = Hereford = etc

The tiers could be standardised by marking cohorts of exams from other institutes within the same tier, ensuring standards are universal with the same tier. So for example a 2.1 Oxford doesn't translate to a 1st at Bristol.

This would provide employers with confidence that graduates fell into a very defined range of ability which it not the case at the moment.

I do acknowledge your bit about employment stats in certain roles but this is not universal.

Many graduate programmes (I do know there are other alternatives but this is an example) require a 2.1 minimum or there is no interview opportunity. As long as this is a requirement, even if it is a minority of jobs, I will always be supporting an alternative method of higher education assessment.
1
PQ
  • PS Reviewer
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#193
Report 5 years ago
#193
(Original post by DoctorInTraining)
I have read the entire prezi and it taught me nothing that I wasn't already aware of as a course representative - which is mentioned in the midst.

You have however failed to explain articulately and concisely as I kindly asked.

I do not wish to read external examiner reports again - but if you can summarise the key findings to support your argument that would be helpful to this thread.

I fail to grasp your point about aptitude and external support - why is that relevant?

I acknowledge there is a minimum threshold regarding standards - I never said there wasn't one.

What I am challenging is the concept that a 2:1 is a universal standard because frankly it is not.
You fail to understand that unless you understand a system then criticising it and suggesting improvements is unhelpful at best.

The university QA and quality system is complex I'll grant you that. Which is why claiming that the standards of a 2ii in Chem from Oxford are higher than a 2i in Psych at UWE makes you appear foolish.

You've made it clear in this thread that you don't understand the QA system within and between universities (or the involvement of the QAA overseeing the QA process). If you understood the system you would understand that the comparison you're trying to make and the value judgements you think should be imposed on it are ridiculous.


I do not mean to undermined people and have been very careful not to name particular institutes, for example the less academic university my partner attended, and have tried to give examples from my own knowledge in the area.
Bull**** - the first post you made in this thread (and the one I pointed out was bull****) involved you said
(Original post by DoctorInTraining)
Nobody can argue that a 2.2 in Chemistry at Oxford is harder than a 2.1 in Psychology in University West Of England.
As I said before, I'm not proposing that these colleges should be shut, but I feel if all are to be called universities their standards should be within the same range - not simply above a minimum threshold.
And how exactly do you plan to determine which universities should be called universities and which shouldn't.

The HE sector is hugely diverse with pockets of excellence and pockets of shoddy practice all over the place. Claiming that x number of universities are "worthy" of the title and every other institution should be downgraded is to completely misunderstand the sector.

What I think you're really hoping for is for a government controlled system of exam boards overseeing degree awards. Which again completely misunderstands the diversity in activities that take place within universities - they're not about *just* teaching or awarding degrees.
0
Mad Vlad
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#194
Report 5 years ago
#194
(Original post by DoctorInTraining)
Firstly don't be so rude - there is no need.

Secondly just because someone holds a different opinion to you doesn't mean you know what they have or haven't done.

Finally I have a great deal of knowledge about higher education. I have presented at international education conferences like AMEE and have read a great deal about different marking criteria, examiner reports, examination assessment theory and differences between medical schools - let alone different institutes!

If you can articulately and accurately explain why a 2.2 from Oxford University is easier to achieve than a 2.1 from UWE in psychology then I am all ears.

If however you are going to continue to make personal slurs and continue to conduct yourself in an immature manner, then please keep you comments to youself.
I think PQ's earned the right to be a little more forthright in her opinions on this subject. Just sayin'.
0
River85
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#195
Report 5 years ago
#195
(Original post by honeyandlemon)
Over 100 universities in the UK and only about 40 or so are prestigious. What is the point of all of these awful institutions?
If you want to discuss and debate this in a serious and constructive manner then please do so, but don't create a new thread when there have already been about 3 threads in this very topic over the last three weeks or so.

I've merged your thread with a similar one. Thanks.
0
Le Nombre
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#196
Report 5 years ago
#196
(Original post by DoctorInTraining)
My proposal (and I can already feel the awkward tension for some other people following this thread) is this...

A tiered system - where course expectations (both lower and higher thresholds) are standardised within their tier for that subject. So for example - a 2:1 from Oxford = Bristol = Durham = Other Similar Institute

And then in a second tier, graduates can also get a 2:1 but within a different set of standards. So for example....
UWE = Worcester = Hereford = etc

The tiers could be standardised by marking cohorts of exams from other institutes within the same tier, ensuring standards are universal with the same tier. So for example a 2.1 Oxford doesn't translate to a 1st at Bristol.

This would provide employers with confidence that graduates fell into a very defined range of ability which it not the case at the moment.

I do acknowledge your bit about employment stats in certain roles but this is not universal.

Many graduate programmes (I do know there are other alternatives but this is an example) require a 2.1 minimum or there is no interview opportunity. As long as this is a requirement, even if it is a minority of jobs, I will always be supporting an alternative method of higher education assessment.
But where do you draw those lines? I imagine the average Oxbrdge grad would take umbridge at the suggestion anywhere else is at their level. The LSE grad will point out there degree was harder than a Bristol graduate's, who in turn is complaining that they had it tougher than the Manchester grad, who thinks theirs was harder than the Leicester grad's etc. etc.

Yes, but the unis compenste for this, at Oxford only 3% didn't get a 2:1 or above in English for example, sorry but if 97% of your cohort who arrived at an equal level probably did **** around a bit much for 3 years.

http://unistats.direct.gov.uk/subjec...eturnTo/Search
0
Klix88
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#197
Report 5 years ago
#197
(Original post by PlsGimmeMBBS)
crappy universities such as ... Bournemouth
Bournemouth houses the National Centre for Computer Animation and is one of the top UK institutes for graduates in that field. The argument may be more granular than the blanket condemnation of an entire university.

I've attended both Oxford and a former poly. My subject has completely stagnated at Oxford over the past thirty years, whereas the former poly (doubtless viewed as "crappy" in the question) is at the cutting edge of research and is pushing the discipline forward.
0
sarah09_
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#198
Report 5 years ago
#198
I agree with this, except maybe not certain courses as good universities don't generally offer completely pointless courses. It's also unfair how you need a 2:1 to apply to most jobs which is much easier to get from a poly than a Russell group this would make this less of a problem


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
DoctorInTraining
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#199
Report 5 years ago
#199
(Original post by Le Nombre)
But where do you draw those lines? I imagine the average Oxbrdge grad would take umbridge at the suggestion anywhere else is at their level. The LSE grad will point out there degree was harder than a Bristol graduate's, who in turn is complaining that they had it tougher than the Manchester grad, who thinks theirs was harder than the Leicester grad's etc. etc.

Yes, but the unis compenste for this, at Oxford only 3% didn't get a 2:1 or above in English for example, sorry but if 97% of your cohort who arrived at an equal level probably did **** around a bit much for 3 years.

http://unistats.direct.gov.uk/subjec...eturnTo/Search
Who knows to be honest!

I am only proposing an alternative - funnily enough I haven't sent an entire week ironing out all the issues!

I see your point for the 2.2 at Oxford but that is not the case across all "red brick" universities and have several friends who worked very hard and did not get the elusive 2.1 in departments which only award 40% 2.1 or higher - hence my passion on the 2.1 sticking point.

Maybe we could view it like football leagues....all universities are playing but depending on performance year on year their tier can change pending on assessment standards.

Point is like many problems with the UK at the moment - I don't have the perfect solution but I am willing to try and make a change!
0
DoctorInTraining
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#200
Report 5 years ago
#200
(Original post by tory88)
A much better method is surely only to fund certain degrees, or to fund degrees by varying amounts. Then it is cheaper to study a good degree at a good institution. Markers to measure this by could be accreditation by relevant bodies, or even employment prospects.
(Original post by sarah09_)
I agree with this, except maybe not certain courses as good universities don't generally offer completely pointless courses. It's also unfair how you need a 2:1 to apply to most jobs which is much easier to get from a poly than a Russell group this would make this less of a problem


Posted from TSR Mobile
Agree with both of you
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Business Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (191)
22.52%
The paper was reasonable (390)
45.99%
Not feeling great about that exam... (157)
18.51%
It was TERRIBLE (110)
12.97%

Watched Threads

View All