Surely Oxbridge degrees should be LESS valued than others... ? Watch

py0alb
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#221
Report 8 years ago
#221
(Original post by Apagg)
They aim to standardise it. It doesn't mean they do. In Economics at least I know the syllabus is vastly different between Cambridge and places like Royal Holloway, Sheffield and others, and that the marking of exam papers is tougher than at Russell Group universities, based on external examiner reports.

Cambridge even lowered the entry standard for their Econ Masters from a 1st to 2.1 because students from other unis with 1sts were at standard on a par with or slightly below that expected of Cambridge students with a 2.1, so better students were being excluded unfairly.
So you are saying that the QAA are failing in their remit. That's a pretty big claim. Do you have any evidence for that, other than the hearsay you've already provided?
0
reply
Apagg
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#222
Report 8 years ago
#222
(Original post by py0alb)
So you are saying that the QAA are failing in their remit. That's a pretty big claim. Do you have any evidence for that, other than the hearsay you've already provided?
No, you're right. You do know better than the Economics faculty at Cambridge whether they're standardising their exams with other universities.
0
reply
py0alb
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#223
Report 8 years ago
#223
(Original post by Apagg)
No, you're right. You do know better than the Economics faculty at Cambridge whether they're standardising their exams with other universities.
Do you have a direct quote from them saying "our degree is harder than any of the other economics degrees in the country"?
0
reply
Apagg
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#224
Report 8 years ago
#224
My knowledge comes from conversations with members of the faculty whilst studying at the university. Funnily enough, I didn't think to make a transcript.
0
reply
py0alb
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#225
Report 8 years ago
#225
(Original post by Apagg)
My knowledge comes from conversations with members of the faculty whilst studying at the university. Funnily enough, I didn't think to make a transcript.
So you have no evidence for your claim. ok that's fair enough, but don't expect anyone to believe it (other than fellow Oxbridge students of course, who all believe in their innate superiority as a matter of course)

My knowledge, in case you were interested, comes from actually working on a course standardisation committee at a previous university. Cambridge was actually one of the syllabuses we used as a reference. I got some grief off the next years students that it was a challenging module - to which I replied that it had to be, because it had to be as tough as Cambridge's course otherwise the QAA would string us up.

It's not a myth. The standardisation procedures are real and they are strict.
2
reply
planetearth
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#226
Report 8 years ago
#226
(Original post by im so academic)
Because of the higher academic standards Oxbridge has compared to other universities.
That depends what you want to study at University.

Some Universities are better then Oxbridge at specific subjects.

E.g. UCL is better than Oxford or Cambridge at Art and Design.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...ty-guide-music
0
reply
Apagg
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#227
Report 8 years ago
#227
(Original post by py0alb)
So you have no evidence for your claim. ok that's fair enough, but don't expect anyone to believe it (other than fellow Oxbridge students of course, who all believe in their innate superiority as a matter of course)

My knowledge, in case you were interested, comes from actually working on a course standardisation committee at a previous university. Cambridge was actually one of the syllabuses we used as a reference. I got some grief off the next years students that it was a challenging module - to which I replied that it had to be, because it had to be as tough as Cambridge's course otherwise the QAA would string us up.

It's not a myth. The standardisation procedures are real and they are strict.

So your syallbus was a carbon copy of the Cambridge one?
0
reply
py0alb
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#228
Report 8 years ago
#228
(Original post by Apagg)
So your syallbus was a carbon copy of the Cambridge one?
No, of course not. Different universities are free to write their own syllabuses in line with their pedagogical methodologies and technical specialities.

What happened was that we wished to add a new course to the syllabus that we felt would give the students a greater background understanding in certain areas (Lagrangian mechanics if you're interested). So we looked at what other universities taught a course on this particular sub-field, what year they taught it in, what the pre-requisites were, what the course included, and what level of knowledge was expected come examinations. We then wrote our new course so that it was of a directly comparable level. Cambridge was just one of several universities who syllabus we looked at.(its worth noting that Cambridge doesn't actually offer a straight physics degree as far as I am aware). It was noticeable whilst doing this, that all of the syllabuses we looked at were very similar, and taught basically the same stuff to the same level with a few variations in structure/focus here and there.


We didn't do this for fun: it was required of us by the QAA. If we had been introducing a new economics course on game theory for example, we would have been expected to do the same due diligence and look at all the other game theory courses taught by the other UK Econ departments etc.
0
reply
im so academic
Badges: 13
#229
Report 8 years ago
#229
(Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
Sloganistic garbage. Your argument is based on little more than LSE has 'Economics' in its title and Imperial does science degrees. PPE at Oxford kicks every similar course at LSE into touch and the Cambridge Economics degree commands the highest average salary of all UK undergraduate courses for its graduates. Even if you are talking of research ratings in science/engineering, Oxbridge generally whip Imperial on average.
You think I don't know that?

Why is it when I talk of other universities in a good way, I am criticised; yet when I talk only of Oxbridge, I am criticised?

I can't win either way.
0
reply
im so academic
Badges: 13
#230
Report 8 years ago
#230
(Original post by Jack.O)
Would you give me the same answer if the question came from an Oxbridge interviewer? Come on, give a proper response. What was it about the course content that was so markedly different? Did you check the RAE? Staff profiles? Unistats?

Or did you skim to the date of establishment?

I can only assume that were you living in the Middle Ages, you'd be spouting off about that 'unworthy upstart' Cambridge.
This isn't a bloody interview.

You pretty much imply that your degree is of the same worth as one from Leicester. You may think that to be, but there's a lot of people who don't.

There's a reason why you can get into DMU English with 2 A-levels.
0
reply
Overmars
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#231
Report 8 years ago
#231
(Original post by Apagg)
They aim to standardise it. It doesn't mean they do. In Economics at least I know the syllabus is vastly different between Cambridge and places like Royal Holloway, Sheffield and others, and that the marking of exam papers is tougher than at Russell Group universities, based on external examiner reports. The department has also resisted attempts by the QAA to standardise them because they felt they were being asked to dumb down, as can be seen in a spike in firsts over a couple of years before the academics reasserted themselves and imposed higher standards.

Cambridge even lowered the entry standard for their Econ Masters from a 1st to 2.1 because students from other unis with 1sts were at standard on a par with or slightly below that expected of Cambridge students with a 2.1, so better students were being excluded unfairly.
In terms of the material covered, there is little difference between the Economics course at Cambridge and at other top universities (which make up the most of the MPhil students from UK universities). The third year macro is more difficult than elsewhere and similar to their compulsory module on the masters. LSE's 2nd year ec202 is almost identical to Cambridge's 3rd year micro, and LSE's metrics, 309, is more difficult than anything Cambridge have to offer (although admittedly very few undergrads take it because it's more prep for the MSc in Econometrics and Mathematical Economics). (edit: I'm not just comparing topic titles on the syllabus -- I know that's misleading. But I'm actually looking at lecture notes, exercises and exam papers of both). I agree with you that getting a first at Cambridge is more difficult (they seem to give fewer away, and they make their difficult modules compulsory) but from personal experience, they have taken students from other universities without firsts also.
0
reply
RupertTheBear
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#232
Report 8 years ago
#232
(Original post by planetearth)
That depends what you want to study at University.

Some Universities are better then Oxbridge at specific subjects.

E.g. UCL is better than Oxford or Cambridge at Art and Design.
Dude, Cambridge doesn't even offer Art and Design
0
reply
WelshBluebird
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#233
Report 8 years ago
#233
(Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
In relative terms, those outside Oxbridge do degrees that aren't worth the paper they are written on.
Now that is the most ludicrous thing I have ever read. Even on TSR.
1
reply
planetearth
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#234
Report 8 years ago
#234
(Original post by RupertTheBear)
Dude, Cambridge doesn't even offer Art and Design
Oxford does though.
0
reply
WelshBluebird
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#235
Report 8 years ago
#235
(Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
You might help your cause if you had something to back up your lame slogan.
What "slogan"?
To suggest that every degree not from Oxbridge is not worth it is just stupid.
1 - Believe it or not, there are other brilliant unis in the UK.
2 - What about overseas, where there are places that are better than oxbridge?

edit - You mean my sig? What does me being a Welsh nationalist who is proud of his country and people got to do with this thread at all?
0
reply
puddlejumper
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#236
Report 8 years ago
#236
(Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
You fail to provide any evidence for these "false assumptions". You can, of course, invent ridiculous anecdotes, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Those elsewhere are of undoubted lower average ability, given their grades and reject status, and if they haven't got the balls to take on the best, they have no reason to assume they should be regaded in the same bracket. The number of Oxbridge graduates, in my experience, who are stupid enough to fall prey to the vices you mention are few and far between and not of any particular relevance here. If you want to invent slogans, be a bit smarter about it, throwing the facile "social factors" line is as lame as it is irrelevant and seems to have more to do with clutching at straws to protect your reject status.

P.S. Most of the dropout, 2.2s and 3rds I have met at Oxbridge worked extremely hard and none of them could be categorised in the way you describe - I suggest you present your evidence.
How can you be rejected if you never applied in the first place? Not everyone is blinded by the wonders of Oxbridge and not everyone makes their choice of university on the basis of league tables.

After wasting some of my life in reviewing your posts I now realise that you are a troll and therefore I won't be bothering to reply to you any more.
0
reply
RupertTheBear
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#237
Report 8 years ago
#237
(Original post by planetearth)
Oxford does though.
Oxford offers 'Fine Art', but yeah I was just wondering how you decided UCL was better than Oxford (and Cambridge) at Art...
0
reply
x=o
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#238
Report 8 years ago
#238
(Original post by pick92)
Universities award their own degrees though don't they? So a 2:1 degree from one is not necessarily the same as a 2:1 degree from another.
so, where are the external markers from?
0
reply
WelshBluebird
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#239
Report 8 years ago
#239
(Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
1) Where ?
2) Where ?

Regarding your second point, Oxbridge are consistently rated as being at the very top of the international tree, their undergraduate degrees are, however, in another league entirely. The standard of an Ivy League undergraduate degree is little more than UK polytechnic standard, it's their postgraduate courses and funding that allowed those universities to claim some kind of kudos, nothing else.
1 - LSE, UCL (which is actually classed as better than Oxford internationally), Bath, Bristol, Durham etc etc. Quite a few of them.

2 - First of all as far as I understand it, the Ivy league is pretty much like the Russel group in that it doesn't specifically mean the "best unis". Just the ones that get the most money.
Secondly, there are a few US unis (harvard, MIT, Yale) that are "better" than Oxford.
Thirdly, it depends on what course you are talking about. For engineering / technology, Oxbridge are not at the top at all.
0
reply
poisonivy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#240
Report 8 years ago
#240
In reply to puddlejumper.

I'd just like to say that in no place in my response did I eve say that I think that all other university students are just 'dossing around and getting drunk'. I know that other universities work people hard and I thought I made that pretty clear. And as for keeping up to date with work - well that's exactly what my clinical years consist of.

All I was saying is that I have a very high workload compared to SOME other universities and also have to go into a great deal of depth, far beyond what is set by the GMC. And so that's one of the reasons for my degree being supposedly 'worth' more. Evidently your is worth quite a bit too though and I'm sure employers will know that.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
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

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (561)
37.68%
No - but I will (116)
7.79%
No - I don't want to (106)
7.12%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (706)
47.41%

Watched Threads

View All