Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
    I'm afraid it doesn't apply to the other subjects you mention, science has nothing to do with it. There is nothing vaguely deep or abstract about SPS and having sat in supervisions for the subject, I can honestly say that the level of intellect on display is at the low end, the kind of questions asked by SPS students would shame a five year old and the essays I have seen written by many of the students, which I borrowed to see what was required before I decided to take the paper, gave no indication of any kind of sophistication and were stuffed with childish slogans and what might be termed "linear chains". The essays did not require any kind of expertise, could have been written by a layperson with no association with the subject and gave no indication of any sort of long-term consolidation of advanced concepts - an average GCSE student could do the job. Having seen the material produced by those doing other arts subjects, I can honestly say they are miles ahead.
    Papers shared between SPS and other disciplines are often easier than the papers only for people on the course, because they have to cater for people from other subjects who haven't had any prior teaching in Sociology or Politics. This means that the students from within SPS who choose those joint papers often do so precisely because they want to do really easy papers. This means that the sample of students from the course that you were judging are not representative of the whole. Not that the 6 maximum supervisions you showed up to are representative anyway :rofl:
    I don't think SPS is different to any other Arts or Humanities subject in the sense that scraping a 2.1 isn't difficult and that there will always be some students who try to do the least work possible and just get by. But there are also lots of others who care about their subject, work hard and get high 2.1s or firsts.

    SPS students are most often seen in the bar, have a workload that is well below that of other students at Cambridge and are notorious for being wasters - nobody takes them seriously.
    When I started my degree I got told by loads of people that SPS was a doss. This turned out to be complete fabrication as I had three times the number of essays as the Historians and Philosophers and was usually given reading lists for each essay with 20 or more books or journal articles. On average for the full degree I had no more than three days to do all the reading and writing for a supervision essay, and essays were non stop from start to end of full term. The essays I had were usually 2500 to 3000 words. These were twice as long as essays written by MML students and three times as long as law essays. I won't go as far as saying that we get set more work than people on other courses, but it certainly seemed equal.
    How hard each person works in any arts or humanities subject does depend on your personal goals and interests though. I know many people doing Theology, History, English, Economics and SPS who seem to do no work at all, and are wasters. I also know loads in these subjects who work very hard. It all comes down to the individual and what they get from their degree.

    In fact, the course was so bad that in the 90s a load of SPS students ****ged off the course in Varsity, saying how it was even less demanding than A Levels. No wonder they had to rebrand it as PPS.
    It wouldn't surprise me if employers in the finance or law world were so prejudiced, but they generally are discriminatory on a whole host of arbitrary factors as it is. If you are working towards those sectors yourself, then that furnishes you with an obvious bias and also makes you rather pitiable as it seems you've imbibed their value system, even though nobody in the world cares for judging people in this way, or what the Bar thinks other than said employers, and those competing to be employed by them. Personally I'd rather shoot myself than become a lawyer or work in finance, but each to their own :dontknow:
    Go into a lecture hall and look at the disproportionate numbers of inner-city oiks on special access schemes on the course, in fact just go and ask them what type of school they went to and they'll tell you, not that you should need to ask given their appearance.
    Its true that SPS students look different. They often wear more original creative clothes, and there seems to be a better mix between men and women on the course, a higher number of international students and a better ethnicity balance.
    I've always been quite chuffed about this, as it has made for a better social environment and more variety in points of views and more interesting conversation.
    I haven't met any students from disadvantaged backgrounds on my course, but myself and most people I know aren't in the habit of asking or caring what schools people went to.

    It's a frigging joke and it's not just the opinion of economists, it's the opinion of virtually everybody at Cambridge whatever their subject.
    :lol:
    Sorry but I'm in my fourth year at Cambridge in this subject, and I can count the number of people on my hand that thought this way of SPS. They were almost all Historians and they were usually wearing tweed and speaking with ridiculous accents. Most students I know are above obsessing over whether their degrees are better than anybody else's.
    I have to say I'm inclined to think that you're the joke.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    PPE: You do the three subjects, 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3.
    PPS: You have to do two or three of those subjects in your first year, after that you specialise in the one you like.

    Plus, PPS is done at Cambridge. So, PPS any time of the day.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by small_fry)

    My advice (I am the Christ Church PPE rejectee :cry2:) which may be a factor in your choice to choose PPE over PPS is how comfortable you are in mathematics. I would argue that the ability to think mathematically is seen as a pre-requisite for PPE (performance in TSA, economics problems and elementary logic in philosohpy, etc.) whereas for PPS (as far as I'm aware) this is not the case. If you are not comfortable with maths my advice is to go for PPS.
    If you plan to focus on Psychology in your degree, or if you plan to study research methods to an advanced level then maths would be helpful, but these are both optional, so if maths isn't your strength its easy to navigate away from it in PPS.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SergioMZ)
    PPE: You do the three subjects, 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3.
    PPS: You have to do two or three of those subjects in your first year, after that you specialise in the one you like.

    Plus, PPS is done at Cambridge. So, PPS any time of the day.
    Actually, after first year PPEists can specialise in 2 subjects (and are encouraged to due to the ridiculousness of a second/third year tripartite workload). And it doesn't have to be 50/50, but can be balanced towards one subject (though there is a minimum number of modules to be taken in both).

    Plus, PPE is done at Oxford. So, PPE any time of the day.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Craggy = :awesome:

    Sociology is a fascinating discipline (possibly one of my favourite subjects), it's ridiculous that some people are still snobby about it. I could go into more detail, but these people are dogmatic so it won't change anything.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
    1) Those who switch to SPS for the final year (e.g. medics), and who effectively do the Part II in one year, aren't restricted by their choice of papers. The paper I sat appeared to include a majority of SPSians and you have no idea just how far away you are from the rest of the Cambridge pack when it comes to the technical demands of your subject. Your papers have a huge choice, the questions are almost the same every year, the reading lists consist of (joke) low-grade references and the essays that I saw, including from those who supposedly gained firsts (I can't see how you can get anything less), were essentially childish stories written by the exceptionally naive and exhibited nowhere near the quality and depth of those in other arts subjects. You don't need any prior training in Sociology/Politics and your claim is just a facile attempt to cover up just what kind of low-grade intellect does this pitiful subject and your diatribe illustrates this - you make a series of dubious assumptions about who would do what kind of paper and then insult your own peers in the process, failing to note that the percentages gaining the various classes do not vary a great deal between SPS papers. I took 8 supervisions and that was 8 more than I needed - the SPS students were asking questions for which the answers should have been obvious in kindergarten.

    2) You can lie about your workload, and you are lying to the nth degree, not only about the number of essays in comparison to other subjects, the amount of effort you had to put in etc...but what you fail to mention are the technical demands of the subject, which many would put in the bargain basement category.

    3) You then exhibit the classic hallmark of the intellectual lightweight - the discrimination/prejudice card. You make a childish claim, like most of your ilk, and then assume that I am the same age as you - I finished my Cambridge degree in the 90s, have a Phd, and have worked for a number leading employers in London. You then make a series of laughably naive assumptions about my 'corporate agenda' (and that of others) in the process, throwing around typically wet notions of "value" systems without any evidence to back up your claims - I've noticed that sociologists do suffer from the need to make up the opinions of others or invent theories without any basis, thinking that they have provided some kind of insight into a particular topic that nobody else has ever thought of - it's usually nothing insightful at all. Let me guess, you are attending the University of Life, you don't care what happens around you because you think that by smoking a joint, dressing like a hippie, going on about the poor in society and spouting your facile nonsense might actually change things ? Tell me, why did you go to Cambridge if you didn't want to be a conformist with a decent job ?

    4) You then go on about original/creative clothes, most would regard it as late-onset puberty - just what point are you trying to prove by standing out in a crowd, are you attention seeking ? Since when did a gender balance equate to entry on merit ? You should know that there are three times as many men as women with an IQ above 130 (the Oxbridge top 2%) - I bet that would get me a third in the mother of all non-subjects, Gender. Since when did the proportion of ethnic minorities/international students imply anything about the quality of the course or the intelligence of those doing it ? Since when is a "social" environment of any consequence to anyone except a sociologist who has too much time on his/her hands and who does nothing else but spend their life socialising (banging townies) at 5th Avenue ? I daresay you don't ask how many are from disadvantaged backgrounds or on special access schemes as the answer is obvious - most of them.

    5) I'd take a History graduate over an SPS/PPSian every time; when recruiting graduates from Cambridge I chuck all those with an SPS/PPS degree in the reject pile now - it's frightening the frequency with which those graduates leave any given graduate scheme they somehow manage to get onto, they just can't handle it. I'd rather be a tweed-wearing toffy historian with a brain and a bank balance of note than an SPS/PPS graduate without either. Nobody has anything bad to say about any degree at Cambridge other than SPS, why is that ?

    Try again.

    You make some good points, admittedly, but I do feel it's a bit sad that a 30 + guy, if you really are this person, uses TSR. Yes, Ad Hominem > all.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
    On the face of it you may think so and I wouldn't blame you - I only bother with threads that relate to Oxbridge. A few like-minded souls decided that after the Laura Spence debacle it was about time Oxbridge graduates did something to fight back and save the reputation of the two universities from the populist Oxbridge bashing that one sees so often, with particular reference to the nonsense issue of elitism and degree classifications wherever there exists a forum on such topics online. These are dark times for Oxbridge and unless they come out fighting, we'll go from having two out-and-out world class institutions to having none - if the truth be told, we have little else to brag about abroad now.

    There are, however, a number of people aged 30+ on TSR.
    Dude... Just let it go. No one really cares.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
    .
    I just can't take these claims seriously without any substantation for them, all I've seen so far is conjecture at its rudest. Nevertheless, we're never going to get anywhere with this discussion about PPS so there's just one last thing I want to ask you; are there really no other Cambridge degree courses you hold in such comparably low - and, quite frankly, ridiculously prejudicial (at least in employment terms) - esteem?
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
    I'm afraid it doesn't apply to the other subjects you mention, science has nothing to do with it. There is nothing vaguely deep or abstract about SPS and having sat in supervisions for the subject, I can honestly say that the level of intellect on display is at the low end, the kind of questions asked by SPS students would shame a five year old and the essays I have seen written by many of the students, which I borrowed to see what was required before I decided to take the paper, gave no indication of any kind of sophistication and were stuffed with childish slogans and what might be termed "linear chains". The essays did not require any kind of expertise, could have been written by a layperson with no association with the subject and gave no indication of any sort of long-term consolidation of advanced concepts - an average GCSE student could do the job. Having seen the material produced by those doing other arts subjects, I can honestly say they are miles ahead.

    SPS students are most often seen in the bar, have a workload that is well below that of other students at Cambridge and are notorious for being wasters - nobody takes them seriously. In fact, the course was so bad that in the 90s a load of SPS students ****ged off the course in Varsity, saying how it was even less demanding than A Levels. No wonder they had to rebrand it as PPS.

    Go into a lecture hall and look at the disproportionate numbers of inner-city oiks on special access schemes on the course, in fact just go and ask them what type of school they went to and they'll tell you, not that you should need to ask given their appearance.

    It's a frigging joke and it's not just the opinion of economists, it's the opinion of virtually everybody at Cambridge whatever their subject.
    Thank you for the revelatory post. It certainly puts things in perspective.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
    :blah:
    Try again.
    I'm sorry, but I've wasted enough of my time on you :dontknow:

    *gets on with her research proposal*
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, after great and serious thought, I have decided that PPS is indeed a weak choice. PPE at Oxford and International Relations @ LSE/St Andrews are far better choices for someone seriously considering a degree of both practical use and prestige in the field of politics.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dizzee1)
    Yes, after great and serious thought, I have decided that PPS is indeed a weak choice. PPE at Oxford and International Relations @ LSE/St Andrews are far better choices for someone seriously considering a degree of both practical use and prestige in the field of politics.
    If you want to go into politics as such, it doesn't particularly matter what you study--any of economics/history/law/mml/ppe/pps will do nicely. If you want to go into political research, any of PPE/PPS/IR will suit just fine.

    (Original post by craghyrax)
    x
    Craggy, I have to take issue with one of your points. You claimed your essays were required to be about 2500-3500 words, which was three times as long as law essays. Our essays are typically in the 1700-2500 word range, so they're not really that much shorter. Admittedly, problem answers occasionally are, and anything handwritten in an hour (as some of our supervision essays are required to be) will be shorter. Still, our essays aren't particularly shorter than yours. I realise this isn't a big pissing contest--Cambridge courses in general are tough--but my experience of the law course seems rather different from that of your friends/acquaintances. (And I think bubbly meant you seen PPS students in college bars/pubs--not at the Bar of England and Wales, not that you particularly care.)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by matenhieu)
    Not according to these statistics from a HESCU report on 2009 graduates.

    There is higher employment amongst graduates of sociology than amongst graduates of the following: biology, chemistry, environmental science, physics, computer science, maths, architecture, engineering, economics, geography, law, politics, psychology, English, history, languages and performing arts. The only graduates with employment rates higher than sociology are media studies, marketing, business, accountancy, art and sports science.

    Looking also at unemployment, there is more unemployment amongst graduates of biology, physics, computer science, maths, architecture, engineering, economics, politics, art, media, accountancy and marketing than amongst graduates of sociology. (N.B. Those continuing with study are not counted as unemployed.)

    Stop spreading your false and snobbish ideas.
    'The only graduates with employment rates higher than sociology are media studies, marketing....art and sports science''

    I think this highlights how weak the source you've alluded to is. It is quite frankly ridiculous to assert that economics has lower prospects than sociology and art!

    HOWEVER, do remember, that a job is a job. McDonalds and Burger King count as jobs. Perhaps, sociology graduates are happier to settle for these less-desirable jobs than an economist or law graduate. Consequently, a law degree perhaps is indeed less employable than a sociology degree. But only insofar as your typical sociologist is prepared to take any job they're given whereas your typical law graduate is only prepared to take the best jobs (as a result of their degree's superior prestige), of which there are only a limited amount available.

    To conclude, you cannot argue that sociology is a superior degree by the fact that many people with sociology degrees have jobs!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by matenhieu)
    I did not argue that sociology is a 'superior' degree and I make no general comment on the worth of any degree subject. My post was simply a response to Bubblyjubbly's claim that "employment rates for the subject [sociology] are poor and deservedly so". This was indicated by the fact that I quoted these words at the start of my post.

    Yes, perhaps what you're saying could be correct but until we find some sort of evidence, or you carry out your own sociological study to find out, it will just be speculation based on your preconceived ideas about sociology graduates. I don't deny that what you say is a possibility, indeed I would say it could be the explanation.

    Edit: Funnily enough, a very similar percentage of English, biology, history, law and sociology graduates go into retail, catering, waiting and bar staff jobs ('McDonald's jobs') according to the HESCU stats. So much for law graduates being prepared to take 'only the best' jobs. As you will no doubt point out there are of course problems with this. These stats don't tell us what jobs these graduates were in after another 6 months and another 6 months etc. but it is the best we have until we have another study.
    Without solid evidence, we must go on the general public's opinions.

    Often, in fact almost always, these reflect the views of top employers.

    When you tell someone you plan to study law at university they are impressed. This is because they know that law is highly respected, and highly competitive as a product of ths. Furthermore, they know that, as a result, top employers will be interested in law graduates.

    However, when you tell someone you plan to study media studies, art or sociology at university, you will often be met with jokes regarding your future. The general view is that these are weak ''mickey mouse'' degrees. They are degrees that are unimpressive to the top employers and consequently the public too disregard them.

    You can argue that perhaps sociology graduates have some of the highest chances of employment but, in reality, any self-respecting employer interested in maximising their potential would rather take an economist to a sociologist or media student.

    You cannot deny that sociology is seen as a dud degree by the vast majority of people.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    reckon it's easier to get into pps then?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cheese-lemming)
    reckon it's easier to get into pps then?
    As politically incorrect as this sounds, I think it depends on what school you went to.

    From my experience:

    PPE is mainly made up of public/private school people.

    PPS is mainly made up of state/grammar school people.

    Also, depends on your A level subjects. If you can't do maths, don't do PPE. If you can't handle writing long and complex essays, don't do PPE.

    If you do **** subjects (e.g. art, business, sociology etc) then you will stand no chance of getting into PPE. However, you can get into PPS with any subjects you like really.

    It appears that those doing Maths, History, English Lit and French, for example, have no advantage over those doing Sociology, Media, Art and Business in the eyes of the PPS admissions tutors...

    If you really want to do a respected, politics-based course at uni study one of:

    1. PPE at Oxford
    2. International Relations at St Andrews
    3. Government/IR at LSE
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    PPE for guys.
    PPS for girls.
    Some will break this trend.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sammyrj)
    You'd be perfectly fine. I'm the only PPSer at my college that did A-Level Maths! (If you want piece of mind, I took: Maths, FM, Economics, History and Law.)
    You could do history and politics? You sound more suited to PPE or history and politics with your subjects if Im honest.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
    PPS (SPS as it once was) is the biggest joke of a degree in Oxbridge history and many, including academics and past students, regard it as being populated by thick students from 'disadvantaged groups' in order to boost their numbers and should not be regarded as a tripos subject. The workload is a joke, the level of technical skill required is an insult to an Oxbridge degree and is below A Level standard - you barely get to a correlation coefficient let alone anything more. In my final year, I did one of the most popular SPS papers for Part II - being an economics undergraduate we did the SPS papers in one year (like medics who did it for Part II) as opposed to two and even then it was joke, even the academics (including one A. Giddens) were thick. The tragedy is that most PPS undergraduates fail to realise how far off the pace most of them are in relation to their peers and the trendy academics who prop them up are no better.

    Sociology is a useless subject, employment rates for the subject are poor and deservedly so. In answer to the question, do PPE unless you want to have three years off and possibly the rest of your life off.
    How do you feel about Land Economy?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
    PPS (SPS as it once was) is the biggest joke of a degree in Oxbridge history and many, including academics and past students, regard it as being populated by thick students from 'disadvantaged groups' in order to boost their numbers and should not be regarded as a tripos subject. The workload is a joke, the level of technical skill required is an insult to an Oxbridge degree and is below A Level standard - you barely get to a correlation coefficient let alone anything more. In my final year, I did one of the most popular SPS papers for Part II - being an economics undergraduate we did the SPS papers in one year (like medics who did it for Part II) as opposed to two and even then it was joke, even the academics (including one A. Giddens) were thick. The tragedy is that most PPS undergraduates fail to realise how far off the pace most of them are in relation to their peers and the trendy academics who prop them up are no better.

    Sociology is a useless subject, employment rates for the subject are poor and deservedly so. In answer to the question, do PPE unless you want to have three years off and possibly the rest of your life off.

    Also, does anyone else find it weird that an irate economics graduate on the brink of middle age is posting in a teenage forum? Has your subscription to the Daily Mail (reassurance you're not the only one who's a total ass) run out?
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.