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

Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#21
Report 8 years ago
#21
(Original post by Aristotle's' Disciple)
So only the top 10% get a 1:1 then next 20% get a 2:1 and so forth.

Perhaps you can clear something up for me (which has puzzled me for some time).

Why do so many people think there is a degree class known as 1:1?
5
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#22
Report 8 years ago
#22
(Original post by Good bloke)
Perhaps a better question would be:


If Oxbridge, with the cream of the crop as its students and with such high teaching standards and facilities, awards a lower proportion of firsts and upper seconds than a 'lesser' university, how can anyone believe that the lesser univeriity's standards are comparable - or even acceptable?
THere is a very good paper on this from HEPI


http://www.hepi.ac.uk/files/47%20Com...0standards.pdf

though what you describe as a better question, the author considers to be "misguided" :mad:
0
reply
Aristotle's' Disciple
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#23
Report 8 years ago
#23
(Original post by Good bloke)
Perhaps you can clear something up for me (which has puzzled me for some time).

Why do so many people think there is a degree class known as 1:1?
A lot of people recognise it as 1:1 for some reason I don't know.

Officially of course they are :

1st
2:1
2:2
3rd
Pass
0
reply
aliceb
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#24
Report 8 years ago
#24
(Original post by forrestgump19)

If Oxbridge has such brilliant teaching standards and facilities, why is a good degree from there (i.e a first or a 2:1) considered better than an equivalent 'grade' from a 'lesser' uni?
University degrees aren't centrally regulated and marked externally like GCSEs, A-Levels etc. So whereas a kid from a state school who gets 10A*s at GCSE would be considered cleverer than one with the same grades from a private school, a first degree from Oxbridge is considered better than a first from somewhere like London Met. The academic difficulty of the degree is set by the individual uni. See what I mean?
3
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#25
Report 8 years ago
#25
(Original post by Aristotle's' Disciple)
I don't know.
You used the term. Surely you must know why?
1
reply
Aristotle's' Disciple
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#26
Report 8 years ago
#26
(Original post by Good bloke)
You used the term. Surely you must know why?
Well, I've done a lot of research into further education, from my spoiler you can see I'm still at college. I see a lot of people quote it as a 1:1 online. So maybe it's just me being naive and trsuting their judgement? :/
6
reply
JohnnytheFox
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#27
Report 8 years ago
#27
People need to get it into their heads that university degrees are nothing like A-levels, where the only variant is what exam board you sit.

A degree at Oxford will be nothing like a degree from UCL, which will be nothing like a degree from Exeter, etc. Each uni will teach its own content.
1
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#28
Report 8 years ago
#28
(Original post by nulli tertius)
THere is a very good paper on this from HEPI


http://www.hepi.ac.uk/files/47%20Com...0standards.pdf

though what you describe as a better question, the author considers to be "misguided" :mad:
I'll read that later. I said "better question", by the way, not "good question".
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#29
Report 8 years ago
#29
(Original post by Aristotle's' Disciple)
I see a lot of people quote it as a 1:1 online. So maybe it's just me being naive and trsuting their judgement? :/
There is a lot of ignorance about, certainly.
3
reply
Ilustrius
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#30
Report 8 years ago
#30
(Original post by forrestgump19)
I know this isn't the 'normal' view, and it's probably quite a controversial thing to say, but don't immediately jump on for saying it...

If Oxbridge has such brilliant teaching standards and facilities, why is a good degree from there (i.e a first or a 2:1) considered better than an equivalent 'grade' from a 'lesser' uni?

Surely, if a student has been to a uni with worse teaching standards and still managed to equal the success of an Oxbridge graduate, that shows they are able to perform well regardless of their 'support' and therefore be either harder-working or just generally more academic.

I know getting into Oxbridge in the first place shows a student is very high academically, but isn't a first from Oxbridge just as 'easy' as a first from anywhere else?

Any views very much welcome, and please don't neg me for this, i'm just wondering. I'm not trying to p**s off any Oxbridgers!

Thanks!
Has it occurred to you that the Oxbridge curriculum is more rigorous than at other universities?
0
reply
Joinedup
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#31
Report 8 years ago
#31
(Original post by Aristotle's' Disciple)
I can clear this up pretty easily since my best freinds brother has just completed Cambridge this year.

Oxbridge works differently. Eevery other uni ranks their degrees the same. I.e if you get 80%+ you have a 1:1 class. 70%-80% 2:1 etc.

Oxbridge rank their degrees internally. So only the top 10% get a 1:1 then next 20% get a 2:1 and so forth.

This is why Oxbridge degrees are ranked even higher than other unis, even ones such as LSE and Imperial.

Hope this helped
That is not supported by the data on unistats when comparing the same courses at Ox and 'Bridge or between courses at either.

Though I'm not arguing against oxbridge being totally great.
0
reply
TheSownRose
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#32
Report 8 years ago
#32
I'm rather enjoying this question.

One I've always wondered is this:

Why is someone getting grades good enough to get to Oxbridge and then doing very little for three years so that they barely scrape a 3rd considered better than someone who maybe wasn't great at A-levels but then went to university and put in the effort to get a 1st?
8
reply
Aristotle's' Disciple
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#33
Report 8 years ago
#33
(Original post by Good bloke)
There is a lot of ignorance about, certainly.
I guess I can't really argue with that statement. I will look into things further in the future. Before posting on TSR anyhow.
0
reply
paddyman4
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#34
Report 8 years ago
#34
Universities award degrees on a bell curve. Most people get a 2.1, some people get a 1st and some people get a 2.2. If you are at Oxford, then to get a 1st you have to be better than most of the other people at Oxford. Whilst at Kingston, you just need to be better than most people at Kingston. Which is harder, I wonder?

In pursuit of this bell curve, universities set exams according to the abilities of their students. They therefore set content according to the abilities of their students. Even if you are amazing and for some reason decide to go to Kingston, you will be restricted in what you are taught ad what you learn compared to if you went to Oxford. As a result, if you took a first class Physics graduate from Oxford and a first class Physics graduate from Kingston and tested the Physics knowledge, understanding and abilities of each, the Oxford graduate would unquestionably win. Therefore the Oxford graduate's degree is a piece of paper saying that he is ****-hot at Physics compared to everyone else in the country.
7
reply
greebo-man
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#35
Report 8 years ago
#35
Flawless logic but incorrect asumption
0
reply
Apagg
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#36
Report 8 years ago
#36
(Original post by TheSownRose)
I'm rather enjoying this question.

One I've always wondered is this:

Why is someone getting grades good enough to get to Oxbridge and then doing very little for three years so that they barely scrape a 3rd considered better than someone who maybe wasn't great at A-levels but then went to university and put in the effort to get a 1st?

They're not.
1
reply
Apagg
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#37
Report 8 years ago
#37
(Original post by Good bloke)
Perhaps you can clear something up for me (which has puzzled me for some time).

Why do so many people think there is a degree class known as 1:1?
Because these people consider themselves qualified sources on the subject by way of having a friend's brother attending the university rather than going themselves.
2
reply
TheSownRose
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#38
Report 8 years ago
#38
(Original post by Aristotle's' Disciple)
I guess I can't really argue with that statement. I will look into things further in the future. Before posting on TSR anyhow.
What!? Things on TSR aren't gospel!?

You have just changed my perception of the world...
1
reply
puddlejumper
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#39
Report 8 years ago
#39
(Original post by Apagg)
Because these people consider themselves qualified sources on the subject by way of having a friend's brother attending the university rather than going themselves.
Are you sure that it's the friend's brother and not the next door neighbour's son in law's best man?
1
reply
DoubleO
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#40
Report 8 years ago
#40
People always compare top uni's with bottom ones, and yes they offer vastly different experiences (i've experienced both) however to say someone with a first from oxbridge is academically better than someone with a first from a lower uni is ignorant. You are basically comparing people on their a level results and not the three years hard work that followed. People do improve and develop. I found the teaching and support better at the lower ranked uni, but it was obvious that their was a vast difference in funding so yes the 'experience' may not be as good and other students may not be as focused but it's unfair to generalise. I also did a masters and have worked closely with people from Oxbridge and other top uni's and also people from lower ranked uni's (with firsts) and i honestly didn't notice anything different in terms of academic performance.
4
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! (443)
37.83%
No - but I will (88)
7.51%
No - I don't want to (80)
6.83%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (560)
47.82%

Watched Threads

View All