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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SirMasterKey)
    I imagine that it it will go up again and then stay at a similar level for years to come. With the cost of studying for graduates now being x3 than what it was then I think you'll find that students will start to work harder on their degree having spent so much on them.
    I don't think it's people working harder. The convenience of the internet might have helped, but most of all I think institutions are just giving out more and more good degrees to allow their graduates to be competitive in the job market.

    It's like how grade inflation is so serious as a problem in the US.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WeedCanKill)
    With 47% of the population having a degree, the value of a degree is laughable. I honestly think three years work experience in your desired area of work > a degree. A degree teaches you how to quote others intelligence, nothing more.
    As much as I'd love to stroll into a research lab and start work without a degree, it isn't possible. Degrees are required for some areas. Not all, but some.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andaxay)
    As much as I'd love to stroll into a research lab and start work without a degree, it isn't possible. Degrees are required for some areas. Not all, but some.
    And more and more professionals and fields will ask for a degree in the future as more people have one.

    It's the same reason why many professions don't really need GCE A-levels (or even GCSEs) either but everybody ask for them now.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Competent faculties recognize when people are wasting their time getting a third in a subject they have no aptitude for and encourage them to do something else. Not one single person in my graduating class got a third, and only those of us that did basically nothing most of the time we were there got 2.2s. That's really the way it should be.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    So graduates at University of Manchester (uni i graduated from) are basically equally likely to get a first compared to graduates from Manchester Metropolitan? 😅
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    No one who has a clue thinks that the typical person on the street could enroll at Imperial and have a 70% chance of achieving a 2:1 or higher.
    • PS Helper
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Study Helper
    (Original post by WeedCanKill)
    With 47% of the population having a degree, the value of a degree is laughable. I honestly think three years work experience in your desired area of work > a degree. A degree teaches you how to quote others intelligence, nothing more.
    Which is, of course, why no groundbreaking researchers have degrees: otherwise they'd have been taught only to quote others' intelligence, and nothing more.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    Why would that help in anyway?

    You still get a percentage anyway so you can look for that if you want to, but every person marks differently, so a 70 at London Met would not mean the same thing as 70 at Oxford. Having class honours are supposed to reflect a more coherent standards of performance. Judging from the fact that good universities usually come out of top in giving out firsts, it does seem fair.
    Grade classifications are illogical. Someone with 59% is classed the same as someone with 50%, yet differently from someone with 60%, when clearly they are closer to the latter.

    From a statistical point of view, you lose information by converting point estimates into fuzzy categories.

    Distributions of grades do not have peaks corresponding to the classifications. If they did, you could kind of justify them. But you tend to get some kind of normal distribution. In this case, it makes no statistical sense to set ordinal categories. If you did this kind of thing in science, you would get criticized.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's not exactly hard to get a 1st - all you got to do is read and study about your topic instead of getting wasted and laid every night.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    That league table of firsts awarded might as well be a list of entry grades factored against proportion of stem graduates.

    Degree classifications wont be around for that much longer http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...008618.article
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chazwomaq)
    Grade classifications are illogical. Someone with 59% is classed the same as someone with 50%, yet differently from someone with 60%, when clearly they are closer to the latter.

    From a statistical point of view, you lose information by converting point estimates into fuzzy categories.

    Distributions of grades do not have peaks corresponding to the classifications. If they did, you could kind of justify them. But you tend to get some kind of normal distribution. In this case, it makes no statistical sense to set ordinal categories. If you did this kind of thing in science, you would get criticized.
    The thing is a 70 in an institution in a certain discipline means a different thing for a 70 in another discipline (or different modules within the same discipline or assessment items within the same course.

    Case in point: In an mathematics examination, 70 is ****; in history, 70 is excellent. You cannot really solve this problem because the marks were calculated very differently. The objectiveness, the definition of 'correctness', or even merely the fact that given an essay, no normal human being would grade it 98% regardless of how good it is.

    Class honours then standardise the scores across disciplines. The other way of doing it obviously is to make a curve and say the Top 10% gets an A and make a grade-point average instead (you still cannot use the hard scores unless you adjust everything), but that is inherently wrong and unfair on the individuals.

    Likewise, universities all have the vague understanding that a 'first' is for someone who performs really, really well, '2:1' is good', and so on; and the degrees are somewhat standardised that way.

    You may get a normal distribution across all disciplines and universities, but unless you think maths graduates are incredibly better than everybody else, I don't see how using only scores would work. You are just assuming that a 70 in an exam means the same thing in another, which is simply not true. It makes no statistical sense to even compare the scores when the assessments were done so differently with many scores (basically) arbitrary.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    That league table of firsts awarded might as well be a list of entry grades factored against proportion of stem graduates.

    Degree classifications wont be around for that much longer http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...008618.article
    Many universities outside of the UK and US have both GPA and class honours. This just means hard scores are going away, not class honours.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WeedCanKill)
    With 47% of the population having a degree, the value of a degree is laughable. I honestly think three years work experience in your desired area of work > a degree. A degree teaches you how to quote others intelligence, nothing more.
    Or you could do both, get a degree and work experience at the same time.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    And thts why im gonna do a one year placement
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by SmashConcept)
    Competent faculties recognize when people are wasting their time getting a third in a subject they have no aptitude for and encourage them to do something else. Not one single person in my graduating class got a third, and only those of us that did basically nothing most of the time we were there got 2.2s. That's really the way it should be.
    Pretty much the same at my university too.

    If I got a 3rd i'd be tempted to just leave it off my CV altogether tbh. At least with a 2.2 you can pass it off by saying you had other priorities (e.g work or being involved with a society) or simply found some modules difficult, that it taught you to assess your weaknesses and where you went wrong which is a good skill. A third just implies that you are completely unmotivated and didn't put any effort in.


    (Original post by chukster97)
    And thts why im gonna do a one year placement
    My friends who did placements are at such a HUGE advantage compared to everyone else. Half of them already have graduate level jobs lined up and they haven't even graduated yet. Really irritates me how placements are not available for all courses, the only reason my CV is half as good as theirs is because I pretty much worked full time during my degree.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JuliusDS92)
    No one who has a clue thinks that the typical person on the street could enroll at Imperial and have a 70% chance of achieving a 2:1 or higher.
    This is conditional probability that you have a 70% chance of getting a 2:1 or more if you reach the standard required by Imperial to get into the course in the first place, which a lot of people wouldn't.I would like to see statistics account for the likelihood of getting into the University because that as well as the chance of getting a 1st/2:1 once into the University gives more meaningful statistics then Imperial would be much further down.This why that table of firsts is pretty much meaningless to any good employer and why degrees from very good Russell Group Universities are actually worth much much more than other universities.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sr90)
    Pretty much the same at my university too.

    If I got a 3rd i'd be tempted to just leave it off my CV altogether tbh. At least with a 2.2 you can pass it off by saying you had other priorities (e.g work or being involved with a society) or simply found some modules difficult, that it taught you to assess your weaknesses and where you went wrong which is a good skill. A third just implies that you are completely unmotivated and didn't put any effort in.
    To be honest, I put very little effort in for my 2.2 and I leave it off my CV partly for that reason (but mostly because it isn't relevant or helpful for the jobs I apply for). To me a third implies both laziness AND lack of aptitude.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    The thing is a 70 in an institution in a certain discipline means a different thing for a 70 in another discipline (or different modules within the same discipline or assessment items within the same course.

    Case in point: In an mathematics examination, 70 is ****; in history, 70 is excellent. You cannot really solve this problem because the marks were calculated very differently. The objectiveness, the definition of 'correctness', or even merely the fact that given an essay, no normal human being would grade it 98% regardless of how good it is.

    Class honours then standardise the scores across disciplines. The other way of doing it obviously is to make a curve and say the Top 10% gets an A and make a grade-point average instead (you still cannot use the hard scores unless you adjust everything), but that is inherently wrong and unfair on the individuals.

    Likewise, universities all have the vague understanding that a 'first' is for someone who performs really, really well, '2:1' is good', and so on; and the degrees are somewhat standardised that way.

    You may get a normal distribution across all disciplines and universities, but unless you think maths graduates are incredibly better than everybody else, I don't see how using only scores would work. You are just assuming that a 70 in an exam means the same thing in another, which is simply not true. It makes no statistical sense to even compare the scores when the assessments were done so differently with many scores (basically) arbitrary.
    No it is not STEM degrees are worth much more than degrees in the arts and are much harder too and you can get high scores in essays my sister does Psychology and got 95% in one essay she is averaging about 79% I think for her course.You can obtain 100% for any module otherwise it would just be marked out of 70% the fact that it is harder for arts students to get high scores than maths students is to account for how much more valuable stem subjects are and how much more skilled you have to be to do well in them and that's why they ask for pretty much publishable standard for arts essays for top scores.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by SmashConcept)
    To be honest, I put very little effort in for my 2.2 and I leave it off my CV partly for that reason (but mostly because it isn't relevant or helpful for the jobs I apply for). To me a third implies both laziness AND lack of aptitude.
    Yeh I scraped a 2.1 when in reality I should have got a first with ease. Worked full time throughout 2nd/3rd year and didn't do any background reading, my seminar attendance was woeful and I could have done a lot more revision for my exams, but I always pulled myself together for essays (nearly got a 1st for my dissertation). Feel a bit bad because one of my friends did the same course as me, he'd put 10 times more effort in yet we'd always get similar marks. I'd describe myself as ''bright but lazy''.
    • Study Helper
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    This is conditional probability that you have a 70% chance of getting a 2:1 or more if you reach the standard required by Imperial to get into the course in the first place, which a lot of people wouldn't.I would like to see statistics account for the likelihood of getting into the University because that as well as the chance of getting a 1st/2:1 once into the University gives more meaningful statistics then Imperial would be much further down.This why that table of firsts is pretty much meaningless to any good employer and why degrees from very good Russell Group Universities are actually worth much much more than other universities.
    You missed out those who didn't even pass, i.e. dropped 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
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources
    Uni match

    Applying to uni?

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

    Quick link:

    Educational debate unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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

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