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

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ish90an)
    1. There is something to say that post-grad courses and employers(who are themselves divided in terms of stature; a 5 person startup in Edinburgh is not the same as Google) screen out people with a 2.2. There is however nothing to say that given everything else is equal, they won't favour someone with a 2.1 from Oxbridge over someone with a 2.1 from Derby. It is, given the average stature of firms that target Oxbridge and the kind that target Derby, likely that this does happen.
    2. The standards bit is a minimum bar, but does not represent the full course structure and difficulty across all universities. e.g. CS courses at Glasgow and Caledonian are so different that Caledonian's 3rd year exams ask the same questions as Glasgow's 2nd year ones, and indeed require the same standard of answer.
    This is a complete assertion on your part. How do you know that the 'firms' would prefer someone at Derby over Oxbridge? And please don't answer "common sense." And since when is 'everything else equal' are applicants all the same? This is all speculation and here-say, not rooted in firm evidence. I would speculate that an employer would likely 'all being equal' interview both and give the job to whoever is best suited, or who the employer likes the most. How do you know that said employer hasn't had experience with Derby graduates who've done a good job, and therefore has a bias toward Derby graduates? The fact is this is all conjecture, and may all occur, but until you provide some firm evidence to say for certain "all employers would likely choose an oxbridge 2.1 graduate applicant for any job over a derby one" then it is just an unfounded assertion.

    Your second point is a regurgitation of the same point made by derangedyoshi. I shall quote my reply to him to you also:

    (Original post by Complex Simplicity)
    This may be true, but it isn't evidence that the 2.1 achieved at the course is not the same. All it proves is that the material is covered at a different structure.

    I know for a fact that the first year of Bristol's economics course covers the same material as st andrews second year, does that mean a 2.1 from bristol is higher? It doesn't for at the end of the course they cover the material to similar standard. Hence a st andrews economics student isn't prefered to a bristol economics student for a post graduate economics degree.
    University A may state that the degree in maths should cover Matrices in year 1, whilst University B may believe that to get the most out of students, Matrices should be covered in year 3. But by the end of the course, that is when students from both attain their 2.1, both have covered similar material to the same standard. You see this is not an argument for one degree's 2.1 being worth more than the others.

    What you and others in this thread need to do is find a piece of solid evidence which discredits the statement made by UniversitiesUK. That is:

    (Original post by UniversitiesUK)
    Universities are responsible for the standards of qualifications they award. However, every UUK university uses a common set of tools known as the QAA Academic Infrastructure to underpin their work. This sets out threshold standards for HE qualifications, including by subject at honours level.

    In addition, all UUK universities use external examiners to ensure outcomes are on a consistent and comparable basis. External Examiners are drawn from other institutions, or from areas of relevant professional practice. They report to the Vice-Chancellor of the university on whether the standards set are appropriate. The aim is to ensure that the threshold standards of student performance are comparable with those of students following similar courses in other UK universities.
    and not fall into the trap of conjecture and assertions not rooted in firm evidence such as "it's common sense" and "everybody knows".
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wozzie)
    People would still find fault with it.



    Couldn't the same be said of any course at any university that grades students against their peers?

    Whilst we're on this subject who says grading against your peers is a good thing? I'm looked at as something of a threat by some people in my class because of the standard of my work which has lead some people to avoid me and others to latch on to me for assistance.

    If I was being graded against my peers I'd have an incentive to not help people in my class. The people who seem to have some slight resentment of what I can do would probably become hostile toward me as my work directly effects them I may feel guilty about making their lives harder and not try so hard.

    Who has the time to deal with that bull**** when you're trying to better yourself and secure a future?



    1) Auto-filter implies the human element has been removed from the selection process at the point where the filtering is taking place. Once the the human element has been introduced there is no "equal" at this point a nice smile, strong handshake or big tits could trump a first from Oxford.

    2) Which is a valid point if the Glasgow course covers Caledonians 3 years over the course of 2 years and covers different material during the third year. Even if it does and one of these courses is proven to be of a much higher standard it still says nothing of the capability of the students who received a first from Caledonian and only works as a comparison of these courses not the universities as a whole.
    This occurs in the French Classes préparatoires aux grandes écoles (CPGE) or Prépas exams. Students don't give each other notes to avoid a peer getting a high mark than them. Students don't help each other for fear of such help benefiting their peers. The French students I've spoken to who've taken the exam weren't too complementary of the system. But like all systems, some will prefer it particularly the competitive environment though it's not something I personally would have enjoyed at that age.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Complex Simplicity)
    This occurs in the French Classes préparatoires aux grandes écoles (CPGE) or Prépas exams. Students don't give each other notes to avoid a peer getting a high mark than them. Students don't help each other for fear of such help benefiting their peers. The French students I've spoken to who've taken the exam weren't too complementary of the system. But like all systems, some will prefer it particularly the competitive environment though it's not something I personally would have enjoyed at that age.
    I agree with the system in principal I find people are at their most determined when they're in direct competition but in practice I believe the negatives far outweigh any positives.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wozzie)
    I agree with the system in principal I find people are at their most determined when they're in direct competition but in practice I believe the negatives far outweigh any positives.
    You're probably right.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wozzie)
    Whilst we're on this subject who says grading against your peers is a good thing? I'm looked at as something of a threat by some people in my class because of the standard of my work which has lead some people to avoid me and others to latch on to me for assistance.

    If I was being graded against my peers I'd have an incentive to not help people in my class. The people who seem to have some slight resentment of what I can do would probably become hostile toward me as my work directly effects them I may feel guilty about making their lives harder and not try so hard.

    Who has the time to deal with that bull**** when you're trying to better yourself and secure a future?
    On quite the contrary of being beneficial, if you were particularly defensive over your grades, you could actively seek to sabotage your classmates by 'helping' them with false information.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Complex Simplicity)
    This is a complete assertion on your part. How do you know that the 'firms' would prefer someone at Derby over Oxbridge? And please don't answer "common sense." And since when is 'everything else equal' are applicants all the same? This is all speculation and here-say, not rooted in firm evidence. I would speculate that an employer would likely 'all being equal' interview both and give the job to whoever is best suited, or who the employer likes the most. How do you know that said employer hasn't had experience with Derby graduates who've done a good job, and therefore has a bias toward Derby graduates? The fact is this is all conjecture, and may all occur, but until you provide some firm evidence to say for certain "all employers would likely choose an oxbridge 2.1 graduate applicant for any job over a derby one" then it is just an unfounded assertion.

    Your second point is a regurgitation of the same point made by derangedyoshi. I shall quote my reply to him to you also:




    What you and others in this thread need to do is find a piece of solid evidence which discredits the statement made by UniversitiesUK. That is:



    and not fall into the trap of conjecture and assertions not rooted in firm evidence such as "it's common sense" and "everybody knows".
    a) There is a massive difference b/w teaching different content at different years and a difference in standards and content across degree exams. For Bristol the 1st year and for St Andrews the 1st two years do not contribute to the degree mark. You example is disingenuous because you are comparing the Scottish 4-year system vs the English 3 year one(where differences in content arise because of the difference in course length, as well as because of standards) as opposed to 2 Scottish/English ones(where differences will arise because of difference in standards alone). To that point, my example of the difference b/w the CS course at Caledonian and Glasgow is still true, students at Caledonian simply are not accessed at the same level of difficulty in the same year as Glasgow, even though they are both courses of the same length and count similarly towards your final grade.
    b) Have you ever looked at the list of employers visiting Oxbridge and Derby? The top 100 firms in the UK prefer Oxbridge over Derby, that is a fact proven by this study (http://www.highfliers.co.uk/download...teMarket09.pdf).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wozzie)

    1) Auto-filter implies the human element has been removed from the selection process at the point where the filtering is taking place. Once the the human element has been introduced there is no "equal" at this point a nice smile, strong handshake or big tits could trump a first from Oxford.


    2) Which is a valid point if the Glasgow course covers Caledonians 3 years over the course of 2 years and covers different material during the third year. Even if it does and one of these courses is proven to be of a much higher standard it still says nothing of the capability of the students who received a first from Caledonian and only works as a comparison of these courses not the universities as a whole.
    1. To have any of those factors you first need to get to interview, which is more likely to happen(especially with the top employers) if you are from a top university rather than a bottom one.
    2. FYI Glasgow's course does cover more advanced material on the same topic in its 3rd year. It may/may not completely reflect the innate ability of the student, but it will give the person who has proven to be successful at a more advanced course an edge over one who hasn't. Proven ability is better than unproven potential, especially if you are judging the quality of graduates coming out of 2 courses. And yes this is one course, but similar examples do exist across physics and maths as far as I am personally aware. If the 2 universities were overall "equal" in stature, so would the stature of the targeting employers(which is simply not true).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ish90an)
    a) There is a massive difference b/w teaching different content at different years and a difference in standards and content across degree exams. For Bristol the 1st year and for St Andrews the 1st two years do not contribute to the degree mark. You example is disingenuous because you are comparing the Scottish 4-year system vs the English 3 year one(where differences in content arise because of the difference in course length, as well as because of standards) as opposed to 2 Scottish/English ones(where differences will arise because of difference in standards alone). To that point, my example of the difference b/w the CS course at Caledonian and Glasgow is still true, students at Caledonian simply are not accessed at the same level of difficulty in the same year as Glasgow, even though they are both courses of the same length and count similarly towards your final grade.
    b) Have you ever looked at the list of employers visiting Oxbridge and Derby? The top 100 firms in the UK prefer Oxbridge over Derby, that is a fact proven by this study (http://www.highfliers.co.uk/download...teMarket09.pdf).
    a) The end of the degree is where the 2.1 is awarded; not at the middle and not at the beginning. It's the final exams that count. If they are of equal difficulty, a point which you have yet to disprove, then the degrees are equal. Do you have proof that these final exams are not equal?

    b) Apples should be compared with apples and not oranges. You've stated that a 2.1 degree in a discipline say "Maths" from Oxford and Cambridge is not of the same standard as that from Derby. Now you bring a report which states that more firms come to recruitment fairs at Oxbridge than Derby. What this report, interesting as it was to read, doesn't say is that these 'top 100' firms hired students with a 2.1 degree from oxbridge instead of from derby. It doesn't say that they preferred students from oxbridge in maths than derby. It says more firms went to recruitment fairs. Have you not considered that more firms maybe located nearer to Oxbridge than Derby? Or may already have branches near there. Is it not interesting that the top two targeted institutions on the list are big cities? Now don't most firms have offices in big cities?

    Have you been to a recruitment fair before? I've been to a lot, especially at these 'top institutions' and the vast majority are information hubs, where reps give information to students to basically let them know their firm exists and what they do. You see a recruitment fair isn't a job offer, and just because a graduate didn't go to one, doesn't mean he will therefore be "blacklisted" from applying for a job at the firm. Attendance of a recruitment fair doesn't go on a CV or a job application form. Attendance at a recruitment fair doesn't mean that a student at Oxbridge with a 2.1 is deemed better than a student from Derby with the same qualification in the same discipline by sole virtue of the fact that his university is ranked higher in a newspaper league table.

    You see you can't interview at a recruitment fair, and to be perfectly honest, I've not met many firms especially top 100 firm prepared to offer a job without interviewing the potential candidates. Hard to so in a 4 hour event when been visited by thousands of students. So just because more firms come to a university doesn't mean for a particular role at the firm, a 2.1 from a different university will be deemed inferior to that from the university that was visited.

    Now try again, do you have any firm evidence which refutes the report made by the UniversitiesUK which states:

    (Original post by UniversitiesUK)
    Universities are responsible for the standards of qualifications they award. However, every UUK university uses a common set of tools known as the QAA Academic Infrastructure to underpin their work. This sets out threshold standards for HE qualifications, including by subject at honours level.

    In addition, all UUK universities use external examiners to ensure outcomes are on a consistent and comparable basis. External Examiners are drawn from other institutions, or from areas of relevant professional practice. They report to the Vice-Chancellor of the university on whether the standards set are appropriate. The aim is to ensure that the threshold standards of student performance are comparable with those of students following similar courses in other UK universities.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Complex Simplicity)
    a) The end of the degree is where the 2.1 is awarded; not at the middle and not at the beginning. It's the final exams that count. If they are of equal difficulty, a point which you have yet to disprove, then the degrees are equal. Do you have proof that these final exams are not equal?

    b) Apples should be compared with apples and not oranges. You've stated that a 2.1 degree in a discipline say "Maths" from Oxford and Cambridge is not of the same standard as that from Derby. Now you bring a report which states that more firms come to recruitment fairs at Oxbridge than Derby. What this report, interesting as it was to read, doesn't say is that these 'top 100' firms hired students with a 2.1 degree from oxbridge instead of from derby. It doesn't say that they preferred students from oxbridge in maths than derby. It says more firms went to recruitment fairs. Have you not considered that more firms maybe located nearer to Oxbridge than Derby? Or may already have branches near there. Is it not interesting that the top two targeted institutions on the list are big cities? Now don't most firms have offices in big cities?

    Have you been to a recruitment fair before? I've been to a lot, especially at these 'top institutions' and the vast majority are information hubs, where reps give information to students to basically let them know their firm exists and what they do. You see a recruitment fair isn't a job offer, and just because a graduate didn't go to one, doesn't mean he will therefore be "blacklisted" from applying for a job at the firm. Attendance of a recruitment fair doesn't go on a CV or a job application form. Attendance at a recruitment fair doesn't mean that a student at Oxbridge with a 2.1 is deemed better than a student from Derby with the same qualification in the same discipline by sole virtue of the fact that his university is ranked higher in a newspaper league table.

    You see you can't interview at a recruitment fair, and to be perfectly honest, I've not met many firms especially top 100 firm prepared to offer a job without interviewing the potential candidates. Hard to so in a 4 hour event when been visited by thousands of students. So just because more firms come to a university doesn't mean for a particular role at the firm, a 2.1 from a different university will be deemed inferior to that from the university that was visited.

    Now try again, do you have any firm evidence which refutes the report made by the UniversitiesUK which states:
    So, do you reckon a maths degree from Derby is as challenging as a maths degree from Cambridge?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I've heard some people talk really low of University of East London. I'm not English (and not applying), but I know someone who goes there and I'm just curious - is it really bad?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kerny)
    So, do you reckon a maths degree from Derby is as challenging as a maths degree from Cambridge?
    I've seen evidence for the standard reach as a 2.1 to be equivalent across UK universities. There is also evidence from universities admission criteria for post graduate studies ie. "2.1 and above" which do not specify the universities attended just the degree classification obtained. The same holds true for graduate employer schemes. I've also seen evidence which states that each university sends professors every fives years to other universities across the country to ensure that there is uniformity of standards across the board.

    What I haven't seen is firm evidence which suggests that the above is false, but conjecture along the lines of "everybody knows" and "it's common sense" and as a scientist, such unsubstantiated statements are of little value. I'm open minded and don't claim to have all the answers, I merely wish that people would debate from an objective stand point and produce credible firm evidence to support their claims. Is this really too much to ask of highly intelligent individuals?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well, I think there isn't any university which is very bad in all subjects, maybe some aren't very good in all subjects they teach, but if they would be very bad in all, they wouldn't have "university" name. I think that every university has its strong and weak sides.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Complex Simplicity)
    a) The end of the degree is where the 2.1 is awarded; not at the middle and not at the beginning. It's the final exams that count. If they are of equal difficulty, a point which you have yet to disprove, then the degrees are equal. Do you have proof that these final exams are not equal?
    Do you have reading difficulties? I clearly mentioned exams that count towards your degree mark in my example, i.e degree exams. These ARE final exams for the degree, not all degree exams take place in the summer of your graduation year, courses are spread out over the last 2 years of the degree.
    b) Apples should be compared with apples and not oranges. You've stated that a 2.1 degree in a discipline say "Maths" from Oxford and Cambridge is not of the same standard as that from Derby. Now you bring a report which states that more firms come to recruitment fairs at Oxbridge than Derby. What this report, interesting as it was to read, doesn't say is that these 'top 100' firms hired students with a 2.1 degree from oxbridge instead of from derby. It doesn't say that they preferred students from oxbridge in maths than derby. It says more firms went to recruitment fairs. Have you not considered that more firms maybe located nearer to Oxbridge than Derby? Or may already have branches near there. Is it not interesting that the top two targeted institutions on the list are big cities? Now don't most firms have offices in big cities?
    Which is why many lower down London universities, Manchester Met and Liverpool Met are on the list, because clearly the big city thing comes in. I mean what on earth are they doing recruiting from Warwick when they should go to City University? The thing at the top is more of a big university thing(where one university, like LSE, maybe good for a certain sector and the other is good for a larger number of sectors), but that is when the quality gap between universities isn't so great as to affect the average stature of targeting firm.

    Have you been to a recruitment fair before? I've been to a lot, especially at these 'top institutions' and the vast majority are information hubs, where reps give information to students to basically let them know their firm exists and what they do. You see a recruitment fair isn't a job offer, and just because a graduate didn't go to one, doesn't mean he will therefore be "blacklisted" from applying for a job at the firm. Attendance of a recruitment fair doesn't go on a CV or a job application form. Attendance at a recruitment fair doesn't mean that a student at Oxbridge with a 2.1 is deemed better than a student from Derby with the same qualification in the same discipline by sole virtue of the fact that his university is ranked higher in a newspaper league table.
    You see you can't interview at a recruitment fair, and to be perfectly honest, I've not met many firms especially top 100 firm prepared to offer a job without interviewing the potential candidates. Hard to so in a 4 hour event when been visited by thousands of students. So just because more firms come to a university doesn't mean for a particular role at the firm, a 2.1 from a different university will be deemed inferior to that from the university that was visited.
    I never talked about interviewing, the entire point was about targeting. They spend time and money looking to talk to students at universities they are likely to hire, do you think they just throw money at any university fair or do you think they go where they are looking to recruit? If the difference is of a few firms(as is with LSE vs Manchester, because one has a special field of study it excels in and the other has a broader discipline range) then the university comparison is difficult, but when the difference is so vast that clearly the top firms, on average, are investing their effort into one place over another then one university does become more valuable to employers over another(and no I did not say this was on the basis of league tables, but because of employer perception and graduate quality).
    Now try again, do you have any firm evidence which refutes the report made by the UniversitiesUK which states:
    Again, do you have issues with reading basic English? The report sets a minimum bar, it does not represent the actual standard of every university. If I say 2 sticks must be at least 1cm in length(which is what a threshold is), it does not prevent one from being 2cm long.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Lollo*)
    I've heard some people talk really low of University of East London. I'm not English (and not applying), but I know someone who goes there and I'm just curious - is it really bad?
    Not really. It's an ex-poly, which some people (especially on TSR) look down on*, and it's not in a great part of London ... but six months after graduation, 82% of its graduates are employed and 61% have a graduate job or are in further study (so roughly 75% of employed graduates have a graduate job.) Not exactly far off of 'respected' unis like Liverpool (88%, 69% graduate), York (87%, 70% graduate), St Andrews (87%, 68% graduate) and Leeds (86%, 70% graduate), pretty much the same as Royal Holloway (85%, 63% graduate) and a bit better than Kent (89%, 56% graduate).

    * To simplify the story because you might not be aware of it, until 1992 higher education in the UK was split into 'academic' unis and 'vocational' polytechnics ... and everyone was fine with that. Then a goverment act (Further and Higher Education Act of 1992, to be precise) made the polytechnics into universities. They had already been awarding degrees, but had been validated by the Council of National Academic Awards, so the only change was they now awarded the degree themselves ... but now, because there were more unis and people didn't see the now ex-polytechnics as academic enough to be a university, they had and still have, although it is receding, a stigma.

    (All graduate employment statistics taken from Unistats.)
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheSownRose)
    Not really. It's an ex-poly, which some people (especially on TSR) look down on*, and it's not in a great part of London ... but six months after graduation, 82% of its graduates are employed and 61% have a graduate job or are in further study (so roughly 75% of employed graduates have a graduate job.) Not exactly far off of 'respected' unis like Liverpool (88%, 69% graduate), York (87%, 70% graduate), St Andrews (87%, 68% graduate) and Leeds (86%, 70% graduate), pretty much the same as Royal Holloway (85%, 63% graduate) and a bit better than Kent (89%, 56% graduate).

    * To simplify the story because you might not be aware of it, until 1992 higher education in the UK was split into 'academic' unis and 'vocational' polytechnics ... and everyone was fine with that. Then a goverment act (Further and Higher Education Act of 1992, to be precise) made the polytechnics into universities. They had already been awarding degrees, but had been validated by the Council of National Academic Awards, so the only change was they now awarded the degree themselves ... but now, because there were more unis and people didn't see the now ex-polytechnics as academic enough to be a university, they had and still have, although it is receding, a stigma.

    (All graduate employment statistics taken from Unistats.)
    So how exactly are employment statistics taken six months after the completion of an undergraduate degree relevant to the question 'is it really bad'?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    So how exactly are employment statistics taken six months after the completion of an undergraduate degree relevant to the question 'is it really bad'?
    Because if it was really bad, no one would employ graduates from UEL.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheSownRose)
    Because if it was really bad, no one would employ graduates from UEL.
    That is a rather tenuous link there don't you think? Them having jobs says nothing about the quality of teaching at the university at all. On top of that, your statistics don't even go into what type of jobs they get into or what class of degree all those students got.

    Your statistics don't also consider why those students from universities which are considered better than the one in question are not in recordable employment six months after the end of their university life.

    I'm sure if you did more research, you would find that many of those students at the better universities are either continuing their education, or in training for jobs which is not technically considered 'employment' - hence the lower percentages.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ish90an)
    1. To have any of those factors you first need to get to interview, which is more likely to happen(especially with the top employers) if you are from a top university rather than a bottom one.
    2. FYI Glasgow's course does cover more advanced material on the same topic in its 3rd year. It may/may not completely reflect the innate ability of the student, but it will give the person who has proven to be successful at a more advanced course an edge over one who hasn't. Proven ability is better than unproven potential, especially if you are judging the quality of graduates coming out of 2 courses. And yes this is one course, but similar examples do exist across physics and maths as far as I am personally aware. If the 2 universities were overall "equal" in stature, so would the stature of the targeting employers(which is simply not true).
    1) Those factors were just an example, the point was once you have a human looking at your CV without guidelines anything can happen.

    Not everyone likes and respects Oxbridge, most people resent it.

    Also can you please stop talking about "top" employers, that list includes some of the most reprehensible companies in the world.

    I have yet to see a study featured by the times that wasn't at best dubious.

    Why were these companies named as top employers? Lets find out.

    They went to 30 out of 115 universities in the UK and asked 15,000 of 335,000 people expected to graduate that year who they would like to work for.

    The results from that were 600 different companies which means 25 votes would of have put you on that list but I wouldn't be surprised if you could of got on there with even less than that given how popular firms like BAE, MOD, IBM and Microsoft would have been to STEM graduates alone.

    From there they apply their own criteria to thin the numbers down to 100 this criteria they pull directly out of their arse, you have to be a certain size, you have to of been around for a certain length of time etc.

    The end result is a list of a 100 employers, 100 employers at 25 votes per employer means 2500 out of 335,000 students opinions were deemed to matter.

    The students being questioned most likely know nothing of working life let alone working for these employers.

    Certain universities will have a preference to employers, some people pick their universities because they know it will increase their chances of working for someone like BAE. Some people see an employer visit their university in the second year and are sold on the idea of working for them by the time they reach the third year which would also skew the study.

    Studies like this are damaging.

    Employers pay attention to them because they want to be named a top employer but the universities that these people visit will gain preferential treatment by employers because they're the only universities that count in this study.

    It as usual says nothing of quality it's just another false measure to justify unjustifiable elitism. I'd be very interested to see who writes cheques to high fliers research, where their researchers were educated and who they "consult" for.

    2) All graduates are unproven in the eyes of employers.

    I don't know or care about these universities or courses so I can't really make the arguments that probably should be made. That said as much as I can see the advantage of rushing ahead and covering subjects other universities don't even touch I can't help but think about the potential disadvantages.

    In any subject you have rules/laws/principals which govern everything you do in that subject, maybe they cover these in far more depth where other universities rush ahead and maybe paying greater attention to the fundamental core of a subject is a good thing?

    I was hoping to make that point with some examples but when I tried to compare courses I noticed Caledonian doesn't actually have a computer science course, they have courses that could fall under the umbrella of computer science but I can't see any pure computer science course that you could make a direct comparison.

    Care to enlighten me? :confused:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ish90an)
    Which is why many lower down London universities, Manchester Met and Liverpool Met are on the list, because clearly the big city thing comes in. I mean what on earth are they doing recruiting from Warwick when they should go to City University? The thing at the top is more of a big university thing(where one university, like LSE, maybe good for a certain sector and the other is good for a larger number of sectors), but that is when the quality gap between universities isn't so great as to affect the average stature of targeting firm.
    Did you know that "London University" isn't one institution? It is a conglomerate made of over 20 institutes. These include:

    Birkbeck, University of London (BBK) [entered in 1920]
    The Central School of Speech and Drama (CSSD) [entered in 2005]
    Courtauld Institute of Art [created and admitted in 1932]
    Goldsmiths, University of London (GUL) [entered in 1904]
    Heythrop College (HEY) [entered in 1971]
    Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) [entered in 2003]
    Institute of Education (IoE) [entered in 1909]
    King's College London (KCL) [founding college]
    London Business School (LBS) [created and admitted in 1964]
    The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) [entered in 1900]
    London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) [entered in 1924]
    Queen Mary, University of London (QMUL) [entered in 1915]
    Royal Academy of Music (RAM) [entered in 2003]
    Royal Holloway, University of London (RHUL) [entered in 1900]
    Royal Veterinary College (RVC) [entered in 1915]
    School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) [created and entered in 1916]
    The School of Pharmacy, University of London [entered in 1949]
    University College London (UCL) [founding college]
    University of London Institute in Paris (ULIP) [entered in 1969]
    St George's, University of London, formerly St George's Hospital Medical School (SGUL)

    Amongst others.

    However you missed the major point.
    Here it is:

    (Original post by Complex Simplicity)
    Have you been to a recruitment fair before? I've been to a lot, especially at these 'top institutions' and the vast majority are information hubs, where reps give information to students to basically let them know their firm exists and what they do. You see a recruitment fair isn't a job offer, and just because a graduate didn't go to one, doesn't mean he will therefore be "blacklisted" from applying for a job at the firm. Attendance of a recruitment fair doesn't go on a CV or a job application form. Attendance at a recruitment fair doesn't mean that a student at Oxbridge with a 2.1 is deemed better than a student from Derby with the same qualification in the same discipline by sole virtue of the fact that his university is ranked higher in a newspaper league table.
    In bold for you to see. Focus on the question: Does a 2.1 from one university equate to a 2.1 from another university?

    Some 100 firms having more recruitment fairs in one university doesn't answer the question does it? It neither confirms nor denies the question. It doesn't because a recruitment fair isn't a job offer. An attendance at a recruitment fair doesn't mean a student's 2.1 is now magically higher than another student's 2.1 in the same subject. You see, though a good read, your post is meaningless, for it doesn't answer the question.

    (Original post by ish90an)
    I never talked about interviewing, the entire point was about targeting. They spend time and money looking to talk to students at universities they are likely to hire, do you think they just throw money at any university fair or do you think they go where they are looking to recruit? If the difference is of a few firms(as is with LSE vs Manchester, because one has a special field of study it excels in and the other has a broader discipline range) then the university comparison is difficult, but when the difference is so vast that clearly the top firms, on average, are investing their effort into one place over another then one university does become more valuable to employers over another(and no I did not say this was on the basis of league tables, but because of employer perception and graduate quality).
    Highlighted in bold are the baseless assertions you have again resorted to without any evidence to back this up. As has been stated above a recruitment fair is not a job offer, hence more recruitment fairs at a university doesn't mean that a 2.1 is devalued from a university with fewer recruitment fair. It's a complete red herring. Try to focus on the point, that is to disprove that a 2.1 is equivalent in the same university for the same discipline. Try again


    (Original post by ish90an)
    Again, do you have issues with reading basic English? The report sets a minimum bar, it does not represent the actual standard of every university. If I say 2 sticks must be at least 1cm in length(which is what a threshold is), it does not prevent one from being 2cm long.
    It's a shame that you've now resorted to personal insults to back up your position.
    It is the sign of desperation when clutching at straws. Try to remain objective.

    Here is the report again for you to disprove, I'll go through it with you so as to make it absolutely clear:

    (Original post by UniversitiesUK)
    Universities are responsible for the standards of qualifications they award. However, every UUK university uses a common set of tools known as the QAA Academic Infrastructure to underpin their work. This sets out threshold standards for HE qualifications, including by subject at honours level.
    In simple terms, Universities have the first say in the standards of degree they award, but all use the same tool which is a regulation.

    (Original post by UniversitiesUK)
    In addition, all UUK universities use external examiners to ensure outcomes are on a consistent and comparable basis. External Examiners are drawn from other institutions, or from areas of relevant professional practice.
    External examiners are sent from each UK university to ensure that the degrees are comparable and consistent. Ie. To ensure that the degrees are worth the same.

    (Original post by UniversitiesUK)
    They report to the Vice-Chancellor of the university on whether the standards set are appropriate. The aim is to ensure that the threshold standards of student performance are comparable with those of students following similar courses in other UK universities.
    These external examiners report to the VC of each university to ensure that the standards are comparable and consistent. Ie to ensure that the degrees are worth the same.


    So to clarify, each university first regulates themselves using a common tool called the QAA. Then they send examiners to other universities to regulate them and ensure that the standards are comparable and consistent. These examiners all report to the VC of each university to ensure that the standards are comparable and consistent.

    Now how in any way does that suggest that a 2.1 degree from one institution isn't comparable with that from another in the same subject? How does it say that degrees are not consistent across the university system? It says that there are several measures put in place to ensure that the standards are 'consistent and comparable for those following similar courses in other UK universities.'

    Now you make a general point that this is not the case. Not that there are exceptions to this rule, but that the exceptions are the rule. That degrees are not comparable nor consistent. That a 2.1 isn't of the same standard, because all top ranked universities have a higher level of 2.1 than all bottom ranked universities because the league table says so.

    My simple wish is this: prove it!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I'm really struggling to understand why people won't accept degree difficulties vary from university to university. You need straight As/A*s to get into Oxbridge whereas you need straight Cs or Ds to get into somewhere like Derby. Do people honestly believe a Derby graduate would have a hope in hell at Cambridge exams? I'm not trying to **** off universities here either, just making the point that to say all degrees have the same general level of complexity and difficulty is insane.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    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

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