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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonty99)
    Nichrome's post was pretty good.

    These external examiners can't enforce changes, they just recommend them.

    I've seen quotes from a external examiner's report for Cambridge maths, saying that it seemed very difficult to get a First compared to other universities, or something like that. I've also read on TSR (although the actual report wasn't posted in this case) that the same thing is said every year on the English Tripos external examiner's report for Cambridge.

    So whilst this regulatory body might like to try to make all degrees comparable, their existence and attempts don't prove that all degree are indeed comparable.
    We were forced into arguing about Cambridge maths because people will always go to the extremes but realistically it's stupid to make any comparison.

    A 2.1 from Cambridge in 2010 may well be seen as equal to a first from UCL, that's a matter of opinion that can be argued either way.

    What's being largely ignored is the fact that a 2.1 in 2010 may well of been a first in 2011, or a third in 2012, which may of been a first in 2013. If one Cambridge degree is not worth the same as another in the same subject how can we compare them to other universities let alone other subjects at other universities?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonty99)
    Nichrome's post was pretty good.

    These external examiners can't enforce changes, they just recommend them.

    I've seen quotes from a external examiner's report for Cambridge maths, saying that it seemed very difficult to get a First compared to other universities, or something like that. I've also read on TSR (although the actual report wasn't posted in this case) that the same thing is said every year on the English Tripos external examiner's report for Cambridge.

    So whilst this regulatory body might like to try to make all degrees comparable, their existence and attempts don't prove that all degree are indeed comparable.
    Indeed, I said it suggested that it did, in addition to the fact that universities for postgraduate courses state a 2.1 is required and a 2.2 is unsatifactory irrespective of the university attended, and the fact that most graduate employers do the same via auto filtering. People stated that absolutely it didn't that a 'Derby maths graduate was absolutely inferior to a Cambridge maths graduate by virtue of the fact that Cambridge is higher than Derby in the league tables. People didn't provide conclusive evidence to support this claim.

    However, if you read the report I posted in response to ish90an, it shows that the reason why they couldn't provide conclusive evidence is because clearly there isn't any (for or against). That the degrees aren't comparable even within the same institutions therefore it is ridiculous to claim based on league tables that one is definitely better for there is no way of proving this, for even those involved in the processes don't have the instruments to do so.


    To finish this matter, I believe that it would therefore seem prudent based on the lack of comparability, for one to ask themselves what exactly employers are looking for (or universities if that is their intended destination). If they're in the field of IB/Law clearly league tables matter, however for other subjects, this "ranking" has little barring on whether an employer will higher someone or not. I know personally far too many employers who don't care about ranking, but care solely on a person's suitability for the job, and ultimately if the person will be profitable to the firm or a liability. And such employers realise that simply attending a 'top' institution doesn't guarantee that a person has the necessary skills to do the job. For most employers, the '2.1' is simply a checkpoint on a list with many necessary requirements of skills needed to do the job. So simply put it is a very naive thing to believe that having said degree from said high ranking university will guarantee the job.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wozzie)
    We were forced into arguing about Cambridge maths because people will always go to the extremes but realistically it's stupid to make any comparison.

    A 2.1 from Cambridge in 2010 may well be seen as equal to a first from UCL, that's a matter of opinion that can be argued either way.

    What's being largely ignored is the fact that a 2.1 in 2010 may well of been a first in 2011, or a third in 2012, which may of been a first in 2013. If one Cambridge degree is not worth the same as another in the same subject how can we compare them to other universities let alone other subjects at other universities?
    Just to back up this point:

    (Original post by Roger Brown Report)
    22. Comparability of standards as between successive student cohorts should also be achievable in theory. However it is rare for assessed work to be judged against the standards of work of candidates on the programme in earlier years: it is far more common for examiners to carry the standards in their memories from year to year (there are several studies casting doubt on the efficacy of this).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hell, It's 180 UCAS points for Officer entry into the Armed forces, and you can get an in-service degree. Would you say the Forces were a bad university?

    (Doubt it, as the finer points of an argument tend to get lost when looking up at a burly Royal Marine)

    However, if you get EE, you can always join as a rating


    But seriously, I can't think of a degree that is worthwhile from TVU... (Vocational, sure they're useful, but anything that calls itself a degree is putting itself in the firing line).


    And one more thing, average graduate salaries don't really help. An example was that geography students had an absurdly higher average salary than anyone else for a year. Why? Because Michael Jordan graduated with a geography degree. Was it anything to do with the university? No.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by didgeridoo12uk)
    thames valley and any other universities that have entry requirements on some courses of EE.

    if a student has basically failed their A'levels, there is no way they should be allowed to waste taxpayers money having even more education at a higher level. so any university that lets them do that is obviously run terribly
    But if they do really well, get a high classification and a good job abroad?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    and a good job abroad?
    Then why is the British taxpayer funding them with no return?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Okay, ish90an I don't want to reply to you but I don't want you to think the reason I'm not replying to you is because I have nothing to say.

    I'm not going to answer your post diectly because Planto quite accurately summed up most of what I would have said also your counter arguments were quite ridiculous, for example:

    (Original post by Wozzie)
    Not everyone likes and respects Oxbridge, most people resent it.
    (Original post by ish90an)
    Do they? Stats for this?
    (Original post by Wozzie)
    I have yet to see a study featured by the times that wasn't at best dubious.
    (Original post by ish90an)
    Again, stats?
    There's a difference between fact and opinion. Opinions are beliefs we hold based on what we already know but we don't have to be certain of them, they don't have to be backed up by studies and statistics because unless you're a complete ****ing moron you're willing to change an opinion should it be proven false.

    I believe it's pretty cold in Russia right now, I haven't researched this I have no paper to back it up it's an opinion I've formed based two pieces of information which I already have stored in my brain which are:

    1) Russia is typically pretty cold.

    2) It's winter.

    It stands to reason a cold place at the coldest time of the year would be pretty cold but that could be disproved with a trip to google, I doubt it will be but if I check everything I've typed would be null and void because it would no longer be an opinion it would be fact.

    If we have a difference of opinion then that's fine I really don't care about your opinions they're worth just as much as mine.

    The problem is people like you and "I'm so academic" don't believe that, you think your opinion has some special importance and because it's yours it has to correct so you make the mistake of asserting your opinions as facts.

    That's why you get hounded for evidence.

    We don't ask you to prove your bull**** rhetoric because it's a great way to win an argument, I'm not interested in winning an argument I'm interested in the truth.

    If you want to believe a HR drone on 14k a year who never went to university gives a **** what course you studied and what university you went to then believe it, I don't have any obligation to change your mind.

    I will however voice my opposition to your opinion because if people hear things enough they believe them irrespective of evidence, I've just recently corrected someone on this forum who was under the impression that New Labour turned all the polytechnics into universities when it was the Tories, the reason he made that mistake is because most people on here actually believe that to be true and repeat it constantly.

    If you want to beat down someones opinion then you need to be logically consistent with your own or you need evidence.

    Mass ignorance is not evidence.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Planto)
    Oh, is that what you're calling it? You use terms as abitrary as "top employers", then when faced with information that demonstrates how absurd such a term is - given the ridiculously invalid methods used to determine what constitutes a "top employer" - you respond with:
    Do you mind reading what stats I have asked for? The poster goes on about how everyone hates Oxbridge and the firms on the list are reprehensible, both unproven claims from him. And if someone's going to resort to suspicious smearing of how some organisation must be taking big cheques from firms for doing the study because they don't like the results, I don't see what other response such nonsense merits.
    1. Saying stats are irrelevant.
    2. Requesting MORE stats.
    3. Hyperbolic strawman rubbish, such as responding to a perfectly reasonable explanation as to how such a term is utterly empty by saying "sure, it's all a big conspiracy."

    Then going on to completely miss the point, which is that a bunch of students (let alone an unrepresentative bunch of students) have absolutely no authority on who the "top employers" are, having likely never been employed by ANY company, let alone that one.
    And any study which tells us what firms are reprehensible and what universities/course are somehow more credible despite being based on the same perception? I am afraid, you, not I, is missing the point.
    You then completely ignore the real meat of the argument, which is that students seem to grossly overestimate how much your degree and where you got it matters to employers, particularly given that the vast majority of degrees endow a graduate with little to no competence at the job they will be performing. The degree alone is a mere formality. Recruiters generally hold academia in lower esteem than most students would like; what matters is the person, what they have actually done (as opposed to what they have read and in what building), what they can do and how they present themselves.
    That is not what anyone here has raised in the argument here.
    Those who attribute such importance to these frankly rather trivial details - unless pursuing a career as an academic - are going to find themselves rather bitterly disappointed when they discover that, in the real world, nobody gives a ****.
    Those who think a 2.1 from TVU's going to give them the same opportunities at graduate level as a 2.1 from Oxbridge(assuming everything else is the same) are going to be in for a shock in the real world, because while your 100 member firm in Slough that's barely breaking even might not care, the top firms do give a ****.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wozzie)
    Okay, ish90an I don't want to reply to you but I don't want you to think the reason I'm not replying to you is because I have nothing to say.

    I'm not going to answer your post diectly because Planto quite accurately summed up most of what I would have said also your counter arguments were quite ridiculous, for example:


    There's a difference between fact and opinion. Opinions are beliefs we hold based on what we already know but we don't have to be certain of them, they don't have to be backed up by studies and statistics because unless you're a complete ****ing moron you're willing to change an opinion should it be proven false.
    Oxbridge somehow being popularly resented is not fact(nor does it draw from any), it is merely your opinion. As is your opinion of the Times. Keep it to yourself when you are correcting people's stats and pointing out flaws, but if you get asked to prove your own opinions don't go crying about the differences b/w opinion and fact after you're found trying to discredit stats based on your own personal opinion.
    And I did present you stats, and I presented you a perfect reasoning behind why they're as valid as any other perception based study which is so commonly accepted (be it the good chocolate to buy or what airlines offer good customer service), you just seem to have ignored that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Complex Simplicity)
    That more recruitment fairs at a university doesn't prove that the standard of a 2.1 in the same discipline is not comparable between universities. Remember this:

    So you actually think there is no relation whatsoever with university quality and employers going to a particular place? What factors, in this case, do you then think they take into account when deciding where to hold recruitment fairs(and presentations, talks, campus ambassador programmes etc)?


    Funny that and yet it is you who keeps claiming that I don't read your posts.
    And I quote myself:
    IT firms like Google have an unofficial policy(and this is coming from an HR rep) of preferring grads from Imperial because of the course quality over other universities. This alone proves that yes, a degree from certain universities is devalued over others.
    I like this selective reading you continue to engage in. I bet I'll have to keep repeating this as well until you finally decide to acknowledge it.
    I didn't I said had you considered any other factors such as location. Something that clearly is an influence. However again this point is irrelevant for a recruitment fair isn't a job offer. It doesn't disprove that a 2.1 is comparable across universities for individual disciplines.
    "Clearly is an influence". Prove that it is a major influence when the gap between the universities is huge, and its more than just a case of one university being a specialist one(like LSE). I asked you previously why if this was the case why certain universities in London (City University, Greenwich University etc) did not feature on the list when Oxbridge and Warwick, both further away from most firms' head offices, did. Or why Manchester Met didn't feature but Manchester did. You have simply ignored this.
    Assuming I take your word for it, it proves that a second year exam in one university is of a higher standard than the other. It doesn't prove that a 2.1 (the outcome of the summation of all the results, particularly those in the final year) is not comparable across universities for individual disciplines.
    I made this clear plenty of times before, the third year degree exam at Caledonian covered material that was second year in Glasgow(not the second year non-degree exam), and that the third year degree exam in Glasgow in the same subject was of a higher standard. Do you mind reading my posts properly and completely before you respond? I don't see why you keep harping on about final years, the third year counts to 40% of the final degree grade so it is very much a valid tool for comparison.

    The rest, we've gone from "all universities are clearly the same because there're standards" to "we can't say". This is where you'll have to look at employer and student perception, because that is what ends up driving what employers go where and what students go where.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    middlesex!
    its sole purpose is to make money from foreign students without caring about what grades people actually get
    used to work by the hendon campus, i swear only 1 in 10 students were white, whilst waiting at the bus stop on way home from work, i didnt hear a single english conversation from the students
    im not racist before someone gets a lil too touchy, im just saying the uni is only in it for the money and foreigners pay the full amount (something like 10k a year)
    the area is also ****
    the campus is ****
    the accomodation is ****
    i can't think of a single positive point
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ish90an)
    So you actually think there is no relation whatsoever with university quality and employers going to a particular place? What factors, in this case, do you then think they take into account when deciding where to hold recruitment fairs(and presentations, talks, campus ambassador programmes etc)?



    And I quote myself:


    I like this selective reading you continue to engage in. I bet I'll have to keep repeating this as well until you finally decide to acknowledge it.

    "Clearly is an influence". Prove that it is a major influence when the gap between the universities is huge, and its more than just a case of one university being a specialist one(like LSE). I asked you previously why if this was the case why certain universities in London (City University, Greenwich University etc) did not feature on the list when Oxbridge and Warwick, both further away from most firms' head offices, did. Or why Manchester Met didn't feature but Manchester did. You have simply ignored this.

    I made this clear plenty of times before, the third year degree exam at Caledonian covered material that was second year in Glasgow(not the second year non-degree exam), and that the third year degree exam in Glasgow in the same subject was of a higher standard. Do you mind reading my posts properly and completely before you respond? I don't see why you keep harping on about final years, the third year counts to 40% of the final degree grade so it is very much a valid tool for comparison.

    The rest, we've gone from "all universities are clearly the same because there're standards" to "we can't say". This is where you'll have to look at employer and student perception, because that is what ends up driving what employers go where and what students go where.
    Nope, I said
    (Original post by complex simplicity)
    I don't know whether a 2.1 is truly the same in one university as it is in another
    followed by
    But What I will say is that if universities count degrees as equivalent, and most employers do. And if universities are forced to be regulated to ensure that standardisation takes place, then one can say that in all probability, degrees are of an equivalent standard
    I made the point that they probably are based on the combination of points I'd brought up. However, despite all you're posts trying to post the contrary, there wasn't evidence to disprove this assessment. I made a point, you tried to disprove it, but could only offer one course and 'more recruitment fairs' happening at certain universities. This was insufficient to disprove the claim, and yet it is you who for some reason now wishes for me to prove mine, when I already laid out the basis for which the statement was made. You hadn't disproved it, for you haven't produced any evidence which states conclusively that this isn't the case.

    The brown report shows that such comparisons can't be made, and indeed shouldn't be made. If such people can't compare even degrees within the same institution proficiently, who are you to say a degree from university A is poor, and worth less than a degree with the same mark in the same discipline from university B?

    It is as you've rightly stated then on the employer to decide and this is where the most misinformation comes in. Knowing a HR rep from an IT company stating what they think is company recruitment policy doesn't encapsulate the view of all or even the majority of employers. The fact that, using your example of TVU, that graduates from said institution have managed to find such high levels of subsequent employment is testament to the fact that the degrees from there are not rubbished like you claim. And this is where I take an issue, and this point is separate from the comparisons, I take issue that "all things being equal" is something that's thrown around like its common-place. All things are hardly ever equal and the reality is that these "other factors" to a lot of employers matter much more so than the specific institution from which you got your '2.1' from. However posters such as yourself proliferate the idea that all employers simply see Cambridge 2.1 and swoon desperate to offer employment, and see TVU 2.1 and instantly scoff.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ish90an)
    And any study which tells us what firms are reprehensible and what universities/course are somehow more credible despite being based on the same perception?
    Um.

    I think you're getting very, very confused.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Complex Simplicity)
    Nope, I said

    followed by


    I made the point that they probably are based on the combination of points I'd brought up. However, despite all you're posts trying to post the contrary, there wasn't evidence to disprove this assessment. I made a point, you tried to disprove it, but could only offer one course and 'more recruitment fairs' happening at certain universities. This was insufficient to disprove the claim, and yet it is you who for some reason now wishes for me to prove mine, when I already laid out the basis for which the statement was made. You hadn't disproved it, for you haven't produced any evidence which states conclusively that this isn't the case.
    I have offered one course as an example, how you concluded that I "could only offer one course" from me using one example is something I will never understand. Want more? Dundee and Stirling CS have the same issue.
    Your point about standardization has been proven to be false, it sets a minimum bar but some universities can and do push above it over others.
    Your point about employers is considering all employers as equal in stature when they are not. I have been taking into consideration purely the top employers, and what their actual practice is when looking at applications instead of what just they say on their website.
    The brown report shows that such comparisons can't be made, and indeed shouldn't be made. If such people can't compare even degrees within the same institution proficiently, who are you to say a degree from university A is poor, and worth less than a degree with the same mark in the same discipline from university B?

    It is as you've rightly stated then on the employer to decide and this is where the most misinformation comes in. Knowing a HR rep from an IT company stating what they think is company recruitment policy doesn't encapsulate the view of all or even the majority of employers. The fact that, using your example of TVU, that graduates from said institution have managed to find such high levels of subsequent employment is testament to the fact that the degrees from there are not rubbished like you claim. And this is where I take an issue, and this point is separate from the comparisons, I take issue that "all things being equal" is something that's thrown around like its common-place. All things are hardly ever equal and the reality is that these "other factors" to a lot of employers matter much more so than the specific institution from which you got your '2.1' from. However posters such as yourself proliferate the idea that all employers simply see Cambridge 2.1 and swoon desperate to offer employment, and see TVU 2.1 and instantly scoff.
    You are exaggerating my point. I never said you will be instantly rejected, because employers will take other factors, like work ex and co curricular activities into account. But to judge just how much influence the university itself has you have to equate all other factors so to nullify their impact.
    We have to look at how employers look at certain universities and why they invest into recruitment at certain universities over others(you have not given a single credible theory to explain this, but you keep saying there are some other factors, none of which is that employers see these universities as better that influence where they hold fairs etc). Until you can provide any credible single idea that explains why Oxbridge gets more top employers at recruitment fairs than City University(as an example) your argument that university perception is not a factor is null and void.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonty99)
    These external examiners can't enforce changes, they just recommend them.
    An external examiner's recommendations are taken very seriously and have always been implemented in the departments I have taught at. Contrary to Nichrome's comments otherwise Externals Examiners can and do moderate degree classifications.

    I've seen quotes from a external examiner's report for Cambridge maths, saying that it seemed very difficult to get a First compared to other universities, or something like that. I've also read on TSR (although the actual report wasn't posted in this case) that the same thing is said every year on the English Tripos external examiner's report for Cambridge.
    And the same things are never said for other universities? Do you know that? I've seen a fair few external examiners' reports for physics and chemistry departments throughout England and Wales and they make interesting reading, however I could never discern from them that these academics felt that standards were different enough to make and serious recommendations.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ish90an)
    So you actually think there is no relation whatsoever with university quality and employers going to a particular place? What factors, in this case, do you then think they take into account when deciding where to hold recruitment fairs(and presentations, talks, campus ambassador programmes etc)?
    Having taken part in quite a few graduate recruitment events for my employer I'll tell you what is important:

    1) A proactive organiser within the university.
    2) Location relative to employer's offices/reimbursement policy for attend graduate recruitment events.
    3) Prior contacts with universities/alumni on staff.
    4) Size/notoriety of recruitment event.
    5) Level of interest in the stand at previous year's event (if applicable).

    That's what is important and why, for instance, Manchester has large well attended recruitment fairs and St Andrews doesn't. It isn't rocket surgery.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ish90an)
    Oxbridge somehow being popularly resented is not fact(nor does it draw from any), it is merely your opinion. As is your opinion of the Times. Keep it to yourself when you are correcting people's stats and pointing out flaws, but if you get asked to prove your own opinions don't go crying about the differences b/w opinion and fact after you're found trying to discredit stats based on your own personal opinion.
    And I did present you stats, and I presented you a perfect reasoning behind why they're as valid as any other perception based study which is so commonly accepted (be it the good chocolate to buy or what airlines offer good customer service), you just seem to have ignored that.


    So, if I don't agree with your opinion (that you put forward as fact) that's just my opinion and I should shut up?

    Hypocrite much? :rolleyes:

    Nobody was talking about "perception" nobody cares about perception arguing over perception is like arguing over which lie is more true, you'd have to be ****ing insane or in a field tripping on LSD to find value in that.

    Also you presented nothing, what do you want me to say?

    I'm sorry I don't accept everything on face value. I'm sorry I actually read a report when it's presented to me. I'm sorry when someone presents themselves as an authority I try to find out who they are, who they know and what they know.

    A study can be made to show whatever you want it to show it's just a matter of asking the right questions.

    As for The Times, I'm actually a subscriber so I believe I have every right to comment on the puerile *******s they spread across my screen on a daily basis (with a few notable exceptions).

    It's not my fault that they use questionable criteria and questionable methodology every time they seem to rank anything, I'd like to have a concise measure of quality but that isn't what The Times offer and I'm fairly sure the "leading" universities selected for "The Times Top 100 Employers" don't come from The Guardian so excuse me for being skeptical.

    I discredited the stats based on the stats, deal with it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm at LJMU and I don't really rate it. I just feel as though it's so hard to get support of tutors and yeah I know university work is all independent and that but I feel as though we have had no guidance on how to do our assignments so I'm just guessing. I hate the lack of contact time, I might as well be doing a distance learning course or something the amount of hours I'm actually in uni. The students union is pretty rubbish as well!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I love the way everyone's gone mental since someone mentioned Cambridge's matriculation offer.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spidergareth)
    Polys have always offered 'traditional' subjects such as law and many science courses. Trent polytechnic for example had a very good reputation for law, therefore I don't really think that is a correct distinction.

    I think you are absolutely right that the former polytechnics are leading the way in creative courses such as graphic design, computer game design and fashion. However, I really can't see why there is a need to class these as different qualifications to a degree. Learning these things takes a long time and a lot of effort and I see no reason why people should not be granted a BA at the end. I think there is an argument that universities offer too many subjects at degree and do not facilitate vocational subjects which could be taught for a shorter time at less expense (for example hotel management), but I don't think it should be assumed that all creative subjects should be taught in this way.
    i would base the distinction between the two on the different skills learned. traditional courses are about critical thinking and self motivated research skills whereas creative courses offer more specific skills.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
    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.