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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Had no idea so many people got a 2'1.

    According to Unistats only 5% of people get a First on my course and i'm supposed to be an 'easy' uni.
    If by 'easy ' you mean one that would typically get laughed at on TSR then you're statistical less likely to get a 2.1+. The odds of doing so decreases as you go down a stereotypical league table.

    Oxbridge dishes out the greatest proportion. Most likely this is because the link is with intake qunlit to the degree type, and that x-uni moderation works.

    When pointed out to people on TSR it's quite a suprising/inconvenient fact to those saying some universities are 'easy'.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kieran101090)
    But no one can deny the fact that asian origin has highest degree status than english people in itself

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I can.

    And that post is an example of poor use of english. What even is 'degree status'?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    Ever if they were all standardised across the country, you will still need to make it comparable internationally. Having broader range makes it a lot easier to make comparison (ie is a 2:1 3.6 in GPA in the US? or is 64 exactly an 3.37 in the US?), the same goes to institution to institution and discipline to discipline comparisons. Since the scores are subjectively given and come from different modes of assessments,
    This is the other can of worms I was talking about. It is not related to degree classifications.

    The even bigger issue is that I didn't say we should get rid of scores altogether. The post I quoted argued that we should get rid of class honours together on the basis that class honours are taking away detailed information. The fact is they are not - they are merely additional information. The scores are still there if anyone wishes to compare them, which is better than the American GPA or nothing (in some universities they do have honours, but that's the minority) system.
    It is not additional information. The classification is derived entirely from the percentage score. If you know the percentage, you know the class. If you know the class, you do not know the percentage. The percentage may be there - if you enquire at the university. But how many times do people put the percentage on their CV? I don't even know what percentage I got for any of my degrees.

    The central problem with classifications is that 50% and 59% are lumped together as equivalent, while 59% and 60% are classed as different. Clearly that is stupid.

    it's a lot easier to assert that a 2:1 at University of X is similar to a 2:1 at University of Y; but not so much with a specific score '65'.
    It's very naive to believe that. A 2.1 from Cambridge is broadly equivalent to a 2.1 at the ex poly where I teach now? I don't think so.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chazwomaq)
    It's very naive to believe that. A 2.1 from Cambridge is broadly equivalent to a 2.1 at the ex poly where I teach now? I don't think so.
    So external moderation doesn't work?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    So external moderation doesn't work?
    I don't even think this is the role of external examiners. Everyone knows degrees and marks are not equivalent between all universities. External scrutiny is usually to make sure marks align with the universities' own standards and guidelines, and are not too out of whack with what you'd expect for that institution. The rampant grade inflation of recent years is clear evidence that neither externals nor universities are holding degree marks to constant standards.

    See these articles for more info:

    http://www.theguardian.com/education...says-thinktank

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...-compared.html

    http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...002785.article
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    The irony of it all is that the universities deny class inflation, they merely say that they give out more 1sts and 2.1s because the people they take on are better, so admit that they are just inflating the results but not explicitly saying it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    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.
    Bull**** Bull**** Bull****, STEM has right or wrong answers where as other degrees are about how you learn, think and put across an argument as well as the subject matter however this also often incorporates subjectivity and therefore hinders the ability to get 100% because you cannot be 100% right in a discipline where there is no 100% right answer... logic tells you that.

    Also Psychology is now deemed as a science so will be in your STEM category.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDanBandFan)
    Bull**** Bull**** Bull****, STEM has right or wrong answers where as other degrees are about how you learn, think and put across an argument as well as the subject matter however this also often incorporates subjectivity and therefore hinders the ability to get 100% because you cannot be 100% right in a discipline where there is no 100% right answer... logic tells you that.

    Also Psychology is now deemed as a science so will be in your STEM category.
    Absolute rubbish anyone who does STEM subjects knows that particularly in Science subjects the extended writing questions can be very subjective and there can be a wide variety of answers and in Maths there can be a wide variety of ways to prove things and you often have to worry about whether your proof is rigorous enough eg.at my mock interview for Maths I knew the answer and a very basic way of showing it and they wanted a full rigorous proof and you can't be exactly sure about what sort of proof they are looking for.For a lot of Universities the percentage who gets pretty much the whole range of marks is fixed in terms of the cohort so thus it wouldn't matter whether you did a STEM or non-STEM subject.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    This doesn't prove that it's necessarily easy to get a 2:1 or a first, you still need to do a lot of work to obtain it.

    I think it just means that students nowadays are working harder due to the fiercely competitive job market (that's my opinion anyway)
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by accountant-future)
    This doesn't prove that it's necessarily easy to get a 2:1 or a first, you still need to do a lot of work to obtain it.

    I think it just means that students nowadays are working harder due to the fiercely competitive job market (that's my opinion anyway)
    Alternatively: severe grade inflation

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    Imperial, Oxford, UCL, Bath, Warwick - GUILTY:mad:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Okorange)
    Imperial, Oxford, UCL, Bath, Warwick - GUILTY:mad:
    Only Bath and Warwick really. The other three have high intakes to justify a better outgoing performance.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    Only Bath and Warwick really. The other three have high intakes to justify a better outgoing performance.
    Not when so many of their peers are handing out 1sts at lower rates. Look at King's and LSE at 23%, Durham, St Andrews, Cambridge at 22%. Edinburgh at 20%.

    No school can justify a 30% 1st ratio.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I swear they did have a higher grade than a first though...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Professor Alan Smithers, director of the Centre for Education and Employment Research at Buckingham University, said: “The rise is undermining the usefulness of the degree in being able to distinguish” between students of different abilities.
    He doesn't mention that classification itself has actually increased in importance due to more people going to uni. It used to be the case that classification didn't matter too much - for most jobs, what set you apart from everyone else was that you had a degree at all.

    Also neglects the rising importance of Masters Degrees (and to a lesser extend, PhDs) as distinguishing factors.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    Only Bath and Warwick really. The other three have high intakes to justify a better outgoing performance.
    Except it's hardly nationally standardised, otherwise such places would either be near 100% or the crap units will hand out a lot fewer

    Higher intake quality should increase the "value" of the classification from the top unis over the lower ones

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    The value of degrees seems to be diminishing...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iamyourfather)
    The value of degrees seems to be diminishing...
    Yes, if you think getting a first at Manchester Met is the same as getting a first at Oxford. Of course, they both obviously require the same level of skill and competence even though one course is much broader and complicated than the other. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sakk89)
    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.
    It depends wholly on the university. Your statement might apply to ex-polys, but it certainly wouldn't apply to Oxbridge where the workload is intense in both quantity and complexity. Before you comment on the percentage of firsts being high, think about the standard of student at an Oxbridge university. They will typically be very hard-working and intelligent people. You don't get into Oxford or Cambridge by slacking. The average UCAS points of an Oxbridge student is typically miles better than those at inferior institutions.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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

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.