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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by playingcards)
    x
    Aston's offers are mostly AAA-ABB, not CDD. The difference between AAA to ABB isn't substantial.

    (Original post by Iamyourfather)
    Oh I'm sorry, I wasn't aware. This thread should not be on this sub-forum.
    It was deliberately made here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by River85)
    See above.



    Yes, but many don't.

    Decent, not perfect. Students might also thrive in HE more than A-level as they feel more motivated.
    True

    I got CDD at A-level but now I'm getting above 70% in my modules at a good London university.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by River85)
    Aston's offers are mostly AAA-ABB, not CDD. The difference between AAA to ABB isn't substantial.



    It was deliberately made here.
    Yeah but it's not complying to the rules.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iamyourfather)
    There is high recruitment at Aston because they encourage placement years. Many have substantial work experience which has just as much value if not more value than the degree itself. Students there are practical. Long are the days when a degree itself was enough to get a job.
    Ergo they recruit the experience, not the degree. The question relates to the 'quality' of the degree, not the experience.

    Again, not all of the degrees come attached with placements. If you read my posts properly, you will note I made the distinction.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    Ergo they recruit the experience, not the degree. The question relates to the 'quality' of the degree, not the experience.

    Again, not all of the degrees come attached with placements. If you read my posts properly, you will note I made the distinction.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The OP's question is very vague so the question is open to interpretation.

    The question in regard to the quality of degree in my opinion with the assumption that the degrees are in the same subject, is Oxbridge, but then again, this is entirely based on assumption, not actual fact.

    I read your post properly, I never disagreed. However I'm merely stating what makes Aston graduates attractive.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iamyourfather)
    The OP's question is very vague so the question is open to interpretation.

    The question in regards to the quality of degree in my opinion with the assumption that the degree is in the same subject, is Oxbridge, but then again, this is entirely based on assumption, not actual fact.

    I read your post properly, I never disagreed. However I'm merely stating what makes Aston graduates attractive.
    You're right; I'm sorry. I misjudged the tone of your post.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    You're right; I'm sorry. I misjudged the tone of your post.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That's alright x
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Just to put a bit of perspective on the classification system at Oxbridge, for people who don't go there.

    2nd year Cambridge Medical Sciences: The average person in the year has 9A* at GCSE and a 96% average in their AS Levels.

    The class distribution of a recent year by proportion:

    First: 17.4%
    2.1: 48.5%
    2.2: 29.7%
    Third: 2.3%
    Fail: 2.0%

    So to get a First, you have to be in the top 17% of a group where the average person has 96% AS Level average. And if you're in the bottom ~30% of a year group where the average person has a 96% AS Level average, you get a 2.2 (and that's ignoring the Thirds due to low numbers).

    In some papers, there are internal quotas. For example, 2nd year Pathology doesn't give out more than 65% 2.1/1st. Quote from the examiner's report: "target [of Class I and Class II.i] for MVST of 32.5%-65%". They scale the marks to make sure that 35% of the year group gets below a 2.1.

    So to be perfectly honest, I'd say a 2.2 in a scientific subject from Cambridge requires more work than a First from most universities.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by River85)
    Or A-levels aren't a reliable indication of academic performance at university?
    But on the whole, they are. Cambridge published research showing that even within the Cambridge cohort (who on average had A*A*A on entry) those with better A levels did better in their degree (it's here http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/a.../a_levels.html). And that's just within A*AA+ students, imagine if you extend the range all the way down to DDD. The correlation was highest for natural sciences. I know there is the odd exception where a very good student didn't perform well at A levels for whatever reason, but you have to call bull**** courses with average entry of BCC are handing out the same proportion of firsts and 2.1s as a course with average entry A*A*A.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    Just to put a bit of perspective on the classification system at Oxbridge, for people who don't go there.

    2nd year Cambridge Medical Sciences: The average person in the year has 9A* at GCSE and a 96% average in their AS Levels.

    The class distribution of a recent year by proportion:

    First: 17.4%
    2.1: 48.5%
    2.2: 29.7%
    Third: 2.3%
    Fail: 2.0%

    So to get a First, you have to be in the top 17% of a group where the average person has 96% AS Level average. And if you're in the bottom ~30% of a year group where the average person has a 96% AS Level average, you get a 2.2 (and that's ignoring the Thirds due to low numbers).

    In some papers, there are internal quotas. For example, 2nd year Pathology doesn't give out more than 65% 2.1/1st. Quote from the examiner's report: "target [of Class I and Class II.i] for MVST of 32.5%-65%". They scale the marks to make sure that 35% of the year group gets below a 2.1.

    So to be perfectly honest, I'd say a 2.2 in a scientific subject from Cambridge requires more work than a First from most universities.
    Many may disagree but I think A-levels is a good indication as to how good a student is at a particular university subject (assuming the students had no extenuating circumstances).

    Why do Cambridge officials purposely ensure ~35% Cambridge students achieve below a 2.1 which is in turn undesirable to employers?

    The privatisation of assignments and exams makes the whole system flawed and unfair in my opinion. It isn't right that a graduate who worked significantly harder than another student at another university whose course was less demanding be refused an interview due to their university classification being 'void' at human resources.

    I can quite confidently and unbiasedly say a science subject at Oxbridge does require a lot more work than a lot of universities.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iamyourfather)
    Why do Cambridge officals purposely ensure ~35% Cambridge students achieve below a 2.1 which is in turn undesirable to employers?

    The privatisation of assignments and exams makes the whole system flawed and unfair in my opinion. It isn't right that a graduate who worked significantly harder than another student at another university whose course was more demanding be refused an interview due to their university classification being 'void' at human resources.

    I can quite confidently and unbiasedly a science subject at Oxbridge does require a lot more work than a lot of universities.
    To be fair, those are second year exams I'm talking about. In third year, things aren't quite as bad, but it still quite obviously varies by subjects. Eg, Engineers and Mathematicians etc still have it incredibly tough, but the Biological Sciences stop giving out quite so many 2.2s. So even across subjects within one university, it isn't even fair (and I'm doing a Bio subject, so I'm acknowledging others have it worse).

    Yes, I think a fairer system would be centralised exams, so you sit the same exams regardless of university, and they could then be classified centrally.

    And yes, Cambridge does indeed say A Levels are a pretty good predictor of degree success - according to their research.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iamyourfather)
    Why do Cambridge officals purposely ensure ~35% Cambridge students achieve below a 2.1 which is in turn undesirable to employers?

    The privatisation of assignments and exams makes the whole system flawed and unfair in my opinion. It isn't right that a graduate who worked significantly harder than another student at another university whose course was more demanding be refused an interview due to their university classification being 'void' at human resources.

    I can quite confidently and unbiasedly a science subject at Oxbridge does require a lot more work than a lot of universities.
    Probably for a lot of reasons. One thing they want to do is combat grade inflation, they don't want too many people getting 1sts and 2.1s. They want to differentiate between their cohort of students, and if everyone got a 2.1 or a first (which is actually what happens in quite a few arts subjects) then it's harder to separate out the best students, which is who Cambridge ultimately cater their courses to.

    You're right, it is extremely unfair, but what can employers and postgrad admission staff do? If you have two candidates, one who did very well on an easier course and one who struggled on a much harder one, then they're probably going to go with the one who did well. I now advise people with Oxbridge offers to seriously consider courses at other universities where they'll most likely have a much easier ride, be under much less stress and leave with a good classification.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    To be fair, those are second year exams I'm talking about. In third year, things aren't quite as bad, but it still quite obviously varies by subjects. Eg, Engineers and Mathematicians etc still have it incredibly tough, but the Biological Sciences stop giving out quite so many 2.2s. So even across subjects within one university, it isn't even fair (and I'm doing a Bio subject, so I'm acknowledging others have it worse).

    Yes, I think a fairer system would be centralised exams, so you sit the same exams regardless of university, and they could then be classified centrally.

    And yes, Cambridge does indeed say A Levels are a pretty good predictor of degree success - according to their research.
    2nd year is notoriously harder at most universities however I imagine it being hardest at Oxbridge.

    I agree. I'm surprised this hasn't been a topic of discussion in the House of Commons. It's a much fairer system.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This maybe slightly off-topic, but to those who are siding with Oxbridge, what university, with a 1st, would be considered better?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mafuzzer)
    This maybe slightly off-topic, but to those who are siding with Oxbridge, what university, with a 1st, would be considered better?
    I think any RG uni would stick you on a 'par'.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    I think any RG uni would stick you on a 'par'.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Lol, I'd say essentially all Oxbridge students would have been better off just going to another Russell Group uni in that case.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by Nichrome)
    Probably for a lot of reasons. One thing they want to do is combat grade inflation, they don't want too many people getting 1sts and 2.1s. They want to differentiate between their cohort of students, and if everyone got a 2.1 or a first (which is actually what happens in quite a few arts subjects) then it's harder to separate out the best students, which is who Cambridge ultimately cater their courses to.

    You're right, it is extremely unfair, but what can employers and postgrad admission staff do? If you have two candidates, one who did very well on an easier course and one who struggled on a much harder one, then they're probably going to go with the one who did well. I now advise people with Oxbridge offers to seriously consider courses at other universities where they'll most likely have a much easier ride, be under much less stress and leave with a good classification.
    But they're ultimately toying with students' futures. If this is the case, all universities should apply this same method. It creates a much clearer distinction.

    This may sound a bit drastic but I think the current system should be scrapped. Like GCSEs and A-levels, university exams/coursework should be the same at all universities and tweaked annually.

    I'm currently at a high third tier/lower second tier university and I believe I'm not being pushed enough. Grading just seems 'too easy' in comparison to 'better overall' universities.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Iamyourfather)
    But they're ultimately toying with students' futures.
    They don't really care, in my experience
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd)
    They don't really care, in my experience
    :console:

    I hope you've done really well though.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nichrome)
    Probably for a lot of reasons. One thing they want to do is combat grade inflation, they don't want too many people getting 1sts and 2.1s. They want to differentiate between their cohort of students, and if everyone got a 2.1 or a first (which is actually what happens in quite a few arts subjects) then it's harder to separate out the best students, which is who Cambridge ultimately cater their courses to.

    You're right, it is extremely unfair, but what can employers and postgrad admission staff do? If you have two candidates, one who did very well on an easier course and one who struggled on a much harder one, then they're probably going to go with the one who did well. I now advise people with Oxbridge offers to seriously consider courses at other universities where they'll most likely have a much easier ride, be under much less stress and leave with a good classification.
    I agree with this, even other top Universities for mathematics give their students a much easier ride, Oxford/Cambridge pack in a lot more content into the years (with mathematics) and the exams are noticeably harder than even other top Universities for the same subject. I have sometimes wondered myself why on earth I decided to go to Oxford when I could've had an easier ride elsewhere.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    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.