Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by la_banane_verte)
    That sounds incredibly stuck up. Why do you even think PhD students don't know how to teach _undergraduate_ material? And if you never let PhD students teach, exactly when are future lecturers supposed to learn how to teach?
    They can teach on a limited basis if they are post-docs.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Hollywood Hogan)
    They can teach on a limited basis if they are post-docs.
    And so what makes a postdoc better than a PhD student? Do you even understand what is involved in doing a PhD?

    Have you ever been taught by a PhD student? I'd like to know where you've formed such a bad opinion of them.

    In fact PhD students often make great tutors, as they remember what it was like to not understand the material and so will explain in more detail. Some lecturers can be so far removed from that they skip over things that seem obvious to them but aren't to students.

    Another factor that you're overlooking is the sheer number of tutorials that have to be given. Lecturers are not employed solely to teach, in fact for the most part their main passion is research, and teaching is a side job. Therefore they cannot and do not spend their whole time teaching. If you want small group tutorials (often considered the best method), then lecturers would have to spend almost all their time on it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hollywood Hogan)
    Only students at the university can confirm if they are being taught by lecturers all of the time or PhD students.
    Well i'll confirm it for you, at least in medicine we are taught entirely by lecturers or full professors. Dissections are taught by a group of dissection tutors who are generally all between foundation and speciality training.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hollywood Hogan)
    That is what lecturers are paid to do, and non-scottish students pay 9k a year to get taught properly.
    As above really, lecturers often don't like teaching.

    Also, I had supervisions with PhDs or post-docs at least a few times during university, and the odds of you being at a better university than I went to are low.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slumpy)
    As above really, lecturers often don't like teaching.

    Also, I had supervisions with PhDs or post-docs at least a few times during university, and the odds of you being at a better university than I went to are low.
    Really? I have already graduated from Nottingham. I am now at UCL part time for a masters, having turned down St Andrews, Imperial and Bristol. I failed to get into Oxbridge, however, but being a part time student made things much easier financially anyway.

    Incidentally, only in very, very few professions does going to a prestigious university actually matter. Adds nice eye candy for the CV and the ego though.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hollywood Hogan)
    Really? I have already graduated from Nottingham. I am now at UCL part time for a masters, having turned down St Andrews, Imperial and Bristol. I failed to get into Oxbridge, however, but being a part time student made things much easier financially anyway.

    Incidentally, only in very, very few professions does going to a prestigious university actually matter. Adds nice eye candy for the CV and the ego though.
    Yep.

    And I don't disagree. I don't think it especially benefited me applying for jobs. But it doesn't change the fact top unis have postgrads/PhDs running supervisions.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slumpy)
    Yep.

    But it doesn't change the fact top unis have postgrads/PhDs running supervisions.
    Such a shame really.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by kka25)
    Such a shame really.
    Why?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hollywood Hogan)
    Really? I have already graduated from Nottingham. I am now at UCL part time for a masters, having turned down St Andrews, Imperial and Bristol. I failed to get into Oxbridge, however, but being a part time student made things much easier financially anyway.

    Incidentally, only in very, very few professions does going to a prestigious university actually matter. Adds nice eye candy for the CV and the ego though.
    So you basically are Mansun's second account. Well anyways, you also did a masters in Birkbeck which you left out. Besides, in terms of "prestige" you don't really have much. A masters degree at UCL is absolutely not prestigious as masters degrees in most fields (let alone a masters at Birkbeck and a ug at notts) with the exception of finance and a few others are just cash cow degrees for universities and are not competitive whatsoever.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Okorange)
    So you basically are Mansun's second account. Well anyways, you also did a masters in Birkbeck which you left out. Besides, in terms of "prestige" you don't really have much. A masters degree at UCL is absolutely not prestigious as masters degrees in most fields (let alone a masters at Birkbeck and a ug at notts) with the exception of finance and a few others are just cash cow degrees for universities and are not competitive whatsoever.
    Nope this is not Mansun's account, not sure where you got that from, as I didn't go to Birkbeck. Mansun and I know each other, however, from Nottingham. Though we have done different courses at UCL (mine is 2-5 years part time), and followed different careers.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Okorange)
    . A masters degree at UCL is absolutely not prestigious as masters degrees in most fields (let alone a masters at Birkbeck and a ug at notts) with the exception of finance and a few others are just cash cow degrees for universities and are not competitive whatsoever.
    I don't agree on the above at all. You need a 2.2/2.1 from an elite university, or a 2.1/1st from a lesser university, to get into a masters course at UCL. For some courses you will need a 1st realistically to get in. Getting in with a 2.2 is possible, but only if the university was particularly good, like Nottingham or Edinburgh (i.e. one of the better RG unis).
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hollywood Hogan)
    I don't agree on the above at all. You need a 2.2 from an elite university, or a 2.1/1st from a lesser university, to get into a masters course at UCL. For some courses you will need a 1st realistically to get in.
    Likely not for yours. 2.2 is a pretty bad grade, a 2.1/1st means the majority of students anyways considering how watered down a 2.1 is these days.

    So if the majority of students at a lesser university are able to get into a masters program at UCL, that to mean means not very prestigious...

    Most masters degrees are cash cows for universities like I said before. Only a few actually lead to meaningful increases in job prospects/income.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Okorange)
    Likely not for yours. 2.2 is a pretty bad grade, a 2.1/1st means the majority of students anyways considering how watered down a 2.1 is these days.

    So if the majority of students at a lesser university are able to get into a masters program at UCL, that to mean means not very prestigious...

    Most masters degrees are cash cows for universities like I said before. Only a few actually lead to meaningful increases in job prospects/income.
    A 2.2 from a top 20 university is not pretty bad, it is still decent. But a 2.2 from a top 40 uni would be more questionable in value. I guess UCL look at your application as a whole, and which university and course you did previously. I seriously doubt they'd take on graduates from Bolton or London Met, and all those at the bottom end of the spectrum. They only want the graduates from the good to elite universities, and places are limited.

    Only Oxbridge present truly formidable requirements to get in, which is a very high 2.1 from a Russell Group uni.

    I'm hoping my MSc from UCL will propel me into a career in politics, which is full of graduates from elite universities. What's wrong with Notts? It is seen as one of the best multi faculty universities after UCL, somewhere in the UK top 11-15 and World top 75 region overall. If that isn't prestigious, then you do set very high standards indeed. Are you from Stanford or Harvard?

    I'd say UCL edges Nottingham for overall academic power and prestige with employers, but others like St Andrews and Durham certainly don't.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hollywood Hogan)
    A 2.2 from a top 20 university is not pretty bad, it is still decent. But a 2.2 from a top 40 uni would be more questionable in value. I guess UCL look at your application as a whole, and which university and course you did previously. I seriously doubt they'd take on graduates from Bolton or London Met, and all those at the bottom end of the spectrum. They only want the graduates from the good to elite universities, and places are limited.

    Only Oxbridge present truly formidable requirements to get in, which is a very high 2.1 from a Russell Group uni.

    I'm hoping my MSc from UCL will propel me into a career in politics, which is full of graduates from elite universities. What's wrong with Notts? It is seen as one of the best multi faculty universities after UCL, somewhere in the UK top 11-15 and World top 75 region overall. If that isn't prestigious, then you do set very high standards indeed. Are you from Stanford or Harvard?

    I'd say UCL edges Nottingham for overall academic power and prestige with employers, but others like St Andrews and Durham certainly don't.
    To get a 2.2 you pretty much have to be below average in your course and not very good at time management and yes this is referring to "top 20" schools. I don't know enough about other schools to comment.

    I just find it really ironic that you are talking academic elitism when your own educational background isn't particularly that "elite".
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Okorange)
    I just find it really ironic that you are talking academic elitism when your own educational background isn't particularly that "elite".
    Come on, is Nottingham and UCL not good enough to be considered elite, given that I am a scientist in training? Are you ok? No problem with the drink?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hollywood Hogan)
    Come on, is Nottingham and UCL not good enough to be considered elite, given that I am a scientist in training? Are you ok? No problem with the drink?
    Ok... I guess my definition of elite isn't the same as yours.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Okorange)
    Ok... I guess my definition of elite isn't the same as yours.
    I hope you don't think most people can get into UCL with a 2.2, only in very few courses could you bend their requirements and squeak through, and even then it must be a solid top 20 RG university, and a damn good all round application and work experience. A good 95% of their masters require a 2.1/1st from a good university. The new courses tend to be easier to get in at first, but the requirements soon go up as demand creeps up.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hollywood Hogan)
    I hope you don't think most people can get into UCL with a 2.2, only in very few courses could you bend their requirements and squeak through, and even then it must be a solid top 20 RG university, and a damn good all round application and work experience. A good 95% of their masters require a 2.1/1st from a good university.
    I know that, but even then, the only masters courses you can consider prestigious would be ones that are competitive, needing a high 2.1/1st from a top 20 uni that actually lead to improved job prospects.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Okorange)
    I know that, but even then, the only masters courses you can consider prestigious would be ones that are competitive, needing a high 2.1/1st from a top 20 uni.
    Nottingham is a top 11-15 UK university, UCL top 5. That is the only thing I care about, not so much the course or how selective it is. Of course certain courses like Law and Economics would be harder to get into that some arts courses, but the prestige of the university counts above all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hollywood Hogan)
    Come on, is Nottingham and UCL not good enough to be considered elite, given that I am a scientist in training? Are you ok? No problem with the drink?
    Okorange is right. Nottingham is not elite, and doing a master at UCL is absolutely not prestigious.
    As mentioned above, most UCL taught masters require a 2:1 and Nottingham is not even top 10 in the UK.


    PS: I did my MSc at UCL, I was very happy with the course and I got into Oxbridge for a PhD, but I am realistic about the prestige of UCL at the master's level.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: April 10, 2018

2,382

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process

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.