This discussion is closed.
Ben.S.
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#41
Report 16 years ago
#41
(Original post by hitchhiker_13)
Think you might be write, not sure.
Feeling you get MSci but not BSci? Could be completely wrong.
I think you are correct.

Ben
0
Alaric
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#42
Report 16 years ago
#42
(Original post by hornblower)
The Hons part is sometimes subscripted or even omitted.
Cambridge doesn't award non-honours degrees, so to put Hons (Cantab) is entirely superfluous.

(Original post by Helenia)
I don't think you can get a BSc from Cambridge, can you? Even the NatScis graduate with BAs.
Correct.

(Original post by hitchhiker_13)
Think you might be right, not sure.
Feeling you get MSci but not BSci? Could be completely wrong.
I think they do MScis, but they're undergrad qualifications, the postgrad ones that are based on research more are MPhils.
You get a MA regardless after a certain amount of time - is it 6/7 years?


Alaric.
0
Helenia
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#43
Report 16 years ago
#43
(Original post by Alaric)
I think they do MScis, but they're undergrad qualifications, the postgrad ones that are based on research more are MPhils.
You get a MA regardless after a certain amount of time - is it 6/7 years?
Being Cambridge, I think it's something stupid like 6 years and 2 terms after matriculation, provided you don't get sent down and aren't in prison.
0
MadNatSci
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#44
Report 16 years ago
#44
Isn't there something daft about not getting divorced in that time too? Or am I making things up again?
0
Helenia
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#45
Report 16 years ago
#45
Dunno. I'm not even going to get married in that time, so I'm ok on that front!
0
Mentally Ill
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#46
Report 16 years ago
#46
(Original post by MadNatSci)
Isn't there something daft about not getting divorced in that time too? Or am I making things up again?
Wow, this is really wierd.
0
Kalypso
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#47
Report 16 years ago
#47
i think oxford is 7 years after matriculation.
0
davey_boy
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#48
Report 16 years ago
#48
(Original post by grey faerie)
i think oxford is 7 years after matriculation.
From University of Oxford Examination Regulations 2003, pg497:
"
1: A Bachelor of the Arts (other than one covered by the provisions of clause 2 below) or a Bachelor of the Fine Art may, with the approval of his or her society, supplicate for the degree of Master of Arts in or after the 21st term from his or her matriculation.
2: A Bachelor of Arts whose qualification for admission to Final Honours School was the successful completion of a Foundation Course at the Department for Continuing Education may with, the approval of his or her society, supplicate for the degree of Master of Arts in or after the 18th term from his or her matriculation.
3: A Bachelor of Arts or a Bachelor of Fine Art who has been admitted to the degree of Doctor of Philosophy may supplicate for the degree of Master of Arts, provided he has satisfied all other necessary conditions, at any time after his admission to the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
4: If a Bachelor of Civil Law or a Bachelor of Medicine shall first have been admitted to the degree of Bachelor of the Arts, he may supplicate for the degree of Master of Arts with the approval of his society in or after the 19th term from his matriculation and may retain the degree of Bachelor of Civil Law or of Medicine as the case may be.
"

So there you go. In summary most people get an MA to replace their BA 7 years after starting at Oxford, although some people (mature students, people doing a PhD (or DPhil as Oxford call it), some lawyers and medics) get it slightly sooner. If you're interested, you have to pay a tenner to 'supplicate' from BA to MA.
0
hitchhiker_13
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#49
Report 16 years ago
#49
Do the 4 year NatSci course, you get an MSci; 3 years it's a BA.
0
Radagasty
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#50
Report 16 years ago
#50
(Original post by hitchhiker_13)
Do the 4 year NatSci course, you get an MSci; 3 years it's a BA.
Hmm... this is going to sound petty, but I feel a little put out by the fact that Oxbridge awards masters level degree for what is essentially a four-year undergraduate course. (Is this common throughout England?)

I only have a bachelor's degree to show for my four-year engineering course (engineering is a four-year degree in Australia). While this may sound trivial, it does have some practical consequences.

For one, it determines whether I should wear a BA or an MA gown at Cambridge, and as I technically don't have a masters degree, I am not qualified to wear the latter. This, in itself, is not really a problem. However, the university rules also stipulate that grad students over the age of 24 should wear the MA gown, irrespective of whether they hold a master's degree or not. Now, I will be taking up my place in Cambridge this October, and I have been given to understand that the gown is heavily used in the first month or so, and it is difficult to rent one this time of year, so I'll have to buy a BA gown. What's worse, though, is that I turn 24 in November, whereupon I would have to get an MA gown as well! :mad:

Anyway... this was a rant of no consequence. I just wanted to post it somewhere.
0
MadNatSci
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#51
Report 16 years ago
#51
(Original post by Radagasty)
Hmm... this is going to sound petty, but I feel a little put out by the fact that Oxbridge awards masters level degree for what is essentially a four-year undergraduate course. (Is this common throughout England?)
In a word... Yeah!

I applied for chemistry last year and I think at all of the universities I applied to you could get an MChem for four years' study. The fourth year is usually research-based and I think you have to decide by the third year because they cover extra ground there.
0
davey_boy
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#52
Report 16 years ago
#52
(Original post by MadNatSci)
In a word... Yeah!

I applied for chemistry last year and I think at all of the universities I applied to you could get an MChem for four years' study. The fourth year is usually research-based and I think you have to decide by the third year because they cover extra ground there.
Yeah happens all over the place. The 4-year 'degree' courses were introduced about 7 or 8 years ago. The reason was that the universities were starting to insist on applicants for PhDs having a master's degree. You can still get a 1 year masters after doing a BSc. The 4 year masters degrees are almost exclusively courses where you can stop after 3 years and get a BSc or continue for a 4th year and get an MPhys, MChem, MEng, MMath or whatever. The reason they make the distinction between these degrees and MSc (1 year course taken after already doing a 3 year undergrad course) is that it signifies you have done 4 years in a particular subject and are hence more specialist - for example a Mathematician might do 3 years of Maths at undergrad level and then do a theoretical (mathsy) physics MSc. He would have BSc, MSc which would signify he's probably changed subjects slightly. He may be more or less qualified to do a Maths or Physics PhD than someone who had done the same undergrad course as him and continued into the 4th year who would have MMath.... I think Cambridge award an MSci rather than an MSc to signify you've done 4 years as a Natural Science student. Its a subtle difference.
0
Radagasty
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#53
Report 16 years ago
#53
(Original post by davey_boy)
Yeah happens all over the place. The 4-year 'degree' courses were introduced about 7 or 8 years ago. The reason was that the universities were starting to insist on applicants for PhDs having a master's degree.
Hmm... I don't know that this is necessarily true... I've been accepted to read for a PhD without a master's degree. Furthermore, I'll be doing it in physics, whereas my undergraduate degree was in engineering.
0
hornblower
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#54
Report 16 years ago
#54
(Original post by davey_boy)
Yeah happens all over the place. The 4-year 'degree' courses were introduced about 7 or 8 years ago. The reason was that the universities were starting to insist on applicants for PhDs having a master's degree.
Well, I've been told by admissions tutors that the undergraduate Masters degrees were introduced for many reasons. First is due to the less demanding nature of A-levels, so more teaching has to be done to get a better degree. Also, our European friends normally do a 4-year undergraduate degree, so if you want a good job abroad then you need to do study for longer. The 4-year degree is usually for students who want to do a job in that area of study, whereas the 3-year degree is for those that don't necessarily want to enter that field.

J.
0
davey_boy
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#55
Report 16 years ago
#55
(Original post by Radagasty)
Hmm... I don't know that this is necessarily true... I've been accepted to read for a PhD without a master's degree. Furthermore, I'll be doing it in physics, whereas my undergraduate degree was in engineering.
I find that amazing, that's the first example of that I've ever heard of. Without wanting to dismiss your achievements there must have been some extra funding that they had to use. Or maybe you're just exceptionally bright .
0
davey_boy
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#56
Report 16 years ago
#56
(Original post by hornblower)
Well, I've been told by admissions tutors that the undergraduate Masters degrees were introduced for many reasons. First is due to the less demanding nature of A-levels, so more teaching has to be done to get a better degree. Also, our European friends normally do a 4-year undergraduate degree, so if you want a good job abroad then you need to do study for longer.
J.
Don't really agree with that. For all you A-Level students out there, I don't believe that A-Levels have become less demanding, the emphasis might have changed slightly but they're just as hard. It's true that levels of 'tradition' maths like mechanics and vector analysis might have fallen at A-level standard, but this has been mirrored by a rise in the study of statistics and economic modeling. This is bad for Physics and Engineering but good for physical Geography and Biology. I honestly don't think the universities care about the employability of their graduates abroad and so comparing their graduates with those on the continent is fairly irrelevant. Universities care about (a) filling their course (b) producing graduates who are likely to want to stay on into postgraduate study and (c) producing graduates who are employable. In that order. The newer universities will have more emphasis on the employability of people. I am absolutely convinced from everything I've seen at university that the main reason to introduce the 4 year courses is to increase the number (and hence standard) of people applying to do a PhD.


(Original post by hornblower)
The 4-year degree is usually for students who want to do a job in that area of study, whereas the 3-year degree is for those that don't necessarily want to enter that field.

J.
Yes that's fair.
0
Radagasty
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#57
Report 16 years ago
#57
(Original post by davey_boy)
I find that amazing, that's the first example of that I've ever heard of. Without wanting to dismiss your achievements there must have been some extra funding that they had to use. Or maybe you're just exceptionally bright .
LOL... I don't think either of those apply to me. It was quite a struggle to find funding, especially because delays on the part of the BGS meant that I missed the ORS competition deadline. I actually got the offer of admission very early, but securing funding proved to be something of a nightmare. I would already have begun, but funding only came through in mid-September, and there was no way I could have packed up and moved in a matter of 2 or 3 weeks for the Michaelmas term. Nor am I exceptionally bright. I'm afraid you shall have to find another explanation.
0
Radagasty
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#58
Report 16 years ago
#58
(Original post by davey_boy)
I honestly don't think the universities care about the employability of their graduates abroad and so comparing their graduates with those on the continent is fairly irrelevant. Universities care about (a) filling their course (b) producing graduates who are likely to want to stay on into postgraduate study and (c) producing graduates who are employable. In that order. The newer universities will have more emphasis on the employability of people. I am absolutely convinced from everything I've seen at university that the main reason to introduce the 4 year courses is to increase the number (and hence standard) of people applying to do a PhD.
Do they really want more PhD's? I was given to understand that they were as common as dirt these days. From what I've read, there is an oversupply of them.
0
davey_boy
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#59
Report 16 years ago
#59
(Original post by Radagasty)
Do they really want more PhD's? I was given to understand that they were as common as dirt these days. From what I've read, there is an oversupply of them.
Yes the universities want to provide more PhDs - its the driving force of research which is what most of the red-brick universities pride themselves on. The problem for the universities is geting the money to pay for them - and getting enough high quality people to do them.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (219)
68.01%
No (103)
31.99%

Watched Threads

View All