To what extent does degree difficulty vary between universities?

Good bloke

Bath was never a polytechnic.

Well then that guys point was pretty much null&void. Didn't think it was a poly! cheers

Reply 43

alex_hk90

19

py0alb

Basically, a 2:1 in history is a 2:1 in history, and (bearing in mind the different focuses and philosophies around different departments) the same degree classification requires roughly the same standard of attainment no matter where you get it from.

This is already not true. Think about it this way: if you could take a random Oxbridge student who got a 2.1, and a random non-Oxbridge student who got a 2.1, and have them switch places, do you really think that they'll both be equally likely to get 2.1s at the other university?

py0alb

Oxbridge turn away more AAAA students as they let in nowadays, so it should come as a surprise to no-one that *shock horror* there are lots of smart kids at all the other universities as well, more than capable of acheiving the same standard.

Yes there are, but the proportion of these 'smart kids' is close to 100% at Oxbridge, and much lower elsewhere.

py0alb

The difference is not that a 2:1 at Oxbridge is better than a 2:1 at an ex-poly; the difference is that the extra resources thrown at you at Oxbridge make you twice as likely to acheive that standard.

Due to said 'extra resources', the examinations are made more difficult (because the students will be able to cope with them) and so while you might be right that it makes it twice as likely to achieve a given standard, the standard is higher at Oxbridge.

py0alb

So many people misunderstand this fact, and the pompous Oxbridge students on this forum do nothing to dispel the myth for obvious reasons.

No, they don't. It's just nowhere near as important as you're making it out to be, when you consider the difficulty of the exams and the tougher grading criteria.

py0alb

>Cue lots of Oxbridge students claiming their degree is SO MUCH harder than their mate's course at [insert redbrick university here].

I wouldn't say 'so much' harder, but when I've been able to compare the material covered, it's obvious we do both more challenging and generally more material overall.

yoyo462001

My London Met Economics degree is far more quantitative and challenging than your Cambridge one :fyi:

I find that hard to believe. :yes:

Reply 44

hslt

But the difficulty of a degree isn't regulated, see that guys post above. So how they magically manage this is incredible.

How exactly did you study the content of the course? or the depth?
I think if you compared cheltenham and gloucester uni, or anglia ruskin, you might find a bigger difference. Bath, although apparenlty an ex-poly, which i did not know, is a quality university towards the top range.

As to your note on 4A students. As are not, unfortunately, very challenging, 25% of all grades are As. Which is why cambridge has other papers to take, and takes UMS marks, and interviews. All with flaws no doubt, but they do take the higher UMS marks, therefore the higher A grades. Nothing about the degree difficulty, and if anything else 'proves' your point, but there you go.

Like I said, if you'd bothered to read much of my post, much of the added difficulty is in the short terms. You say the breadth and depth is the same as at Bath, fair enough. But there isn't a 'physics' course at cambridge, so how you came out with this a don't know. And the difficulty will be largely determined by which modules you take. But I imagine Bath has more than 18weeks of teaching, and fewer than 35 contact hours a week (for 1st year natscis). And, you are marked (until finals) against your peers, on a bell curve, so the exams are therefore likely to be harder to achieve good marks in the first two years - this, of coruse, says nothing of the degree mark though.

I'm happy to read all of your posts, I'm glad we have been able to have a constructive debate so far.

There is a physics course at Cambridge in all but name:

The Department of Physics in Cambridge offers both three- and four-year courses in physics, which form the two basic routes to a first degree with specialisation in physics. The four-year course is designed for students who wish to pursue a professional career in physics, for example, in academic or industrial research. The three-year course is designed for students with a deep interest in the subject but who may not intend to become professional physicists. A very wide range of career options are open to graduates from either course. The three-year course leads to an honours degree of Bachelor of Arts, B.A.; the four-year course leads to an honours degree of Master of Natural Sciences, M.Sci., together with a B.A.

An important objective of the three/four-year course is to develop an understanding of 'core physics' at successively deeper levels, each stage revealing new phenomena and greater insight into the behaviour of matter and radiation.

Part IA (Year 1)
Part IB (Year 2)
Part II (Year 3)
Part III (Year 4)
Overview of the undergraduate Physics courses (PDF) in the Natural Sciences Tripos, including aims and objectives, Tables of the courses for the each term for each year-group, and a flow chart showing various route through the undergraduate physics course.

The Physics Course Handbook (the so-called "Blue Book", as PDF) gives details about all the physics courses available for undergraduates. All students receive an updated copy each year. The table of contents is clickable in order that you can access any section of the guide. Either use the reverse key to recover the table of contents for further navigation, or click on the bookmark for the table of contents.

The equivalence of classifications are regulated. I will reply to "goodbloke" in a moment.

Reply 45

DaddyT

py0alb

The difference is not that a 2:1 at Oxbridge is better than a 2:1 at an ex-poly; the difference is that the extra resources thrown at you at Oxbridge make you twice as likely to acheive that standard.
.

This

Reply 46

paddyman4

14

py0alb

How come 91% of Oxford students gain a 1st or 2:1 compared to 66% of Oxford Brookes students then, and only 42% of Solent students?

Hmmm? :rolleyes:

Reference:

http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/single.htm?ipg=8726

1. That was only part of my argument.

2. Those statistics are too broad. I was referring to a particular subject compared across unis, as the OP was. The total percentage of students in a uni who get a 2.1 or 1st will depend on the courses offered.

3. You have deliberately chosen a couple of exceptions.If you think that it is as hard to get a 2.1 or 1st at any uni then by plucking choice anomalies you could decide that the students of Sussex have a higher average intelligence than Imperial, Durham, Warwick, etc. That conclusion would be classed as complete bull.

Stop being so delusional, every employer in the land knows that it is harder to get a 2.1 at some unis than others.

Reply 47

Chrrye

17

Absinth

You also have to take into account that there is a higher failiure rate at new universities. So even though they maybe accepted with lower grades, it doesn't indicate that they are able to cope with the course content.

To me that is less a sign of course difficulty and more a sign of individuals who should never have been at uni in the first place?

(and I mean shouldn't from a academically incapable perspective, not from a social perspective or whatever)

Reply 48

Good bloke

Bath was never a polytechnic.

Yes, actually it was:

"Despite being granted university status only forty years ago, the University of Bath can trace its roots to a technical school established in Bristol 100 years earlier, the Bristol Trade School of 1856. In 1885 the school became part of the Society of Merchant Venturers and was renamed the Merchant Venturers' Technical College, an institution founded as a school in 1595. Meanwhile, in the neighbouring city of Bath, a pharmaceutical school, the Bath School of Pharmacy, was founded in 1907. This became part of the Technical College in 1929.

In 1949, the college came under the control of the Bristol Education Authority and was renamed the Bristol College of Technology, which was subsequently changed again, in 1960, to the Bristol College of Science and Technology when it became one of ten technical colleges under the umbrella of the Ministry of Education. The college was mainly housed in the former Muller's Orphanage at Ashley Down, Bristol, which still houses part of the City of Bristol College whilst the remainder has been converted into residential housing.

In 1963, the government completed an inquiry into the state of higher education in the United Kingdom. This was known as the Robbins Committee report. It was this report that paved the way for the college (along with a number of other institutions) to assume university status."

Reply 49

Mithra

2

hslt

But I imagine Bath has more than 18weeks of teaching, and fewer than 35 contact hours a week (for 1st year natscis).

You know those two things can effectively cancel each other out? Having the same amount of work but in less time doesn't make the degree 'more challenging', it just makes the time in which you are taught shorter and the time to consolidate after longer :p:

.

(Seriously though, 35 hours a week? :lolwut:

)

Reply 50

Eternal Dreams

DaddyT

This

Not this.

Convincing argument isn't it?

End of.

Reply 51

Remarqable M

15

Smtn

It various hugely

/thread

This. I agree.

Reply 52

Good bloke

19

py0alb

Yes, actually it was:

"Despite being granted university status only forty years ago, the University of Bath can trace its roots to a technical school established in Bristol 100 years earlier, the Bristol Trade School of 1856. In 1885 the school became part of the Society of Merchant Venturers and was renamed the Merchant Venturers' Technical College, an institution founded as a school in 1595. Meanwhile, in the neighbouring city of Bath, a pharmaceutical school, the Bath School of Pharmacy, was founded in 1907. This became part of the Technical College in 1929.

In 1949, the college came under the control of the Bristol Education Authority and was renamed the Bristol College of Technology, which was subsequently changed again, in 1960, to the Bristol College of Science and Technology when it became one of ten technical colleges under the umbrella of the Ministry of Education. The college was mainly housed in the former Muller's Orphanage at Ashley Down, Bristol, which still houses part of the City of Bristol College whilst the remainder has been converted into residential housing.

In 1963, the government completed an inquiry into the state of higher education in the United Kingdom. This was known as the Robbins Committee report. It was this report that paved the way for the college (along with a number of other institutions) to assume university status."

Been on Wikipedia, eh? Perhaps you would like to highlight the bit where it says Bath was a polytechnic for me? I can't seem to find it. Polytechnic is very definitely not another name for a technical college.

Wikipedia has a list of former polytechnics in which Bath is conspicuous largely by virtue of its absence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytechnic_(United_Kingdom)

Reply 53

DaddyT

Eternal Dreams

Not this.

Convincing argument isn't it?

End of.

On the contrary what you have offered is not an argument at all but an opinion backed up by nothing. When i said 'this' it wasn't an opinion per se but me showing support for an argument that was derived from fact. Please take your asinine comments elsewhere.

Reply 54

Good bloke

I don't believe this to be true. FE institutions only have to work within the FHEQ, which looks only for broad consistency, not equivalence and in any case is very vague.

Read http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/FHEQ/EWNI08/FHEQ08.pdf

which says

UUK doesn't inspect anyone, and the QAA only looks at processes.

http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/UKHESector/FAQs/Pages/Quality-Accreditation-and-Recognition.aspx

Firstly, Further Education != Higher Education. Two completely different things.

Here is a quote from UUK about HE:

"Universities are responsible for the standards of qualifications they award. However, every UUK university uses a common set of tools known as the QAA Academic Infrastructure to underpin their work. This sets out threshold standards for HE qualifications, including by subject at honours level.

In addition, all UUK universities use external examiners to ensure outcomes are on a consistent and comparable basis. External Examiners are drawn from other institutions, or from areas of relevant professional practice. They report to the Vice-Chancellor of the university on whether the standards set are appropriate. The aim is to ensure that the threshold standards of student performance are comparable with those of students following similar courses in other UK universities "

It seems pretty clear in what it says.

I'm not bothering replying to anyone saying "you're just wrong". If you have actual evidence that the external examination system is ineffective in ensuring equivalent standards of honours classification across the UK, then please bring it forward; otherwise stop wasting our time.

Reply 55

hslt

py0alb

I'm happy to read all of your posts, I'm glad we have been able to have a constructive debate so far.

There is a physics course at Cambridge in all but name:

The equivalence of classifications are regulated. I will reply to "goodbloke" in a moment.

Touche, a better response than i was expecting. Which is annyoing, because I already had my sarcastic response ready which I know feel pretty morally unable to use :wink:

There is a 'physics course', but the possibilities to study are huge. There a huge numbers of modules to choose from, and within the natsci degree. It's not enough of a physics course to appear here -->
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2010/jun/04/university-guide-physics

I don't fully comprehend how you can have compared the depth/breadth of a course without looking through many lecture handouts. The course outlines given publicly, and those given to students at the beginning of the year don't give any suggestion (in my medicine course at least) of the depth of learning required, nor do the lecture titles etcetc. And either way, Bath is one of the top universities where the degree difficult WILL be similar.

Reply 56

Smtn

16

py0alb

Yes, actually it was:

"Despite being granted university status only forty years ago, the University of Bath can trace its roots to a technical school established in Bristol 100 years earlier, the Bristol Trade School of 1856. In 1885 the school became part of the Society of Merchant Venturers and was renamed the Merchant Venturers' Technical College, an institution founded as a school in 1595. Meanwhile, in the neighbouring city of Bath, a pharmaceutical school, the Bath School of Pharmacy, was founded in 1907. This became part of the Technical College in 1929.

In 1949, the college came under the control of the Bristol Education Authority and was renamed the Bristol College of Technology, which was subsequently changed again, in 1960, to the Bristol College of Science and Technology when it became one of ten technical colleges under the umbrella of the Ministry of Education. The college was mainly housed in the former Muller's Orphanage at Ashley Down, Bristol, which still houses part of the City of Bristol College whilst the remainder has been converted into residential housing.

In 1963, the government completed an inquiry into the state of higher education in the United Kingdom. This was known as the Robbins Committee report. It was this report that paved the way for the college (along with a number of other institutions) to assume university status."

Facepalm, Unis from the 1960's are in no way ex-polytechs

Reply 57

hslt

Mithra

You know those two things can effectively cancel each other out? Having the same amount of work but in less time doesn't make the degree 'more challenging', it just makes the time in which you are taught shorter and the time to consolidate after longer :p:

.

(Seriously though, 35 hours a week? :lolwut:

)

assuming you work through your holidays... no thank you :wink:

Reply 58