I graduate this week with a first in History from UEA. Here are my thoughts...
1. UEA is rated 5* for research, which is important since it obtains 40% more funding than a department rated 5, never mind the 3s and 4s and indicates academic excellence (there are only 8 that have this rating)
2. UEA has many very good academics, as the 5* indicates. Particular stars include Vincent, Charmley, Carmichael, Acton, Wilson, Harper-Bill, Casey, Farr
3. However, much of the additional 5* income is stolen by other parts of the university, to prop up departments that should, on financial grounds and their research performance, be closed (such as management, linguistics, etc)
4. The dearth of cash demonstrates itself in the hours teaching you will receive each week, which has been drastically cut from an already low level, even during the three years I have been at UEA.
You will get:
1st Year: 6 hours of lectures, 3 hours of seminars - and expect the seminar groups to be so large that you will have trouble fitting into some rooms (perhaps 25 in a group which is far too large)
2nd Year: 6 hours per week of lectures/seminars
3rd Year: 4 hours per week in the first semester, 2.5-3 hours per week in the second semester (I think it used to be six hours per week each semester)
I think the class sizes are considerably larger, and the hours per week considerably less than many other history departments
5. While I have been at UEA there is little doubt that the course has been dumbed down - it has been narrowed. In the third year it used to be possible if you obtained a 2:1 in the second year to do a standalone dissertation - this option now has a threshold of 68%, which in the second year is very high indeed. Also one of the third year options has been replaced with a Documents and Sources unit, which is a joke - 1/4 of your final year mark for four 1,500 word textual analyses from within your special subject. This narrows the degree (as within the special subject you would have had to look at these sources anyway), reduces choice and removes an exam. You can see this as positive or negative - if you just want a 2:1 it is fine, if you want a decent education in history it is not so positive. These changes to the course were decided upon and implemented while we were at UEA, despite, at the time, the UEA history department making the flexibility and breadth of the degree, and the chance to do the dissertation, major selling points of the course
6. This also means that the choice of special subject dictates what 75% of your final year will be, which is bearable IF you get your choice of subject. However, the modern special subjects are often oversubscribed and far too big in my opinion (often 15-20 students). IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT THAT IF YOU KNOW FOR CERTAIN THAT YOU WILL WANT TO DO A MODERN HISTORY SPECIAL SUBJECT YOU CHOSE THE MODERN HISTORY DEGREE COURSE ON YOUR UCAS FORM, SINCE MODERN HISTORY STUDENTS HAVE PRIORITY ELSE YOU WILL HAVE LITTLE/NO CHANCE OF GETTING ONTO THE MODERN COURSES.
7. Early modern period is normally okay. Medieval you will get onto the courses, but the options are 1. The Norman Conquest or 2. The Norman Conquest! You can do medical history as a special subject, and Prof Rawcliffe is okay, but Steve Cherry, who teaches the course jointly, is incredibly dull, and is a tight marker.
8. This year there were 20 Firsts. The majority of the remainder got 2:1s, with I would guess perhaps 20-30 2:2s out of about 150 students.