How many students get distinctions for taught masters programs?

I'm interested to know of any statistics as well.
But from what I gathered, typically the top few students are awarded distinction. ~top 5-10%

Reply 2

OP

Im sure youre right, but I wonder if its harder or easier depending on which uni you are at. I think thats defn the case at undergrad.

Reply 3

Jazzza

Yeh it depends on the Uni - and on the the subject. At my Uni the programme makes a difference and the number of students. On courses with fewer students you're more likely to get a distinction. On courses with large numbers of students it's more difficult partly because you don't get much contact with lecturers.

Reply 4

yeung3939

pendragon

Im sure youre right, but I wonder if its harder or easier depending on which uni you are at. I think thats defn the case at undergrad.

I don't think that is true for arts subject.

First, I can't see any difference in difficulty when comparing the Oxbridge exam questions with others'. I only refer to arts subject.

Second, the higher percentage of good degree has already reflected the higher entry standard of good universities.

Third, I don't think there is significant difference in marking standard, provided that there is an external examiner system. Arts subject, unlike the science subjects, is about analysis and comment.

Fourth, I can't see why the students with better A-level results (especially in subjects, like Maths, Chemistry) can necessarily do well in undergraduate arts subjects programmes (such as History). A-level, being a stressful examination, after all is not an accurate indicator of one's ability.

Fifth, I think the only way to increase the difficulty of the exam is to give the students more questions and less time, but I can see no difference in exam format between the alleged good and bad unis.

Reply 5

The Boosh

17

I was awarded distinctions from both of my masters :biggrin:

Some yeargroups were not awarded distinctions at all - so its not down to the size of the group. In my first masters there were 10 of us and I think 2 of us got the distinction in the end. In the second masters there were about 30 of us, with about 4 potential distinctions. I dont think you can assume that one university course will necessarily be easier than the other either - standards do vary in the UK, but that is probably more department specific rather than institution specific. If you want PhD funding that is from a research council you are probably going to need to do a research council approved course (usually a recognised research training course like an MRes) but it does depend on your subject and where the funding is from. If you do a research council approved course you will have an extra body to guarantee the quality of the course too - and this will make it more competitive.

Reply 6

OP

yeung3939

I don't think that is true for arts subject.

First, I can't see any difference in difficulty when comparing the Oxbridge exam questions with others'. I only refer to arts subject.

Second, the higher percentage of good degree has already reflected the higher entry standard of good universities.

Third, I don't think there is significant difference in marking standard, provided that there is an external examiner system. Arts subject, unlike the science subjects, is about analysis and comment.

Fourth, I can't see why the students with better A-level results (especially in subjects, like Maths, Chemistry) can necessarily do well in undergraduate arts subjects programmes (such as History). A-level, being a stressful examination, after all is not an accurate indicator of one's ability.

I completely disagree with the thrust of what you are suggesting. If anything it is more likely that arts degrees will have different standards. Answers in maths and sciences are objective, right or wrong, answers in arts subjects are subjective and its more difficult to judge the quality of an argument.

The exam questions are not the material issue here, it is the quality of the responces that is important. Some of the work produced by Oxbridge history undergraduates in their exams and thesis is of publishable quality and I very much doubt it is matched by any but a handful of other students who recieve top firsts at other elite British universities.

Of course A-levels are not a great reflection of a candidates ability, but getting into Oxbridge is a pretty good way of judging it. The admissions criteria are not what A-levels you have there are far too many people with 3A's for that to be possible, 3 A's is merely a prerequisite, Oxbridge candidates are admitted based upon the quality of the written work they submit and their performance at interview. There are a few admissions mistakes, but generally speaking the calibre of Oxbridge students is higher than other universities in the UK. The workload at Oxford is much higher than at other universities, with at least 8 essays a term and weekly tutorials which are 1-3 students and the professor, and consequently the general level of answers is very high, but they will never award 1sts to more than a minority of students. If Oxbridge students where at universities other than Oxbridge LSE, UCL, Durham and a few others they would be much more likely to get 1sts. A 1st from a good London college is of course better than a 2:1 from Oxford, but an Oxbridge 2:1 is definitely better than a 1st from the University of Newcastle.

The Oxbridge examiners are not external and certainly not the same people who mark arts exam papers at York university, they are used to and expect a very high standard, but that doesnt mean the university is going to give 1st's to half of Oxbridge students.

yeung3939

Fifth, I think the only way to increase the difficulty of the exam is to give the students more questions and less time, but I can see no difference in exam format between the alleged good and bad unis.

That is a ridiculous suggestion. There is barely enough time to write a great essay in an hour, if you reduce the time of course it makes it more difficult but the main result would be to decrease the quality of answers that it is possible to give. You may as well be sitting A-levels again if you do not have time to give a thorough answer. The Oxbridge system produces a very high level of scholarship amongst its best students, if you know your subjects at the depth that some Oxbridge students do you would not have time to write all you know in 8 hours, but the point of university arts examinations are not to test merely how much you know or how quickly you can write but how good of an answer you can construct in a reasonable length of time. Some Oxbridge 1st exam essays are so good that they could be published and the examiners and professors would find it hard to reproduce such a high quality yet contained responce.

It is very difficult to get a 1st in an Oxford arts exam paper without producing a quite original approach to a question. Such originality from an undergraduate essay is very rare even at other elite universities, I dont believe every history student at Bath who gets a 1st has necessarily achieved this standard. To cut down the time for an essay would simply limit the possibility for such high standard responces and is the best way of dumbing down exams for everyone; it might make the comparisons between universities fairer but it would do so at the expense of measuring higher levels of intelligence and achievement.

Reply 7

OP

The Boosh

I was awarded distinctions from both of my masters :biggrin:

Some yeargroups were not awarded distinctions at all - so its not down to the size of the group. In my first masters there were 10 of us and I think 2 of us got the distinction in the end. In the second masters there were about 30 of us, with about 4 potential distinctions. I dont think you can assume that one university course will necessarily be easier than the other either - standards do vary in the UK, but that is probably more department specific rather than institution specific. If you want PhD funding that is from a research council you are probably going to need to do a research council approved course (usually a recognised research training course like an MRes) but it does depend on your subject and where the funding is from. If you do a research council approved course you will have an extra body to guarantee the quality of the course too - and this will make it more competitive.

Well Done! :smile:

Its not research council funding I am after, so I dont really have to worry about that. But within the courses I have applied to Id still like to figure out if there is anyway to get some kind of statistical comparison. I am sure you are right that in your implication that it probably isnt predictable, but it would still be useful to see the figures I think.

Reply 8

OP

I dont want this thread to go totally off topic, so if anyone wants to debate whether an oxbridge 1st is equal to a Newcastle 1st please start a new thread or PM me! :smile:

Reply 9

passthesaltplease

5

The Boosh

I was awarded distinctions from both of my masters :biggrin:

Some yeargroups were not awarded distinctions at all - so its not down to the size of the group. In my first masters there were 10 of us and I think 2 of us got the distinction in the end. In the second masters there were about 30 of us, with about 4 potential distinctions. I dont think you can assume that one university course will necessarily be easier than the other either - standards do vary in the UK, but that is probably more department specific rather than institution specific. If you want PhD funding that is from a research council you are probably going to need to do a research council approved course (usually a recognised research training course like an MRes) but it does depend on your subject and where the funding is from. If you do a research council approved course you will have an extra body to guarantee the quality of the course too - and this will make it more competitive.

I agree completely. I think it would be nice to have an answer to your question, and I can see why you would want one :smile:

, I think its impossible to get one.

My other input from my experience teaching undergrads is that marking is generally done by benchmarking a middle pass and then determining the highest fail/lowest pass and the highest pass from there. So distinction in one year of students is not necessarily a distinction in the next year (within reason because of the experience of the markers).

Thats why I think it would be foolish to try to base your choice of where you do your MA on the possibility of a 1st. Also if you enjoy the course more, you're more likely to do well, as opposed to an 'easier to get a first' course that you don't enjoy as much.

Reply 10

OP

passthesaltplease

My other input is from my experience teaching undergrads is that marking is generally done by benchmarking a middle pass and then determining the highest fail/lowest pass and the highest pass from there. So distinction in one year of students is not necessarily a distinction in the next year (within reason because of the experience of the markers).

Thats very interesting thanks! :smile:

Reply 11

yeung3939

Sorry,

I just want to add that best answer papers are normally submitted to external examiners for review. I think this is the common pratice in both Hong Kong and UK.

External examiners are normally respected professors from respected departments. Therefore, many of the other Unis' 1st class students' exam papers may be reviewed by professors of Oxbridge or other top unis... :wink:

Although this doesn't mean thatthe standard of archievement of all 1st is the same, it is safe to say that the difference, if any, should not be overestimated. :smile:

This applies to both master and bachelor's degree programme. I get this information from the professors in my department.

Thanks.

Reply 12

The Boosh

17

passthesaltplease - i dont get how that works - do you read everyone's papers then readjust the grades? How do you know what a middle pass is before you have marked the papers (and grade them i assume)?

Reply 13

OP

yeung3939

Sorry,

I just want to add that best answer papers are normally submitted to external examiners for review. I think this is the common pratice in both Hong Kong and UK.

External examiners are normally respected professors from respected departments. Therefore, many of the other Unis' 1st class students' exam papers may be reviewed by professors of Oxbridge or other top unis... :wink:

Although this doesn't mean thatthe standard of archievement of all 1st is the same, it is safe to say that the difference, if any, should not be overestimated. :smile:

This applies to both master and bachelor's degree programme. I get this information from the professors in my department.

Thanks.

Tell me how many Oxbridge exam papers are submitted to external examiners for review and who the external examiners for Oxbridge are.

What department are you at?

Reply 14

passthesaltplease

5

The Boosh

passthesaltplease - i dont get how that works - do you read everyone's papers then readjust the grades? How do you know what a middle pass is before you have marked the papers (and grade them i assume)?

What we do is read all the papers and mark them as we go (from experience of what is good or bad). Then they get passed to another internal examiner who moderates my marking, selecting the benchmark and suggesting mark changes - the mark is then given to the students.

Then at the end of term the external examiner comes in and sees the benchmark and two papers from each pass class (i.e. 1, 2.1 etc.) along with the same from all the other papers, essays etc.

Then we have an examiners meeting where the external examiners report if they feel the marking is fair or should be adjusted on a curve. Then we discuss individual marks. Like if someone misses a first by 1 or 2% we may adjust the marks so they get it, especially if it bears on a distinction.

External examiners are really only there to advise and help the staff to know if they are generally strict/lenient etc.

Reply 15

etherised

My general impression of masters courses is that the number of distinctions varies quite a lot, between years. Certainly, I have asked at KCL (where I'm doing an English MA), and they told me, on average 10% might get distinctions, but it has been as much as 20% in exceptional years, and has also been rather lower. About 50 people take the MA each year.

passthesaltplease

My other input is from my experience teaching undergrads is that marking is generally done by benchmarking a middle pass and then determining the highest fail/lowest pass and the highest pass from there. So distinction in one year of students is not necessarily a distinction in the next year (within reason because of the experience of the markers).

I find that very surprising. My experience at undergrad (at Cambridge), is that the percentage of firsts in English varied considerably from year to year, despite the fact that it's a large subject and you might expect it to even out. That suggests that a first is a first, without regard to what cohort you might be in.

[also, I realise this is off-topic but, on the subject of how far class marks from different unis are equal, I might point out that my (good-ish) Cambridge 2:1 got me into my MA without interview. Everyone else with 2:1s from other unis, and some with 1sts from other unis, was interviewed. Anecdotal, but interesting.]

Reply 16

Alan Smithee

...............

Reply 17

Alan Smithee

pendragon

Some of the work produced by Oxbridge history undergraduates in their exams and thesis is of publishable quality

Codswallop. If it could be published it would be published.

I challenge you to quantify that statement.

Reply 18

Derek_The_Hamster

3

pendragon

Some of the work produced by Oxbridge history undergraduates in their exams and thesis is of publishable quality

So? My final year work was of publishable quality, and indeed was published in a good journal...

pendragon

and I very much doubt it is matched by any but a handful of other students who recieve top firsts at other elite British universities.

...and I got a (very) low 2:1 from Durham.

Reply 19

OP