Should degrees be better standardised?

Scroll to see replies

Why? It's fundamental to this thread...

This thread's not purely about employment though that is of course the main practical outcome. In an abstract sense, is it fair?

Let's not forget that many postgraduate courses require a first/2.1 and they certainly do exist to reward academic performance.

Reply 21

ClickItBack

Original post by Smack

Looking at the stats for the MSci in maths from Imperial and UCL, a greater amount of Imperial grads were in employment, with a higher average starting salary, and fewer were unemployed.

So as I said in my original post, this is a non-existent problem outside of TSR.

Oh how convenient, let's switch from the BSc to the MSci.

In the MSci, both Imperial and UCL have the same 2.2 numbers.

In the BSc, Imperial has 3 times the bad honours numbers, and guess what? They have 3 times the unemployment rate too! (15% vs 5%)

Tell those 15% that this is not a real problem outside an internet chatroom.

Reply 22

SillyEddy

Original post by ClickItBack

You are right quite right in that bolded sentence. As for why students choose to go to the elite universities despite a higher chance of disadvantage, I think very few are aware at the time of A Levels/UCAS apps that there these discrepancies exist.

I certainly don't think it's a solution to say 'well they should have gone to an easier university then'. Well, it is a prosaic solution, but I just don't think we should have A Level students getting entry into their dream university, then having to consider the numbers game because different institutions aren't comparable.

I definitely don't think there should be a race to get into the "lowest" universities purely to get better grades, but part of the education when it comes to choosing a university must include finding graduation and career statistics.

There will be a plateau somewhere, for each person, where they find the right ability of university with the right prospects and the right sort of work... It just takes a lot of hunting and isn't as immediately obvious until you're actually at university and looking back at it all.

TSR certainly doesn't help with the "Oxbridge of nothing" approach. Unfortunately, many teachers and heads of years will share the same opinion. Regrettably, neither of them are employers and don't always seem to recognise what sort of person it takes to get hired - I certainly don't, but I'm getting a clearer picture from going through the process.

Reply 23

polscistudent88

Original post by ClickItBack

Let's not forget that many postgraduate courses require a first/2.1 and they certainly do exist to reward academic performance.

This is true, but it is not even easy to think how could a course be standardized to avoid the problem...

Reply 24

SillyEddy

Original post by ClickItBack

Let's not forget that many postgraduate courses require a first/2.1 and they certainly do exist to reward academic performance.

Academia leads into academia. It's why high schools want everyone to go to college and all colleges want you to go to university. It's really no surprise that they have very strict standards on who gets in. Perhaps the role just targets different areas, such as the ability to perform research and construct experiments. They want people who can get it right every time.

Employers are looking for the ability to learn, to be resourceful, to be team workers and to provide a customer service. Their main concern seems to be that you will be able to become that type of person with some experience and training from them. They want people who are want to better themselves in the image of the company.

Reply 25

ClickItBack

Original post by SillyEddy

You essentially recommend that students take this into account when choosing uni to maximise their employment prospects. Fair enough, that is indeed all they can do at present in any case. Personally I think it's a very heavy burden on the student, and also reduces efficiency in terms of maximising the learning/productivity of the student population as a whole.

I'm also not sure if it'll really solve the actual problem. If the bottom 30% at Imperial were to go elsewhere, would the faculty then award 100% of good honours to the remaining students? Possibly, possibly not.

Original post by polscistudent88

This is true, but it is not even easy to think how could a course be standardized to avoid the problem...

This is a problem, indeed. A starting suggestion is to uplift external moderation from simply ensuring a base level is met to also grading for difficulty, perhaps in a double blind system.

Reply 26

balotelli12

My direct comparison of a dissertation from Durham and one from Sheffield Hallam proved to me that lack of moderation is laughable. The Sheff Hallam one was awarded a 2:1. At Durham it would have struggled to rate a 2:2 on abysmal referencing standards alone.

Reply 27

SilverstarDJ

I have friends who have 2.2s and have got graduate jobs or able to do further training (e.g. PGCE) to get a graduate job.

Having a 2:1 may make it easier for you in the short run, but, in the long run it is experience and climbing the ladder within a specific industry that will make you employable for future jobs.

You would assume that people who go to some of these top 'rigorous' unis etc. have high academic potential so should be getting 2:1s anyway. I have a friend who is doing a degree knowing it is one of the most tough unis in the country (for his degree), but by getting a high grade and going to an institution which have high demands, he feels this is better for him in terms of career prospects.

I don't think it is possible to standardise degree classification - as others have said, course content varies between unis even for the same subject, and rightly so! So perhaps for those of us who think it is unfair, we have no choice but to live with it. I just don't see who this can be feasibly possible to implement...

Reply 28

polscistudent88

Original post by balotelli12

This is probably something that should not happen. If it is difficult even to think how to better standardize overall grades (that are the result of many courses, taught by different scholars, and with distinctive syllabi) from various institutions (while maintaining beneficial differentiations between the degrees), at least dissertations should be assessed in comparable ways.

Reply 29

lilymoran

Those employers and Institutions who care about academic background have taken to asking about A level results and degree transcripts. ( Presumably to see how you've measured up over the years). They know that institutions differ in the grades they award and this provides another take on the candidate. This is presumably why people with a 2.2 are still taken onto the Bar course.

It's also true in some cases that a 2.2 from Oxbridge will not be regarded the same as a 2.2 from another university.
The Institutions are not fools and they'll look at these Oxbridge candidates who inevitably have top grades at A level. A blip such as a 2.2 from there will not worry them unduly if all the other indicators are positive.