Why hasn't the UK standardised degrees yet?

The only people who debate that an Oxbridge degree is worth more even with a lower class are people who get lower class degrees from Oxbridge because they found at they're not as clever as they think they are

If degree standards were comparable, then what would be the point in going to Cambridge over, say, Manchester Met? I might as well have slacked off at A Level and achieved ABB rather than A*A*A* and came out with a equal degree (that is easier) from an inferior institution.

I don't think anyone is arguing for Oxbridge's degrees to be made easier. Rather, the argument is that the lower universities should be subject to higher standards - perhaps even Oxbridge level.

It would be a superior system as it would mean, without a doubt, that someone with a First from Cambridge would have performed to essentially the same standard as someone with a First from Manchester Met. However, under such a system there would be a drastically reduced number of people attaining Firsts or even 2:1s at the lower end of universities. The result would either be that the lower quality institutions would raise entry requirements in the hopes of attracting students more likely to attain top grades, or they would maintain low entry requirements and their reputation would plummet. The former, though beneficial to the institutions themselves, would leave little to no places available for those without top grades at A Level.

In an ideal world, such a system would be entirely workable while still keeping a "tiered system" of universities that ensures those with a variety of A Level results can enter higher education. If grades were standardised, it would mean that someone with something like BBB at A Level would be able to prove themselves equal to Oxbridge grads if they gained an equal grade. In the current system, those who underachieved at A Level do not have any true way to match the achievements of those who went to the top universities - even if they are entirely capable of it and produce the same quality of work. Grade standardisation would level the playing field, and allow employers to see exactly how graduates of different universities compare.

Fair enough, but you do realise that Oxbridge courses are much harder and broader than the same courses at inferior institutions? A third from Oxford is worth more than a first from some places...

The only people who debate that an Oxbridge degree is worth more even with a lower class are people who get lower class degrees from Oxbridge because they found at they're not as clever as they think they are

The problem with this argument is that it unnecessarily devalues the achievements of non-Oxbridge grads, while unnecessarily overvaluing the under achievements of Oxbridge grads.

I don't think someone who performed poorly on their degree should be given a "free pass" simply because it was from Oxbridge.

Or those who are at Oxbridge and can compare the courses there to ones at other universities and see how different they are.

I don't think anyone is arguing for Oxbridge's degrees to be made easier. Rather, the argument is that the lower universities should be subject to higher standards - perhaps even Oxbridge level.

It would be a superior system as it would mean, without a doubt, that someone with a First from Cambridge would have performed to essentially the same standard as someone with a First from Manchester Met. However, under such a system there would be a drastically reduced number of people attaining Firsts or even 2:1s at the lower end of universities. The result would either be that the lower quality institutions would raise entry requirements in the hopes of attracting students more likely to attain top grades, or they would maintain low entry requirements and their reputation would plummet. The former, though beneficial to the institutions themselves, would leave little to no places available for those without top grades at A Level.

In an ideal world, such a system would be entirely workable while still keeping a "tiered system" of universities that ensures those with a variety of A Level results can enter higher education. If grades were standardised, it would mean that someone with something like BBB at A Level would be able to prove themselves equal to Oxbridge grads if they gained an equal grade. In the current system, those who underachieved at A Level do not have any true way to match the achievements of those who went to the top universities - even if they are entirely capable of it and produce the same quality of work. Grade standardisation would level the playing field, and allow employers to see exactly how graduates of different universities compare.

For those saying all the best academics are at Oxbridge, a large proportion of my lecturers are Harvard/Oxford (primarily) graduates and I'm not Oxbridge...

I don't think anyone is arguing for Oxbridge's degrees to be made easier. Rather, the argument is that the lower universities should be subject to higher standards - perhaps even Oxbridge level.

It would be a superior system as it would mean, without a doubt, that someone with a First from Cambridge would have performed to essentially the same standard as someone with a First from Manchester Met. However, under such a system there would be a drastically reduced number of people attaining Firsts or even 2:1s at the lower end of universities. The result would either be that the lower quality institutions would raise entry requirements in the hopes of attracting students more likely to attain top grades, or they would maintain low entry requirements and their reputation would plummet. The former, though beneficial to the institutions themselves, would leave little to no places available for those without top grades at A Level.

In an ideal world, such a system would be entirely workable while still keeping a "tiered system" of universities that ensures those with a variety of A Level results can enter higher education. If grades were standardised, it would mean that someone with something like BBB at A Level would be able to prove themselves equal to Oxbridge grads if they gained an equal grade. In the current system, those who underachieved at A Level do not have any true way to match the achievements of those who went to the top universities - even if they are entirely capable of it and produce the same quality of work. Grade standardisation would level the playing field, and allow employers to see exactly how graduates of different universities compare.

Yes, but that's because Oxbridge produce significantly more academics than there are places for at top institutions. In certain areas there are only places for 5% or so of the PhD/DPhil students wanting to go into academia, so all universities end up with excellent, top academics because you pretty much just have to go to where there's a job. That doesn't necessarily imply anything about the quality of the course, or the teaching. My tutor used to run the mathematics department of an RG university before moving to Oxford and he admits his hands were severely tied in regards to teaching and setting the syllabus, by the ability of the cohort.



Except the reality is, for a subject like mathematics, someone studying it at Cambridge is doing an entirely different degree to someone studying it at Manchester Met. Having compared undergraduate mathematics exams between Oxford and other universities, you quickly realise what is classed as "first class standard" for some universities wouldn't even be classed as demonstrating 2:1 understanding at Oxford. As I point out in my first post, what you would realistically end up having if degrees were truly classified on the basis of ability is some universities never awarding a student a 2:1 because the syllabus isn't testing enough for a 2:1 classification to be justified.

Are you aware that there was a hidden sub-text to the question? The question was asked about history and the reason for that was that Brookes' history faculty had outperformed Oxford's in the Research Assessment Exercise.


Posted from TSR Mobile

The point is, the person with a third from Oxford probably knows more and is more skilled in their subject, as it is more rigorous, than someone who does the same course at an ex-poly

They could be seriously mentally ill? They could have other extreme extenuating circumstances that account for underachievement?

I bet there are people who could work really hard and fail to get more than a handful of marks in maths at Oxbridge, but get near 100% at london met.

Except the reality is, for a subject like mathematics, someone studying it at Cambridge is doing an entirely different degree to someone studying it at Manchester Met. Having compared undergraduate mathematics exams between Oxford and other universities, you quickly realise what is classed as "first class standard" for some universities wouldn't even be classed as demonstrating 2:1 understanding at Oxford. As I point out in my first post, what you would realistically end up having if degrees were truly classified on the basis of ability is some universities never awarding a student a 2:1 because the syllabus isn't testing enough for a 2:1 classification to be justified.

Maybe politicians are too concerned about the invasion of UKIP to actually do anything productive and sensible for us.

What research can you even do in history? You cant go back in time

We should send them back where they have bloody well come from. Who do they think they are, coming over here, stealing our politics. Rochester was a nice town, Dickens festival and all that. Now it is full of all these purple and yellow types talking in an incomprehensible language.

Fair enough, but you do realise that Oxbridge courses are much harder and broader than the same courses at inferior institutions? A third from Oxford is worth more than a first from some places...

Or those who are at Oxbridge and can compare the courses there to ones at other universities and see how different they are.

Which is basically no one?

Please don't use the word inferior, it makes you sound extremely arrogant. Yes I know the courses are harder, I wouldn't necessarily say broader for all subjects. Yes a first from say a poly like Bolton isn't stand up to any degree at Oxbridge but a first from a good RG is better than a 2:1 from Oxbridge. Employers would agree with this, I have a source but I can't remember what article its from now