The Student Room Group

Do universities matter more than what you get at them?

I always wanted to know is a degree from a bad university more easy than a degree from a great university.

so if a good and bad university do the same course will the bad university learn less or do easy exams/ coursework etc. than good universities.

Let say a bad university offer a law degree, would a degree from Cambridge be harder than the bad university.

Let say hypothetically every Mathematics student in every university (let say every person who finished a bachelors degree in math) took an exam in mathematics. would people who went to low universities struggle.

let say hypothetically a person at Liverpool john Moore university got a first class in I don't know physics or something. and Cambridge or oxford student does the same course but got like a 2:1. if someone tested both of their abilities would the student from oxford or Cambridge be better at the subject.

thanks if you can answer my question

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Well I go to a mid to lower tier university, and I know people at Russell Groups studying the same course (Biology). The main difference I see is that they have a lot more contact hours, and seem to learn a lot more content for modules that are similar, though I wouldn't say all of it is really necessary. My uni have minimal contact hours, and very few tutorials / seminars. Since September (I'm in second year), I've only had lectures and computer sessions, but no labs.
The uni I was at last year though (which was actually ranked even lower) had much higher contact hours, two tutorials a week, and one lab practical session every week. That was in first year, but I did get a chance to see the second year timetable before I left, and it was pretty much the same thing again.
So this just shows that the ranking of the uni doesn't always correlate with the contact hours, number of tutorials and lab sessions you'll have per week. I wouldn't really know why it's so different, but maybe it's to do with funding and the number of students on the course. There were a lot more Biosciences students at my uni last year, but at this uni (I transferred) it seems to be a pretty small group, so maybe that's why we don't have a lot of labs or tutorials.
Reply 2
It's really about employment opportunities tbh. If youre interested in Law/Finance etc etc then the magic circle companies or top investment banks look to hire from targets and semi targets.
Reply 3
Original post by Lay-Z
Generally yes, in the case of Liverpool John Moore to Cambridge definately.


so people in Cambridge learn something totally different to people at ljm- even if it the same course
so is that to say its more to-do with the universities than the grade you get
(edited 7 years ago)
Comparing anything to Cambridge Maths is pretty unfair. Their Maths course is considered the best in the world, and not even by a close margin.
Reply 5
Original post by Lay-Z
not totally different, but generally course content would be more in depth and quantitative

can you elaborate on that please
Original post by mnak
can you elaborate on that please


You would generally have better lecturers who know what they're talking about instead of ones just trying to fill a quota and also a better working environment overall
Reply 7
Original post by Kravence
You would generally have better lecturers who know what they're talking about instead of ones just trying to fill a quota and also a better working environment overall


yeah I get they get better lecturer and better working environment. but what if you went to poor university and got a 1st would you be smarter than a person who went to great university with 2:1
when you talked about going in depth - don't all universities do that. like I get modules can be different in universities but I didn't know that other universities go more deeper than it already is.

let say hypothetically finished a math degree from a crap top low university and some how got place at Cambridge to do a masters in maths. would he be in disadvantage to the other students who studied at Cambridge.

also is that possible to go from a crap university- finishing you bachelors and then doing like a master or phd at a better university
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 8
Original post by DarkEnergy
Comparing anything to Cambridge Maths is pretty unfair. Their Maths course is considered the best in the world, and not even by a close margin.


I know its like comparing it to Cambridge is stupid.
Like I always imagined it like school- some schools have students overall who have poor grades, but at least they are doing the same course. that's what I thought university was like. I never knew that they teach something completely different to one another.
Original post by mnak
yeah I get they get better lecturer and better working environment. but what if you went to poor university and got a 1st would you be smarter than a person who went to great university with 2:1


That's pretty dependent on the degree but i'd say no it wouldn't
Reply 10
Original post by Kravence
That's pretty dependent on the degree but i'd say no it wouldn't


so let say a degree like engineering or maths or law
Original post by mnak
so let say a degree like engineering or maths or law


Yeah maybe for Law, not necessarily for maths or engineering. But usually the smarter person would have gone the best uni they could have
Reply 12
Original post by Kravence
Yeah maybe for Law, not necessarily for maths or engineering. But usually the smarter person would have gone the best uni they could have

So if maths student from Manchester and a maths student from Cambridge went to see who knows more math in a certain field of math( probability, calculus etc.) which both have studied at an undergrad level, who would you say would come out on top.
Original post by mnak
So if maths student from Manchester and a maths student from Cambridge went to see who knows more math in a certain field of math( probability, calculus etc.) which both have studied at an undergrad level, who would you say would come out on top.

Assuming they're both working towards the same degree classification (i.e. first, 2:1, etc), most likely the Cambridge student.
Reply 14
Original post by DarkEnergy
Assuming they're both working towards the same degree classification (i.e. first, 2:1, etc), most likely the Cambridge student.


really?
okay I guess
how much would you say the Cambridge student knows more than the Manchester student. would you say its like comparing a gcse student to an A level student. or would you say its like comparing As level to A2 level. what would you say the difference is in the amount of knowledge the Cambridge student has over the Manchester student. and if the Manchester student had to catch up with the Cambridge student how much more does he have to learn
I have had this discussion numerous times with people. some universities require you to get A*A*A others A*AA/AAA some BBB and some BCC

now it may be the case that a university that asks for BCC is not really different in standard to a university that asks for BBB or that one that asks for A*A*A is not really different to one that asks for A*AA.

However when you compare A*A*A to BBB or AAA to BCC

then you have to ask why such a large discrepancy in grades? Some students will have been particularly advantaged and some disadvantaged I am sure however most this difference simply comes down to intelligence and or effort.

For the most part students who scored significantly lower did so because they either did not work as hard or they were just not as bright. If they made the course to the same standard as a higher achieving uni then most of their students would likely fail due to not putting the work in or not been that bright. So they have to tailor the course to a more appropriate level for their customers.

The weaker university does not just have weaker performing students though they have students who are behind the stronger university. So not only do they have to try and work with weaker performing students they also need to attempt to catch up with the better quality institution, which is a tall order considering that the students at the better university will be harder working more intelligent and running from the get go.

You just can't compete like that the stronger university will always produce more skilled students on average.

I guess the difficulty becomes defining when the difference is significant. Eg for Maths Cambridge and Oxford are regarded as two strongest universities for the subject. However Imperial College London and Warwick are very prestigious courses and it is not unreasonable to assume Students from these universities could compete with the prior ones.

You could go on a sliding scale of small differences in standards never noticing a great jump but looking at two positions further apart suddenly noticing their is a big difference.
Eg
Cambridge>Oxford>Imperial>Warwick>Bristol>Nottingham>UCL>Surrey etc

These are all quality universities and small differences each step not really noticeable but you can't compare Surrey to Cambridge or Warwick. difference been A*A*A vs AAB so still looking at decent universities across the board but big difference. Now if we continued and got to say Sheffield Hallam and Chester etc BBC then likely these will be significantly weaker then Surrey. but I could put small graded differences all the way in between.

The tip is just get AAA+ and apply to places that ask for that and you hopefully wont end up doing a dumbed down mickey mouse degree.
Original post by mnak
So if maths student from Manchester and a maths student from Cambridge went to see who knows more math in a certain field of math( probability, calculus etc.) which both have studied at an undergrad level, who would you say would come out on top.


I don't think Manchester is a poor uni lol, at that level it's down to how much effort the person puts in
Reply 17
Original post by Luke7456
I have had this discussion numerous times with people. some universities require you to get A*A*A others A*AA/AAA some BBB and some BCC

now it may be the case that a university that asks for BCC is not really different in standard to a university that asks for BBB or that one that asks for A*A*A is not really different to one that asks for A*AA.

However when you compare A*A*A to BBB or AAA to BCC

then you have to ask why such a large discrepancy in grades? Some students will have been particularly advantaged and some disadvantaged I am sure however most this difference simply comes down to intelligence and or effort.

For the most part students who scored significantly lower did so because they either did not work as hard or they were just not as bright. If they made the course to the same standard as a higher achieving uni then most of their students would likely fail due to not putting the work in or not been that bright. So they have to tailor the course to a more appropriate level for their customers.

The weaker university does not just have weaker performing students though they have students who are behind the stronger university. So not only do they have to try and work with weaker performing students they also need to attempt to catch up with the better quality institution, which is a tall order considering that the students at the better university will be harder working more intelligent and running from the get go.

You just can't compete like that the stronger university will always produce more skilled students on average.

I guess the difficulty becomes defining when the difference is significant. Eg for Maths Cambridge and Oxford are regarded as two strongest universities for the subject. However Imperial College London and Warwick are very prestigious courses and it is not unreasonable to assume Students from these universities could compete with the prior ones.

You could go on a sliding scale of small differences in standards never noticing a great jump but looking at two positions further apart suddenly noticing their is a big difference.
Eg
Cambridge>Oxford>Imperial>Warwick>Bristol>Nottingham>UCL>Surrey etc

These are all quality universities and small differences each step not really noticeable but you can't compare Surrey to Cambridge or Warwick. difference been A*A*A vs AAB so still looking at decent universities across the board but big difference. Now if we continued and got to say Sheffield Hallam and Chester etc BBC then likely these will be significantly weaker then Surrey. but I could put small graded differences all the way in between.

The tip is just get AAA+ and apply to places that ask for that and you hopefully wont end up doing a dumbed down mickey mouse degree.


I get what you are saying but when you say its like comparing AAA to AAAB or BBC or whatever, the thing is that students who get them grades learnt the exact thing as the other, which basically came down to how hard each of them tried.
I want to know does Cambridge or any university which are at the top learn more than universities as the bottom.
Reply 18
So would everyone agree if I said if a student who studies math or engineering or whatever at a bad university and tried hard, got good grades, got like 100% percent overall, that person would never be as good as a student who did the same and went to a better university.
Because to me that is really confusing,
would everyone say a bad university has less content in their subjects than other top universities. like when I check universities at the top a check a certain subject and see their modules, it is like the same as the ones at the bottom but the ones at the bottom have less optional module choices. btw its the same if the subject have the same ucas code etc. So I cant really get my head around the fact that each university teach different things even if the course are the same. like from all the comments I heard I feel as if a person who didn't get into Cambridge, oxford or the top 10 in the word universities are not smart at the subject which they have studied in.
Original post by mnak
I get what you are saying but when you say its like comparing AAA to AAAB or BBC or whatever, the thing is that students who get them grades learnt the exact thing as the other, which basically came down to how hard each of them tried.
I want to know does Cambridge or any university which are at the top learn more than universities as the bottom.


Well yes and no they had the same course as the others but they didn't learn the same things otherwise they would have got the same grades. Eg I am doing A levels in maths in theory I could do the exams and get C grades with gaps in my knowledge but I am not getting A*/A etc with significant gaps.

I am almost certain Cambridge would cover more ground then the ones at the bottom of the table. However it is not just what you cover but to what extent.

I am familiar with maths so using Maths as an example I look at the textbooks and their questions and it is laughably easy. So I am thinking YAY A*s this is going to be so easy then I look at past exam papers and I am like crap I am not scoring well here then I practice those and get confident with that.

However Many top universities have their entrance exams AEA paper and the MAT etc which are supposed to be significantly harder then A level maths but still based on the same material. Then if you want to go truly Elite you have the STEP exams which is as hard as it gets pre university and these are notorious for been incredibly difficult. so it goes,

Textbooks
A Level
AEA + MAT
STEPS

in order of difficulty but all based on the same content.Your learning it to a much stronger extent if your acing steps then if your just acing it from the text book.

However Yes at the top universities they move at a faster pace so are able to cover more ground. Universities is kind of like sets in school

The top set covers higher tier maths, the second set covers higher tier as well, then the next two sets down cover Intermediate tier and finally the bottom set covers foundation tier.

Just there more then one class in each category. Maybe Oxbridge Imperial Warwick would be the top set then the second set would be say Bath Bristol Durham etc

and so on until you get the bottom set London Met, Sheffield Hallam, salford etc.

Quick Reply

Latest