The Student Room Group

Is there a notable difference in the difficulty between degrees at different unis?

I want to know what everyone thinks? I've seen the general TSR trend is that there's a sizeable increase in difficulty between universities for the same course in terms of difficulty.


I personally doubt this, although I think there is a bit of difference between everywhere I don't think there's a set correlation. My reasons are:

1. Accreditation: Most degrees are accredited by some sort of royal society therefore similar content should be taught throughout (some degrees I guess such as Mathematics things may be different.)

2. The top 10 universities for how many first class degrees awarded are generally highly regarded universities such as St Andrews, Oxford, Cambridge, Warwick, KCL, Imperial.

----Anecdotal Point-----

3. I go to an ex-poly and pretty low ranked uni doing Biology, in my course although a few people are getting 2:1s and firsts, for individual pieces of work I've yet to see anyone in my class get like spectacular grades. Most firsts in the odd module for people in my class are usually in the low 70s. Whereas I have friends who are at a top 9 university and they know people who have gotten the odd exceptional grade like 80%+.

4. From casual conversation with friends at different universities doing the same or similar (Biosciences) degrees, there isn't anything that any of us do that seems to be vastly different or suggestive of this trend except for 1 being a friend at Oxford. My Oxford friend was top of my class at school and only got a 2:2


I think this might suggest that although there is variance between universities in terms of difficulty, people at higher ranked universities are generally more intelligent and therefore get higher marks however I think Oxbridge might be an exception?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
What is your reason for choosing an ex poly may I ask?
ofcourse lol. At one uni a course might be 4 days a week full of lectures. another uni might be 3 days for the same course, and have crap lecturers
Of course there is. People going to top rated universities don't get to twiddle their thumbs. Frankly, the reason that the top universities have high entry requirements is that people that don't already thoroughly understand their 'A' level material wouldn't stand a chance. If this weren't the case, then the universities with the lowest entry standards would have to be the best at teaching.
Reply 4
Statement: a 1st class degree from Oxford is equal to a first class degree from London Met in the same subject.

There is no information at all published by universities or the government that explicitly tells us this is NOT true.

So, given that they are both the same classifications, they are technically equal, and this statement is true.

Anyone who tries to say otherwise is simply arguing from a point of subjectivity and bias, and is, therefore, not to be taken seriously.
Original post by Dinasaurus
4. From casual conversation with friends at different universities doing the same or similar (Biosciences) degrees, there isn't anything that any of us do that seems to be vastly different or suggestive of this trend except for 1 being a friend at Oxford. My Oxford friend was top of my class at school and only got a 2:2


If you can grasp the concept, memorise the mark scheme perfectly, and correctly guess what's going to come up in the exam based on previous years, it's really not that hard to be 'top of the class' in anything at school.

I went to one of the top schools for Oxbridge entry and like you I'm reading biology at university. Myself and A LOT of my fellow biology students at school got 300/300 UMS in our biology A2 exams.

Is there a notable difference? Probably not that much. It all comes down to the person and if they can hack it at their university.
Original post by Voi
Statement: a 1st class degree from Oxford is equal to a first class degree from London Met in the same subject.

There is no information at all published by universities or the government that explicitly tells us this is NOT true.

So, given that they are both the same classifications, they are technically equal, and this statement is true.

Anyone who tries to say otherwise is simply arguing from a point of subjectivity and bias, and is, therefore, not to be taken seriously.


It's fine saying that to people on TSR, but a little different when it's an employer who also holds the same view. London Met consistently has worse graduate prospects than probably any of the Russell Group universities.
Original post by Voi
Statement: a 1st class degree from Oxford is equal to a first class degree from London Met in the same subject.

There is no information at all published by universities or the government that explicitly tells us this is NOT true.

So, given that they are both the same classifications, they are technically equal, and this statement is true.

Anyone who tries to say otherwise is simply arguing from a point of subjectivity and bias, and is, therefore, not to be taken seriously.


Nope, Oxford is the world's most prestigious university, or at least one of the most prestigious, whereas London met is pond scum at the very best.
Original post by Dinasaurus
I want to know what everyone thinks? I've seen the general TSR trend is that there's a sizeable increase in difficulty between universities for the same course in terms of difficulty.


I personally doubt this, although I think there is a bit of difference between everywhere I don't think there's a set correlation. My reasons are:

1. Accreditation: Most degrees are accredited by some sort of royal society therefore similar content should be taught throughout (some degrees I guess such as Mathematics things may be different.)

2. The top 10 universities for how many first class degrees awarded are generally highly regarded universities such as St Andrews, Oxford, Cambridge, Warwick, KCL, Imperial.

----Anecdotal Point-----

3. I go to an ex-poly and pretty low ranked uni doing Biology, in my course although a few people are getting 2:1s and firsts, for individual pieces of work I've yet to see anyone in my class get like spectacular grades. Most firsts in the odd module for people in my class are usually in the low 70s. Whereas I have friends who are at a top 9 university and they know people who have gotten the odd exceptional grade like 80%+.

4. From casual conversation with friends at different universities doing the same or similar (Biosciences) degrees, there isn't anything that any of us do that seems to be vastly different or suggestive of this trend except for 1 being a friend at Oxford. My Oxford friend was top of my class at school and only got a 2:2


I think this might suggest that although there is variance between universities in terms of difficulty, people at higher ranked universities are generally more intelligent and therefore get higher marks however I think Oxbridge might be an exception?


Noticing that a lot of similar content is covered does not mean that there isn't a difference in:
- Difficulty of problem sheets
- Difficulty of exams
- Speed at which material is covered
which all come under 'rigour'.
Original post by Voi
Statement: a 1st class degree from Oxford is equal to a first class degree from London Met in the same subject.

There is no information at all published by universities or the government that explicitly tells us this is NOT true.

So, given that they are both the same classifications, they are technically equal, and this statement is true.

Anyone who tries to say otherwise is simply arguing from a point of subjectivity and bias, and is, therefore, not to be taken seriously.


And this may be true.

However I do remember reading the External Examiners' reports for Cambridge a few years ago. They concluded that people getting a 2.1 degree from Cambridge would have been given a First from any other University ( except Oxford?) because the guidelines the examiners were given by Cambridge were so stringent in comparison to other universities.

We can only believe them. They are the only ones who have access to the information.
In the end it is the student and their own attitude that matters and not the university and its history, ranking etc.
There probably is differences. A friend of mine said one day he was travelling on the train and he was conversing with 2 girls that were accepted into Cambridge medical school. They said they dropped out because they found the course "too academic". Now is it really that much more academic than lets say at Manchester? or where they simply not up to the task of medical school?
Original post by Mr Optimist
In the end it is the student and their own attitude that matters and not the university and its history, ranking etc.
There probably is differences. A friend of mine said one day he was travelling on the train and he was conversing with 2 girls that were accepted into Cambridge medical school. They said they dropped out because they found the course "too academic". Now is it really that much more academic than lets say at Manchester? or where they simply not up to the task of medical school?


Lol, wtf were they expecting?

You can't exactly do trial and error on a patient.
Original post by JamesN88
Lol, wtf were they expecting?

You can't exactly do trial and error on a patient.


I think they were probably referring to the nature of medical course in Cambridge rather than medicine as a whole. Perhaps they knew of people studying medicine elsewhere and could see the difference. But I am trying to guess for them.

My personal opinion is that medicine is obviously highly academic everywhere. I highly doubt somewhere like Cambridge will have a course that much more "academic" than lets say Liverpool or Manchester.
It should be pointed out that this exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Arts_(Oxbridge_and_Dublin)

Basically a free upgrade from BA to MA for all alumni of Oxford, Cambridge and Trinity College Dublin, for doing no extra study after the BA at all.

It would be pretty hard to justify this existing if there wasn't at least some general consensus that these BA's were of sufficient rigour to warrant it, especially since something like 60% of UK employers don't know the difference between the Oxbridge MA and one someone has actually studied for.

If you don't believe the Oxbridge and Dublin BA's are harder than other Bachelor's degrees, then the fake MA devalues all other MA's.
Even if you do think the the BA is hard enough to be upgraded, it still devalues the real MA's from these 3 universities, which is ironic, because you would also suppose the Master's to be proportionately harder.
(edited 6 years ago)
I think there is a difference, yes, because degrees can vary in the material they cover and their focus - and taking this into account is one of the ways potential applicants can choose their university, by choosing a course that appeals to them more.

I did engineering, and even within the same degree, I don't think I would agree that the different optional modules were necessarily of the same overall difficulty. Some degrees seem to be more exam based whereas others include a greater proportion of coursework. Are exams harder than coursework? Some degrees (like mine) even allowed students the option of completing work placements included as part of the degree - is a working environment more difficult than an academic environment?

And ultimately, does it really matter?
Original post by Voi
What is your reason for choosing an ex poly may I ask?


Clearing really, I did terribly in my A levels.
In the real world, for most jobs, employers don't care
Original post by The_Internet
In the real world, for most jobs, employers don't care

Possibly but I mean am I missing out on something compared to kids at other unis, would they fly through my course?

I had a friend who I consistently did better than except for our final A level grades, she ended up in a top 10 uni and I ended up in an ex-poly. I do admit she's harder working than I am but I doubt if she came to my course she'd be like getting full marks or anything.
Can I ask you to which ex-poly are you going?
Only Cambridge and Oxford. By the time someone completes their degree vs starting it there should be a large difference in their work because we finish growing at 21/22 really so it makes no odds for all the ones that are accredited. Then there are degrees that aren't accredited so they wouldn't be as good as accredited degrees.

Latest