There's little difference in difficulty between universities

Are you aware at how broad or deep you can read university subjects. Again through my own personal experiences of attending more than one institution for UG, as well as helping and speaking to friends, I know some courses only touch the surface both in terms of modules they offer and the content of those modules as well as the leniency of marking and variance in teaching in contrast with some top institutions which are far more rigorous, do things a certain way and would lead to students having read to an extent that students of other universities wouldn't have even the slightest knowledge of. The courses I have experience with are in the fields of mathematics, accounting, finance and business.

Are you aware at how broad or deep you can read university subjects. Again through my own personal experiences of attending more than one institution for UG, as well as helping and speaking to friends, I know some courses only touch the surface both in terms of modules they offer and the content of those modules as well as the leniency of marking and variance in teaching in contrast with some top institutions which are far more rigorous, do things a certain way and would lead to students having read to an extent that students of other universities wouldn't have even the slightest knowledge of. The courses I have experience with are in the fields of mathematics, accounting, finance and business.

Full Module and progremme reviews at universities following QAA guidelines are quinquennial.

The sort of minor amendments allowed as part of an annual quality review would be trivial.

But thanks for explaining (incorrectly) how university QA works to me.

It's staggering how some people on here who are exceptionally academic can also think so stupidly. With some stating that the difficulty of a degree is based upon A level results. No, It's no different to college/sixth form where the elite colleges will require a string of A's and A*'s to your average college that'll only require 5'Cs. They will select the crème de la crème because a) places are heavily demanded b) it takes no statistician to work out that those with good GCSE's are likely to attain strong A levels, thus making the school look good on league tables. This exact system operates at undergraduate level that's why as we'd expect top institutions give out the highest percentage of 1st's and 2.1's.


Another thing to note as with anything people will mature at different times both emotionally and academically, so while someone may peak at A level, another person will peak during their undergrad which again is perfectly plausible. So when someone argues that they know someone who could barely pass an A level to then gain a 1st you don't know what this persons mental state was, how their life at home was so on so forth, so again it's perfectly possibly as nothing in life is fixed or certain. More so I can validate this as I know people who have recently graduated from unis in the top 10 to those over 100 on the league table in similar disciplines and even they've said how similar their courses were.


The only way I'd say that there may be a fair amount of variance though is something which isn't accredited and is fairly subjective such as philosophy where unis can set their own material. I'd defiantly say that top unis are more rigorous than lesser ranked ones in this case. But generally I think it's just those who've flunked their degrees trying to give themselves justification at the expensive of others success. Debate away...

Nah you’re just some loser wanting a random debate.

Just to disprove your point completely I have a family friend at Oxford studying physics. He’s on track for a low 2.1, he study’s 10 hours a day. While I have a personal friend studying physics at Leeds who works 3-5 hours a day and is sitting on a comfortable first.

The Oxford student gets set literally 2x the amount of work. The problem is because he’s being compared to other amazing Oxford students he’s only on a low 2:1. FYI he got 11A* GCSE, 3A* A Level. My Leeds friend isn’t dumb 5A*5A GCSE 3A @ A Level. But works significantly less to a lower academic standard yet gets better results.

Well you've commented on a losers thread so what does that make you? Most of what people have stated is merely hearsay, offering no evidence. I don't understand how grades have any bearing, it's no different from GCSE to A level. I've known people with B's and C's gaining A's and A*'s and similarly people with A's and A* gaining C's and D's. While it's unlikely for someone to have a stellar academic record to then go on and flop at undergrad it can still happen as can someone who flops A levels to then Ace his undergrad.

Standards have to be maintained most courses that are stem based are accredited by proffesional bodies where a 2.1 is required for membership. Why would they look unfavourably on those doing more "difficult" degrees as it's a 2.1 required not a 3rd if you got to cambridge and a 1st from london met, get your head out of your ass.

1. Were on TSR debating grades let’s accept to an extent we’re both losers lol...
2. Some employers actually view a Cambridge borderline 2.2 as equal to a 2.1 because it’s that much harder, particularly in maths
3. A first from anywhere is good, but there’s a reason Cambridge grads do the best in the U.K. at A Level, then go on to earn the most in jobs: Because they work harder it’s honestly that simple, they’re not all geniuses but they’re fairly clever and work hard aswell

Certain courses will definitely put different emphasis on different areas, depending on the areas of research the professors/lecturers are involved in.

I will concede that there is probably some variation between institutions in terms of teaching quality, but wherever you go you will be taught by people at the forefront of their field. Having said that, one of our professors is, in my opinion, a total quack who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a lecture hall.

I'll bow to your experience at two different institutions - maybe some unis really are just bad, but for most places I don't see any evidence of it making any difference. Despite going to a mid ranking uni that lowers its boundaries like it's nothing, I've been offered a place at ICL for a masters. Clearly they don't see anything wrong with my couse, then again they may not know about the quack that taught us

1.) Yeah I agree, it's quite concerning really.
2.) I've not known this to be the case, most cut offs for grad schemes are 2.1's so the applicant from Cambridge would be automatically filtered out. I will agree with you though that a "minority" of grad schemes do require you to have study at a top 20 institute. But this isn't worth even menetioning as it's less than 5% from what I've seen.
3.) For sure, depends on the discipline as well though, a first in physics is exceptional though in film studies not so much. Of course a first from Cambridge/ Oxford will be superior to everywhere else but as a general rule degrees that are of the same professional standard are very similar in difficulty. I'd just say the network and contacts you gain from say Oxford boost your earning potential dramtically. I wouldn't necessarily say it's the content of degree but the inner circles you are exposed to that really pays off when it comes to the working world.

You can't leave us hanging like that. What was so bad about this so called 'quack' lecturer? I really wanna know

I disagree that you will necessarily be taught by people at the forefront of their field, whatever that means. Also there are non-research unis as well lecturers.



So just because it's only a few you are going to rule it out like that? We aren't the ones with 'our head up our ass'. One reason why it's only a few could be because they are the jobs that require more able candidates. A second reason could be that they are elitist, I must admit. You certainly can't just not mention it.

I have some knowledge of the accounting and financial services field, which makes up a very high proportion of 'grad schemes'. A lot of these aren't grad schemes due to any real requirement of such study. Some have even removed these requirements proving there wasn't a need in the first place. The roles on a lot of these grad schemes are shared with others without degrees, e.g. school leavers and apprentices. They are called grad schemes because they need staff, and since half of the potential labour now has degrees, these organisations put generic requirements on to a) attract a better pool, as a degree at least shows some ability, and b) filter out, as every entry-level job has too many graduate candidates never mind total. They may as well take the best that they can get, but filtering more means they wouldn't get enough quality candidates. Currently their main filters are the tests and assessments of the application, which indicate a far greater ability than degree for these types of roles. There isn't a good comparative tool that organisations could use anyway to separate the degrees that are being awarded, so it would make it more unfair in a lot of cases than it already is. It's far easier to just compare with their own cohort, which in essence a degree award sort of is.

It's because they are elitist, as I've said it's the magical circle you're exposed to while at Oxford and Cambridge, not necessarily the content or diffculty of the degree. I don't think they are worth mentioning because A) It's so little rendering it almost meaningless B) The likelyhood of you evening being accepted on these grad schemes is exceptionally unlikely. We are talking 2000+ applicants per role all of which will have stellar academic records, work experinece and connections. I agree with tests and assessments that are specific to the orginastion/job role. As I've said there are methods in place it just depends on the course. Take for example a Bsc in psychology accredited by BPS, the content of these degrees will be almost identical at all institutes. It's simple 2.1/1st --> test/interview ---> job offer. I'm sure those recruiting know what they are doing, again no evidence provided to support your claims it's a similar theme time and time again

I think you're taking this a bit too much to heart. Nowhere have I ever said 'feel bad about your degree' - what I have said, however is a fact that courses at top universities are harder (due to a myriad of reasons). Making a value judgement from that statement on the worth of your degree is something else entirely.

That was an exaggeration, I was merely pointing out the likelyhood of landing one of these roles is exceptionally remote.

I'm sorry but connections are everything in this world, you'd be stupid to assume otherwise. 50% of the intake that are accepted into elite institutes attend private schools. If you become friendly with the right people it makes job finding a hell lot easier. Networking is just as important as academic at uni.

They can't differ too much in content because if they are accredited it'd kill the professional body. As incompetent graduates would be being turned out practicing something which when performed incorrectly may be life threatening. Connections, plus with a company such as BP competition will be rife. So a levels exc may also be taken into account and 9/10 those from Cambridge will have attained far higher grades in previous exams compared to those from lesser unis.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Exactly. I do essay subjects at LSE, and I write about 5 essays a term. At Oxbridge, someone doing the same course would have to write 1-2 essays a week. That is clearly harder and more demanding than my course - I'm not sure I could cope with it.

I have known two people who have attended elite schools and their school had connex. One got rejected from NatSci at Queens and the other some liberal arts course at UCL; both had teachers who were old friends with head of admissions for their course/college. Both were told to **** off when they hinted to their teachers about utilising their connections. The benefit of having masters who went to uni with the head of admissions is you know how best to prepare and form your application.

I think you have been reading too many novels about the elite and Skull & Bones. Connecting with rich people can be useful when you're 10 years into your career, maybe in the rare case where your coursemate's dad owns some Asian conglomerate it will get you entry to the market, but in most cases it won't be useful in the slightest.

What hanging around with rich and successful people does is motivate you to succeed. It shows you what you should be doing and how best to go about it. That is about it.

In all fairness it's quite staggering how many former members of the skull and bones society went on to become presidents and those in powerful positions within society. I'm not saying it always helps but never underestimate the power of connections. For instance my friend is pretty close to a consultant and for a operation he needed there was a waiting list of over 6 months. However due to this connection he got bumped straight up the list and had his operation within a week.

There have been three Skull and Bones Presidents, Taft and two Bushes.

Taft's father was Secretary for War and Attorney General. The elder Bush's father was a US Senator and his maternal grandfather was a staggeringly wealthy banker who organised a World's Fair and rebuilt Madison Square Gardens and after whom golf's Walker Cup is named. The younger Bush's father was President.

Do you really think being members of Skull & Bones made a material difference to their lives?

Are we just gonna ignore the fact that places like Oxbridge have shorter terms, so you have to cover in a shorter time? AND, that the degree score is relative to others in your cohort, which can have A*A*A* or DDD.

I have two friends who are studying engineering. One is at Imperial, one is at Cardiff. The imperial one makes the Cardiff one look like a recluse. They can have the same content, but not have same the competition to get say, a first class.

There's your argument done.