The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Anagogic
Wrong, it's not based on the cohort but set standards which are reviewed by external examiners. If you don't reach the minimum threshold no firsts will be awarded. I've seen years on uni stats there's been no firsts recieved and only one or two 2.1's if that's the case grade boundaries would be dramtically reduced enabling more people to gain 1sts/ 2.1s which isn't the case.


So what you're saying is a first class Cambridge mathematician will have identical knowledge to a first class London met graduate in maths?

You know damn well that isn't true. I've seen my friends modules, they're not the same - there can be a set standard, but what's stopping other institutions from setting harder work? Some chemistry degrees don't require A-Level maths, do you really think the degree is going to have the same amount of mathematics rigour as one that did? The same with some computer science courses - some places don't require A-Level maths, instead they teach you at as part of the course, where as others go and study more advanced maths straight off.
Original post by nulli tertius
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?


Of course; it was the progenitor of their success. How else would they know influential people?
Original post by Anagogic
I suppose you could argue that seeing as they got into yale they must of been reasonably intelligent anyway. So it's more than likely they'd of been successful either way. But I'd say they wouldn't be where they are today without skull and bones.


So if they'd chosen Harvard instead of Yale, they'd all have been mediocre under-secretaries for trade or school teachers, or something equally soul-destroying.
Reply 43
Original post by Kyber Ninja
So what you're saying is a first class Cambridge mathematician will have identical knowledge to a first class London met graduate in maths?

You know damn well that isn't true. I've seen my friends modules, they're not the same - there can be a set standard, but what's stopping other institutions from setting harder work? Some chemistry degrees don't require A-Level maths, do you really think the degree is going to have the same amount of mathematics rigour as one that did? The same with some computer science courses - some places don't require A-Level maths, instead they teach you at as part of the course, where as others go and study more advanced maths straight off.


I'm not saying anything, just pointing out how it is. The first year is irrelevant anyway it's merely getting everyone to the same standard that's required to study the degree. Maybe they don't see maths as being neccesary in the first year and that applicants that haven't sudied it aren't at that much of a disadvantage. You've got to remember that the best Unis can be incredibly strict on what is required as demand is so high. So they can really focuses in on getting the best students who'll be successful on their chosen course thus leading to higher classifications. Less reputable unis can't afford this they need to sell seats hence lesser grade boundaries/ wider span of subjects that are acceptable doesn't mean the course is any less difficult. You've got to remember that drop out rates and the attainment of poor classifications are way higher at lesser unis which we would expect.
Original post by Anagogic
I'm not saying anything, just pointing out how it is. The first year is irrelevant anyway it's merely getting everyone to the same standard that's required to study the degree. Maybe they don't see maths as being neccesary in the first year and that applicants that haven't sudied it aren't at that much of a disadvantage. You've got to remember that the best Unis can be incredibly strict on what is required as demand is so high. So they can really focuses in on getting the best students who'll be successful on their chosen course thus leading to higher classifications. Less reputable unis can't afford this they need to sell seats hence lesser grade boundaries/ wider span of subjects that are acceptable doesn't mean the course is any less difficult. You've got to remember that drop out rates and the attainment of poor classifications are way higher at lesser unis which we would expect.


But the QAA says standards being comparable is uncertain in 2007?

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/are-uk-degree-standards-comparable/2016838.article
Reply 45
Original post by Kyber Ninja
But the QAA says standards being comparable is uncertain in 2007?

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/are-uk-degree-standards-comparable/2016838.article


Why would those being employed to ensure comparable standards are being made state that? I'd say so long as the course is accredited and it's required to go into a field say medicine, psychology, law,engineering exc they'll be of a very similar standard. IMO these are the only people who should be attending uni anyway. It should be entry into research/ professional roles only not just something people attend for the sake of it.
Reply 46
Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.
So if they'd chosen Harvard instead of Yale, they'd all have been mediocre under-secretaries for trade or school teachers, or something equally soul-destroying.


Depends on what they did at Harvard, it's a brotherhood they look out for one another. It even states that they'll offer financial stability.
OP you should probably go on Quora and ask this. There's professors there who would've been at multiple Unis for comparison
Reply 48
Original post by Kyber Ninja
OP you should probably go on Quora and ask this. There's professors there who would've been at multiple Unis for comparison


Anyone can claim anything on the internet so it's pretty difficult to assess their credibility.
Original post by Anagogic
Anyone can claim anything on the internet so it's pretty difficult to assess their credibility.


They're professors on a website with their full name and credentials - you should get it, probably the opposite to what you think it is
Reply 50
Original post by Kyber Ninja
They're professors on a website with their full name and credentials - you should get it, probably the opposite to what you think it is


I know what it is, I've used a fair few times. It's much better than facebook minus the IQ questions haha. I agree but still there's nothing stopping me doing the same. I could easily say I have a Phd from oxford in theoretical physics when I've never stepped through the door. There's no system put in place where you have to validate your claims. I'm sure most probably are who they say they are but I'd still be wary
Original post by Anagogic
I know what it is, I've used a fair few times. It's much better than facebook minus the IQ questions haha. I agree but still there's nothing stopping me doing the same. I could easily say I have a Phd from oxford in theoretical physics when I've never stepped through the door. There's no system put in place where you have to validate your claims. I'm sure most probably are who they say they are but I'd still be wary


True, and the IQ questions can be stoped with some effort.

Ask the professors that have thousands of followers and good answers - I doubt it'd be fake then
Reply 52
Original post by Kyber Ninja
True, and the IQ questions can be stoped with some effort.

Ask the professors that have thousands of followers and good answers - I doubt it'd be fake then


I suppose, it's a shame there's no sort of verification though.
Original post by Anagogic
I suppose, it's a shame there's no sort of verification though.


Very much, but I do think there is for the uber famous people doing Q and A.
Original post by Anagogic
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...


Just a question, but surely doesn't the level of research at the university, and thus the calibre of researchers that it attracts who will also lecture, affect the level the course can reach? Say a university has masses of money pumped into it for research, so it has cutting edge facilities etc, and thus would it not be able to teach more complex modules. (This is probably more applicable to science/engineering subjects)
Reply 55
Original post by Kyber Ninja
Very much, but I do think there is for the uber famous people doing Q and A.


That's good, there's some invaluable information on it. Maybe Quora should gain University status =)
Original post by Anagogic
That's good, there's some invaluable information on it. Maybe Quora should gain University status =)


There's a lot of people on it asking for help on homework - like a ridiculous amount
Reply 57
Original post by Kyber Ninja
There's a lot of people on it asking for help on homework - like a ridiculous amount


Doesn't surprise me, when my friend was at uni he'd use it anytime he got stuck on a chemistry question.
Obviously there's a huge difference between Cambridge and Manchester Met, but Outside Oxbridge/Imperial/LSE, I highly doubt there's any difference between universities that generally require AAA-ABB (i.e. the Russell Group) despite slight differences of rankings and popularity. St. Andrews happens to have a very high entry-tariff, but that doesn't mean St. Andrews degrees are more difficult than Liverpool degrees. Just because independently educated students who got A*A*AA at A-Level might be more likely to choose to go to St. Andrews over Liverpool*, that doesn't mean St. Andrews degrees are suddenly more rigorous than Liverpool degrees, and that you'll get a better education at St. Andrews than at Liverpool.

Universities of similar reputations should be compared and judged by the ratio of good honours (and the completion rate), not entry tariffs. The quality of the students produced by the university (the percentage of students who get 1sts and 2:1s) is far more important than the quality of the students entering the university.

*which is funny, because Liverpool was probably considered more prestigious than St. Andrews before a prince went there.
Reply 59
Look, I don't want to offend anyone, but suggesting that academic subjects are studied to the same depth at every university is not only nonsense but very unfair and misleading. This is how people get chips on their shoulders and why, increasingly, students are upset when they get rejected or drop out.
Academic subjects can be studied with endlessly deepening rigour. If not, how could a degree be any better than a GCSE? Intellect doesn't end at undergraduate level and I'm distraught that a number of people on this site seem to think that their subject can be encapsulated by a text book or instructed coursework.
Oxford and Cambridge, I can guarantee you, are not for people who need to be taught like this.
Having said that, why is any student taking a degree who expects to be taught? This is higher education, and you should not expect to be fed from a spoon. If academia is not for you, try something else!

Latest

Trending

Trending