Going from a low ranked uni to a high rank

Watch
Nursss
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#1
I am planning on studying bachelor biomedical science in Westminster for 3 years then applying for Physician associate course in a Russell group university (queen marry) as a msc. My question is if this is possible. If i get good grades 2:2 or 2:1 would i still get accepted?
0
reply
ALDB123
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 week ago
#2
I'd say it depends on what grades you achieve and your MSc personal statement. I don't think the 'brand' of your university matters so much as long as you get a decent 2:1/first and have a good application!
0
reply
RogerOxon
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 week ago
#3
(Original post by Nursss)
I am planning on studying bachelor biomedical science in Westminster for 3 years then applying for Physician associate course in a Russell group university (queen marry) as a msc. My question is if this is possible. If i get good grades 2:2 or 2:1 would i still get accepted?
A Desmond isn't a good grade ..
1
reply
Nursss
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#4
(Original post by RogerOxon)
A Desmond isn't a good grade ..
Sorry what is a desmond?
0
reply
RogerOxon
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 week ago
#5
(Original post by Nursss)
Sorry what is a desmond?
Tutu ..
5
reply
artful_lounger
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 week ago
#6
Where you went to uni won't make a difference; your degree classification and I imagine for PA studies courses, relevant clinical work experience, will.
1
reply
chaotic1328
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 week ago
#7
(Original post by RogerOxon)
A Desmond isn't a good grade ..
Maybe not now...But it used to be....Back in the days when I was an undergrad (I had a very cute pet dinosaur back then), a 2:2 was classified as a 'good' degree, a 2:1 was a 'very good' degree, while a first an 'excellent' degree.

That said, the percentages of Firsts and Two-Ones were a lot lower in my days. I think 80+% of degrees are either Firsts or Two-ones these days, while it was around the mid 30% to low 40% in my days. Not sure what these figures mean though, except that a 2:2 tend to be looked down on these days, whereas previously, it was a 'good' grade.
0
reply
mike23mike
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 week ago
#8
(Original post by Nursss)
I am planning on studying bachelor biomedical science in Westminster for 3 years then applying for Physician associate course in a Russell group university (queen marry) as a msc. My question is if this is possible. If i get good grades 2:2 or 2:1 would i still get accepted?
Sorry, I don't agree with the other comments made to your question. I think if you have the chance to go to a top uni then you should. What is a top uni? Consider only the Ancients, Red Bricks or Plate Glass unis. Westminster falls in the 'other' category.

If you don't think you can get the grades needed for a tier 1 uni then ok, settle for a tier 2 uni. If you cannot move away from the area for personal reasons then settle for the local uni.

You will be paying the same fees whether you go to Westminster for UCL but I assure you the quality of teaching will be very different and the level of intellectual discussions you have with other students will be very different.

You want to study biomedical science. Well, the best unis get the best research grants so have the best equipment and use cutting edge technology. If you go to Westminster you will not learn on the most up to date equipment. Sorry, that is a fact. That, in turn, will impact your application for QMC after our UG degree.
1
reply
chaotic1328
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 week ago
#9
(Original post by mike23mike)
You will be paying the same fees whether you go to Westminster for UCL but I assure you the quality of teaching will be very different and the level of intellectual discussions you have with other students will be very different.
This is debatable to say the very least. Have you any evidence to back up this assertion?

If anything, anecdotal evidence would suggest that the the teaching quality at the 'better' universities are not as good as the 'lesser' Universities. The LSE, for example, have been criticised for using a disproportionate amount of cheap research students to teach. I know from personal experience that the same applies in the humanities at Leeds and Newcastle.

That said, I would agree that everything else being equal, it's probably a good idea to choose more established universities over the younger institutions. Lumping Oxbridge together with the other 'Ancients' is a bit surprising though. Not sure whether Edinburgh, St Andrews, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dublin are really on the same level as Oxbridge.
2
reply
mike23mike
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 week ago
#10
(Original post by chaotic1328)
This is debatable to say the very least. Have you any evidence to back up this assertion?

If anything, anecdotal evidence would suggest that the the teaching quality at the 'better' universities are not as good as the 'lesser' Universities. The LSE, for example, have been criticised for using a disproportionate amount of cheap research students to teach. I know from personal experience that the same applies in the humanities at Leeds and Newcastle.

That said, I would agree that everything else being equal, it's probably a good idea to choose more established universities over the younger institutions. Lumping Oxbridge together with the other 'Ancients' is a bit surprising though. Not sure whether Edinburgh, St Andrews, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dublin are really on the same level as Oxbridge.
I am not relying on anecdotal evidence. The TEF for Westminister is Bronze, TEF for UCL is Silver - hard evidence that teaching quality in UCL is better than Westminster.

Average UCAS entry tariff for UCL was 187 (better than A*A*A*) and for Westminster it was 127 (CCC) - sorry the students at UCL are just smarter than the students in Westminster so it stands to reason the UCL students will be academically stronger and bring a richer discussion and debate on matters related to the subject.

UCL secures millions in research grants which will be spent on the best equipment for its scientists. I could not find similar data for the level of grants Westminster has secured.
1
reply
1secondsofvamps
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 week ago
#11
I did my undergrad at Suffolk and i'm starting my postgrad at UCL in September, so yes, it is possible.
2
reply
StarLinyx
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 week ago
#12
(Original post by mike23mike)
Sorry, I don't agree with the other comments made to your question. I think if you have the chance to go to a top uni then you should. What is a top uni? Consider only the Ancients, Red Bricks or Plate Glass unis. Westminster falls in the 'other' category.

If you don't think you can get the grades needed for a tier 1 uni then ok, settle for a tier 2 uni. If you cannot move away from the area for personal reasons then settle for the local uni.

You will be paying the same fees whether you go to Westminster for UCL but I assure you the quality of teaching will be very different and the level of intellectual discussions you have with other students will be very different.

You want to study biomedical science. Well, the best unis get the best research grants so have the best equipment and use cutting edge technology. If you go to Westminster you will not learn on the most up to date equipment. Sorry, that is a fact. That, in turn, will impact your application for QMC after our UG degree.
Within academia it is the grades you achieve that they will look at most. Where you studied isn't considered as that important, though it is a bonus if you went to a Russell Group uni, or other uni of similar standing. One of the problems of attending the elite universities (Imperial, UCL, KCL etc.) is that they mark you harder than in much weaker institutions, so that you really have to work for the 2.1 at BSc or Merit grade at MSc level.
0
reply
StarLinyx
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 week ago
#13
(Original post by chaotic1328)
Maybe not now...But it used to be....Back in the days when I was an undergrad (I had a very cute pet dinosaur back then), a 2:2 was classified as a 'good' degree, a 2:1 was a 'very good' degree, while a first an 'excellent' degree.

That said, the percentages of Firsts and Two-Ones were a lot lower in my days. I think 80+% of degrees are either Firsts or Two-ones these days, while it was around the mid 30% to low 40% in my days. Not sure what these figures mean though, except that a 2:2 tend to be looked down on these days, whereas previously, it was a 'good' grade.
Exactly, and grade inflation has rather crowded the job market with graduates now holding low 2.1 degrees that really should be high 2.2 degrees.
0
reply
RogerOxon
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 week ago
#14
(Original post by chaotic1328)
Maybe not now...But it used to be....Back in the days when I was an undergrad (I had a very cute pet dinosaur back then), a 2:2 was classified as a 'good' degree
I got my first degree 30 years ago.
0
reply
2500_2
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 week ago
#15
Everyone seems to have missed that the OP has been quite specific as to what they want to do at postgraduate level - a course that only requires a 2:2 in a discipline that is currently undersubscribed (obviously that might have changed in 3 years time). The proposed path is therefore perfectly feasible.
2
reply
chaotic1328
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 week ago
#16
(Original post by mike23mike)
I am not relying on anecdotal evidence. The TEF for Westminister is Bronze, TEF for UCL is Silver - hard evidence that teaching quality in UCL is better than Westminster.

Average UCAS entry tariff for UCL was 187 (better than A*A*A*) and for Westminster it was 127 (CCC) - sorry the students at UCL are just smarter than the students in Westminster so it stands to reason the UCL students will be academically stronger and bring a richer discussion and debate on matters related to the subject.

UCL secures millions in research grants which will be spent on the best equipment for its scientists. I could not find similar data for the level of grants Westminster has secured.
So by your metrics, the University of Derby with its Gold Standard is a 'better' university than UCL, who managed a Silver? Should the OP then choose Derby ahead of UCL if holding offers from both institutions?

Entry standards do not necessarily make a difference in the standard of discussion. A levels are test of students' performance during the high pressure situation of exams, which are mainly focused on essay and/or memory recall. These do not have necessary correlation with the ability to hold good discussion in a less pressurised environment. You are inferring far too much from the data, and would need to justify your assertions with better evidence.

Lastly, it's the emphasis on research that could potentially affect the teaching quality of institution, but not in the way you asserted. If progression up the greasy pole depends upon papers published in A grade journals, then academics will tend to concentrate their efforts in research at the expense of teaching duties, which might be the reason for seemingly high number of Teaching Assistants (mainly research students on low pay, zero-hour contracts) used for teaching in research intensive institutions.
0
reply
chaotic1328
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 week ago
#17
(Original post by RogerOxon)
I got my first degree 30 years ago.
I graduated in 1994, just after you, but sort of in the same era. So, do you agree that 2:2 was considered a 'good' degree back then?

When I first considered post-grad studies back in the mid-90s, the minimum entry requirement for a taught master's was a 'good' degree , meaning a 2:2. The minimum requirement for a research master's (M/Phil, with or without the intention to upgrading to a PhD after the first year) was a 'very good' degree, meaning a 2:1.

Of course my memory could be playing tricks on me, as it was all those years ago. It would be interesting to hear what you remember from the period.
0
reply
mike23mike
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 week ago
#18
(Original post by chaotic1328)
So by your metrics, the University of Derby with its Gold Hiis a 'better' university than UCL, who managed a Silver? Should the OP then choose Derby ahead of UCL if holding offers from both institutions?

Entry standards do not necessarily make a difference in the standard of discussion. A levels are test of students' performance during the high pressure situation of exams, which are mainly focused on essay and/or memory recall. These do not have necessary correlation with the ability to hold good discussion in a less pressurised environment. You are inferring far too much from the data, and would need to justify your assertions with better evidence.

Lastly, it's the emphasis on research that could potentially affect the teaching quality of institution, but not in the way you asserted. If progression up the greasy pole depends upon papers published in A grade journals, then academics will tend to concentrate their efforts in research at the expense of teaching duties, which might be the reason for seemingly high number of Teaching Assistants (mainly research students on low pay, zero-hour contracts) used for teaching in research intensive institutions.
This is tiresome. I don't think this debate is helping the OP but if you feel the need for such petty behaviour then I will agree you are right on every point and the OP should go to Westminster rather than UCL if they have the choice. I hope your ego is now satisfied.

FYI, I taught at both Sheffield Hallam and Strathclyde universities and I can confirm that - in my limited experience - I did find a difference in the quality of the assignments and level of classroom discussion produced by these different sets of students.

I have also had the good fortune to work in industry with some of the brightest minds in the world; graduates and PhDs from MIT, Harvard and the Indian Institute of Technology working in some of the best-equipped commercial research centres in the world. These research centres only recruited graduates from the top universities (such as UCL) for some reason. I guess once they read your discourse they will immediately change their recruiting habits.
Last edited by mike23mike; 1 week ago
1
reply
mike23mike
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 week ago
#19
(Original post by StarLinyx)
Within academia it is the grades you achieve that they will look at most. Where you studied isn't considered as that important, though it is a bonus if you went to a Russell Group uni, or other uni of similar standing. One of the problems of attending the elite universities (Imperial, UCL, KCL etc.) is that they mark you harder than in much weaker institutions, so that you really have to work for the 2.1 at BSc or Merit grade at MSc level.
Sorry, that is simply not true. Companies absolutely do look at the university the student attended. A 2.1 from Westminster is not deemed the same as a 2.1 from UCL.

During Milk Round, the recruiting companies come to the university campus to interview students and hire them. A company like Astra-Zeneca or Siemens simply cannot send staff to all 121 universities in the UK. They pick the top 25-30 universities in the UK. UCL is a top 25 university, Westminster is not.
0
reply
chaotic1328
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 week ago
#20
(Original post by mike23mike)
This is tiresome. I don't think this debate is helping the OP but if you feel the need for such petty behaviour then I will agree you are right on every point and the OP should go to Westminster rather than UCL if they have the choice. I hope your ego is now satisfied.

FYI, I taught at both Sheffield Hallam and Strathclyde universities and I can confirm that - in my limited experience - I did find a difference in the quality of the assignments and level of classroom discussed produced by these different sets of students.

I have also had the good fortune to work in industry with some of the brightest minds in the world; graduates and PhDs from MIT, Harvard and the Indian Institute of Technology working in some of the best-equipped commercial research centres in the world. These research centres only recruited graduates from the top universities (such as UCL) for some reason. I guess once they read your discourse they will immediately change their recruiting habits.
Sorry to have hurt your ego. I was only using your own metric to determine 'academic' quality. Please don't sulk too much because that has led to such and absurd outcome.

I thought you stated that you do not go much by anecdotal evidence, but, and here I quote, rely on 'hard evidence'? So why are you citing your experience now?

So long, and thanks for all the fish. And please stop holding your breath until your face turns face, I am not sure that anyone would care too much.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling ahead of results day?

Very Confident (33)
8.21%
Confident (54)
13.43%
Indifferent (57)
14.18%
Unsure (102)
25.37%
Worried (156)
38.81%

Watched Threads

View All