Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Are Degree Grades Worth the Same? - Consistency and Dumbing Down Watch

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Exactly. I think the university you're referring to for teaching is the University of Chichester. Commonly regarded as a post-1992 university despite having some history dating back to the 1800s. It depends what you want out of a degree, there are parts of the syllabus to a history degree at Oxford that are useless for secondary education. You'll get used to people using employers to mean everyone and anyone, if you haven't already done so. Sometimes it's a synonym for someone who pays high wages only like Magic Circle firms or investment banking. People who think like this will no doubt work until they die thinking their life is pointless without a job, so will work beyond retirement age because they have nothing better to do.
    Chi's beating a lot of unis for graduate employment across the board, let alone for teaching according to the latest figures that the THE published the other week.

    And ALL it's history relates to the 1840s, not just some. Tis a fantastic place to study which people immediately overlook because it's caught under that awful term of "post 92".

    (Original post by Blooroo)
    Unfortunately, I have had the privilege of being around long enough to see the typical turf wars that break out. This thead will no doubt become on of them. Oxford on the left as the best, Oxford Brookes on the right as the worst, and the rest shall fight it out to determine which side they are on.

    With regards to the teaching reference, I wasn't aware Chichester was in the boat (I've not really had a close look lately). My girlfriend went to Winchester and it was a similar pedigree to Chichester - very old teacher training college with new university status. She loved it there and saw all her teaching friends obtaining jobs shortly before or soon after graduation. I believe some of the midland/northen teacher training providers do exceptionally well too.
    Chichester's older than Winchester and STILL is regarded as one of the places to do education/teaching at.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by T. Hereford)
    Well thank God there are some people on here who agree with my opinion. I've find it astonishing that some people on here think the league table position of a particular subject/course is more important than the overall league table posistion and prestige/reputation. :confused:

    Face it, prestige / reputation of the university you attend does matter!!!!
    Yeah. As long as the overall reputation of the university is good, that's all that matters. Who cares about the content and quality of the course, which occupies a student for three whole years? :rolleyes:

    What do you mean by 'more important'? In terms of what?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nicholas Urfe)
    Yeah. As long as the overall reputation of the university is good, that's all that matters. Who cares about the content and quality of the course, which occupies a student for three whole years? :rolleyes:

    What do you mean by 'more important'? In terms of what?
    You'd be talking to a brick wall, I'm afraid. 99 people can disagree, but as soon as one (usually a 17 year old new member) agrees, its "I see people agree with me; this is proof that I'm right", and the whole charade continues.

    "Employers" are too big a category to group effectively. If people cite a City law firm, they'd be talking of a dozen grads per year out of 300,000. That doesn't tell us anything, neither does the odd anecdote of someone's uncle's pal who only takes grads from university X. The research on the broader patterns shows that uni name isn't a defining factor in employment- at best its usually a hair-splitter between two very even candidates. Those who are AAA at 18 don't always stay above the BBB candidates for the rest of their life, employers realise this- they certainly don't have a stricy hierarchy that has a ranking of one better than another, nor do they take no notice of subject. To suggest otherwise would be ludicrous and merely conjecture- as there is no evidence to support it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smtn)
    You don't understand. The question has been dodged. Instead, the staff answered on a more general note about how there are external tests on quality. They did not answer the question regarding comparable difficulty, that is why the MP's were getting frustrated.
    Becuase it is very, very difficult, if not impossible to provide the answer the MPs are looking for, which is nothing short of demanding complete standardisation. What they answered was that they both undertake rigorous external examination processes where one of the key questions is a professional judgement by an experienced external academic as to the standard of the course compared to other universities in the UK. To be honest all the MPs are doing is trying to provide themselves with evidence to remove the autonomy of universities and standardise examinations, sweeping away centuries of educational independence in the process. This is all to do with the fact that universities have to be made out to be the 'bad guys' in order for the swingeing cuts in education that all parties are looking to adopted after the next election to be palletable to the general public.

    Recruiters are good at their jobs, they know where the best graduates come from.
    All over the place, that is why there had been a general trend in reducing pre-selection requirements and increasing investment in assessment centres.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by apotoftea)
    Chi's beating a lot of unis for graduate employment across the board, let alone for teaching according to the latest figures that the THE published the other week.

    And ALL it's history relates to the 1840s, not just some. Tis a fantastic place to study which people immediately overlook because it's caught under that awful term of "post 92".



    Chichester's older than Winchester and STILL is regarded as one of the places to do education/teaching at.
    Is it? I haven't really looked. I can't imagine it being a great number of years older, but I'm probably wrong. I think more places have been around for a good century or two than we realise. It seems that most places started life either as a teacher training college, medicine college, or religious college.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    No ever since all these BS universities started popping up offering BS courses like broadcasting and media studies a degree means F all. Unless of course you attend Oxbridge/LSE/Imperial
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blooroo)
    Is it? I haven't really looked. I can't imagine it being a great number of years older, but I'm probably wrong. I think more places have been around for a good century or two than we realise. It seems that most places started life either as a teacher training college, medicine college, or religious college.
    It is a matter of about 18 months but people automatically assume Winchester or what was King Alfred's was one of the first of its type, where in actual fact, Chichester was already established and doing what it still does! If you go by site/campus history - there's 12 years difference. They are a much of a muchness though right down to number of students.

    There would be very little in them if you had to choose between them
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord_Farquad)
    No ever since all these BS universities started popping up offering BS courses like broadcasting and media studies a degree means F all. Unless of course you attend Oxbridge/LSE/Imperial
    There hasn't been any sudden "popping up", as you put it, bar the odd institution. As I (and apotoftea, plus others) have been discussing. These so-called "new universities" have been around for 100-200 years, and have been awarding higher education degrees and diplomas for decades. At the end of the day, there would be a real dearth in skilled professionals without such universities (social workers, nurses, psychologists, teachers etc). It's just wrong to declare that these universities have come from nowhere.

    How we assess the value of non-traditional subjects/courses such as media studies is a different matter. I'm not sure what the graduate prospects are like for these courses and which career requires such courses as a minimum level of qualification. Since universities such as Warwick offer some form of media studies, as well as the newer universities, I suspect that there is some value in them. At the end of the day, no university department has "0" graduate employment level, but fluctuations do seem to be subject-dependent. New universities can have 100% graduate employment rates in things like BEd (Hons) ITT QTS courses, whilst graduates in BA (Hons) Classics can have much lower rates.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by apotoftea)
    It is a matter of about 18 months but people automatically assume Winchester or what was King Alfred's was one of the first of its type, where in actual fact, Chichester was already established and doing what it still does! If you go by site/campus history - there's 12 years difference. They are a much of a muchness though right down to number of students.

    There would be very little in them if you had to choose between them
    Oooh, I'll have to do a Google search and look at its history - sounds an interesting little place! My girlfriend was one of the last to graduate from King Alfreds College. I wonder if she looked at Chichester...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blooroo)
    Oooh, I'll have to do a Google search and look at its history - sounds an interesting little place! My girlfriend was one of the last to graduate from King Alfreds College. I wonder if she looked at Chichester...
    It's a fantastic little uni tucked away from everywhere else
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What is actually so bad about Brookes?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    firstly let me say that my firm choice is bath to study accounting and fiance, whilst my insurance is Bristol, if you look at the league table you will see that bristol is ranked 10 whilst Bath is Ranked 13, But for my course Bath is ranked 1 whilst Bristol is like 14, degress shouldnt be based on university alone, but also, what degree you get, and where your university is ranked according to the degree you got
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Never had a problem with anyone in Mile End but a few chavs already at Gilesgate. Perhaps they live in a time warp and think I'm Kurt Cobain's cousin or something. Durham itself has low crime rates because nothing is there except a castle and a bunch of churches. It's basically a village with city status. Which part of Gilesgate is pleasant? Howlands estate? Well, the good thing with Mile End is that you won't get an egg thrown at you by an oncoming motorist. What happens at Mile End that everyone on TSR knows that I don't? Suicide bombers on the streets because there's a Mosque nearby or something?
    It's all quite pleasant. We've had a couple of issues with chavs, but that's hardly unique to Gilesgate. LOL - all the incidents in Mile End I've read about and known people to be in involve quite shocking levels of violence! On one occasion a student crossing the road was beat unconscious with a baseball bat after someone got out of a car and decided to attack him.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prospectivEEconomist)
    Are you telling me someone who is studying at Nottingham ( a sub 15 university) with 3 internships (which I will have by the end of next summer...already done 2) will be less worthy than a LSE graduate? Don't think so.
    No, all I'm saying is that it's more difficult to get a 2.1 at LSE compared to, for example Nottingham, as it's usually the Chinese whizz kids who study 24/7 at LSE that get those firsts and majority of the upper seconds, setting a very high benchmark for those grades. And we probably have more of them than any other uni... perhaps excluding Imperial. ;P
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2late)
    No, all I'm saying is that it's more difficult to get a 2.1 at LSE compared to, for example Nottingham, as it's usually the Chinese whizz kids who study 24/7 at LSE that get those firsts and majority of the upper seconds, setting a very high benchmark for those grades. And we probably have more of them than any other uni... perhaps excluding Imperial. ;P
    But the LSE gives out more upper second class and first class honours than nearly every other university in the UK. Wouldn't that imply that it's actually easier? The correlation between league table position and good honours awarded seems to be pretty strong, with the newer universities giving out significantly less than the older universities (something which correlates well with the UCAS points). If it were easier to obtain good honours as a less-esteemed university, then we would surely see similar levels of good honours across the board (if that makes sense - I'm tired and a bit drunk).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Donnahh)
    What is actually so bad about Brookes?

    Ex-poly. Enough said.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with being an ex-poly. It's not as though the name change really effected what was taught entirely. The new universities offered degree courses prior to the name change, and the quality of education was never an issue. I think this is the reason why many vocational departments at new universities excel and rival the traditional universities. Put simply, after many, many years of educating future nurses and teachers etc, they have got rather good at it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2late)
    No, all I'm saying is that it's more difficult to get a 2.1 at LSE compared to, for example Nottingham, as it's usually the Chinese whizz kids who study 24/7 at LSE that get those firsts and majority of the upper seconds, setting a very high benchmark for those grades. And we probably have more of them than any other uni... perhaps excluding Imperial. ;P
    No it isn't. You clearly haven't seen my economics course, or you won't be saying that. Perhaps it might be slightly more mathetmatical (but I even doubt that as we study plenty of econometrics). After all, you most probably used the first year microeconomics book that our lecturer wrote :rolleyes: (if you studied microeconomics that is) but they probably don't teach it in beancounting studies.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Donnahh)
    What is actually so bad about Brookes?
    Nothing: it's a perfectly nice and very good uni
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0404343m)
    You'd be talking to a brick wall, I'm afraid. 99 people can disagree, but as soon as one (usually a 17 year old new member) agrees, its "I see people agree with me; this is proof that I'm right", and the whole charade continues.

    "Employers" are too big a category to group effectively. If people cite a City law firm, they'd be talking of a dozen grads per year out of 300,000. That doesn't tell us anything, neither does the odd anecdote of someone's uncle's pal who only takes grads from university X. The research on the broader patterns shows that uni name isn't a defining factor in employment- at best its usually a hair-splitter between two very even candidates. Those who are AAA at 18 don't always stay above the BBB candidates for the rest of their life, employers realise this- they certainly don't have a stricy hierarchy that has a ranking of one better than another, nor do they take no notice of subject. To suggest otherwise would be ludicrous and merely conjecture- as there is no evidence to support it.
    guys, get over it... the inverse snobbery on this site is obscene! anyone with their head screwed on knows that a degree from oxford is worth hundreds of times more than one from brookes because:
    A) you have to be a LOT more intelligent to get into Oxford
    B) you have to work a LOT harder when you are there.
    fact.

    most people who argue against this are either slightly delusional or are trying to big-up their own drossy institution... end of.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
    Uni match

    Applying to uni?

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

    Quick link:

    Educational debate unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.