Degree Classification

[Guest]

What do people think of the idea, currently being mooted in westminster, that Uni's should abolish the 1st/2.1/2.2/3rd class degree system for a grade average; ie 4.0, 3.9 etc etc.

Apprarantly this is the system in the US?

[Biitchboy]

I would be against this. I should be able to coast to get a lower mark in the same classification if i want to. Why try for a 16 when I can get a 14 which are both 2:1s, and so on and so forth?
I think actually the grade point average thing is probably quite a good idea. I just don't like it very much. Hopefully I'll have graduated before any change comes into effect, if it ever does that is...

[hr]
"Everybody knows that boys are bitches"
Rachel Stamp.

[Al]

Well, as education is a devolved matter it would be up to the Scottish Parliament. I can't imagine they would go for it. The traditional Scottish degree structure is quite different from the "English" system and I think a lot of people would like to see it kept that way.

[hr]"Life is a horizontal fall"

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Fucking Westminister idiots. They haven't even finished screwing over the rest of the country yet, can't they finish doing that properly before they start trying to mess with us?

Quite frankly I'm always skeptical about importing these sort of ideas from America because by the time they're adopted here they've been rejected in the US.

[clarke kent]

Personally I think it's a terrible idea. Why try and fix something if it isn't broken? I suppose it would be ok to introduce a system like that at the polytechnics (sorry...new universities) or on those stupid degrees like the degree on David Beckham, to differentiate between proper degrees and the crap they just give everyone at the moment "Tourism and hospitality"etc.

[Buzzboy]

Actually there isn't a degree in David Beckham it's just part of a sports science course that looks at Beckham's fitness and training techniques and is fucking rock hard (i have a mate studying it). So scoff yee not.

I also don't appreciate the academic arrogance here, some former polytechnics are actually quite good (Oxford Brookes for instance). If you get degree it should have the same class system regardless of institution to make things more translucent and less susceptible to discrimination by arrogant wankers who think that just because their university is old means that their 2:2 in social anthropology is better than your first in nursing.

[The_Farwall]

Well the fact is that Universities aren't all of the same standard and after we all go through this arduous selection process trying to get into the best university we can shouldn't the standard of our university be reflected in our degree somehow.
Perhaps there is some snobbery going on but thanks to the government's rating of universities we do have clear indicators of standards that can be reflected easily in a stadardised degree rating system.
Then the 'arrogant wankers' and everybody else can legitimately compare their hard work and ability. It may seem heartless or whatever but when it comes down to it this is the kind of thing that employers want to know and graduates deserve to have known.

[hr][s]If all this wisdom is true,
then I doubt it could really have come from you[/s]

[Buzzboy]

I had to get straight A's to get into oxford, but only C's to get into St Andrews. For the subject I took St Andrews is rated 3rd in the UK in that subject Oxford? Well at the moment down in 7th. Odd?

Selection criteria are set by the demand to attend an institution NOT by relative comparison of academic success.

Also just because you attend what some deem as a 'second rate' institution, why does this make your hard-work less valid than that of someone attending a red-brick institution?

I think it is silly for anyone to judge an individual on some preconceived and often very general view of the institution they attended. Various colleges and universities have strengths and weaknesses and to simply say that this institution is better than that one on selection criteria is naive at best.

Most people I know have worked very hard for their degrees regardless of the institution they gained them from and I have not found that those graduates from more sought after institutions have any particular advantages from those who have attended less popular institutions.

[The_Farwall]

[s]Unregisted User Buzzboy wrote on 11:22, 2nd Dec 2002:
Also just because you attend what some deem as a 'second rate' institution, why does this make your hard-work less valid than that of someone attending a red-brick institution?


Not to devalue anybody's hard work but the difference between universities is the teaching standards. The degree ratings that are currently awarded reflect what hardwork and ability you have put into it, the further grading system I was suggesting was to make that rating comparable between different universities useing the existing government teaching ratings. Because no matter how much hard work you put in, if the course you are being taught isn't upto much in comparison to others and the real world, you're not going to come out of your degree with a lot of applicable knowledge and skills.

[hr]
[s]If all this wisdom is true,
then I doubt it could really have come from you[/s]

[James Baster]

[s]Unregisted User Buzzboy wrote on 11:22, 2nd Dec 2002:
Also just because you attend what some deem as a 'second rate' institution, why does this make your hard-work less valid than that of someone attending a red-brick institution?

No it doesnt. Your hard work is no less valid. But a long debate could be started about whether a degree is meant to measure "hard-work" or total knowledge and skills gained throught the course. Which generally speaking, if your at a "second-rate" institution, is going to be second-rate.


[hr]
[s]Its nice to be able to blaspheme. It takes a very special and strong-minded kind of atheist to jump up and down with their hand clasped under their other armpit and shout 'Oh, random-flucuations-in-the-space-time-continuum!' or 'Aaargh, primitive-and-out-moded-concept on a crutch!' - Terry Pratchet, Men at arms[/s]

[Guest]

As much as academics hate to admit it, the point of going to university is, at the end of the day, to help get a good job. I wish it could be otherwise, that we were all here for learning's sake alone, but its not. If you looked at the average earnings of oxbridge alumni they will be higher than those who graduated from the Thames Valley university, jobs in the real world will pay the 'better' people more (and it is the companies who define who is better, not any conconcted league table). This is why the argument that people are stupid in favouring oxbridge (or indeed any of the other famous ones) over a 'higher' rated, but 'lower-tier',department elsewhere is absolute rubbish. As brutal as it sounds, most people don't care if their department are all stupid alcoholics so long as the job market, rightly or wrongly, values their degree with a better level of pay then graduates from elsewhere. This argument is particularly true for middle rank arts graduates with degrees in academic subjects.

The proof of this is the vast oversubscribtion for certain universities regardless of the academic ranking; look at oxford which has slid down the tables and yet the same huge number of people want to go.

[Oli]

The real trouble is that so many people are going to university, whether first, second or other rate. There aren't enough of these jobs that we have been promised, as the market is now flooded.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

And thanks go to Tony Blair and his vision of quantity over quality until something breaks!

[the weight of echoes]

The system we have now is obviously superior. It's not just "first" - it's first class. So if you get a first, you're not just more intelligent but officially of a higher social rank. You're legally first class. The most visible manifestation of this in society is the first class system on the train, which only people with first class degrees are allowed to sit in, by law.

[Little she-bear]

[s]the weight of echoes wrote on 17:41, 5th Dec 2002:
The system we have now is obviously superior. It's not just "first" - it's first [i]class. So if you get a first, you're not just more intelligent but officially of a higher social rank. You're legally first class. The most visible manifestation of this in society is the first class system on the train, which only people with first class degrees are allowed to sit in, by law.
[/i]

Are you trying to be funny?

[the weight of echoes]

No, not really. Everything I say is true.

[Trixter]

What is wrong with Tourism and Hospitality?? A grading system like that would be a good change, especially for those people that don't like to study... you know: SLACKERS!!! It really shows how stupid a person is, or how intelligent.

[Trixter]

Preach on my brothah!!!!! Woo-Hoo for you!!! Dayum, Tell it like it is!!! I agree totally with what you have said!! Yah!!

[The Kaiser]

If everyone did the same amount of work, i.e. none, then people would have to rely solely on their intelligence rather than on their knowledge.

On a separate point, revision for exams and things is in my mind a form of cheating - one is supposed to be tested on what one knows, not what one can cram.

[The_Farwall]

[s]The Kaiser wrote on 17:06, 7th Dec 2002:
If everyone did the same amount of work, i.e. none, then people would have to rely solely on their intelligence rather than on their knowledge.

On a separate point, revision for exams and things is in my mind a form of cheating - one is supposed to be tested on what one knows, not what one can cram.


On the other hand, when you come to apply you university learned knowledge in real life, you'd be allowed to have as much reference material with you as you can get your hands on. Exams shouldn't be testing knowledge at all, they should test understanding.

[hr]
[s]If all this wisdom is true,
then I doubt it could really have come from you[/s]