Getting into honours subjects?

[op]

i wondered if anyone could confirm or dismiss the rumour I've heard about exam grades for getting into honours? I've been told that whilst the pass mark for a second year course is 11, in order to get into honours, arts students need a 15. Is this true? Has anyone ever been told they couldn't take their chosen honours course despite achieving an 11 or more in second year?

[DaftPunk]

as far as i know u only need an 11. some subjects ask for u to have an 11 or more for each semester, while others only ask for an average of an 11 over the two semesters.

[Haunted]

I got into physics with 9's

[starsandsparkles]

i wondered if anyone could confirm or dismiss the rumour I've heard about exam grades for getting into honours? I've been told that whilst the pass mark for a second year course is 11, in order to get into honours, arts students need a 15. Is this true? Has anyone ever been told they couldn't take their chosen honours course despite achieving an 11 or more in second year?

The pass mark is 5 whatever year you're in.

11 is the mark for getting into honours. There is always talk of IR/Psychology/RandomSubject changing the mark to 15, but it's not true.

[munchingfoo]

in order to get into honours, arts students need a 15. Is this true?

We all live in hope for the day...

[johnjohnjohn]

Well, In Physics, 5 is a basic pass, 11 is the mark required to be admitted into a BSc, and 15 is required for MPhys. So I assume that the 11 is a university wide thing, as the MA's given by the Arts faculty are, in the real world, Bachelors degrees (apologies to anyone who didn't realise this). However it's not set in stone, and you can be admitted with a lesser grade average should your department decide so.

Strive for an 11 just doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?

[Thalia]

You would think anyone going to a Scottish university would know enough about our system to realise what the MA is equivalent to.

[johnjohnjohn]

You would think anyone going to a Scottish university would know enough about our system to realise what the MA is equivalent to.

You'd hope so, but from my experience the reality is somewhat different.

[zipporah]

I'm confused now - are the degrees from the science faculty actual Masters, then?

[Duffman]

Most science undergraduates will leave with a BSc. Some (eg Physics) do direct entry into second year, study for four years and get an MSc. A 'real' masters if you like.

[Jono]

Yes yes, lets diss the arts students again. It's not like our tuition fees pay for science department stuff or anything... Oh wait!

A number of departments insist on +11 or +13 averages for admission to honours (as I vindictively reminded a number of care-free first-years). Don't know where the 15 comes from though! What would be the point in having degree classification if you demanded all students had to attain a high 2.1 or a first-class mark just to be admitted to said degree?

[Thalia]

Nobody was dissing arts students :-P

You can also get a proper Masters after four years in the Maths department - an MMath.

[Duffman]

Um, I wasn't dissing art students. The fact of the matter is that an MA from an ancient Scottish university is equal to a BA/Bsc from any other UK institution, that's just the way it is. If you're under the delusion that you're leaving with a 'real' MA then I'm sorry, but you're not.

The >15 thing is usually for students who do direct entry and they need above a 15 to get onto the MSc/MMath program, if they are unsuccessful they can leave a year earlier and leave with a BSc after 3 years.

Also, as far as I recall I paid full tuition for four years, I've paid the same and I left with the same level of degree as an art student that has also studied for four years.

[the Empress]

My MA from St Andrews has been treated as an MA by academic staff at an English University and employers have regarded it as such as well. TBH I think it depends on your course as to how it is 'regarded' as opposed to what it is classified as. I'm sure my degree is equivalent to MA's of English Universities, whether or not it is classified as such - having looked at their requirements, and also due to my perspective as a current post-grad doing an MSc. I had a heavy workload, have extra credits and did a substantial piece of independent research. So, that's what I think. *shrug*

[Jono]

Clarification: I was actually refering to this. In retrospect, I should have quoted it in my original post.

in order to get into honours, arts students need a 15. Is this true?

We all live in hope for the day...

[Cygnus]

Most science undergraduates will leave with a BSc. Some (eg Physics) do direct entry into second year, study for four years and get an MSc. A 'real' masters if you like.

Careful what you call a "real masters". Having done both an undergraduate masters (MMath) and a postgraduate masters (MSc) I can tell you there's quite a gap in the intensity and depth of study (as you would expect really). The MMath/MPhys programmes replaced what used to be an MSci degree which was the undergraduate masters with MSc the designation for postgrad level masters. Slightly off topic but its a subtle distinction I think a lot of people miss.

[johnjohnjohn]

Yes yes, lets diss the arts students again. It's not like our tuition fees pay for science department stuff or anything... Oh wait!

A number of departments insist on +11 or +13 averages for admission to honours (as I vindictively reminded a number of care-free first-years). Don't know where the 15 comes from though! What would be the point in having degree classification if you demanded all students had to attain a high 2.1 or a first-class mark just to be admitted to said degree?

Because the difficulty and workload of Honours modules is substantially above that of Sub-Honours modules. If you can't manage to put the work in to get at least a middle 2:1 in the Sub-Honours modules, then why would the department expect you to do any better with more difficult material? And if you can't manage at least a 15, then why should they take the risk of admitting you to the degree program when you might fail, and therefore add another tick to their "Percentage failed : __ " box? The logic behind expecting a 15 in Physics is that if you fail a 5000 level module, then you cannot graduate. Whereas if you fail a 4000 level module, you have enough spare credits left over to meet the requirements for graduating.

The whole point of 'demanding' a high 2:1 is to ensure that only people who have put the work and effort into sub-honours are admitted to the degree program - seems pretty fair to me.

Oh, and so what if your tuition fees "pay" for the science we conduct? My tuition fees probably paid for the Arts Building, which I have never set foot in, but because I'm part of the university I don't mind. You should be happy that the university you attend conducts world class science research, in the same way that I'm glad we are noted for our International Relations department.