University degrees

One thing that amazes me these daysis the number of people getting First Class degrees.

In the 1960s, they were as rare as hens teeth and anyone who got one was treated with awe. It was not uncommon for a faculty to go for 5 years without awarding a first class degree.

It wasn't a case of us being less bright, just that you really had to be exceptional to get one.

I totally agree Monica. A distant relative of mine has recently graduated with a first class degree in Psychology. She has cerebral palsy and found school work very challenging. Despite having time off with MH problems and failing to complete her course work she still got a first. I think the goal posts have been moved considerably and is unfair to those who are real high achievers and have worked really hard which she did not.

I don't think it's necessarily about hard work - a lot of students complain that they worked hard (and I don't doubt that they do), but that doesn't mean that they will (or should) get higher grades than those who don't. If I am hiring anyone from any discipline) I would prefer to have one who gets results than one who works really hard but doesn't quite cut it.

I agree that there are far more Firsts than before though, and also that the high numbers devalue the grade. I think that the honours system needs an overhaul, to be honest. Ten percentage points between grades means that someone could easily be two percent lower from someone who got a grade higher, but eight percent higher than someone with a grade lower. The 2% means missing out on a First (or 2:1), but there is no recognition of the 8%.

Also, some universities 'round up' individual marks, so that the final grade is significantly higher than it would otherwise have been (eg someone getting 68% on six modules would get each one rounded up to 70, so be eight percentage points up on the year - multiply that by three years, and there is a huge discrepancy), whereas others put in the actual grades awarded then round up the total, so get far less leeway.

I think it would be fairer if the actual marks were on the certificates, or if we moved away from having only 4 'bands' for UG and 3 for PG, although the HEAR certificates that are now given to all graduates would go some way towards that if employers knew about them, which I don't know if many do.

grannypiper

3 degree courses you can take in the UK today:-

1, Stand up comedy masters degree at U of Kent

2, The Robin Hood Studies degree at U of Nottigham

3 Cake technology management at South bank University

A total waste of tax payers money. High time this racket was brought to an end.

Please could you provide a link the degree in Robin Hood Studies at Nottingham. I could only find a second hand reference to an MA in 2006.

Reading back, I can see that my figures are a bit out - the person getting 6 modules rounded up to 70% each will get 8% added, but of course that will be averaged. Even so, it makes a big difference, and should not really be compared to a course where only the actual scores are averaged and then rounded up.

Someone better at maths than I am can probably explain better.

M0nica

One thing that amazes me these daysis the number of people getting First Class degrees.

In the 1960s, they were as rare as hens teeth and anyone who got one was treated with awe. It was not uncommon for a faculty to go for 5 years without awarding a first class degree.

It wasn't a case of us being less bright, just that you really had to be exceptional to get one.

All the students getting A* in about 10 A levels has amazed me for a long time too.

Even the cleverest student I remember from school obtained just 3 As at A level (plus an O level in Russian) and a place at Cambridge.

I agree, Calistemon, but I approve of the broader education that children get now - dropping to three subjects at 16 was very limiting. I don't think that we can expect them to study more subjects with the same level or rigour, which probably explains the inordinately high number of high-level passes.

It was far more rigid then, yes; there wasn't much choice at O level, in fact I don't remember any.

Yes, we got to choose between languages or science at O level, plus English and Maths.

I think they were more difficult than GCSE, but we only did 5, even in the top stream.

As regards first class degrees, I can only say that at my son’s graduation ceremony at LSE I noticed that only a very few were awarded first class honours in his subject. Does it vary between universities and/or subjects? I do agree that A level results seem to be much better than in the 60s.

At O level we did what we were told to do, no choice at all.

It will vary between universities, but not subjects. These things are decided at higher management level.

Doodledog

Yes, we got to choose between languages or science at O level, plus English and Maths.

I think they were more difficult than GCSE, but we only did 5, even in the top stream.

I think it depended on school. I did 9 O levels and an extra 1 in the sixth form. We had to do Eng Lang, Eng Lit, Maths, 2 foreign languages and chose the four remaining subjects from a long list (advised to do at least one science and at least one humanity).

In Ireland we have the Leaving Certificate which is the equivalent of A Levels. The number of subjects students generally study hasn't changed (7) but the numbers of As and Bs achieved has gone up hugely. As used to be extremely rare but are now quite common.

It's generally agreed that a primary degree is now the equivalent of the leaving cert a generation ago, a Masters is the equivalent of a Primary degree and you need a PhD to stand out academically.

Doodledog

Yes, we got to choose between languages or science at O level, plus English and Maths.

I think they were more difficult than GCSE, but we only did 5, even in the top stream.

We took 8 or 9. I only took 8 because I dropped Art which was daft because Art was a doddle, so I did an NVQ in Art after I retired just to prove a point! ???

It's generally agreed that a primary degree is now the equivalent of the leaving cert a generation ago, a Masters is the equivalent of a Primary degree and you need a PhD to stand out academically.
Agreed by whom?

To get a job in Academia you definitely need a Phd, but I don't think the rest of that stands up at all. For one thing, a Masters is a one year highly specialised course, whereas a Batchelors is a three year more general one, so they can't be compared. I'm not too familiar with the Irish system, and there hasn't been a leaving cert in England since my mother's generation; but wasn't it equivalent to O level - a qualification that got you into the Civil Service at Officer level (as opposed to Assistant level)? Hardly the same thing as an UG degree.

Re the number of O levels - I checked and I did 7. I'd forgotten that English was split between Language and Literature, and that I did Music. It was a very long time ago?. It certainly wasn't the norm to do as many as they do now, though, and I did go to a very grotty school.

there hasn't been a leaving cert in England since my mother's generation; but wasn't it equivalent to O level
My sister-IL (she's older than me) took that certificate at grammar school which was equivalent to O levels, but you had to pass at least 6 subjects, I think, to gain the certificate. Was it called Matriculation?

O levels superseded them.

Yes! My mum had a Matriculation certificate.

She was very proud of it, but was not allowed to stay at school and go to university as my grandad wanted her to go to secretarial college instead.

grannypiper

3 degree courses you can take in the UK today:-

1, Stand up comedy masters degree at U of Kent

2, The Robin Hood Studies degree at U of Nottigham

3 Cake technology management at South bank University

A total waste of tax payers money. High time this racket was brought to an end.

But are all these degrees actually paid for by taxpayers money? I was under the impression that students pay £6,000 to £9,000 a year tuition fees, plus accommodation costs.

There is little fairness in education. Degree standards and marks have never been comparable across all universities. As an employer, I'd be much more interested in which one had been attended - rather than the grade. The 'new' universities award far more firsts:

www.hepi.ac.uk/2018/07/02/degree-standards-universities/

grannypiper, it's not a 'racket'. Your (narrow) view is focussed on purely vocational, 'skills for jobs' terms - so is rather outdated.

Whatever the subject of study, vital, high-level transferrable skills should be gained, with experience resulting in a wider range of employment options.

We really need people with independent, analytical and creative thinking - all a positive benefit to society.

Universities at every level are under pressure from their administrators to squeeze grades upwards.

DS is a lecturer at a top Russell Group university and his faculty are in the top 5 in their subject in the world and they feel the pressure. The admin and marketing people think that it helps to attract foreign students who pay far more in fees than home students.

Doodledog

*It's generally agreed that a primary degree is now the equivalent of the leaving cert a generation ago, a Masters is the equivalent of a Primary degree and you need a PhD to stand out academically.*
Agreed by whom?

To get a job in Academia you definitely need a Phd, but I don't think the rest of that stands up at all. For one thing, a Masters is a one year highly specialised course, whereas a Batchelors is a three year more general one, so they can't be compared. I'm not too familiar with the Irish system, and there hasn't been a leaving cert in England since my mother's generation; but wasn't it equivalent to O level - a qualification that got you into the Civil Service at Officer level (as opposed to Assistant level)? Hardly the same thing as an UG degree.

Re the number of O levels - I checked and I did 7. I'd forgotten that English was split between Language and Literature, and that I did Music. It was a very long time ago?. It certainly wasn't the norm to do as many as they do now, though, and I did go to a very grotty school.

Gosh Doodledog you do know a lot more about the Irish education system than those of us who went through it and have now seen our children go through it

As to agreed by whom, the word 'generally' should give you a clue.

Anyhow I'm tired of your constant haranguing everytime I post. You've obviously made up your mind to disagree with everything I say. Perhaps you could leave it there. We're obviously not going to agree. Maybe we could just side step each others posts?

Calistemon

^there hasn't been a leaving cert in England since my mother's generation; but wasn't it equivalent to O level^
My sister-IL (she's older than me) took that certificate at grammar school which was equivalent to O levels, but you had to pass at least 6 subjects, I think, to gain the certificate. Was it called Matriculation?

O levels superseded them.

You had to pass 5 subjects at leaving certificate (including Irish) to be considered to have passed overall. The leaving certificate is our final examination at second level and the one used to gain entry to University so it is the A Level equivalent.
We operate a points system (so many points for an A1 etc) and every University course requires a certain number of points. The Leaving Cert has now become known as the 'points race' and there is some general concern about this as it implies that a good second level education is no longer a satisfactory outcome in itself.

Sorry Callistemon meant to say that this is the system in Ireland