How much do students learn at different universities?

tr3mor

Voyager2002 wrote:

Excuse me!

I did a BSc in Mathematics, but switched to essay-based subjects at post-graduate level (and have taught and marked such subjects).

Quite simply, doing a GOOD essay involves at least as much work as an assignment in Maths/computing. However, it is possible to 'waffle' and scrape through with far less work than is required for even a weak pass in a subject like Maths or Computing. The lesson, which is obvious, is that a third or even 2.2 in a subject like History does not reflect a great deal of hard work or learning, while such a degree in a science is an achievement of some kind. However, a First in an Arts/Social Science subject probably represents at least as much hard work as does a First in any other subject.

Sorry, I wasn't looking for an argument, I've had enough of them around here lately

I don't know about other universities, I'm just speaking from my experience of the two courses here at Manchester (a good red brick Russell Group uni).

I take your point about there being as much effort involved in a good essay as there is in any science assignment. The problem is the intensity of the degrees really.

I see no reason at all why the history modules here should count for 20 credits each, and my Maths/CS modules are only 10 credits each. I probably spend about as much time per module as she does, but she has half the number of modules to do!

I'm still not comfortable with the majority of History students at Manchester being awarded a 2:1 or above.

lellie

Trying_really_hard wrote:

Hope your girlfriend never reads this. Sounds like you don't have a great deal of respect for her subject. Or maybe its just the way I read it.

Haha. I did read the thread and I have to say I agree with my boyfriend. My degree is a joke compared to his. I must admit this year will be different to the past 2, but over the first 2 years I've done virtually no work and somehow ended up with a high 2.1 average. I usually knocked out my essays in a couple days around deadline times and only did about 10 hours work a week the rest of the time. I'm pretty confident that I will graduate with at least a 2.1 and more than likely if I actually do some work this year I'll get a first.

So far this year I am doing a bit more so far and hopefully if I can get some form of motivation I'll end up doing a lot more next term when writing my dissertation - I'm currently half working on my bibliography while reading this forum.

I should have done a computer science based degree, but due to the lack of maths ended up doing history. I regret it deeply and hate my degree, but I'm into the last year now so might as well finish.

Torby

must still be the same for when I was studying (over 30 years ago ) if you do Maths for example....2 plus 2 equals 4, but if you study English Lit, 2 plus 2 would mostly add up to 4, unless the metaphysical aspect of things altered and you can argue the main character in the plot had a subconscious desire to "love" his mother, alternatively the Prince of Denmark was of confused gender and a girl called Ophellia, who kept making unwanted sexual advances towards him caused him to have a mild abberation and on the day he was asked "verily, doth 2 plus 2 equal 4"....he replied "Nay.....tis 5 methinks".....ahhh the power of waffle....some degree subjects deal in hard facts and must be learned....others deal in concepts and the ability to write a convincing argument....

from my point of view....FWIW...a lot of math, science, computing subjects depend on learning things parrot fashion....now literature and creative writing....that involves passion and imagination I'll now stand back and wait for the flaming to start.....lol

Trying_really_hard

tr3mor wrote:

Don't worry, she mostly agrees with me. I think she wishes she'd done a science based subject but couldn't because she didn't do A level maths, which she really regrets now.

Yeah. I have friends who've come to the end of courses and wished they'd done science-based subjects. I sucked at Maths. I mean really. So it was never an option. Then again, I'm happy with law. :rolleyes:

My BF does Archaeology so I know how much work can go into a subject with a large science element.

At the end of the day, I think it is dependent on a wide range of things as a lot of people have said. Plus, as already noted, many employers know this now and factor it in.

cupid_s

Torby wrote:

from my point of view....FWIW...a lot of math, science, computing subjects depend on learning things parrot fashion....now literature and creative writing....that involves passion and imagination I'll now stand back and wait for the flaming to start.....lol

I wont flame cos to an extent I agree. If you learn everything you're told at uni in science you can get a 2:2. No problem. At least this is what I found to be the case in my science subject. Though considering we had at least 25 hours of lectures or practicals every week, remembering everything was quite a tall order.

But to get a 2:1 or a first, you had to show evidence of independent thought, critical analysis and your own indepdent self-directed learning. You had to do an awful lot more than what you were taught.

I got a first, as did my husband. There were only 2 people on my course and one on OHs (him) course to get firsts (out of a total of over 80 people). Throughout Uni, even in the first year, I consistantly worked 45 plus hours a week. For a month before our exams (in january and may) we were working at least 100 hours a week just to do enough independent background reading to stand a chance of getting a first which was my priority.

Without doing all this there would have been no chance of us getting the higher marks. And it's not like we're thick and needed to do more work than most!

To get decent marks in science you cannot rely on learning things parrot fashion, but you can scrape by which is not possible in art subjects. But then my bro-in law got a very high 2:1 (almost a first) in an arts subject from the uni I went to/go to (a good one) and admits he spent less than 5 hours per week working and went into uni for a total of 12 hours in the whole 3 years he was here. That could never happen in a science subject

tr3mor

cupid_stunt wrote:

I wont flame cos to an extent I agree. If you learn everything you're told at uni in science you can get a 2:2. No problem. At least this is what I found to be the case in my science subject. Though considering we had at least 25 hours of lectures or practicals every week, remembering everything was quite a tall order.

But to get a 2:1 or a first, you had to show evidence of independent thought, critical analysis and your own indepdent self-directed learning. You had to do an awful lot more than what you were taught.

I got a first, as did my husband. There were only 2 people on my course and one on OHs (him) course to get firsts (out of a total of over 80 people). Throughout Uni, even in the first year, I consistantly worked 45 plus hours a week. For a month before our exams (in january and may) we were working at least 100 hours a week just to do enough independent background reading to stand a chance of getting a first which was my priority.

Without doing all this there would have been no chance of us getting the higher marks. And it's not like we're thick and needed to do more work than most!

To get decent marks in science you cannot rely on learning things parrot fashion, but you can scrape by which is not possible in art subjects. But then my bro-in law got a very high 2:1 (almost a first) in an arts subject from the uni I went to/go to (a good one) and admits he spent less than 5 hours per week working and went into uni for a total of 12 hours in the whole 3 years he was here. That could never happen in a science subject

Just out of interest, when were you at uni? I'm not sure there are many courses with such a low percentage of firsts these days.

ftbworried

I was at Manchester and there was only 2 people on my course that got a first too.

cupid_s

tr3mor wrote:

Just out of interest, when were you at uni? I'm not sure there are many courses with such a low percentage of firsts these days.

I graduated in 2003 but I am still in exactly the same department doing my PhD and I know that the percentage of firsts is more or less the same as it was when I was there. There has never been more than 2 people get a first in any one year on my course (which usually has about 50 people). And until this year my husband was the only person EVER to have got a first in his degree course here so for the 2 years after he graduated no one got a first. This year one person did and next year based on work so far I expect only one person will also.