What are the big differences between degree and Masters level?

tr3mor

studentphil wrote:

I really can not understand masters. Some of my teachers at school had Masters and yet they were a bit stupid in all honesty and they did not really know much about their topics. But yet the best teacher I know got her assignment at Masters level failed.

The ability to teach something has nothing to do with the knowledge or intellect of the person. You can tell this by the fact that many of the best selling books for a subject are written by academics at lesser universities.

studentphil

tr3mor wrote:

The ability to teach something has nothing to do with the knowledge or intellect of the person. You can tell this by the fact that many of the best selling books for a subject are written by academics at lesser universities.

That is an interesting comment to make.

I am completely frightened to death of a Masters when you read all the list of things you should be able to do if you are up to doing it. But then I think of all the people I have known with Masters and I know they were not that great really.

Voyager2002

Gabriel-Ernest wrote:

It depends where you study - at Oxbridge your undergrad course is a Masters if it is 4 years long. One of the anomalies of the system.

And also at the older Scots universities. And in Europe (a standard undergraduate degree in the Netherlands is actually a Master's degree).

However, this is a matter of tradition, and such degrees do not count as MSc degrees or whatever. That is why Oxford and Cambridge also offer taught masters' degrees but call them MPhil, which just adds to the confusion.

Of course there is a world of difference between a one-year taught Master's degree such as an MSc or MA, and a research degree such as an MPhil (often and unfairly described as a failed PhD).

Voyager2002

studentphil wrote:

I really can not understand masters. Some of my teachers at school had Masters and yet they were a bit stupid in all honesty and they did not really know much about their topics. But yet the best teacher I know got her assignment at Masters level failed.

Excellent teaching requires a lot of work preparing lessons, etc. I would imagine that your "best teacher" worked so hard at being a teacher that she had no time left in which to study.

talksalot81

tr3mor wrote:

The ability to teach something has nothing to do with the knowledge or intellect of the person. You can tell this by the fact that many of the best selling books for a subject are written by academics at lesser universities.

You should not underestimate the fact that the academics at 'higher' institutions may simply not have the same time available to go writing books!

Voyager2002 wrote:

And also at the older Scots universities. And in Europe (a standard undergraduate degree in the Netherlands is actually a Master's degree).

That is definitely not how any Dutch colleague ever described the system to me! Nor any other country in Europe for that matter. They do a basic university degree, typically then a diploma (which they have always equated to a masters) and then PhD.

Now this rather depends how you are equating. In terms of time spent, then maybe. But if you talk in terms of levels (i.e. undergrad- masters- phd) then your equating is wrong. If a european 'bachelors' degree equates to the same level as our masters, then the diploma must be more along the lines of our phd and their Phd has no equivalent. In reality, the european phds are much the same as our own, they simply take longer to do them. We do exactly the same level of research, we are assumed to be similarly competent etc.

studentphil

Scottish Masters do nothing for you as you have to do 4 years at uni to get one and everyone knows it is not a proper Masters.

misskool

Stompa wrote:

Oxbridge graduates can buy theirs for a small fee:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/478163.stm

http://teflsmiler.typepad.com/weblog/2005/03/the_cheats_of_o.html

They also do twice the amount of work required.

I teach some undergrads and in a typical term week, they have lectures and labs and others like anyone else at other universities as well a 2-3 tutorials (singles or in pairs) where they have to write an essay and discuss the topic.

I never understood how much work it was (and was rather miffed by it) but in a strange way, they do deserve it.

studentphil

misskool wrote:

They also do twice the amount of work required.

I teach some undergrads and in a typical term week, they have lectures and labs and others like anyone else at other universities as well a 2-3 tutorials (singles or in pairs) where they have to write an essay and discuss the topic.

I never understood how much work it was (and was rather miffed by it) but in a strange way, they do deserve it.

I know the OXford Degree in my subject is no more work than my course from talking to people who go to Oxford.

Gabriel-Ernest

It's been a very long time since I was at Oxford but talking to contemporaries at other universities at the time, I did double the amount of work in my 8-week terms to what they did in 12 weeks. I have never bothered to convert my degree to an MA.

studentphil

It gets on my nerves, I can not decide if to apply for a Masters or to leave it a year and see what happens when I graduate. I am very very bad at making up my mind!