Not wanting to stir a hornet's nest again but...

BigBouncyBall

people might find the following article interesting:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6599643.stm

seems a shake up of degree classes is coming...

Wojeywoo

This is an interesting article, I think in practice having degree's which are comparable across universities and subjects is a sensible idea but wouold this really work in practice?
Also the quality and value of the degrees is affected by the institution it's awarded from, I think most people would agree that a 2.1 from Cambridge carries a lot more weight with employers than if it was awareded from other uni.

Personally I'd like to see another degree class introducded to sperate 'high' and 'low' 2.1's as the difference between a student who averages and 62% and a student who averages 68% (In my own experience) is huge and I think those of the higher end of the spectrum deserve mroe credit.

Having recently talked to some grad employers at careers fairs some have said they are starting to look at individual marks achieved in students modules aswell as the average mark, as with some companies if you get 59% (a 2.2 classification) your not considered for the positions.

I guess this debate could go one forever!

Gingernutmeg

Interesting ... as someone who's studying (well, almost finished ) a joint degree it is really obvious that there are huge discrepancies in the way that different departments mark. Tbh though I'm not sure what difference the proposed system would make - do *most* employers really have the time or inclination to look at detailled breakdowns of marks gained? Surely having a system of fail, pass, distinction will end up being just the same as 3rd, 2nd and 1st? Also, surely most people who've been through the university system understand that it's 'easier' to gain 90%+ in some subjects (like maths, sciences, computing etc) than it is in others (arts and social sciences) ...

I wonder though if this is a way for the more 'elite' universities to assert (once again lol) that their degrees are somehow better than others? Seems to me that we're already working on the assumption that someone at a low-achieving state school who does well at GCSE/A-Level has achieved more that someone at (say) Eton, and so we should also be applying this to someone who's gained a first at an institution where the rate of firsts is very low ... At my uni, for example, the rate of firsts is below 5% - I believe that at Oxbridge it's more like 25%. Since someone at my uni who gets a first is likely to have done this with fewer resources, less individual tuition etc than an Oxbridge student, surely they've 'achieved' more? Having spoken to one of my tutors who second marks at a very prestigious uni, she asserts that the standard needed for a first is broadly similar in most institutions, and what differs is the proportion of students gaining them, so who's to say that someone gaining a good mark from a lesser institution hasn't had to work harder to get it? Just thinking here, not criticising ... I'm just curious as to why there's so much panic and snobbery about degrees ...

*runs off to hide after throwing a big cat amongst the pigeons*