Oxbridge degrees at local college ??????????

plowmar

Just heard this morning of Government wheeze to save money.

Basically you go to local college - you cannot afford to go away to uni. - who decide after a while that you will be good enough to sit a top university's exam and you come out with that university's degree.

That will be the only contact with the uni. no lectures ( teaching to be done by local college), no interim essays how will this work, other than saving money.

Just as an example my daughter went to Imperial college London for a science degree and came out with a good degree, however when talking to other students where she currently works they got similar/ higher level pass degrees by doing multiple choice questions for the first two years of their degrees. She had to do essays etc. from the first term.

Blood boiling, Rant over. :? :?

bompington

Well, there are two possibilities here:
1. If you pass the exams, you deserve the degree: in which case, if it can be done by someone studying at an "inferior" uni, you have to doubt whether the teaching at the "superior" uni is so superior after all. In which case the "superior" academics at the "superior" unis will need to wise up.
2. Alternatively, it could suggest that the exams are not fit for purpose, i.e. they fail to differentiate those who really have attained a certain level of knowledge, reasoning, problem solving or whatever, from those who have not. In which case the "superior" academics at the "superior" unis will need to wise up.

Of course I should point out that I really don't have a chip on my shoulder, I chose not to go to Oxford, OK?

simonaspinall

Going to a 'superior' university and being better qualified/intellectually superior is like a christian saying they go to church and having more faith and being a better person.

Universities are about student participation and contribution - something you can do at any establishment in the country if you have the drive.

If the rank of a university, public school or whatever elitist institution reflects the calibre of graduate, what does that say about the city, most of the house of commons, lords, top civil servants etc.

Resulting in financial crashes, sleaze, terrible short-term policy decisions and contempt for the people they are supposed to serve.

Not everyone can go to supposedly top universities as they can not afford to move away from home. I got into 3 top 10 unis and decided on what is meant to be the 92nd best uni because of the astronomical fees and costs involved.

It makes my blood boil that red brick unis are seen as some sort of superior destination when in fact a student's work rate is what counts.

Elitism, snobbery, self-serving, arrogant and frankly ignorant opinions like the one by the OP is what causes a glass-ceiling to genuinely hard-working, considerate and intelligent people getting a job they deserve because they didn't attend a uni on the Times 100 list.

Rant over.

pbt150

Have a look at a finals paper from a top uni. If you can pass one without doing the course properly, then fair play to you. But I know that a lot of my friends struggled enough having been at the uni full time for 3 or 4 years.

Jez mon

simonaspinall wrote:

It makes my blood boil that red brick unis are seen as some sort of superior destination when in fact a student's work rate is what counts.

Wrong. Red Brick universities are seen as a superior destination, by employers, and therefore, this is what counts, as well as the students work rate. Whether its right for this to happen is questionable. Ultimately, red brick unis can cost a similar amount of money to polys depending on your personal situation, will give far better value for money in the long term.

simonaspinall

Jez mon wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

It makes my blood boil that red brick unis are seen as some sort of superior destination when in fact a student's work rate is what counts.

Wrong. Red Brick universities are seen as a superior destination, by employers, and therefore, this is what counts, as well as the students work rate. Whether its right for this to happen is questionable. Ultimately, red brick unis can cost a similar amount of money to polys depending on your personal situation, will give far better value for money in the long term.

A red-brick universities message telling employers that they are better doesn't necessarily mean that it's true. I have total faith that if a student is bright and hard-working, no matter what uni they went to they will succeed. You rightly pointed out that it is questionable to whether top unis should be seen by employers as producing better graduates. If you examine countless organisations with red-brick graduates in then guess what...they fail!

It is all about the student - Red-brick unis may recruit what they think are the brightest - however this has been undermined with the elitist recruiting that goes on at institutions. If a student is hard-working, bright, enthusiastic with a winning ethic then they will succeed. It is unfortunate that our high-fliers such as most of the front bench and shadow cabinet are all oxbridge, most of the senior civil service and so on. I would wager you that the top students at most non-red brick unis could do an equal if not better job.

Chip \'oyler

simonaspinall wrote:

It makes my blood boil that red brick unis are seen as some sort of superior destination when in fact a student's work rate is what counts.

There's no doubting that work rate is essential for a student to succeed but it isn't the only thing that makes a good student. Talent is also a factor.

I mean I've got a great work ethic when it comes to my training on the bike, but I'm only teaching a donkey to cycle faster - I'll never be a thoroughbred.

I'm afraid in the upper echelons of society I want thoroughbreds to run the country etc not donkeys who mean well. These thoroughbreds can come from any walk of society, all I hope is that people who are born with talent and a great work ethic can make it to these high places. But this has never been the case

rick_chasey

As I understood it, the value of an Oxbridge degree was the fact you got in in the first place, and then did well.

Oxbridge reject many people who are more then capable of doing well there, on the premise that they do not necessarily suit the college/university style/ethos.

cee

apparently Edinburgh is at number 13 on the Times list for 2011..but number 5 for computer science.

I went there because it is my local college.

finchy

cee wrote:

apparently Edinburgh is at number 13 on the Times list for 2011..but number 5 for computer science.

Indeed, just because a university has a reputation of being good/average/bad doesn't mean that every single department will be. People should check out the subject rankings before applying.

pneumatic

- Some Universities (and some courses) are harder to get into than others.
- Typically, the harder they are to get into, the more applicants they attract.
- The only way to control admissions is to put up the asking rates, making them even harder to get into.
- High achieving students (with good school leaving results) are the ones who get in.
- University staff, faced with high achieving students, are able to make the courses more challenging (or interesting, as they would have it).

This process leads some Universities to become academically elite (i.e. catering for a specialised minority). This no different than having a sports coaching system that caters for elite athletes (such as Team GB cycling, for example).

Social elitism is a different phenomenon. The fact that academic elitism and social elitism seem to co-incide is because wealthy people buy advantages for their children from as early an age as they can (nannies, nurseries, well-resourced private schools staffed with teachers whose job it is to get them the grades that enable them to choose which universities to go to and which professions to enter).

Most universities work actively to counter social elitism (or at least to moderate its effects) with admissions policies designed to distinguish the academically gifted from the socially privileged. They argue, quite reasonably, that they are not the source of the problem, but they are prepared to be part of the solution.

Ben6899

plowmar wrote:

Just as an example my daughter went to Imperial college London for a science degree and came out with a good degree, however when talking to other students where she currently works they got similar/ higher level pass degrees by doing multiple choice questions for the first two years of their degrees. She had to do essays etc. from the first term.

How is this paragraph relevant? Different degrees will have varying style of exam questions and coursework. You might be surprised that my Civil Engineering degree (from University of Leeds, in the top three in the country for that given degree) involved a lot of maths and physics and I wrote maybe only one essay during the whole 3 years. Only one, can you believe that!?

Civil Engineering degrees are widely regarded as one of the most difficult to achieve - both in terms of academic content and workrate required from the student (35hrs lectures/labs a week). I cannot comment, because I have nothing to compare it to personally.

Do I view other degrees in a dimmer light than mine because the other students might have only had 6hrs lectures a week? No. Or do I regard Civil Engineering degrees attained at other 'lesser' universities as inferior to mine? No.

Do I concentrate on my own lot and not consume myself with anger over anyone else's lot? Yes.

sloboy

Back in the day, my University had no attendance requirements for degree award other than showing up to sign on on the first day of the year and then passing the exams*

So the only difference with what is proposed it seems to me is that students may not have to do that enter in advance piece, and that is a bit surprising perhaps.

Some universities, Nottingham and Heriot-Watt come to mind, already do a good deal of franchising of their degrees to other institutions I guess it's a bit like them being an examining body rather than a teaching body.

Folks should choose their Uni on what suits them. The course, the place and the kudos all come into play. My elder daughter hopefully will go off this Oct and my advice to her (which of course she ignored ) was basically that course and place were of roughly equal importance and she should limit her choice to something akin to the top drawer - let's say Russell Group + Ancients, unless she felt she wasn't going to get the grades.

*On of our professors seemed to take a strange pride in one of his courses been topped by someone who hadn't attended any of the lectures.

LJAR

As with anything in life, individual variation, personlaity, ability and achievement is far more important than any category you can put a person in.

However, in my limited experience, having a degree from a very good university makes a huge difference in getting interviews etc. Some employers wont even consider candidates that have not been to a red brick uni. Or they will need a compelling reason to do so other than your academic achievements.

I used to run recruitment for my previous employer and it is also very noticeable that Oxbridge teaches people to think in a very different way to most (not all) others. This probably has more to do with the way that they teach rather than anything else, but that is part of the reason the degrees are so highly valued.

There was an interesting bit on Radio 4 today that suggested that arts degrees are almost worthless as an investment (in terms of increased earnings) which made me laugh anyway.

softlad

plowmar wrote:

Just heard this morning of Government wheeze to save money.

Basically you go to local college - you cannot afford to go away to uni. - who decide after a while that you will be good enough to sit a top university's exam and you come out with that university's degree.

nothing new - University of Wales has been pushing its degrees overseas for years - there are colleges all over the world that award UW degrees. I'm sure other institutions do it too...

plowmar

Re Ben6899 They were both doing the same subject, that is why it was relevant, but you were right it wasn't clear.

When I said colleges I meant Further Education colleges and not colleges of Universities. Sorry if I misled.

Ben6899

plowmar wrote:

Re Ben6899 They were both doing the same subject, that is why it was relevant, but you were right it wasn't clear.

Fair enough.

But I'd still not let the proposals bother me... your daughter has her degree, has a job she likes as a result of that degree (I presume) so how other people got to the same position is in the past.

If you see what I'm getting at?

richk

Ben6899 wrote:

[...I wrote maybe only one essay during the whole 3 years. Only one, can you believe that!?

.... academic content and workrate required from the student (35hrs lectures/labs a week). ....

Yes, but then I did Chemical Engineering (also at Leeds), which, perhaps not surprisingly, had a similar scheduled workrate.

IIRC (& it was a long time ago) the only essays were in the (compulsory) Management Studies subsiduries.

domhnall_dearg

I think most (all?) engineering degrees are light on essay writing since they tend to be the equivalent of an applied maths degree. My own degree, in electronics, only had one essay in three years but a lot of lab reports.

Ben6899

I know... I was just making the point that to achieve different degrees, different applications from students are required.

They purposefull gave us lots of 9am lectures to get us used to getting out of bed early for site work!

tebbit

+1 for vocational subject work rates, I did building, the slow reader group of the higher educational world and we did 35+ hours either lectures, drawing office or surveying practice. Interestingly enough Oxbridge used to have 53% bias in favour of state school educated applicants, but that was in the days of grammar schools. I know we have a problem with the secondary moderns, I know shut the grammars! That'll sort it, bloody elitist institutions.

unCivilServant

"Well, there are two possibilities here:
1. If you pass the exams, you deserve the degree: in which case, if it can be done by someone studying at an "inferior" uni, you have to doubt whether the teaching at the "superior" uni is so superior after all. In which case the "superior" academics at the "superior" unis will need to wise up.
2. Alternatively, it could suggest that the exams are not fit for purpose, i.e. they fail to differentiate those who really have attained a certain level of knowledge, reasoning, problem solving or whatever, from those who have not. In which case the "superior" academics at the "superior" unis will need to wise up. "

Or there's possibility #3.: Those whose learning was at the 'inferior' place get worse results than those who learnt at the 'superior' place, strongly implying that the 'inferior' place's course was actually worse than the 'superior''s &/or the intake at the former was less academically gifted, hard-working or whatever.

It would be an interesting experiment to try out, but in the event of #3 happening would be a bit harsh on the students: is it better to have a (good class) degree from a not-very-highly-regarded establishment or a poor one (or a fail) from a better-regarded one?

Also, leaving aside the question about whether some unis are better than others, some courses are obviously different from others even for similar subjects, so this could only work if the 2 establishments actually agreed they were comparable. Thinking particularly here of the trad divide between polys and unis re 'vocational' vs 'academic'. And yes, of course you have to compare like with like subjects re how much time spent on essays, in the lab etc..

Disclosure: I went to Oxford; from a fairly poor non-academic family and home town, so that needn't be a barrier. An elitist place? Well, yeah, if you take the view that the 'elite' is the top-performing in something, so we have 'elite' athletes etc., why not 'elite' academic people. As Pneumatic says, 'social elitism' is a different thing. For the record, I experienced less discrimination on account of my background while at Oxford than anywhere since. Oxford can only let the proles in if the proles apply in the 1st place.

Oh yeah, and it's a bit of a myth that an Oxbridge degree acts as a magic wand in securing good jobs. My experience is that there's as much anti-Oxbridge prejudice as pro-, and this exists in some people who recruit. I spent a couple of years after uni looking for a 'proper job', eventually settling for entry into a govt dept which didn't need a degree at all. My 2.2 in a subject no-one'd heard of (and lack of direction) were probably the significant factors--also, if there are 'points' to be had from an Oxbridge degree, they probably don't work without the right 'school tie'.

pneumatic

Universities are extremely coy and touchy about whether or not degrees are comparable in quality across the system.. They have a vast quango in place to "assure quality", entirely staffed and run by people already within the system. My experiences of it have been, shall we say, very gentlemanly!

nolf

I go to York Univesity and do History. Yorks fairly consistently in the top 10 and its history department in the top 3. To get in there were 20 applicants predicted AAA at A level for every place on the course.

Essentially I don't see why a decent university would agree to this. But also it misses the point, while you can mirror image the course (with History all you need is the same library and feeback on work/essays) you still miss out on the essence of an oxbridge or red brick education.

It's (as in most business life) the interaction with people in your course that defines your university experience. The kind of people who go to these top 10 universities, are the kind who will be at the top of the world in time. Spending time with them develops you. I love University because I get to spend time with incredibly smart people who I can learn from.

That social/work interaction has as big an effect on personal development as the course. Debating with people who are cleverer than you, being forced into critical thinking, and detailed analyses to formulate/defend hypotheses, these are the employable skills you develop, and ones partly determined by social interaction.

Oxford Brookes won't give you this.
And doing an open university type thing at Oxford Brookes won't give you that either.

pneumatic

nolf wrote:

Oxford Brookes won't give you this.
And doing an open university type thing at Oxford Brookes won't give you that either.

I was with you all the way, there Nolf, until your two examples.

I work with a lot of universities in the UK. Actually, Oxford Brookes and the Open University are two of the ones I have worked with that I particularly admire.

It is a diverse sector, with diverse missions. The really good universities are good at knowing what they do best and doing it very well.

nolf

pneumatic wrote:

nolf wrote:

Oxford Brookes won't give you this.
And doing an open university type thing at Oxford Brookes won't give you that either.

I was with you all the way, there Nolf, until your two examples.

I work with a lot of universities in the UK. Actually, Oxford Brookes and the Open University are two of the ones I have worked with that I particularly admire.

It is a diverse sector, with diverse missions. The really good universities are good at knowing what they do best and doing it very well.

I didn't mean to dismiss the open university. I know that their courses are a fantastic way for people who haven't the time or the academic background (or missed the opportunity) to go to Uni full time. For me it fulfills the essential concept of equal opportunity, and are invaluable because of it.

It is a diverse sector with diverse missions, you are right. I woul argue that the mission of the open university shares some similarities with but is essentially different from an undergraduate degree at a red-brick university.
My focus was that the employable skills used throughout life are essentially self taught. However being in a social atmosphere with clever minds makes your brain work harder than it otherwise would. I think this is the difference between red-bricks and other uni's is the intellectual level expected of you in discussion. Constantly thinking critically rather than just for essays.

oldwelshman

plowmar wrote:

Just heard this morning of Government wheeze to save money.

Basically you go to local college - you cannot afford to go away to uni. - who decide after a while that you will be good enough to sit a top university's exam and you come out with that university's degree.

That will be the only contact with the uni. no lectures ( teaching to be done by local college), no interim essays how will this work, other than saving money.

Just as an example my daughter went to Imperial college London for a science degree and came out with a good degree, however when talking to other students where she currently works they got similar/ higher level pass degrees by doing multiple choice questions for the first two years of their degrees. She had to do essays etc. from the first term.

Blood boiling, Rant over. :? :?

So whats the problem?
I did my engineering degree part time years ago in Newport and it was UofWales accredited so as long as you cover the course content and pass the exams I don't see the issue?
I had to study 12 hours one day a week, then work full time the rest!!
I am 100% sure given the chance I would pass any engineering degree in one of your so called top uni's and if it was full time would be able to piss it up most of the time like most full time students