to wonder of there's so much emphasis on where you got your degree from..

[paddleduck]

Where does that Leave the OU? I had no idea until recent MN threads that a degree wasn't just a Degree.. that a great deal of weight was put on where that degree was obtained. If this is the case, I'm interested to know whether degrees taken through the OU are well thought of?

..and aibu to reconsider starting one, if nobody will much care for it?!

I don't think it matters as much if you have post grad qualifications.

I would hope the OU degrees are well regarded, the grade boundaries are very high compared to other institutions 85%+ for a 1st, 75%+ for a 2:1.

I think OU is in a different category. Emphasis from employers is basically using the admissions system as a shortcut to judging academic intelligence. OU is different as courses are often part time, alongside work, and generally taken for the same reason as a full time course at 18. Successfully completing an OU degree shows a great deal of commitment - longer duration, active choice of course etc - and most employers should value it accordingly.

The reason that so much currency is put on where a 21 year old has graduated from in competitive graduate schemes etc, is that most 21 year olds don't have a lot other than their paper qualifications to offer in terms of experience of work or of life. It's also a way for lazy recruiters to make assumptions about what grades you would have got to be accepted and what social circles you might be accustomed to.

Most OU students work alongside their study, and a majority also have children or other caring responsibilities. Being awarded an OU qualification is a huge achievement. All OU qualifications are reviewed by external examiners who are academics from other institutions. You can access these reports - they are generally incredibly positive about the standards, the teaching and the support offered. Most employers that are looking for effective workers, as opposed to graduate trainees, are very keen on OU qualifications, as they say a great deal about commitment, determination and a real drive to learn.

OU grade boundaries use a real 100 point scale, whereas in practice most other institutions don't mark even the best work at a couple of marks beyond 70. The standards - as assessed by external examiners and monitored by the QAA - are the same.

Successfully completing an OU degree shows a great deal of commitment - longer duration, active choice of course etc - and most employers should value it accordingly.

Should, yes.. but do they really?

I don't know if my view is being skewed by all the recent threads on the matter but at such a large commitment in all aspects, I'll be pretty pissed if no one considers my degree just because I didn't get it at a top uni?

Ignore the MN pissing contest over whose kids are the smartest based on what Uni they went to.

Anyone who works in academia (I do) knows that judging on the basis of institution is useless. Membership of the Russell Group is about research, not undergraduate teaching.

The OU provides employer funded qualifications for huge corporations like IBM and KPMG. It is the UKs leading HEI for nurses and paramedics and trains 10% of all social workers. It is very well thought of by real world employers.

Ignore the MN pissing contest over whose kids are the smartest based on what Uni they got into.

Anyone who works in academia (I do) knows that judging on the basis of institution is useless. Membership of the Russell Group is about research, not undergraduate teaching.

The OU provides employer funded qualifications for huge corporations like IBM and KPMG. It is the UKs leading HEI for nurses and paramedics and trains 10% of all social workers. It is very well thought of by real world employers.

Oops, sorry for double post, wifi hiccuped.

It depends doesn't it? Entirely on the subject.

OU is very well thought of because it exhibits discipline from the graduate, generally juggling a job &/or a family - many skills over and above the research that a standard undergrad would be doing.

OddBoots: the numerical grade boundaries for the OU might be higher but (in the humanities and social sciences at least) that isn't because you need to be better to get a first than at other universities. You give an 85 within the OU system where you'd give a 70 at universities using the traditional marking scheme. It isn't that the OU are meanies.

I think that employers do recognise the effort that goes into an OU degree, and the fact that it can show a greater commitment to studying than at other universities. The teaching materials and procedures at the OU are widely regarded as extremely high quality. Some really excellent academics choose to work at the OU because that way of working really suits them (more so than working in a traditional university with face-to-face teaching), and the quality control procedures are impressive.

In the past OU degrees were much more based in regurgitating the textbooks back in assignments than was the case in traditional universities. This was because there would be enormous variations in people's access to libraries to read beyond the course materials, so it wouldn't have been at all fair to penalise students who didn't happen to be able to access a well-stocked university library with a good public access policy. That's not really the case any longer.

Now that the university can provide it's students with access to their own library electronically, that's no longer the case. That is a particularly good thing for the really good students, as it's much easier to demonstrate the quality of your independent thought when you aren't limited to drawing upon the course materials and can bring in all sorts of other (relevant) materials. What it really means is that the good students are more likely to have their skills rewarded with high marks than they would have been 10 years ago.