To think there is grade inflation in universities

[Thetelly8]

I’ve noticed a lot of students gain very high grades it seems people getting a 2.2 or a third is extremely unusual.

Reading weeks aren’t universal, even within the same university. There are no reading weeks in my faculty but there are in others.

The answer is to assess standard achieved, not how hard students work, and to have standardisation across universities and courses. And to set the level for firsts higher.

Accreditation by professional bodies is irrelevant to degree standards.

So, what is the point of accreditation then? I thought that it would standardise the quality of the same degree across the different universities.

Which universities do you have any faith in then because you are coming across as very anti university on this thread. You constantly dismiss working hard to achieve good results. Is a degree only worth having if a student attends Oxbridge?

Again the emotive ‘but they put in effort so they deserve a first class degree’. There are plenty of incredibly hard working college students who put in just as much effort, if not more, and still fail GCSE English and Maths and the lower level course they are studying. Should they be awarded a first class degree in order to recognise the effort they have put in to achieve well?

We need doctors, nurses and engineers who have met the standard, not lower the standard and award degrees because they have worked hard.

Accreditation means you have to cover certain content to a certain level. I've taught on two courses at different unis, both accredited by the same body. To achieve a first at one uni was much harder despite it being the same qualification on paper. But that's because that was a Russell group where the entry standards are significantly higher and more competitive.

That is a bit like saying ‘what is the point of dance exams’ to someone on a physics course. A professional body may set accreditation at whatever standard they like - it may overlap a degree, require additional courses, work experience or professional exams. Or you might be able to achieve accreditation within your first few weeks at uni. It is a separate standard from a degree. It also has a separate purpose - to ensure certain requirements of a profession are met, whereas a degree is a level
of study and understanding of a subject that might only be tangentially relevant to professional work.

You keep missing the point that I am trying to make. There are kids who work hard and don't achieve and there are kids who work hard and do achieve.

That is a bit like saying ‘what is the point of dance exams’ to someone on a physics course

No it doesn't. I am getting exasperated at your lack of reading comprehension now.

DD is among the latter (she achieved mostly As and A* at GCSE and all As at A level). Entry requirements for her course at an RG university were AAA/AAB. There was no hand holding or spoon feeding on her degree course. The tutors and lecturers were very hands off. The students didn't get to know any of the teaching staff and often they saw a lecturer only once.

So her hard work paid off. Please stop minimising high achievement by hard work. Or do you think her GCSEs and A levels were too easy as well (both taken pre covid)? Or do you think only bright young people who don't need to work hard should go to university?

I don't disagree with you that standards need to be raised and degree courses need to be standardised, but please stop with the hard work doesn't get you anywhere when it clearly does for many young people.

Well said. Both my sons are chartered engineers as is my husband. What infuriates them and myself is people really don’t get engineers and think they fix things such as washing machines. Oh my washers broken I’ll call an engineer. It took 4 years of study to get the degree then another 4/5 years of CPD and interview to become Chartered.

I think you are missing the point. Some students work very hard and achieve well. Some students work very hard and don't do particularly well. My dd worked hard and got a first every year of her medical degree. Some of her friends worked equally hard and did not get a first any year of the degree. My ds also worked hard but not as hard as dd did. He got a first each year of his engineering degree.

There are some students who believe they should be rewarded for their hard work rather than for achieving the standard. I regularly get students questioning the mark they got "because I worked really hard in your subject and felt I should have gotten a better mark". I don't grade based on effort. I grade based on reaching a standard.

In Ireland, an engineer is degree qualified at least. I was surprised to hear repair people being referred to as engineers when I went to the UK first.

@Rockchick01 I think that’s a different issue. My DH is FICE, FIStructE and FCIHT. The fact the word “engineer” is not reserved for qualified engineers always rankles in this household. We all know what a doctor is. We know you cannot call yourself a solicitor unless you are one. The fact we lump any “fix it” person (however useful) into the same category is appalling. In Germany “Herr Ingenieur” is used to denote the esteem and regard for the engineering profession. It matters there.

One interesting point is the average age that engineers get chartered is now 34. My DH was 24 (3 year degree in those days and August birthday). 12 years post degree is slow slow slow! I’m wondering why this is the case? It should be 4-5 years (my DH had exams and interviews!) so are the degrees poor or are employees and employers not engaged in the process?

By saying it’s a different issue, I’m not sure people think an engineering degree is not worth it but they do think degrees that don’t lead to jobs aren’t worth it and some are self indulgent. We have around 20% of degree holders not getting work and many who are in work have jobs that previously no one needed a degree to do. Is the variety of non stem degrees too broad with too few skills imparted for employment? (My DDs have non stem degrees by the way - Not anti stem).

I think you’re right. It’s shocking that engineers are not deemed professionals by a lot of society. What they don’t seem to grasp is that without engineers we wouldn’t have the life we have now. My sons and husband are Mechanical engineers. I remember having a conversation with someone about what our children were going to do at uni. Her son was going to do medicine. When I said my son was going to do mechanical engineering she said oh didn’t think they did degrees fixing cars etc. She soon changed her tune when I said the medical equipment her son would use would have been designed by an engineers! My eldest got chartered
a year ago aged 33 and my youngest has just got his aged 32.
I think you’re right too there are a lot of graduates who do struggle to find employment relating to their degree particularly those who have done arts etc which is a shame and as you’ve said some are just self indulgent without thinking about the end picture.

Could the high age be due to the fact that chartered status is not a requirement for career progression with some types of engineering and those who never get it are included in the calculations?

You are constantly missing the point. Whether an individual student worked hard or not is irrelevant to maintaining standards. You keep telling us your DD worked hard as if this has any bearing on whether standards are maintained, or to try and deny grade inflation - which has taken place across the whole range of qualifications from GCSEs (which had to change to numbers because of it) to A levels and degrees. Your DD’s individual work ethic, whilst commendable, is irrelevant to the discussion of standards.

@OchonAgusOchonOh That’s the problem we are highlighting isn’t it. No professional status needed but still get to consider yourself an engineer when, in Germany, you would not be. Engineer should be a title that is protected. Not bothering to be Chartered is dumbing down the profession and it’s sad as we have a world recognised qualification.

I agree that hard work doesn’t measure the quality of a degree. The very bright don’t always have to work that hard either! Especially if they choose a degree from some universities. Others will have to do far more work at a faster pace and employers know this. Fast paced learning and quantity prepare students for work. Having to work very hard at undergrad is not always a great sign of intelligence but it’s a sign of a good witk ethic and nothing wrong with that.

I got chartered status in my profession for a few years before letting it lapse as it had no bearing on my career (in that field). I remember it felt quite a good thing to get when I was young post-first degree so I can see some young engineers applying for it quite soon into their careers. But I can also imagine those who weren’t motivated at that stage not bothering with it if it was not necessary for their careers and just deciding later in life at some point it might be nice to have.

I disagree with you re the chartered status being required to be an engineer for some fields. I'm 60. I don't know anyone from my cohort at university, other than those who studied civil engineering, who became chartered engineers. It just wasn't necessary for our careers. Most of us would have done a masters at some stage so would be eligible to become chartered.

I do think it is ridiculous that repair people call themselves engineers but doing a 4 year BE degree (which it is in Ireland) should be enough to call yourself an engineer. Most of the kids do the 5th year now which gives them the masters as part of the course.

But yeah, if you don't protect the term, then I guess you end up with a situation like you have in the UK where repair people will call themselves engineers. So I'm firmly on the fence😁

I think you are missing the point. Some students work very hard and achieve well. Some students work very hard and don't do particularly well.

I know this and I haven’t missed this point at all @OchonAgusOchonOh and @BrokenSunflowers. I think I may not have explained myself clearly enough.

I agree that degrees have been devalued. There are too many universities offering too many degrees to too many students who shouldn’t be in higher education. The entire higher education section definitely needs an overhaul.

A first class degree in the same subject from a top 10 university will not be regarded in the same way as one from a university languishing at the bottom of the table with low entry requirements. Everyone knows that don't they? There does need to be more standardisation.

I don’t recall stating anywhere that hard work should always be rewarded with high grades. Hard work along with innate ability where the young person achieves enough marks to achieve high grades, whether it is GCSE, A level or degree classification should be recognised.

DD could have coasted and achieved a 2.1, but she didn't. She worked harder and achieved a first, and I am proud of her.

I was responding to your points "Please stop minimising high achievement by hard work." and "please stop with the hard work doesn't get you anywhere when it clearly does for many young people."

Nobody has suggested that hard work never pays off. What we are saying is that hard work doesn't necessarily pay off and that many students seem to think that because they worked hard, they deserve a high grade.

Well done to your daughter for working hard and achieving well.

What we are saying is that hard work doesn't necessarily pay off and that many students seem to think that because they worked hard, they deserve a high grade.

I agree with this ^^
And thank you

A friend's DS went to a low ranking university and achieved a 2.2 in a degree that isn't very well respected. I'm pretty sure he did work hard, but I feel that all he did was accrue three years worth of debt with nothing to show for it. He still hasn't found a job. This isn't the kind of student I was trying (and failing) to describe.

Universities just want bums on seats and so we end up with graduates like the aforementioned. It's just such a sad waste.

@OchonAgusOchonOh I have to disagree with you there. Doctors and solicitors and accountants must do further study or CPD and exams to get their qualifications. By only doing a degree, engineers dumb themselves down snd wages sink with that. It’s foolhardy but they have themselves to blame. Even in this day and age you might want a skyscraper or bridge designed by a team of engineers with above degree qualifications and a masters is the starting point only. It’s sad that engineers don’t see themselves as important enough to get fully qualified.

That's valid for civil /structural engineers and ds, who is currently doing a masters in civil, will be getting chartered status. We have stressed to him the importance of doing so.

However, there was absolutely no career benefit to me or my classmates who did anything other than civil engineeriing in getting chartered status. We were a mix of industrial, electronic and mechanical engineers.

Doctors don't need to do further exams unless they want to specialise. It is perfectly possible to work your entire career in a hospital without going any further. That said, most will specialise to some degree.

I guess to some extent it’s personal drive and ambition. DH owned his consultancy so needed chartered status - partner at 28. Thats almost impossible now but he could have worked anywhere in the world. I agree employers just want work done but we need to differentiate between chartered engineers and others or we dumb ourselves down. My dh paid chartered team leaders more so ambitious people did better and had a chance to become a partner and more recently a director. Non chartered, they didn’t.

Chartered status is not about drive and ambition - it is about marketability. So if you run an independent consultancy then it improves your marketability. If you are in a large engineering firm then they may value other skills/specialist courses more so someone with drive and ambition to achieve within that firm will turn their attention to those instead. A large firm will establish their own relevant measures of competency so chartered status wouldn’t shown additional value to them internally.

Again, it depends on the field of engineering. Chartered status would have been of zero benefit to my career. It would have actually been a waste of time and money to get it so it definitely not an indicator of drive or ambition. For civil/structural engineering, then yes, it makes a difference. However, not all engineers are civil/structural.