Are some degrees more equal than others?

[sheepdogdelight]

Musing upon this really.

If student A gets a 2:1 from Oxford.
Student B gets a 2:1 from Aston
Student C gets a 2:1 from Wolverhampton

Are these degrees all of equal value?

I know some people will say the one from Oxford is worth more, because, well Oxford. And the one from Wolverhampton is worth less, because, ex polytechnic.
But have the students achieved equal academic excellence in reality?

It's not just the academic excellence its the whole ethos of the institution the degree is from. Oxford/Cambridge is where leaders come from Wolverhampton is for the workers.

Of course they're not of equal value.

No they’re not. Oxford students are higher calibre from the start therefore the teaching can be more rigorous with greater or deeper content.

How do you measure value? Subject/ earning potential/ career options?

I'd say not, but based on limited knowledge. Twenty odd years ago, when I studied for my law degree, I got talking at an event to a law student from a former polytechnic uni. They hadn't covered, nor were they going to cover, some parts of what were considered to be core elements of the legal syllabus. Thought it was interesting, to say the least!

Of course they're VERY unequal.

Getting into Oxford requires much higher grades to get in!

The teaching at Oxford will be at a much higher level due to the students' abilities.

Why don't you have a look at the detailed syllabus and the past exam papers? That should quickly prove that the three degrees are NOT at all comparable.

And why not ask Personnel departments of successful companies where they prefer to recruit from?

No they are not; the higher ranked unis rely on more self teaching the lower ranked more hand holding, often content is also different. Hence why there are different levels of entrance requirements. Someone with three c’s would struggle to do the same degree at a uni requiring three a’s.

In a purely selfish way I worry about the trend of blind applications where the university is blanked out. I’m hoping DS3 will get a 2:1 from his RG uni (sorry) but he’d almost certainly have got a first from Leicester where they proudly told us over 50% get a first. He needed A*AA for his uni, Leicester were offering BBB and even lower in clearing. 🤷🏼‍♀️

Maybe not so much these days with uni blind recruitment and employer testing. For DDs graduate scheme even the face to face interviews focused on situational judgement and soft skills. Not sure Oxford is any better at fostering this than Wolverhampton but I don't know either.

Op, is this meant to be a serious question

Of course people place more value in a 2:1 from Oxford compared to the others

Even if the 'degrees' were similar, the calibre of students at each institution is very different.

Not sure uni-blind is so blind. DD about to apply for placement year. It is uni blind but they ask for modules (content and grade) and you can attach a transcript.

Yes. I'm not after perception. I'm after actual fact. Is there consistency of standards of assessment across university?

Are we saying that if you don't go to <highly regarded university> it's hardly worth bothering to get a degree, because it won't be considered worth as much as other degrees from other universities, even if you get a first? Isn't this writing off people who (say) do badly in A Levels for whatever reason, choose to go to a local university because of costs/caring universities, come to education later in life? Or is actually a 2:1 from any university still pretty good?

In other areas of life we are striving for diversity and not making judgements on people based on their background. Still feels like there is a snob value around university though.

From what I understand it shouldn’t be and the OfS are trying to ensure equality of standards across universities. Of course in practice this probably isn’t happening.

however university year 1 UG is at lvl 4, then 2nd year is lvl 5 and year 3 lvl 6. There are known national pedagogical standards for what’s expected at each level. So level 4 will be more descriptive, lvl 5 more critical analysis and lvl 6 deeper analysis and some synthesis. Then post grad level 7 more synthesis.

I’ve studied at 6 universities in England now from ex poly to Russell Group. The teaching is not necessarily better at the RG university. Module learning outcomes have similar descriptors and assessment at a very similar level.

Because if levels weren’t broadly similar everyone could just go to shit uni 101 and get a 1st. It doesn’t work like that.

Universities are terrified of grade inflation and work hard to maintain standards. Degree awarding status could be removed from any University if it was thought their degrees were too easy

Absolutely not. I went to UCL (an objectively very well regarded uni) but was repeatedly reminded by awful Oxbridge ex boyfriend that my degree was a walk in the park compared to his (to the point where he became resentful when I ended up with a first). But I’ve also read first-graded essays from other unis which would certainly not have achieved the same grade from our department. The calibre of academics employed by each uni isn’t necessarily lower, but the grading is more lenient and workload lighter.

Absolutely - so, in general terms, I might expect institutes with lower calibre students to have a smaller proportion of higher degrees.

although the standard of teaching comes into this as well. Will a lower calibre student with better teaching do better than a higher calibre student with worse teaching.? You can't simply say that because a university takes in students with higher A Level results, said students must do better at degree level. There are other factors too.

They're not the same. And even if they were objectively the same then that's not how an employer would see it. A more interesting question would be 1st from Aston vs. 2(ii) from Oxford. An employer might assume that the latter individual didn't make the best of the opportunity

Also, subject may be a factor - certain less prestigious institutions can be absolutely fantastic in a particular field and I gather that Oxbridge isn't top-of-the-tree for absolutely every subject.

Should also add that I’m basing this opinion on having studied to PhD level and taught at 4 different UK unis! So yes, grades should be reflective of academic ability across the board, but in reality they are not.

This is a very odd thing to write; I’m quite bemused by your extremes. People answered your question absolutely no one said it means it’s not worth getting a degree.

and what’s it got to do with snobbery.

it’s simple fact the course content and teaching methods differ and it’s harder at the higher end unis than the lower. Hence why you need to have higher level entrance requirements to ensure students can achieve the degree. As it is harder then it is worth more. This doesn’t mean other unis have no value.

what a ludicrous thought.

You can't simply say that because a university takes in students with higher A Level results, said students must do better at degree level. There are other factors too

the poster didn’t say that. Are you ok?

Of course they're not equal. I think everyone knows that really.