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?

Varies by subject. I have the impression that Medicine, Dentistry, Veterinary Science and similar degrees are so closely regulated that it's of much less relevance than other subjects where the graduate studied.

In other areas of life we are striving for diversity and not making judgements on people based on their background.

Diversity and different backgrounds are always good.

But that's not the topic here. It's about academic excellence, and clearly getting into Oxbridge in itself demonstrates that!

I've been asked my degree level in interview - have never been asked what University I got it from

Leaders 😂

Depends on the subject surely.
I did a degree which needs to be accredited to go into a specific profession. You can’t train in this profession without an accredited degree, but lots of universities (including the higher ranked ones) provide this same degree just the unaccredited version. For example the Oxford degree is unaccredited but the Oxford Brooke’s one is.

You may not have been asked, but I know for a fact that - rightly or wrongly - the name of my university has helped me to get a foot in the door in at least two of my previous jobs.

With blind recruitment becoming more common these days, it will be interesting to see if that will lead to a greater push to standardise what a first, 2:1 etc means at different universities.

It is a massive leap from "not all degrees are equal" to "not worth bothering". A good degree from a lower ranked university could be useful.

How degrees from different universities are regarded varies significantly by subject as well. Some universities which are lower-ranked overall have individual departments that are very well thought of in their fields.

Engineering too. And computing. Any degree accredited by an outside body will be easier to compare across institutions.

I get the impression from previous threads that the actual workload at Oxford and Cambridge is much higher, putting more emphasis on regular essay writing and time management. So although all level 6 should be the same a Oxbridge student should have developed much better skills along with their qualification.

Engineering too. And computing. Any degree accredited by an outside body will be easier to compare across institutions.*

This^
It's very subject dependant. If the course requires accreditation by a professional body such eg science courses, dentistry, engineering, architecture etc then there be much more equality, even if the entrance requirements differ.

Well in your specific example, the degree from Oxford is probably going to be considered better because of the entrance requirements.

However, you are massively overthinking this. A 2:1 from any university is fine and anyway most employers do not look closely at the specific university you obtained your first degree from.

you can’t compare (but not just in the standard sense of this). It’s not just in the ‘difficulty’ of the degree but in the content.

Oxbridge might go heavily into the abstract side of things (eg you might learn obscure/historic languages in computer science - to illustrate principles). But maybe a newer uni would teach more practical skills - like how to set up a web server in the cloud. what do you want as an employer? Do you want someone who will hit the ground running (ie already familiar with certain v specific tools)? Are the problems you want someone to solve more technology-specific (so having a deep experience with 1 tool) or conceptual (what are all the options for solving this problem)?

I think employers use degrees in the wrong way - they use it to filter out lots of applications and get the ‘best’ talent. But it’s not really a good filter, because many jobs just don’t need degrees and didn’t need them in the past. Lots can be learnt from on-the-job training and actually soft skills, taking the initiative, continual learning are a lot more important.

even within a single institution the classification of a degree is not consistent between subjects or over time. The ‘fairest’ comparators are where all candidates sit an identical test (eg professional bodies which do exams for diplomas, CFA etc) - but even those may not adequately show all the skills an employer might be looking for.

This

It seems to depend on what area and at what level you are hoping to enter the workforce too. For example Oxbridge/Durham/StAndrews 2:1 will apparently open more doors into top law firms.
And when applying for “top grad schemes” there is usually a lengthy process of demanding specific applications/testing/interviews/presentations and more - the graduate needs to be bright/articulate/work well independently under pressure, etc, etc. That is not dependent on which uni they attended, but innate skills and those learned/fostered in the institutions they have attended.

n order to obtain a First at Glasgow University, you need to be getting 18/22 or an A5 overall. In percentage terms this amounts to 81% - a difficult task by standard.
Of course, Glasgow University is an excellent academic institution, well ranked and part of the elite Russell group, and presumably should be able to set whatever grade boundaries it likes. But consider my confusion when I discovered that the University of Edinburgh, also an excellent academic institution, well ranked and part of the elite Russell group, awards Firsts to students who achieve 70% in their degree assessments, and gives students a 2:1 when they achieve 60%. These are no meagre differences, by any stretch of the imagination.

So no, not all the same.

LLB Law degrees are regulated. To be a qualifying law degree satisfying the academic stage of qualification as a solicitor or barrister there are compulsory elements that must be covered whatever the institution.

Some people do law degrees that aren't qualifying law degrees but it is unusual, and often because they are on joint honours or have switched course.

However universities may make some modules "core" compulsory elements that aren't required by the SRA. The modules may also be given different names. I suspect something like this was the cause of the confusion you encountered.

Engineering too. And computing. Any degree accredited by an outside body will be easier to compare across institutions.

Many employers will actively recruit software/computer engineers from Imperial College and Cambridge (and MIT etc), rather than from Wolverhampton.

Other than if you do law or medicine, a degree is a degree & 75% of the stuff you do you will never use again, much like all the things you learned at school they are a means to an end.

And even with 'blind' applications, those students attending a competitive Uni/course are probably going to do better in the entrance assessments.

Oxbridge degrees have a vastly higher workload.

This may be put of date, but 10yrs ago, an English degree at Oxford required 2-3 essays per week, that were discussed with lecturers in groups of 3 or 4. An English degree at Birmingham (ie RG uni) required 2-3 essays a term and tutorial groups were in groups of approx 8-10. The Oxford student has a hugely more rounded and in depth, if also massively intense experience.

As an engineer, I strongly disagree that there is much difference in quality of engineering degrees. The accreditation for the various engineering institutions really is the most basic of requirements and is in terms of required content not quality of teaching or indeed quality of content.

As an engineer, I strongly disagree that there is much difference in quality of engineering degrees.

Perhaps more in software/computer engineering? I've heard from various Technology companies that they like to recruit from Imperial for example?

@JesusMaryAndJosephAndTheWeeDon it was equity and trusts that she hadn't covered. It was a very long time ago, (late 90s) but I do remember thinking, surely that's a core module on all courses.

Anyway, no skin off my nose, I do something completely different now! 🤷🏼‍♀️🤣

I studied an undergrad at two different unis, one a top 5 uni and the other a former poly somewhere around 50 in the rankings.
The marking was significantly harsher in the top university. I could fairly easily get 1st or 2.1s in my essays at the lower ranked uni. I had to work twice as hard to achieve a 2.1 and never got a first in any essay at the top ranked uni.

They are 100% not equal. I have worked at a former poly that would give 2:1 to students who could barely string together a coherent paragraph. I was shocked by the standard and shocked by the grading curve. I don't even think degrees are equal between departments to be honest. Marking within universities is very subjective, despite moderation processes. So yes, a 2:1 degree at X former poly would not be equal in quality or marking standard to a different university. Whether it was considered so by an employer is another matter and probably is more based on university reputation/group.

For some universities it just about bums on seats not qualifications, if your A levels are fairly low get a job with training, if you get a low grade degree you will be worse off.
Around half the graduates are not doing graduate work, and that’s not including the drop outs.