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?

Of course they're not equal.

BA in History at Oxford - entry requirements AAA
BA in History and Politics at Aston - entry requirements BBC
BA in History at Wolverhampton - entry requirements CCC.

The Oxford university students are the brightest and most able. Obviously a degree from there is more prestigious and marketable.

Always remember listening to Sir John Jones. He said a lot of people have university snobbery and that's clear from this thread.

Are medicine degrees from Bristol and Anglia Ruskin equal? Will a doctor be more competent from the former?

Interestingly, 3 A stars from Eton (or a super selective Grammar) are not seen as equal to 3 A stars gained at a lower ranked comprehensive school, even though the calibre of the student may have seemed higher on entry. They have just got 3 A stars through very different schooling experiences.

Interesting about the Alevels but I guess they do all sit the same exam and its regulated by exam boards and ofqual.

A A from Eton is the same as an A from a comp in special measures.

I think it also depends on the subject. Some universities are known for being excellent in a particular field. But because universities mostly set their own exams, ie there is no governing exam board like for GCSEs and A levels, institution matters hugely. Some are much more rigorous than others so a 2:1 from a tough uni is in no way the same as a 2:1 from one with a lower standard.

Marking might have different criteria across a University for various reasons, type of subject, professional accreditation etc. But there is across sector moderation, so a say Law at University A - they are moderated by an academic in Law at University B (and perhps University X and Y too). University B are moderated by academics at University C and University Z. This is across Russell Group, post-92s etc to ensure a consistent standard across degree clasifications in the same subject

I've certainly got job interviews based on my degree. I went to two top 10 unis for undergrad and postgrad and I think it has helped my career.

I'm now considering applying to Cambridge for my PhD and I know it will be far more challenging than my previous unis!

Oxford and Cambridge students get far more teaching time than other university students.

Depends on the degree - wouldn't necessarily rate an Oxford engineering degree over Aston

I think Cambridge is much higher ranked than Oxford in Engineering!

I must admit, I always wondered this, I didn't go to university and DH did a degree through day release at work. DS went to a RG university and studied Physics, but would the Physics studied at a different university that wanted lesser grades be a different course, so finding this thread quite interesting.

The last time this came up,.there was an interesting post from someone saying at their organisation, they had moved from 'top university' focused recruitment to university-blind recruitment, and the quality of their graduates in the workplace had shot up. Far more resilience from the get-go and a range of skills.

That rings true to me. Doing well in exams and working hard is one good thing. It's not everything that employers want. And having outsourced their training costs to be borne by the graduates themselves, they can't really complain that academic study doesn't equal exactly the training they are looking for and measures itself a little differently.

Yep the physics is different, Gravity isn't as strong and the speed of light is slower and there are only five colours in the rainbow.

Seriously, the sciences should be pretty much the same. What may vary could be the quality of teaching and the emphasis of the later courses (which may be due to the research bias of the staff).

It's absolutely subject dependent.

In my area, Technology, academic excellence does not always translate to employability

When recruiting we look for ability to think logically and to work well in a team of specialists from very different areas.

There are very few openings for individual superstars and lots of opportunity for people who can innovate and move technology forwards, as part of a multi discipline team.

A an international, corporate which is a household name and acknowledged to set standards, we do have people from Oxbridge, along with people from many other prestigious and not so prestigious establishments. The employment process strives to be egalitarian exactly because no simple marker has yet been identified which will guarantee success. They are employed for what they can contribute today and not because of any specific achievements. It's impossible to tell without asking or being told anyone's background.

As close to a meritocracy as I've ever experienced. We are always recruiting.

Yes, but you need to know more than this to be sure that Glasgow graduates have to meet a higher standard than Edinburgh graduates to get a First. For all we know, the Glasgow students are being asked simpler questions and are therefore required to get to a higher standard. More likely, they have different marking criteria designed to get their academics to award marks from the full range of marks, not just mostly between 40% and 70%.

I used to work for a Russell Group university which had agreed marking criteria for both undergraduate and postgraduate courses. There was an A4 sheet that showed what standard of work was expected for each range of marks, which every marker was given and told to refer to. It was something along the lines of 'Good basic answer, covers all the main points, reasonably well written, but not much originality - 50-60%'.

Every so often there was a plaintive reminder from the senior admin that it was possible to award marks higher than 70%. I think that was more of a problem than getting markers to give a really poor piece of work a mark below 40% (the undergraduate pass mark) or 50% (the postgraduate pass mark). As an administrator recording marks, I certainly rarely saw marks above 75% and they were usually from stellar students who'd done brilliantly all the way through.

That is interesting. I assume they do some sort of anonymised testing simulating real life tasks.

I have always had the impression that a 4-year degree with a really good, well-structured and monitored industry or research placement in the third year gives a graduate a head start.

No, there's no consistency nor standardisation. I've been responsible for recruiting and training in a few firms I've worked for (accountancy). We've had graduates from "certain" universities with degrees in accounting who were unable to do the most basic of accounting tasks despite having a 2:1 degree! Graduates form other universities with the "same" degree had no problems with such tasks at all and were pretty competent at basic accounting. We never could work out what the ones unable to do basic accounting had actually done in their 3 years at Uni as there was no evidence they'd done anything relating to accounting at all!

What is the point of education? Part of the point is to get a job, and have options in life. A lot depends on the degree and the opportunities the student creates for them self.
I know Oxford doesn’t do nursing/ teaching, but students who do those degrees WILL get a job, and they will have progression options.

Some universities are very well regarded in particular fields by people who know what they are talking about - people who know what they are talking about may say that a degree in xyz from less generally well regarded Uni is more valuable than degree in xyz from more prestigious university.

We never could work out what the ones unable to do basic accounting had actually done in their 3 years at Uni as there was no evidence they'd done anything relating to accounting at all!

Wow, that's quite worrying. Especially as these students paid the same fees and incurred the same student debts as those going to a 'better' Uni!

Of course not. Otherwise one would get a degree from anywhere.
My daughter will be applying this year. She knows the unis that have the best reputation for her field, that have excellent facilities and student satisfaction and industry connections and those are where she will be applying. Not all universities - and degrees - are equal.

I think in general yes, but it depends on the subject. I did an accredited undergrad degree, Russell group universities do not offer the accredited degree, but do offer a similar non accredited version. However, the non accredited version was significantly more flexible and allowed students to not take certain modules. As an example, I found genetics more difficult than physiology, but had to take that module as that was a requirement of my accreditation, where as my colleague who went to the RG uni told me she dropped genetics and other modules and picked ones she found easier. Her modules were often assessed through coursework, presentations and group work where as mine were as a minimum 50% exam based.

Going to a polytechnic has never stopped me from being successful, I was accepted onto two prestigious grad schemes and career wise I have progressed further and been promoted to more senior positions than colleagues who attended RG unis. As part of the grad scheme I had to complete a masters degree and obtained distinction and marks which were not significantly different from other students who attended RG unis for their undergrads.

I think there’s also going to be subjects that are academically more difficult than others regardless of the university. A physics degree from almost any university is going to be “harder” than an art history degree from almost any university because of the subject matter.

I’ve noticed that a lot of people think because they went to a RG uni their degree should open more doors regardless of classification or subject and in the real world it often doesn’t work like that. I would rather have a 1st from a polytechnic than a 2:2 from a prestigious uni because anything below a 2:1 rules you out from many grad schemes.

I can't believe anyone could possibly think a 2:1 degree from Wolverhampton is equal to a 2:1 degree from Oxford. Just look at quality of entrants grades. You don't need AAA to get in at Wolverhampton. I did my first degree BSc at Warwick. I enjoyed it but Lecturers were more focused on their own research than teaching students. I did a second degree BA at Coventry and found I got loads of help from lecturers even when I could have done it much more independently. Lecturers were much more student focused and marking was more generous. Also there were far fewer exams and more group coursework which was a doddle.

@caringcarer - but do the things you found harder at Warwick make it a more useful course from the employer’s point of view? I guess it’s like: do you hire a champion weightlifter or ordinary joe for a warehousing job? Well it probably depends more on their other skills. The champion weightlifter is likely to be better on strength, but if the warehouse doesn’t often need people to manually lift objects, then it’s not that relevant. I guess the weightlifter has shown dedication and determination - which are positive traits though.

No, they are absolutely not all of equal value. Oxbridge degrees are worth far more than some others.

Degrees from Oxbridge have far more difficult content than elsewhere so yes they are more equal