Campus universities

[PinaColadaBaby]

I know most universities have a campus of sorts but DD is looking for a traditional campus university - where all the teaching, 1st year accommodation and sport are in one place. So, by this criterion, Leicester and Leeds for example are not campus, whereas Nottingham is.

Traditional campus universities that occur to me: Nottingham, Birmingham, Exeter, Warwick, Essex, York. Do you know of any others please?

Makes virtually no impact on uk employers. It’s pretty meaningless for MFL.

What does this mean? What sort of impact on which employers?

@singingstones World rankings for MFL. Employers here tend to know what universities to rely on and where there’s competitive entry. If they recruit from a world pool of applicants it might be different. The higher the tariff, usually the greater depth of course too. If employers don’t look at university it’s even more meaningless of course!

Oh, I see, you're saying employers of MFL graduates don't take university rankings into account?
I guess class of degree would be the main thing then if there was competition, rather than where the degree was taken?

The higher the tariff, usually the greater depth of course too.

UCAS tariff points on entry are very misleading.

Scottish students who have completed Advanced Highers automatically have a larger number of tariff points than students because Scottish qualifications carry more points. Students in Wales & Northern Ireland will mostly have sat AS-Levels, which carry extra points. Middle-class kids will, on average, have more points because of music grades, horse-grooming qualifications, etc. So any course that recruits predominantly English students and does not have over-representation of well-off kids will have a lower average entry tariff.

I guess class of degree would be the main thing then if there was competition, rather than where the degree was taken?

Unfortunately, degree class is calculated in rather different ways in different universities. Although I have worked in UK universities for 25 years, I'm afraid I think degree classes are completely meaningless (much like university league tables).

League tables can be worth a look , but only if you have some understanding of the metrics they're based on and their limitations. 'Student satisfaction' may indicate uncritical students who aren't challenged enough, for instance.

In the real world, not sure how useful world rankings of MFL degrees are if one employer is needing someone fluent in Arabic and another needs a polyglot.

I would have agreed a year ago. However, DS2 trotted off to a uni because he liked the course, blithely ignoring suspicious NSS data.

Turned out the data was entirely accurate. He swapped course within 3 weeks.

Music grades carry a really small number of points! (mind, it's always rankled that FA coaching certificates don't get UCAS points)

I did think the thing about Scotland was true but a few weeks ago was informed on MN that there some sort of weighting applied.

Valentine Court isn't the cheapest.

It's misleading to call it a campus uni - any visit to eg Bath would illustrate that.

On campus accommodation is Cygnet Wharf and Lincoln Courts. Others are very close but they are off site (across roads). The proper campus itself is tiny.

DS did play football (in second year) but there wasn't the on site green space you get at the big campus unis.

I'm not doing Lincoln down - it's a good place to be a student and the accommodation is on the whole really excellent - but a gated/walled self contained campus it isn't.

But, anyway, yeah, no MFL.

Music grades carry a really small number of points! (mind, it's always rankled that FA coaching certificates don't get UCAS points)

The number of universities that accept these sorts of points is very low and it is only those places that ask for really low entry grades anyway (music/drama school is obviously an exception). It's no advantage. Just because say Durham says their course needs 154 points it does not mean you can make up those points using Lamda and music points, you need to have those points from three A Levels generally all sat in one sitting.

The number of universities that accept these sorts of points is very low and it is only those places that ask for really low entry grades anyway (music/drama school is obviously an exception). It's no advantage. Just because say Durham says their course needs 154 points it does not mean you can make up those points using Lamda and music points, you need to have those points from three A Levels generally all sat in one sitting.

I wasn't suggesting the non-academic UCAS tariff points contribute to entry decisions. The point is that they contribute to average entry tariffs in league tables. So two courses whose average A-Level grades on entry are AAA (144 points) might have very different average entry tariffs because they have different numbers of students enrolling who have an extra 30 points from a distinction in grade-8 flute, for example.

The CUG doesn’t really agree with that. Obviously huge numbers don’t take music or LAMDA exams! More might exceed the entry UCAS point requirement by higher academic grades. This is more likely overall. If students have multiple talents. Great!

University of Cambridge. Biological Sciences. Average entry tariff 223 (source: Complete University Guide). Average, so many entrants have more than that.

The total number of points for 4x Astar is 224. Are you suggesting the average biological sciences entrant to Cambridge has 4x Astar? I don't think so. Many will be entering with AstarAA (152 points) or lower. That average is being pulled up by lots of things that are less common among entrants to less prestigious English universities: International Baccalaureate, AS-Levels, Scottish Advanced Highers and non-academic qualifications (music grades, etc.).

I'm sorry. I don't mean to be antagonistic. I'm just trying to make the point that average entry tariff is not the same as the A-Level grades of entrants.

Since someone mentioned performing arts, just a little reminder that those courses (and art/design) tend to exist in a very different range of universities and the main league tables are mostly irrelevant. But there are some super-helpful threads here on MN. Just in case anyone has DC who are thinking about those routes!

@NoNotHimTheOtherOne I’d love to understand what you mean by this comment please?
Unfortunately, degree class is calculated in rather different ways in different universities. Although I have worked in UK universities for 25 years, I'm afraid I think degree classes are completely meaningless

I imagine they mean that a 2:2 from oxbridge is not necessarily lower than. A first from Liverpool Hope...

@NoNotHimTheOtherOne I cannot see Biilogical sciences listed on the admissions data list at Cambridge. However: Overall, 74.2% have Astar X 3. 92% have 2xAstarA. So for hugely competitive degrees there, you bet they have loads of A stars! Possibly more than 3 too.

The truth is employers know some degrees are reliable. The hoops you go through to get to do maths at Cambridge is significantly more onerous than many other courses. A 2:2 in maths from there would, hopefully, be considered better than a first in business from Liverpool Hope. The 2:2 holder might be filtered out though. 2:1 definitely beats a first from lower ranked universities.

It always surprises me that employers are that bothered about which uni people went to - I can't see how it relates to qualities that are valuable in the workplace. We have a trainee at the moment with an Oxbridge first and they are hopeless. The apprentices we have with no degree at all have been much more use and will do much better.

@singingstones
To answer your earlier question, some employers will rate some degrees from some universities as being excellent prep for work and training. However most grads need to transfer their learning and skills to the workplace. Degree can be a starting place but assessment of relevant skills is surely important too?

The example I can trot out is that DD is a barrister. She did a MFL degree. She did two MFLs in depth. Culture, literature (including medieval), etc: She challenged herself and went to a high ranking university for the subject and one that is well represented at the Bar. World ranking wouldn’t make much difference.

Oxbridge doesn’t necessarily make a grad more suitable for your job or work culture. In some jobs, Oxbridge grads do very well and are over represented! So maybe you have a square peg in a round hole. However you need to assess transferable skills for suitability for many jobs. If you just want someone to speak a bit of French with a client, any MFL grad can do that. If you want them to be a barrister, you need a whole lot more and probably not the French!

Degree can be a starting place but assessment of relevant skills is surely important too?

Yes exactly, and surely the latter is much more important than the former, to the point where if you can measure the latter properly, the former becomes irrelevant.

I am in an industry full of Oxbridge grads, although they are trying to change that. The problem with this person is one of approach really, not making the most of things, not wanting to do the boring stuff which actually equips you for later etc etc. They are surrounded by incredibly talented and experienced people but either don't recognise that or can't see what an opportunity it is.

The Oxbridge first is of no use whatsoever to us as her employer. As I say, we have 18 year old apprentices who will go further because they get stuck in, and every time they do something, however menial it seems, they are learning. The Oxbridge grad is a good talker so will most likely interview well and end up in a string of good jobs, but won't have the skills to do them well, such a waste!

@NotDonna
Each university will have an algorithm for classifying degrees. This will define how many credits' worth of modules are taken into account, relative weighting of level-5 (year 2) vs level-6 (year 3) credits, etc.

So, at one extreme, a university might say the classification is based on the average mark for all modules at levels 5 & 6, with level 6 weighted twice as heavily as level 5. So, say a student had done four 30-credit modules in each of those years (just to make the sums easier) and got the following marks: level 5 75, 72, 65, 48; level 6 72, 55, 52, 42. Their weighted average would be 58.5 and they would receive a lower second-class honours degree (2ii).

Another university might take the average of the best 90 credits at level 6 and the best 90 credits remaining across levels 5 & 6 and weight them 25% level-5 and 75% level-6. A student with the marks listed above would have a weighted average of 62 and would receive an upper second-class honours degree (2i) for exactly the same marks as the student at the other university who got a 2ii.

There are lots of variants. The situation isn't as bad now as it was 10-15 years ago, when it was literally possible for someone with marks that would get a 2ii at one university gaining a first at another. There is still some dubious practice regarding rounding up of averages close to boundaries and awarding credits for "condoned fail" modules, though. The supposed principle that 1st = 70+, 2i = 60+, 2ii = 50+ is far from the actuality.

That’s really interesting (and disappointing) @NoNotHimTheOtherOne I don’t understand why they’re can’t be parity across universities. I’ve never understood why ppl say a 2:2 from oxbridge is better than a first from much lower ranked. I’ve wondered if the oxbridge 2:2 student just struggled or had issues or was lazy… and the first from lesser uni worked their arses off.

Just to mention , I know of one non RG, post 92 university who definitely do not do rounding up or condoned fails.

@Piggywaspushed - Quite. This is not a RG/non-RG or pre-92/post-92 division.