Is there a 'standard' for grading an undergraduate degree?

[SlightlySeethrough]

I didn't go to Uni so don't fully understand how things are graded, and this has been on my mind....

If you are at mid tier Uni (say: Manchester Met / NTU / Oxford Brooks ) rather than a RG or higher ranking Uni, are your assignments being marked against your peers or a wider/more general benchmark?

DS picked his Uni as it had a very modern approach to a more traditional humanities subject that he enjoys. He does have to write essays and will have to write a final dissertation, but equally there are more modern assignments - podcasts/short films etc that count towards his final grade. When we spoke to head of department at a couple of RG Unis the same subject was much more essay and exam heavy.

We didn't think about it at the time, but does that mean he could (in theory) get a First or a 2:1 in the same subject, doing less 'academic' work than those in higher ranked Universities? Is he being marked against his University peers who are probably less academic that someone doing the same subject at Cambridge or Durham? How does it work?

LOL. Tell me you haven’t bothered to read the thread without telling me you haven’t….

The thing is, it's not an equivalent grade. It's a grade from a less academic university. That will be acceptable to some employers and nit to others. Once you leave secondary education, you're out in the marketplace, trying to sell yourself as a prospective employee, and market rules apply.

My subject at university was essay and exam based, with the odd seminar thrown in, plus a minor thesis in the final year. We had tutorials in which every essay was dissected and arguments defended. Tutorials are a great way to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I'm not sure that's the case! DC1 (STEM subject) has had great interview success after thoroughly researching the HR recruitment systems used to screen candidates and treating it as a game to 'beat the system'.
I guess you might say their degree research helped them, but I'd argue someone familiar with gaming/ video skills might be more successful!

I managed a school centred initial teaching training programme and the amount of 'Firsts' who couldn't write a sentence properly was unbelievable.

Think about it logically.

Take Maths as a degree for example.

To do maths as a degree at University of Central Lancashire they require:
B at A-level maths and a total of 120 points at A levels, so BBB or ABC
If you don't achieve that, you can do a foundation year which leads into the same course with 80 points (eg CDD or BD)

Durham (good but not UK best at maths)
A star in maths, A star in further maths and and additional A is their normal offer.

Tbf UoCL has a drop out rate of around 10% (ie one in 10 people who start a degree there do not finish), whereas Durham is around 2% (so one in 50)
About 35% get a first from Durham and around 30% at UoCL, so comparible.

Now realistically, even assuming that the entrants have the same ability, are you likely in three years to bring someone who got a B at A level maths up to the same level as someone who got A star at Further maths, assuming the latter is doing work that's stretching them through those three years?

Whilst I wouldn’t claim that the standards expected at Durham and Uclan (now Lancashire uni btw) are equal, it’s entirely reasonable to say that the A star students at Durham won’t all be being stretched throughout their three years, or that all of the B students at Lancs have no limited potential for higher level maths concepts.

And don’t forget no uni in the UK will decline a Masters applicant based solely on them going to a former poly.
Edited to add: Durham would accept a 1st from Lancs as just as suitable as Imperial for their MScs, all other things being equal.

I enjoyed (and understand) your joke.🙂

...back in the late 1980s when a first from a RG really meant something.

Yes, most pertinently advanced skills in crystal ball use...

@MargaretThursday That’s more to do with Durham and their standards and sifting applicants though. They want the top drawer students. Also more competition.

Posters are used to assess the student's understanding of a specific topic and their ability to summarise that topic to be of interest to a specialist audience. Posters are a key part of learned conferences, particularly in the sciences.
For one of my MA assessments I had to summarise recent research on a particular anatomical dysmorphia and present it as though it were for a specialist conference. I think that's as academic as reading a book in French.

Indeed.
My students have to analyse a huge amount of data and present it visually with some narrative to a chosen audience.
They’ll have to do this when working in the sector so it’s preparing them for employment. Writing a long essay is not the only way to assess academic ability. Assessment should be authentic and linked to the course/module learning outcomes.

I think that universities now expect students to develop skills that are useful in real life.

Using a combination of assessment methods eg essays, exams and team projects is also a fairer way to assess students. Some students excel in writing essays but are rubbish in participating in group projects / talks. In the 1980s they might have got the first whereas those with excellent presentation and communication skills but lesser research skills might have got a lower degree award. Was that fair?

My DD with a first from an excellent red brick university had to produce a group poster for a project based task . She found this a challenge as some in her group worked harder than others. She learnt to manage this real life issue. As project manager, she learnt how to get the best out of the group, motivate the weakest link and also produce something that was visually stimulating, informative and punchy. She encouraged the best scientists to came up with the great ideas ( they were a mixed group of Chemists, Bio, Neuro, Psych. it was a collaborative effort so she recognised that her idea was not as good and supported the better idea. Those who were more artistic used those skills for the poster. Those who were better at speaking did the presentation.

As a unified team they all do really well and scored highly.

So tell me what is more important, writing a good essay or doing the above?

She is now in Big 4 and all those skills remain useful.

I'm 64 and we did posters at university (early 80s).
Also - op- University of Manchester is RG.

You clearly have no idea whatsoever what a scientific poster is! I did a biological science degree in the early 80s and we had to produce them along with essays and reports.

I studied MFL and have never been asked to produce a poster but when at an RG uni in the 90s I remember friends doing medical/scientific degrees having to present posters. I don't know if they were formally marked but they were definitely part of the course requirements.

When I did a summer placement at ICI back in the ‘80’s we made posters to present our project results, so they were a thing then even in industry circles.

Well DS is at a topped ranked RG and is in line for a 2.1 at least in a rigorous STEM subject. DD got a first from a lower/ranked uni in a traditionally non/academic subject (they are both clever but DD chose not to go down that pathway). I think he’s done a couple of posters but in an academic way showing an experiment or something.

I’d def hold DS’s potential 2.1 in his subject:from his uni in higher regard than DD’s first. She worked really hard but it’s just not the same.

I got a 2.2 back in the day (narrowly missed a 2.1), but looking back it’s what I deserved! In the 90s a 2.2 was quite common but now you really need a higher grade, plus all that debt. I came out w £500 debt.

Its not like A levels where it’s standardised.

Agreed. In my cohort ( also late 1980s) only one person out of 150 students got a first.

It wasn’t me either 🤣

@Fingalscave I referenced MMU (Manchester Met) rather than Uni of Manchester. I think some of the post-1992 Unis can count themselves as mid tier along with some of the lesser ranked 'established' universities. Anything consistently ranked from 25-50 counts as sort of mid-tier in my book

Posters are a standard way to present research in science, all academic conferences have poster sessions where lots of people present their work on a 'poster' that they have to stand next to and any of the thousands of people attending the conference can ask you any questions about your research. It's not for the faint hearted.