1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Dumbing down of Degrees

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Gaidin109, 28 Feb 2010.

  1. Amp34

    Caporegime

    Joined: 25 Jul 2005

    Posts: 28,855

    Location: Canada

    There are a few on my course that got over 75%, normally one or two in a module. I personally got 81% in one and 77% in a second in my second year however they were the first and second highest marks respectively in the year for those modules. I also got an 81% in a piece of coursework, later talking to the lecturer that marked it he specifically brought it up as it was apparently so good and that it would have been easily good enough to have been a report written for a company.

    Although it does sound like i'm trying to blow my own trumpet, i'm not, just trying to point out that anything over 70% is essentially supposed to be a high enough standard to pass in the real world. Most people seem to get around 60% and the average is probably a high 2:2. Unfotunately that means a lot of people are going to struggle as a 2:2 now seems to be the equivilent of a fail to a large number in industry, with most jobs specifying a 2:1 or better.

    Actually I've seen quite a few that specify a first, even 2:1 isn't good enough some times!
     
    Last edited: 11 Mar 2010
  2. Amp34

    Caporegime

    Joined: 25 Jul 2005

    Posts: 28,855

    Location: Canada

    Honours Degrees are given out on our course for having done a mapping project (specific dissertation), which seems to be the standard for anything accredited by the Geol Soc.

    However from reading the (Hons) thread in GD a while ago it seems that some courses are automatically given (Hons) and others aren't so it's a little confusing to say the least. However personally I don't see it as anything special either.
     
  3. Nitefly

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 24 Sep 2005

    Posts: 34,106

    I've got 85% in a final year exam for my undergraduate degree (biology), my friend got over 90% for his computer science dissertation. All I was showing was that standards differ from course to course from institution to institution. For law, at least at Bristol, getting about 70% in a unit is mega rare.

    Personally, as long as you put considerable effort into your workload and have no other extenuating circumstances, I think it's quite hard to not get a 2.1.

    Granted they do exist and I have seen some, but they are incredibly rare.
     
  4. Amp34

    Caporegime

    Joined: 25 Jul 2005

    Posts: 28,855

    Location: Canada

    That's for a masters (equivilent) though I assume? However yeah it will depend on the course quite a bit, but I was just trying to point out to Gaidin109 that technically the 70% pass rate should be good enough, as someone with a first should be going out into the real world with the ability to start straight away at a professional level (not that those with 2:1's or lower can't obviously, but I guess the idea is they would need a bit more training/experience?).

    I agree, I just missed a first by a percent or two, but I know most of the people on my course got low 2:1's and high 2:2's. As I'd alreay pointed out there was only one first on our course this year.

    Not that rare in the sector i'm looking at unfortunately, having said that there are even more that want a masters minimum with a PHd preffered for base level jobs so...:(:p
     
  5. Nitefly

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 24 Sep 2005

    Posts: 34,106

    Try the pain of 0.3% :p

    What sector is that?
     
  6. Amp34

    Caporegime

    Joined: 25 Jul 2005

    Posts: 28,855

    Location: Canada

    Ouch! That was what I was dreading too, having said that I was apparently in the "see how many first to 2:1 modules there are" realm so... :p

    Oil and Gas. The number of starter jobs that want Phd's is worrying and most graduate schemes need Masters to get onto them (BP, Shell etc. although a few smaller companies do allow BScs).
     
  7. bhavv

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 14 Nov 2009

    Posts: 13,639

    Pharmacists only need to get a third on their degree to progress to their MSc, plain science courses require a 2.1. If the pass rate for pharmacy is lowered to below 40% for a third, like the example were some place made it 27%, you just need to get 27% in each year to become a Pharmacist.

    Judging by a module outline of a Pharmacy course, there is nothing that is studied regarding biological understanding of how the body, organs, immune system, neurologic pathways, or genetics work, just simply what drugs do what, and mostly study based in chemistry, with just a little microbiology at the first stage:

    http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/aa/undergraduate/sci/modulecatalogue/catalogue pages/pharmacy.htm

    40% of that, even lower if the pass rate is reduced to as low as 27% doesnt teach a pharmacy student much at all about the body.
     
    Last edited: 14 Mar 2010
  8. Indy500

    Capodecina

    Joined: 7 Mar 2005

    Posts: 17,481

    Pharmacists generally just dispense prescribed drugs, they rarely get involved with the details of why person X has been prescribed drug Y. I don't agree with the state of medicine in this country but that particular degree is the least of its issues...
     
  9. bhavv

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 14 Nov 2009

    Posts: 13,639

    Yes but they only need to get 40% or less to progress to a masters and become pharmacists, that is what I cannot stand. Im not bothered about the course content, it is that they dont need to get a 60% minimum like anyone studying Biology, Chemistry or Physics need to in order to progress.

    Actually I feel that medicine in the UK is fine. You can usually get whichever drugs you need very quickly.

    What is not fine to me is the length of time it takes to get diagnostics and non medicine treatments such as operations / surgery / occupational therapy carried out. It is not unusual to have already been placed on many drugs while the doctors dont have a clue what is actually wrong with the patient, particularly in illnesses that are not caused by pathogens, and they often make absolutely no effort to make a proper diagnosis and find the cause of the problem, so long as they can simply hand you a pack of pills instead.

    And then we end up with cases like these:

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/11/teen.self.diagnosis/index.html
     
    Last edited: 14 Mar 2010
  10. Amp34

    Caporegime

    Joined: 25 Jul 2005

    Posts: 28,855

    Location: Canada

    But what has that got to do with Pharmacists? That's all to do with doctors, which a pharmacy degree isn't training... :confused:
     
  11. kylew

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 31 May 2007

    Posts: 10,721

    Location: Liverpool

    Don't you mean 'aren't'?
     
  12. Gaidin109

    Mobster

    Joined: 12 Jul 2009

    Posts: 4,878

    No, I was being ironic...;)
     
  13. kylew

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 31 May 2007

    Posts: 10,721

    Location: Liverpool

    Are you sure you mean ironic? ;)
     
  14. Gaidin109

    Mobster

    Joined: 12 Jul 2009

    Posts: 4,878

    That would be the irony after all. :D
     
  15. drunkenmaster

    Caporegime

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 33,188

    This is the problem, I know a LOT of ridiculously smart people who HATED uni because they were bored to tears, which went for years of school aswell. The very thing we should do is make the system geared to the VERY smartest people and have everyone else be capable of lower grades. Uni should be hard enough that a 1st is really something only a very small percentage of people can get.

    Smart people find boring work, boring, and end up not doing it because thats how humans work. You need to be stimulated to stay interested, works for education and relationships, when your bird doesn't put out you lose interest. When you're sitting around with nothing to do because your weeks work took the best part of 30 minutes, you become lazy.

    The stupid will always be stupid, no matter how much time and effort you put in, lowering schooling standards so a new A is what used to be a N doesn't make those people smarter, it simply disguises how stupid they are, and in doing so neglect the smarter kids who end up losing focus and motivation.

    How much effort in schools do we now put on the troubled kids, in the special classes, with the much higher teachers to children rations? 100 times more effort and teaching than we put into the smartest kids and way more than we put into the "normal" range of kids who also end up underachieving.

    The most insane thing is that by bringing down the system to the lowest common denominator you also hurt the less bright kids. People often act out because they want attention or they feel overwhelmed in school. Heaping attention on them does one simple thing, makes them associate attention with misbehaving, so they do it more.

    Anyone know an uber naughty kid in school who got better with tonnes of attention or did they stay the same or get worse? Then the kids who throw a paddy and are ignored, who learn it gets them no where.

    This massive trend to decrease the difficulty of school is bad, starts from the lowest levels of education and has gotten right into uni's. The majority of uni's are pretty crap now, with only a very small handful of decent uni's left.
     
  16. stannous

    Gangster

    Joined: 30 May 2005

    Posts: 135

    Bugga awl rong with Leicester Poly wen I was their:D (isn't politechnic spelt polytechnic?)