University and Qualfication prestige...

cleanbluesky

cleanbluesky

cleanbluesky

Soldato
Joined
2 Nov 2004
Posts
24,654
Recently I've been looking into post-grad and have been discovering that the concept of education is not as clear cut as one would imagine...

I think the peak of my confusion has come today

Trevor Phillips said:
Whether justified or not, in the average employer's mind, a 2:2 from the holy trinity of Oxford, Cambridge or Imperial merely suggests an overactive sporting or social life.

A similar degree from outside the top 20 spells an undistinguished academic record. We know who will get the job interview.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of Mr Phillips and I believe he hasn't done his homework, considering that LSE is probably more prestigous in many subjects than Imperial is, and I think his comment is more indiciative of wish to promote black nationalism rather than factual (apparently significantly few carribeans are studying in many top universities, here is what Boris Johnson has to say about it) BUUUUUTTTTT it got me to wondering whether the essence of his comment has validity. Is the concept of qualification more complex than "Oxbridge uber alles" in all subjects (not that I am criticising Oxbridge students, they deserve their prestige)...

Now my contention is THIS... I am looking to continue my education next year, in Psychotherapy and Counselling. As far as I can tell, only a single redbrick offers decent variations on this course and possibly the best and most prestigous courses are run by ex-polytecnics or reasonable prestigous colleges attached to ex-polys.

I was disscussing policy with my friend who is attending Birkbeck, which is attached, again, to a former poly. I've discussed it with him and he says that he would LOVE to attend a uni with a more impressive reputation, but he has also been told that Bikrbeck College has one of the best reputations for policy study in the UK, if not in Europe and consistently high scores can be seen for research in most subjects coming from Birkbeck.

Also, it brings into question the idea of qualifications. I have seen various different qualifications offered for this subject... MSt, MA, DCPsyche, PhD etc. and some are accredited while others aren't... I think most people would recognise a PhD over a DPsyche but a DPsyche has important clinical experience attached to it that a PhD does not, so might be more desireable in certain fields. Although, DPscyche has only been recognised for less than 50 years.

Also, see here

Perhaps undergrad is an easier choice than post-grad... but to me it seems quite a muddy choice for many fields...

Research Assesment Exercise (RAE 2001)
http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/Results/

University Rankings, courtesy of the Guardian
http://education.guardian.co.uk/universityguide2006/0,,1595180,00.html
http://education.guardian.co.uk/universityguide2005/0,,1455246,00.html
http://education.guardian.co.uk/universityguide2005/table/0,,-5163901,00.html












In Summary...

Are the University ranking system and concepts of prestiage more complex than some would imagine?

Is choosing higher qualifications a minefield given the variations on Post-Grad qualifications?
 
Last edited:
I don't really know much about postgrad qualifications so I can't really comment on them. But I think some people have a really snobby attitude to degrees from ex-polys. Many of the degree courses at those universities are pretty much the same courses that were highly regarded in specific fields but the difference then was that they weren't degrees. Now they have a different name but essentially they are the same thing and hence are still worth a lot if you are going into that field. For example my brother is going to do a biomedical science (or something similar which I don't even know what it means :) ) at Portsmouth because that's one of the universities that is most highly regarded by the nhs for those jobs.

P.s. The guardian site doesn't work for me :confused:
 
i think usually, if a non redbrick university is at the top of the game, this will be well known within the industry/field and as such it does skew things, but only a subject at a time
one example is optometry
which is only offered by something like 5 universities
among them
Manchester(UMIST) and ARU(APU)
who as far as i'm aware are the best in the country if not further afield
now it doesnt change the fact that overall Manchester is way up there, and ARU is lingering somewhat lower
but as far as anyone in the optometry field is concerned, they're pretty much on a par
 
It completely depends on the field being studied. The subject tables are usually a better indication of this, but then again you need to have a table for the subject and only the main courses seem to be covered. If you plan to work in the field of your qualification and your employers are in that field they should have an idea of which unis are best for that subject. However, i can see that if you go for general jobs with a fairly specific degree it could be viewed as being less valuable than a degree from a more recognised institution.
 
I have no experience of postgrad courses so can't really comment, but I did have a similar problem choosing where to study for my degree. Durham is generally held to be at the border of the top 10 universities all round (lower in the Guardian and higher in the Times, its something to do with how much they count research I think) but my department (Physics) ranked as the best in the UK for something like 4 years in a row, until this year when it dropped down. It was just a little annoying talking to people at other universities and such who had no idea about the subject rankings (You wouldnt have, unless you search for them specifically) and assuming Oxbridge etc were better, when I specifically applied here because it came top.
I can only assume that professionals in the fields concerned will know their stuff - where's hot and where's not, as it were, so if you go on to work in the area of your qualification recruiters will know the real value of your degree.
 
cleanbluesky said:
It is an example of how qualifications can be nevulous...
Click to expand...
I don't see it as much of an issue really. It's clear they are honourary degrees as in not real degrees so I don't see the big deal.
 
But it is completely unrelated. An honorary degree means nothing to anyone that understands what it is. Even for those that don't really understand they can probably work out it isn't a proper degree from the fact that they have to write it down with the word "honorary" or the latin equivalent after it.
 
|Ric| said:
But it is completely unrelated. An honorary degree means nothing to anyone that understands what it is. Even for those that don't really understand they can probably work out it isn't a proper degree from the fact that they have to write it down with the word "honorary" or the latin equivalent after it.
Click to expand...

So what's the difference between an MSt and an MA? MSc and an MPhil?

ClinDPsych and a DPsych?

The 'honourary' concept may be easier to spot, but the same difference exists on many levels, many of which are far more subtle...
 
cleanbluesky said:
So what's the difference between an MSt and an MA? MSc and an MPhil?

ClinDPsych and a DPsych?

The 'honourary' concept may be easier to spot, but the same difference exists on many levels, many of which are far more subtle...
Click to expand...

its different for each subject but for chemistry the only people who do MSc's are foreigners who have to do a 1 year MSc to prove themselves before starting a PhD. All the MSc's i know are foreigners - an english person can do an MSc if he'she wanted but its pretty much worthless (to acedemia and to industry)
An MPhil is basically a failed PhD - for example if someone started a PhD but the work wasn't good enough to get a full PhD it would be downgraded to an MPhil - MPhils are very rare in chemistry for that reason - i've never met anyone with one.

as for honourary degrees vs non-honourary - a non-honours BSc (ie an ordinary degree) is the lowest of the lost - lower than a third with honours.
 
I think the quality of a degree is definitely less clean cut than simply placings in the various league tables.

I'm sure if you apply for a job in a specialist field that only few universities might offer, however those universities have excellent reputations in the field the employers will be more aware of that and judge accordingly. I'm also sure there are plenty of departments at universities outside the russell group that have world class reputations.

I think the point someone like Trevor Phillips is trying to make is that for common subjects like maths, english, economics etc the elite universities have better reputations simply because they've been around longer, and require higher grades to get in, so to the eyes of graduate employers like investment banks taking people where the degree subject is unimportant, the grade and university reputation becomes everything.

The classic example for me is two people with say a 2.1 in physics, one from somewhere like oxbridge or imperial, and one from a university outside the top 20. Who do the employers choose for a job not requiring use of the degree? Someone who got straight a's at school and got a 2.1 or someone who got less impressive a-levels but the same grade of degree. I'd say most would go for the oxbridge student simply because it has a better reputation and they'll reason (fairly imo) that the oxbridge student has more natural ability, which is what they'll be looking for taking on graduates in positions not requiring knowledge from their degrees.

Is it necessairly fair, probably not, but at the end of the day i think its difficult to compare degrees between universities because of the vast differences in structure and content, so I imagine emplyers just go by the reputation of the university.
 
Well I was only commenting on what seemed to be a dig at honorary degrees is completely unrelated from your argument about degree qualifications.
I don't have an honorary degree so I don't need to defend them ;) it just seems to detract from the rest of your argument.

I don't personally feel there is a problem with different letters to put down after your name. The precise qualification you get given at the end of the degree is irrelevant it is more important what you actually studied and acheived.

For example, if you do Computer Science at York you can chose between getting a BEng or a BSc. I believe that you study virtually identical modules (there may be a slight change) but the difference comes about depending on who acredits you, you cover the material to get both but you can only have one. Any employer wanting to employ you for your computing skills will know that this is the case (if he is looking that carefully to notice in the first place) and it won't make a difference.
I am actually doing Computer Science at Cambridge, I will finish with a BA in the subject, purely because this is what Cambridge does. That is the degree I am awarded by the University and doesn't say anything about the course. The fact it is not a BSc unlike nearly every other computer science course doesnt mean it is less "Sciencey".
In a few years that can be upped to a MA - I don't do any extra work for it, that is just how Cambridge works. I have to affix (camtab) to the end of it to symbolise this.

I cannot see why an employer would care what the 3 or more letters after your name are because it doesn't actually tell him much. You have something there so you have a qualification, how good a qualification needs to be established. It is surely much more relevant to tell him the course you studied and where. Also who it is acredited by (because this governs the minimum content of the course). Only then can he make a decision as to the worth of your qualification.

Ric.
 
aardvark said:
as for honourary degrees vs non-honourary - a non-honours BSc (ie an ordinary degree) is the lowest of the lost - lower than a third with honours.
Click to expand...
It's honourary in a different context. It's honourary as in they haven't actually done a degree course, they have just been given a "degree" as a sign of admiration.
 
cleanbluesky said:
So what's the difference between an MSt and an MA? MSc and an MPhil?
Click to expand...

I've got no idea what an MSt is, never heard of it.
Difference between MSc and MPhil is pretty clear though, MSc is a masters of science, MPhil is first year of PhD.
 
aardvark said:
.....

as for honourary degrees vs non-honourary - a non-honours BSc (ie an ordinary degree) is the lowest of the lost - lower than a third with honours.
Click to expand...
Huh? :confused:

An "honorary" degree and an "Honours" degree are two completely different things. The former is given in recognition of some non-academic achievement, while the latter is an academic degree with specific criteria attached (like minimum number of terms of study, minimum number of units of study, required specialisations, etc).

Edit - Bother, beaten to it. :)
 
Psyk said:
It's honourary in a different context. It's honourary as in they haven't actually done a degree course, they have just been given a "degree" as a sign of admiration.
Click to expand...

oh i see, sorry - didn't read it correctly.

i don't agree with people getting honourary degrees - like celebrities getting an honourary doctorate in law and yet they know nothing about it - ridiculous
 
ballistic said:
I've got no idea what an MSt is, never heard of it.
Difference between MSc and MPhil is pretty clear though, MSc is a masters of science, MPhil is first year of PhD.
Click to expand...
Ah but what's the difference between an MSc and an MSci?
 
Seemingly it is the scots adding to the confusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master's_degree

However, some universities - particularly those in Scotland - award the Master of Letters (MLitt) to students in the Arts, Humanities, Divinity and Social Sciences, often with the suffix (T) to indicate it is a taught degree, to avoid confusion with the MLitt (see Research Postgraduate Masters below)
Click to expand...
So I assume MST is a taught MSc :)

BTW, MSci = Undergraduate Masters
MSc = Post Grad Masters

Wiki explains all :D

Ric.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom