quote:

ORIGINAL: sillynarbie

It's untrue to say the quality of it's content and teaching is unknown. There are assessments made at regular intervals and these are used to construct league tables which go a fair way to guiding public perception. But the main factor in quality perception is determined by juding the calibre of graduates that emerge from the institution. It just so turns out that the Univerisities with the highest entrance requirements, the most difficult exams, the most rigorous teaching, tend to produce the highest quality graduates.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnKerr2
The degrees do not get accredited if they don't meet standards.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MonkFinger

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnKerr2
The degrees do not get accredited if they don't meet standards.

Are they all accredited?

What about 'with honours' degrees?

what about arts degrees?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnKerr2

quote:

ORIGINAL: MonkFinger

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnKerr2
The degrees do not get accredited if they don't meet standards.

Are they all accredited?

What about 'with honours' degrees?

what about arts degrees?

Do you have a particular sub-standard degree course in mind?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MonkFinger

No. I'm just curious as to how all this works. You seem to suggest that the calibre of teaching will not vary between universities. I simply find that a little unlikely. On account of natural variance between things if nothing else.

A better reputed university would surely, by its reputation, attract the better tutors; also the better candidates. Leading to it producing better graduates.

quote:

ORIGINAL: seanius

Just watched it on i-player.

Great t.v, but it would be nice if they had one team consiting of,

A cabbie
Teacher
Hotelier
Shopkeeper

ect against the egos they put on there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sillynarbie

quote:

ORIGINAL: matt_1972

quote:

ORIGINAL: sillynarbie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Zoidberg

quote:

ORIGINAL: sillynarbie

Also, I dislike this notion that people seem to have that people academically bright are useless. This is nothing short of a load of bollocks. It is true that people with degrees and qualifications are sometimes useless, and numpties at even basic tasks. But the same can be said about people who aren't well educated. There are people who can be bright and have common sense, you know.

I can only talk from my own experience

I don't know , perhaps the 'academically bright' ones WERE being clever by avoiding the workload ? I don't know ... But what I saw was too consistant to deny for me personally - maybe in place of 'academically bright' I should be saying University educated ? - some of the less educated guys I had were actually very bright and resourceful guys

Perhaps they thought too much ? ,While the "less bright" employees would simply get on and do the task in hand without question , maybe the brighter ones felt it required thinking time ? Who knows - All I know is that whenever we ended up a guy on a break from Uni , we ended uo with a white elephant of an employee

Maybe it was down to the lack of familiarity with manual work ? I don't know - maybe the REALLY clever ones avoided working at my place ?

I dunno mate. No offence to you but most of the really high-flying bright graduates will be doing summer work at blue-chip employers in the commercial/management side of the business, not doing manual work in a factory.

But let me say this; getting into University and getting a degree in our country is not difficult. Any old idiot can do it. Many people who are for want of a better phrase, thick as ****, manage to get degrees these days. That is just a reflection on the state of the education system of our country. So a degree says nothing about the intelligence or capability of a candidate. Obviously the better the Univeristy you go to, and the harder the course, the more likely you are to find bright and capable people. But they make up only 10-20% of the people that graduate from our Universities every year.

The vast majority are just run-of-the-mill kids who couldn't find a job at 18 or don't know what to do so delay the real world 3 years and have fun. So it is no wonder that 3 years spent in a bar and occasionally doing some piss-easy exams means that these people are more useless when they come out of University than they went in and they probably weren't intelligence or bright to begin with.

I was reading your post and found myself agreeing with most of it until this. All universities are moderated to ensure the standard of work is the same. Therefore if cambridge and manchester university run the same course, it will be as difficult to pass at one as at the other. The drop out rates and standard of the students may be drastically different, the course content will not.

*steps down and puts soap box under desk*

You're very sadly misinformed mate. The content varies so drastically it is not even funny. For example; I do Maths and Physics at Nottingham. Nottingham is regarded as a top Uni by most people in the know in this country. I've done a whole year long course in Calculus, as will other people doing a degree in Maths at other Unis, at cambridge they don't even bother and go straight onto higher level material. The standard of the work they do is also much harder than that of any other Maths degree in the country. That's why the Mathematics Tripos at Cambridge it's the most respected degree in the world.

You simply cannot make the standard the same across all Universities. Think of a student at Teeside Uni with EEE at A-level, he will not be able to cope with the same content or same difficulty of Maths as someone with AAAAA at A-level, and so there is a huge difference in the standard of course depending on the quality of the student and subsequently the quality of the University. That is why graduate employers recruit mostly from the top Universities and don't really consider people outside of this elite group of Universities. Although it is still possible to gain employment if you're exceptional in other ways, usually. They would not publish leagues tables if all Universities were equal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnKerr2
Sadly, the best researchers are often not the best teachers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: seanius

Just watched it on i-player.

Great t.v, but it would be nice if they had one team consiting of,

A cabbie
Teacher
Hotelier
Shopkeeper

ect against the egos they put on there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sillynarbie

quote:

ORIGINAL: H20

quote:

sillynarbie
You must be joking!!

Which part exactly mate ?

PS I`ve editted my original post with`in comparison` which I meant to put in initially.

I meant joking about the others not blowing their own trumpets. They're all so far up their own arses I'm surpised they can breath. It's got nothing to with educational background. To be fair, people with degrees sometimes do think they're owed something or that they're better than people without when it's not founded on any tangible results, but I think with regards to the Apprentice specifically the educated people are only as arrogant as the non-educated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kitty

quote:

ORIGINAL: seanius

Just watched it on i-player.

Great t.v, but it would be nice if they had one team consiting of,

A cabbie
Teacher
Hotelier
Shopkeeper

ect against the egos they put on there.

I think that would make more interesting TV. People doing more 'basic' jobs looking for a step into a big company

quote:

ORIGINAL: matt_1972

quote:

ORIGINAL: sillynarbie

quote:

ORIGINAL: matt_1972

quote:

ORIGINAL: sillynarbie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Zoidberg

quote:

ORIGINAL: sillynarbie

Also, I dislike this notion that people seem to have that people academically bright are useless. This is nothing short of a load of bollocks. It is true that people with degrees and qualifications are sometimes useless, and numpties at even basic tasks. But the same can be said about people who aren't well educated. There are people who can be bright and have common sense, you know.

I can only talk from my own experience

I don't know , perhaps the 'academically bright' ones WERE being clever by avoiding the workload ? I don't know ... But what I saw was too consistant to deny for me personally - maybe in place of 'academically bright' I should be saying University educated ? - some of the less educated guys I had were actually very bright and resourceful guys

Perhaps they thought too much ? ,While the "less bright" employees would simply get on and do the task in hand without question , maybe the brighter ones felt it required thinking time ? Who knows - All I know is that whenever we ended up a guy on a break from Uni , we ended uo with a white elephant of an employee

Maybe it was down to the lack of familiarity with manual work ? I don't know - maybe the REALLY clever ones avoided working at my place ?

I dunno mate. No offence to you but most of the really high-flying bright graduates will be doing summer work at blue-chip employers in the commercial/management side of the business, not doing manual work in a factory.

But let me say this; getting into University and getting a degree in our country is not difficult. Any old idiot can do it. Many people who are for want of a better phrase, thick as ****, manage to get degrees these days. That is just a reflection on the state of the education system of our country. So a degree says nothing about the intelligence or capability of a candidate. Obviously the better the Univeristy you go to, and the harder the course, the more likely you are to find bright and capable people. But they make up only 10-20% of the people that graduate from our Universities every year.

The vast majority are just run-of-the-mill kids who couldn't find a job at 18 or don't know what to do so delay the real world 3 years and have fun. So it is no wonder that 3 years spent in a bar and occasionally doing some piss-easy exams means that these people are more useless when they come out of University than they went in and they probably weren't intelligence or bright to begin with.

I was reading your post and found myself agreeing with most of it until this. All universities are moderated to ensure the standard of work is the same. Therefore if cambridge and manchester university run the same course, it will be as difficult to pass at one as at the other. The drop out rates and standard of the students may be drastically different, the course content will not.

*steps down and puts soap box under desk*

You're very sadly misinformed mate. The content varies so drastically it is not even funny. For example; I do Maths and Physics at Nottingham. Nottingham is regarded as a top Uni by most people in the know in this country. I've done a whole year long course in Calculus, as will other people doing a degree in Maths at other Unis, at cambridge they don't even bother and go straight onto higher level material. The standard of the work they do is also much harder than that of any other Maths degree in the country. That's why the Mathematics Tripos at Cambridge it's the most respected degree in the world.

You simply cannot make the standard the same across all Universities. Think of a student at Teeside Uni with EEE at A-level, he will not be able to cope with the same content or same difficulty of Maths as someone with AAAAA at A-level, and so there is a huge difference in the standard of course depending on the quality of the student and subsequently the quality of the University. That is why graduate employers recruit mostly from the top Universities and don't really consider people outside of this elite group of Universities. Although it is still possible to gain employment if you're exceptional in other ways, usually. They would not publish leagues tables if all Universities were equal.

Actually I think your misinformed. I've got 3 degrees from 3 different universities and I can assure you that although each institution has different higher education ratings for teaching and research, the courses are moderated and so of a comparable quality.

Maybe its different for maths ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnKerr2

quote:

ORIGINAL: sillynarbie

It's untrue to say the quality of it's content and teaching is unknown. There are assessments made at regular intervals and these are used to construct league tables which go a fair way to guiding public perception. But the main factor in quality perception is determined by juding the calibre of graduates that emerge from the institution. It just so turns out that the Univerisities with the highest entrance requirements, the most difficult exams, the most rigorous teaching, tend to produce the highest quality graduates.

The main factor in quality perception is actually, most commonly, stereotyping.

I teach at degree level in two disciplines; medicine and psychology. Both of these are highly regulated in terms of content. The subject matter and depth and breadth of knowledge covered is largely consistent between institutions - medical undergraduate exams in Oxford cover the same medical anatomy, biochemistry, physiology, immunology, etc knowledge as the medical undergraduate exams at the University of East Anglia. The degrees do not get accredited if they don't meet standards. Teaching quality is also monitored, appraised and reported.

Unfortunately many employers doggedly persist in their beliefs about 'elite' institutions. As far as undergraduate education is concerned there's not that much difference.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sillynarbie

This is not true for other degrees. Oxford might ask for AAAA for PPE, where as the University of Chester might ask for CCC. Surely it is obvious that the standard of candidate dictates that the difficulty of material learned at the better institutions will be more challenging, and therefore harder.

quote:


Clearly these marks need to be moderated so that a certain amount of students achieve a First, a 2:1, a 2:2 etc. etc.

quote:


I find it astonishing that I'm having to explain such an obvious concept, to be frank, especially to people who apparantly have degrees. Go and ask your tutors and what not if the standard for undergraduate degrees is the same across all Universities, and see what they have to say. Hopefully you will be more inclined to believe it coming from their mouths rather than mine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnKerr2

quote:

ORIGINAL: sillynarbie

This is not true for other degrees. Oxford might ask for AAAA for PPE, where as the University of Chester might ask for CCC. Surely it is obvious that the standard of candidate dictates that the difficulty of material learned at the better institutions will be more challenging, and therefore harder.

Wrong.

Oxford can ask for AAAA because many more students want to go there. Supply and demand. It's seen as a high status educational institution. An Oxbridge education will open doors because it is commonly perceived to be the best.

This doesn't necessarily mean that the subject matter is taught in any more depth or breadth.

quote:


Clearly these marks need to be moderated so that a certain amount of students achieve a First, a 2:1, a 2:2 etc. etc.

Ahh, the old perception of degree-class 'quotas'.

Doesn't happen.

quote:


I find it astonishing that I'm having to explain such an obvious concept, to be frank, especially to people who apparantly have degrees. Go and ask your tutors and what not if the standard for undergraduate degrees is the same across all Universities, and see what they have to say. Hopefully you will be more inclined to believe it coming from their mouths rather than mine.

You must be super-astonished to have to explain your 'obvious concept' to me; someone who has worked in several universities for over a decade.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sillynarbie
Your attitude reeks of that of somebody who went to a lower ranking University hoping that their education is seen as equal to those that went to a better one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnKerr2

quote:

ORIGINAL: sillynarbie
Your attitude reeks of that of somebody who went to a lower ranking University hoping that their education is seen as equal to those that went to a better one.

Fantastic!