[Astra]

Cougar, on Jul 5 2009, 01:47 PM, said:

Astra, that it a very poor attitude, who are you to pass judgement on what the best structured education system is?
The idea of the system being hampered by targets etc would be pretty correct for anything up to 18 years old and for the lower quality universities, but that isn't quite right for the better institutions.

I wonder whether my English is SO bad or YOU cannot read?

Quote

Schools, colleges and low level universities must achieve targets set by government or they will not get funding.

Just tell me the truth and I will accept it

[Thelomen Toblerone]

@Slum - the scale thing is completely different. You CANNOT get 100% here. One of my hosuemates got a first and did so well he was offered the chance to skip his masters and get accepted straight away for the PHD. He certainly didnt get above 80%, yet he would wipe the floor with most american linguistics students who got over 80%, because the ranking system is different.

I know it's probably a shit uni or whatever, but in "Tommy Lee Goes to College", he was learning stuff in Chemistry I did at GSCE or lower A level, which I found very amusing. He's thick as shit so unsurprising, but that sort of stuff would simply not be on offer at a UK uni. The range and method of teaching is so different, and accordingly the expectations and system of marking is different. You lot learn a broad range, we specialise on just one or two subjects. For instance, in 3 years I did not one class that was not a politics or philosophy module.

For me, ours makes more sense. To suggest a 2nd year physics student could actually have an entirely complete and perfect understanding of black holes or whatever seems a ludicrous proposition to me, but in theory in the US they could get 100% which would suggest that. Here, even the best Politics professor would never get 100%, and they know exactly what the markers are looking for and know the subject in detail.

[Coco with marshmallows]

lot of truth in that.

at the start of my final year, our head of department announced that no-one on our course would achieve even 90%

anything over 80% was exceptional, and 70-80% the expected range for the bright few who would get a first class degree.

[caladanbrood]

Slumgullion Spitteler, on Jul 5 2009, 04:13 PM, said:

caladanbrood, on Jul 5 2009, 10:30 AM, said:

I got an average mark of 54.21%... this gives me a grade of 2:2, which is a lower second-class degree. No ratios

A 54 would earn you a solid F in America.

A = 4.0 (95-100)
A- = 3.7 (90-94)
B+ = 3.3 (87-89)
B= 3.0 (85,86-ish)
B- 2.7 (80-84)
C+ 2.5 (77-79)
C= 2.0 (75, 76)

If you get below a C, you can pretty much write it off. You have basically failed.

I guess we just have harder degrees Top grade, a 1st, is at 70%, most often. The very smartest guys in our course got around 78-80ish.

[HoosierDaddy]

Different grading scales. Yours delights in telling people what they can't know, ours delights in telling people they know more than they do.

I don't understand the point in having exam's where it is impossible to get everything right, though.

[Giles]

Well i know in my exams it is definitely possible (albeit very hard) to get 100% as the questions are generally right or wrong without any real grey area, but for essays and projects we cant get 100%. And i know one of my friends essays were limited to a top mark of 80%

[HoosierDaddy]

Meh, in law school I had exams where 25% correct was the goal.

[Slum]

HoosierDaddy, on Jul 5 2009, 02:36 PM, said:

Meh, in law school I learned to eat the souls of the poor and unfortunate. Grades weren't as important.

I fixed this for you.

This post has been edited by Slumgullion Spitteler: 05 July 2009 - 07:25 PM

[HoosierDaddy]

Well, the grades reflected your aptitude in screwing people out of money and how much the devil had taken hold of in your soul. So they were still relevant for job applications.

[Cougar]

Astra, on Jul 5 2009, 04:57 PM, said:

Cougar, on Jul 5 2009, 01:47 PM, said:

Astra, that it a very poor attitude, who are you to pass judgement on what the best structured education system is?
The idea of the system being hampered by targets etc would be pretty correct for anything up to 18 years old and for the lower quality universities, but that isn't quite right for the better institutions.

I wonder whether my English is SO bad or YOU cannot read?

Quote

Schools, colleges and low level universities must achieve targets set by government or they will not get funding.

Just tell me the truth and I will accept it

The truth is I agreed with the largest part of your post as you have demonstrated for me above.

The part for which I was accusing you of having a poor attitude was that you said the American system was 'how it should be' based on the fact that it's the same as Israel. A bizarre and arrogant statement. How can you set yourself up as the arbiter of educational systems.

Keep the posts insult free too.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Shinrei, on Jul 4 2009, 10:30 PM, said:

Do aussie doctors have all of the residency/internship requirements then too? In the US, med school is 2-3 years beyond the bachelors, but then another 4 years at least of learning on the job so to speak before becoming a true doctor.

Pedantic Bear says in the US med school is 4 years (after which you are a MD, you can then do two years residency and practice but you are not a board-certified doctor so most do not go this route), residency is 3, and then if they want to specialize fellowship is one or two years. Surgeons have a 4 year residency. Neurosurgury is up to a 9 year residency.

[Astra]

I work in education in England.
Before I studied in Israel, in the best Technology Institute they have(Technion) (never finished it, stupid me )
So, I know the system in Israel, which is very similar to American and the system here. I also know what the education system used to be some 15 years ago and before. It is a general consensus that education goes downhill today in the UK. If you don't believe me, talk to teachers/lecturers in schools and colleges, as well as in Universities of average and below level. They willtell you all about targets, lowering exam difficulty levels, practically telling the answers to students, so they can pass, so teachers would not be blamed, etc.
It used to be a very good education in England but not today, unfortunately

[Cougar]

You've missed the point, I agree about the targets etc and the general degredation in the quality.

No matter what you do, no matter where you have worked it does not give you the right to pontificate about what is the correct structure (ie: when you start, how long it should take).

[Valgard]

The scots system is the one I know best as it the one I am just finishing up it

It is 3 years for a basic BA/BSc
1 extra year for a honours or an MA i.e. scientists get a BSc hons whilst arts students get an MA (in edinburgh uni probably 98% of people do the extra year).
A masters is 1 year
A PhD is 3 years plus (you don't have to do a masters to do a PhD, you have to have at least a 2.1 to do a PhD. (I am currently in my 4th year of my PhD and I know no one that has ever finished it in 3 years, that doesn't really happen any more).

As to the british grading system it seems lower as that is the level we are to mark to.

I have done marking with the uni whilst doing the PhD and I can tell you the marking schemes we have are for really a maximum of 80% only giving above that in exceptional cases. The highest I gave was 78% and that was an excellent piece of work. So you can't can't compare the different systems of marks.

As to medics the degree is 5 years followed by 2 years in hospitals in different specialities to try them out. After the two years they then specialise where they train in that speciality for up to 5 years if they can get a registrars job. otherwise they have to go and redo training in a new speciality as a friend of mine has to do as she can't get a job in surgery at the moment.

[Slum]

Thelomen Toblerone, on Jul 5 2009, 02:13 PM, said:

@Slum - the scale thing is completely different. You CANNOT get 100% here. One of my hosuemates got a first and did so well he was offered the chance to skip his masters and get accepted straight away for the PHD. He certainly didnt get above 80%, yet he would wipe the floor with most american linguistics students who got over 80%, because the ranking system is different.

I know it's probably a shit uni or whatever, but in "Tommy Lee Goes to College", he was learning stuff in Chemistry I did at GSCE or lower A level, which I found very amusing. He's thick as shit so unsurprising, but that sort of stuff would simply not be on offer at a UK uni. The range and method of teaching is so different, and accordingly the expectations and system of marking is different. You lot learn a broad range, we specialise on just one or two subjects. For instance, in 3 years I did not one class that was not a politics or philosophy module.

For me, ours makes more sense. To suggest a 2nd year physics student could actually have an entirely complete and perfect understanding of black holes or whatever seems a ludicrous proposition to me, but in theory in the US they could get 100% which would suggest that. Here, even the best Politics professor would never get 100%, and they know exactly what the markers are looking for and know the subject in detail.

Meh, it's all relative, I imagine. I personally enjoy getting 'A's. Same thing as you getting an 80, I guess. I really don't think you lot are smarter than us. Different systems, different marks.

It's not like, if you got a 100% an exam, you're suddenly an expert on the subject. It just means you studied, knew the material, and answered everything right.

[Menandore]

Valgard, on Jul 6 2009, 03:01 PM, said:

The scots system is the one I know best as it the one I am just finishing up it

It is 3 years for a basic BA/BSc
1 extra year for a honours or an MA i.e. scientists get a BSc hons whilst arts students get an MA (in edinburgh uni probably 98% of people do the extra year).
A masters is 1 year
A PhD is 3 years plus (you don't have to do a masters to do a PhD, you have to have at least a 2.1 to do a PhD. (I am currently in my 4th year of my PhD and I know no one that has ever finished it in 3 years, that doesn't really happen any more).

As to the british grading system it seems lower as that is the level we are to mark to.

I have done marking with the uni whilst doing the PhD and I can tell you the marking schemes we have are for really a maximum of 80% only giving above that in exceptional cases. The highest I gave was 78% and that was an excellent piece of work. So you can't can't compare the different systems of marks.

As to medics the degree is 5 years followed by 2 years in hospitals in different specialities to try them out. After the two years they then specialise where they train in that speciality for up to 5 years if they can get a registrars job. otherwise they have to go and redo training in a new speciality as a friend of mine has to do as she can't get a job in surgery at the moment.

I would also add that the grading depends on the course and the university. If you are studying maths (I did a joint honours with stats so some of my credits came from the maths dept) it is very much right and wrong answers so it's quite possible to get 100% in a piece of coursework or exam - but nobody would get 100% for their overall course because nobody but nobody gets it all right, all of the time.

I did an exchange year in Canada and their grading seemed to be a bit more like the american system - you needed 50% to pass as aposed to the 40% passmark in the UK. Taking this to mean the canadian system set higher standards would be quite midguided though. Their marking system was far more lenient - one of my exams was open book ffs, something that would never happen at my home uni. Plus if you handed in all your coursework but got shit grades in it, you could take your exam mark as 100% of your grade instead of weighting it with your coursework grades. And coursework with "extra credit" questions - I actually ended up getting >100% in some of my homework. In conclusion, they bent over backwards to give us good grades compared to the Scottish uni I was at so making direct comparisons of the grading scale in different countries is pointless.

ETA: Masters isn't always 1 year, it took me 2 1/2 to complete mine. It depends on the course and whether it's taught (which usually means one or maybe two years) or by research (like mine, which was why it took longer).

This post has been edited by Menandore: 06 July 2009 - 02:19 PM

[MTS]

Quote

Meh, it's all relative, I imagine. I personally enjoy getting 'A's. Same thing as you getting an 80, I guess. I really don't think you lot are smarter than us. Different systems, different marks.

It's not like, if you got a 100% an exam, you're suddenly an expert on the subject. It just means you studied, knew the material, and answered everything right.

It definitely is relative. In an essay though, you can't "answer everything right". It is all subjective. In a history essay in high school, one marker gave me 76% and another gave me 88%. Both followed correct marking procedure (I'm assuming) and I believe were justified in giving me those marks. There is no "right" answer" when you're doing something that requires a formulation of an argument or opinion, as there is no perfect argument or opinion. Maths and science and other subjects with specific answers I can understand, but if you gave me 100% in an essay, it suggests to me that I did absolutely nothing wrong, and have no room for improvement. It might feel nice, but it sends the wrong message, I think.

This post has been edited by Mappo's Travelling Sack: 06 July 2009 - 02:24 PM

[D'rek]

Slumgullion Spitteler, on Jul 6 2009, 10:14 AM, said:

Thelomen Toblerone, on Jul 5 2009, 02:13 PM, said:

@Slum - the scale thing is completely different. You CANNOT get 100% here. One of my hosuemates got a first and did so well he was offered the chance to skip his masters and get accepted straight away for the PHD. He certainly didnt get above 80%, yet he would wipe the floor with most american linguistics students who got over 80%, because the ranking system is different.

I know it's probably a shit uni or whatever, but in "Tommy Lee Goes to College", he was learning stuff in Chemistry I did at GSCE or lower A level, which I found very amusing. He's thick as shit so unsurprising, but that sort of stuff would simply not be on offer at a UK uni. The range and method of teaching is so different, and accordingly the expectations and system of marking is different. You lot learn a broad range, we specialise on just one or two subjects. For instance, in 3 years I did not one class that was not a politics or philosophy module.

For me, ours makes more sense. To suggest a 2nd year physics student could actually have an entirely complete and perfect understanding of black holes or whatever seems a ludicrous proposition to me, but in theory in the US they could get 100% which would suggest that. Here, even the best Politics professor would never get 100%, and they know exactly what the markers are looking for and know the subject in detail.

Meh, it's all relative, I imagine. I personally enjoy getting 'A's. Same thing as you getting an 80, I guess. I really don't think you lot are smarter than us. Different systems, different marks.

It's not like, if you got a 100% an exam, you're suddenly an expert on the subject. It just means you studied, knew the material, and answered everything right.

Exactly! Under the US/Canada system your grading, as a percentage, is reflective of how well you know the material taught in the course, not the subject as a whole. If you get 100% on a first-year physics astronomy course, part of which's material was black holes, that means you know all the info you learned in the course, but of course its a general introductory course and not supposed to teach you everything about that.

Likewise, if you finish your Bachelor of Science, come back and do a Master's in Black Holes and get 100% in those courses too (bloody difficult), then you probably do know almost everything about them. Finish it off with a Ph.D in Black Holes, but those aren't really graded on the same strict percentage-like system...

Furthermore, it's not like there is only one course for every topic, so the Tommy Jones analogy is severely invalid. Colleges across NA offer topics at a lot of different levels. Seeing as Mr. Jones is some sort of media celebrity, I very much doubt he took Chemistry in high school. Thus he is probably taking the chemistry designed for arts students who stopped taking sciences in the last 3 years of high school, and thus his course is just material from that, 2 or 3 levels below the first-year undergraduate chemistry classes taken by those actually in the Bachelor of Science program...


Complexity, thy name is college!

[Slum]

If ur a god righter than essay's are eesy.

[Mezla PigDog]

Impirion, on Jul 5 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

One qualifying factor to what Cougar has said is that the top universities are being forced to increase their state school intake, which may lower standards, although maybe not potential.

I don't think that is an issue. I went to a really crappy comprehensive school and got into a 'red brick' uni with decidedly lower A level grades than my peers who had the good fortune to be born in a nicer part of the country. During my first year, we all did classes to get the state and public school kids to the same standards. The 2nd and 3rd years were all really high quality. So while it may lower A level intake standards, I don't think it has an effect on the grade output of top universities (which I assume is what your 'potential' point was illustrating). Oxbridge may be different but my experience is mainly UMIST/Manchester based. I think this point is really important for giving a chance to kids from disadvantaged areas that can't recruit decent teachers.

The real issue that Astra is alluding to is the governments '50% of kids should get a degree' policy which should only apply if 50% of British jobs require a graduate to do them! While I would hate to deny somebody the opportunity of a university education, how many Media Studies graduates do we really need?