Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 52 comments are related to the topic:
Masters degrees
Masters degrees
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 52
|
By:
Got one off Trumpton University.
|
|
By:
I've always considered an M.Phil to be worth far more than than a M.Sc/A.
|
|
By:
Many companies today would train their people themselves. However, to hire people they need to set out some criteria. ANd your swimming or first aid certificates aren't a good measure because its quite possible many smart people haven't got those. It is quite likely however that the smart ones went to college. The degrees today are just a way to shortlist candidates. There must have been a time when a bachelors degree was the only critera for a particular job. However, today every other person and his dog has bought his way to a bacherlors degree.
So what they do is set master as the requirement and that leaves out a lot of jackshet candidates. This means they have less shet to sort through to pick an idiot that they will train themselves for their job. That is sadly the truth for a lot of companies. Education is a business, especially in UK. |
|
By:
When I graduated (early 90s), looking at jobs in my field, virtually everything required an MSc. It was an easy decision just to avoid the real world for another year especially when tuition fees were free and a lot of MScs had an industry grant attached so you even had something to live off. Don't suppose that is the case any more
|
|
By:
I got a job as a lecturer on a degree course over here at a "BUSINESS SCHOOL", in theinterview I was never asked aboutmy M A or asked for the cert.
The degree was awarded by a very prominent UK university. At the end of each year there was a meeting to decide on grades. All tutors were there. The marks put down for my subject were not the marks I had given the students. They were significantly higher ? So everyone passed, the students were happy, the head ofthe school was happy, the tutors were happy the man from delmonte (the UK uni rep) was happy. I left that day ..... |
|
By:
I worked for 25 years as a HE lecturer at a college which ran courses in conjunction with two universities and I also lectured at a university. Qualifications were always checked before interviews and being appointed.
Being semester based there were two exam boards a year. I never hear of any tutor's marks being changed before an exam board. Marks given were occasionally moderated in an exam board but this was a clear and transparent process. For example if a tutor had been off ill for a while and a less experienced/competent tutor had stood in then there may have been a case for moderating marks upwardly. The University of Edinburgh has a good guide to moderation: https://www.ed.ac.uk/institute-academic-development/learning-teaching/staff/assessment/moderation-guidance My gripe wasn't with moderation but the seemingly yearly dumbing down of marking schemes. As the standard required to pass a module became lower this also meant that getting higher grades became easier hence the rise in 2.1 and 1st class degrees. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
well I think it had been going on for quite a while
certainly during celtic tiger years the turnover of staff was horrendous you would never know who was sitting in the desk next to you in the staff room the students didnt care as long as they ended up with that bit of paper thinking about it now , the answer to your last question is yes. |
|
By:
Some great Masters debaters on this thread
|
|
By:
When I graduated in the late 90's, a First was a relative rarity. You might see one or two awarded per year, some years none at all. When I went back to the same institution twenty years later some 75% of students on the course I had taken were now being awarded a First class degree.
But of course, it's not that standards have been dumbed down, rather the students are so much more capable these days.  |
|
By:
And the great news is that the percentage of graduates receiving Firsts is not the only figure to have risen exponentially. The number of students themselves has risen almost as fast:
The CIPD said that in 1979 around 12% of young people in the UK were involved in higher education. This figure had risen fourfold to 48% by 2014-15, it added. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/oct/11/huge-increase-in-number-of-graduates-bad-for-uk-economy Considering the growth in the UK's population over the same period, the actual numbers must have risen much more than four-fold So, not only has the number of graduates more than quadrupled in 40 years, but the proportion of them receiving Firsts has also more than quadrupled over the same period. (There are no overall figures for forty years ago, though I can tell you that the proportion back then was just 3% in the School of European Studies at Sussex - i.e. modern languages, a "difficult" subject.) The earliest year for which we do have overall nationwide figures is 1994, when the proportion was 7%. Last year that figure had risen to 28%! Conclusion: there are now more than 16 times as many supremely talented young people in the UK as there were 40 years ago. Who knew? |
|
By:
More than 16X supremely talented when you consider the ones without formal qualifications but display their stellar talent on BGT and similar shows.
|
|
By:
Absolutely.
Neither Ashleigh nor Pudsey benefited from higher education. One of them has A levels though. |