Reply With QuoteThat strategy only seems likely to work for jobs where the recruiters just want any old degree from anywhere, rather than something work-related.Originally Posted by Harryprice
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/10506798.stm
The news story above suggests your best strategy is to find the easiest degree course possible at any university and get a 2:1. It's a strategy some students follow already - clever kids they deserve those jobs!
That strategy only seems likely to work for jobs where the recruiters just want any old degree from anywhere, rather than something work-related.
Agreed, I cant see anyone getting a job as say a research chemist with a degree media studies.
skb
All of which makes me wonder how many graduates we really need. I think it's quite cruel to encourage students to get themselves into debt, and waste years of their lives, gaining qualifications which are no use to them or anybody else. I suppose it keeps them out of the unemployment statistics for a while...
The theory is that on any university course the students learn to collect and evaluate data, use it to test theories and arrive at conclusions by logical reasoning, and present the results in a clear and effective way: skills which are useful in a wide range of jobs.
The extent to which particular courses develop such skills, students acquire them, and then learn to transfer them to a variety of jobs is, of course, another matter...
Tony, it still seems silly that so many are taking useless courses when we have a shortage of qualified people in so many fields. Should we really need to import doctors, nurses and scientists?
No, we shouldn't. But medical training is long and very expensive. It's probably cheaper to let other countries train them and then poach them...
Recently, the theory also seems to be that university intake can be greatly increased, the proportion of students getting higher grades can rise dramatically, and yet qualification standards can be maintained.The theory is that on any university course the students learn to collect and evaluate data, use it to test theories and arrive at conclusions by logical reasoning, and present the results in a clear and effective way: skills which are useful in a wide range of jobs.
The extent to which particular courses develop such skills, students acquire them, and then learn to transfer them to a variety of jobs is, of course, another matter...
Unless students are somehow becoming naturally much smarter than previous generations, or teachers and lecturers in the past just didn't care enough or work hard enough, it's hard to see how that theory stands up.
Maybe employers have a perception (justified or otherwise) of grade inflation, and are compensating accordingly, but think that it's easier not to come out and admit it?
I do not doubt that there has been grade inflation. Some years ago a university I know was having to lay on remedial courses for new students whose skills and knowledge turned out to be woefully below what was once expected of a university entrant. There is also a lot of pressure to pass marginal students, both to show up well in the league tables and because students now have to pay a lot for their courses, and if they are failed are liable to sue on the basis of inadequate teaching (because if the teaching had been adequate, they would have passed, right?)
Personally I am now in favour of norm-referencing rather than criterion-referencing, for at least the top few grades. In other words, only the top X% get a First, the next X% get a 2:1 and so on. The percentages should be the same for every subject. This has flaws, but now probably less so than the current system.
So, a bit like the old A-level grading - helping people who want to work out where someone stands compared to their contemporaries do that with reasonable confidence?
However, unless there were some nationally-enforced common standards(*), that would rather leave open the issue of comparisons between universities with different ability spreads in their respective intakes.
One institution that had the pick of the best students might well have students getting thirds who would likely have got Firsts at places with rather fewer top-rank applicants.
I guess one problem now for employers is that if they are looking for fairly bright employees, A-level results are much less use than they used to be as a method of distinguishing between applicants.
(*Somehow I don't see the places with the less-brilliant intakes really signing up to a scheme where they ended up getting well-below-average numbers of higher-grade degrees.
It's one thing to have an institution's output being subject to informal downgrading by potential employers, but it could be rather more embarrassing for it to happen formally with the actual results.)
Yes, on reflection you are right. I originally had this idea for A Levels which are moderated nationally so common standards could be enforced, but it wouldn't work if each university kept on deciding their own standards. Scrub the thought!
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks