Considering a physics degree in the UK?

matt grime

I have not rubbished the whole system. I have merely said that it is not set up to allow you to draw conclusions based upon the numbers you are looking at. I would say that you cannot not assume those things at all. The standards of students at different universities are different (the entry requirements of Cambridge are not the same as those at Keele), the course structures are all different, the evaluation methods are all different, the pass rates are all different.

What would your opinions be of two potential candidates:

1. Has a 2:2 in mathematics from Cambridge, thus meaning that they came in the bottom third of of the year (Cambridge awards a greater percentage of firsts than most in maths, and justifiably in my opinion), they have 40 UCAS points, or 400, or whatever the maximum is these days, as well as STEP qualifications in mathematics, they have 3 or 4 A* at GCSE in maths and science, and straight As in the rest of their courses. In order to get in they probably beat of 9 other people with similar grades.

2. Some one with a 2:1 in maths from Expoly Y, who has, in the old money the Cs at A-level and a C average at GCSE, and who got in through clearing and didn't really care what subject they did or where they went?

It's an extreme example.

As it happens I believe physics degrees at some universities are harder than certain other degrees from some universities but my basis on that is from knowing students with different degrees and judging their abilities from talking to them. People have their perceptions of institutions, some reasonable and based upon experience, some simply presumptions that are unfounded. This is one of the reasons why it does matter what institution you went to and for which subject.

One other statistic that you have perhaps cited is 'drop out rate'. Drop out rates, for instance, merely show the relative difficulty of a course compared to people's perceptions before starting, and perhaps the disparity between that subject at university and at A-level. English literature is 'more of the same' in comparison with mathematics which requires a whole change of attitude. A harder degree program probably has a higher drop out rate owing to a higher calibre of applicant, too. There are cases of people being asked to leave Cambridge after failing the first year and getting 1sts at other universities in the same subject.

alfredblase

Well judging form the GCSE grades I would say that pupil 1 is brighter than pupil two. By UCAS points I assume you mean the studies just before university (e.g. A-levels). Here is where, in my opinion, it starts to get complicated and so I refuse to make further judments between the two pupils on the basis of A-level studies, other than to say I'd rather employ pupil number 1 at this stage. On the other hand once we get to talking about university grades, I think your clearing example shows that pupil 2 isn't so enthusiastic, but no more. I very much respect Cambridge and would be impressed by that. I would very much like to know which university pupil number 2 is from (in fact I would dismiss him altogether for neglecting to mention the name specifically... :S..). As far as the 2:1 vs 2:2 grade is conncerned... as you say the information is uselss unless I know the name of university number 2. All said, in conclusion, without knowing the name of the university pupil number 2 attended I can't make any judgment about which one to invite for an interview, unless to say number 1 due to number 2 providing incomplete information.

Just for the record, I've got 11 GCSE's (2 A*s, 6 A's and the other 3 are a mixture of B's and C's) A-level grades are 2B's and a C. At this point I would like to mention that I suffer from ADD which really begins to affect you at A-level and above because you actually have to pay attention in class :P, and it makes you run out of time in exams (i was undiagnosed) and also would like to present the case of a friend of mine who had dyslexia, had poor grades before his University studies, entered via the foundation year route (which requires much lower entry grades) and went on to get the third highest grade of all those initial 100+ students. I mention all this to support my argument that A-levels are complicated. I had offers from Bath (physics), Reading (cybernetics) and Sussex (physics). I chose Sussex because it looked like the best place in the world to spend the next four years and it was a decent uni, and I love physics. I don't regret my choice of university at all. I do regret adopting the attitude right from the word go "I only a need 2:1 that's what I'm aiming for" and not having my ADD diagnosed (= extra 15% time in exams) until the end of the 3rd year. Also umm because I can't pay much attention in lectures I never went to them. I probably attended only a quarter of them overall. My point is that these learning disorders are much more common than people generally think. Anyway... I wouldn't have posted again in this thread had you not asked me a specific question about my judgments of each pupil. ;)

matt grime

I didn't name a university (Expoly Y) purely because I did not wish to enflame someone's opinion unnecessarily from a poor choice of example.


And as if to make it even more complicated you've got to factor in information like all those people who were put off Cambridge by bad advice at school, again based upon misconceptions.

alfredblase

Why would it enflame anyone's opinion? Would it wreath their opinion in flames?! Opinion of what? Oh you mean they might get offended you using it as an example? Serioulsy why would anyone be offended by that? You engaged me in this comparison, I spent alot of time answering, please make this past half hour worthwile by providing an example university for pupil number 2. Thanks. =)

eh? and? (you seem fixated by cambridge though.. :s :p )

matt grime

Pick your own example; any will do. And why not assume they do not have dyslexia, ADD, or any other extenuating circumstances. It is after all just a 'what if', is it not?

alfredblase

This was your comparison.... don't pass the buck to me. (By the way, you have said many times that every university is different. You seem to be contradicting yourself...) Admit that your comparison was pointless.

That paragraph was separate from the pupil comparison. It started with the phrase "For the record"... To be honest I havn't got a clue where you are going with this comparison. I'm beggining to think this is one of those long arguments I was afraid of.... :s

matt grime

So, if I name a university that is bottom of the RAE, TQA, or, say, has the worst employment rates for graduates for mathematics, you'll believe something about it but you won't make that judgement for yourself? Look at the TQA, look at the RAE, look at the Guardian statistics you cited yourself. Pick the worst place for the subject in your opinion; I don't knwo what you do or don't rate in a degree program. And you do believe that there are differences between places as you assert when complaining about the employment opportunities that you have or haven't found, that Sussex is a good university and that your degree is a good degree, so you accept that there are differences between places already. So pick one of those places you think is bad, heck, replace the word maths with physics too while you're at it if it helps you make that judgement.

In fact, why don't you go and look at the different physics degrees at different places and form your own opinion of those if you want to compare opportunities at each University?

alfredblase

What on earth are you talking about? What is your point?

matt grime

What argument?

I say 'pick a university with a 'bad' degree in whatever metric' you ask me to name one specifically, I don't and say you should pick one yourself, you evidently have some differentiation between the quality of university (one that allows you to say Sussex is good) so use it (and all of the last 8 posts including this one would have been avoided if you'd just thought of your own example).

The 'point' was that expand upon the idea that you can't just use numbers like 'number of people passing' or 'relative failure rate' to compare different institutions, even in the same degree.

alfredblase

OK this is the funny thing. You know your post (number 18 in this thread)? I actually agreed with it, LOL. But then you edited your very good post and presented the infamous comparison xD and things got messy IMO. Having read your last post I... agree with you! I also disagree with you because I still think statistics can be used as an indicator of degree dificulty. We are both entitled to our different opinion as we both have valid arguments supporting our different opinions. The matter is obviously subjective to at least a large emm degree.. :S i'm getting sick of that word, hehe. I'm not going to post anymore concerning this matter, go ahead and have the last word xDD :P ;)

regards, alf

0rthodontist

Wikipedia makes it look like Sussex University is pretty good overall at #13 in the UK.

alfredblase

OK take your ill considered post off Grime. Good idea, but I know what you wrote and I'm leaving this reply here. (If you are curious it went something along the lines of, "its peoples perceptions that matter not the actual quality of the degree program, when I think of Sussex, I think of its history department") HAH!

in the words of Samuel L Jackson, allow me to retort:

ok so you don't get goosebumps when you hear Sussex in connection with Physics.. so what? To be honest there are only 3 universities I'd get "my pulse racing over" to quote you, and those are Cambridge, Imperial and Oxford in that order. But who cares if I didn't go to one of those 3? To suggest that to have a good degree in physics you need to have gone to a university that sets "your pulse racing" is one of the most ridiculous things I have EVER heard! That's what it seems like you are doing, and this coming from an "advisor"! Frankly your attitude astounds me and disgusts me.

The way I think about it is, and the way i would expect anybody with half a brain cell to think about it, is as follows: ok you have this candidate from Uni X, (not one of the top 3) does that mean you dismiss him?! No of course not! If you don't know much about the univeristy (which you obviously don't, since it also ranks along side LSE for political studies, and previously unbeknown to you, in the top 20 for physics), you take a quick look at any easily available ranking list and say, OK decent university for the subject.

This is the way biggoted, ignorant and foolish Mr Grime goes about it, oh it's not Cambridge, no good.

Frankly, **** off and stop dispensing your useless, discouraging and negative advice/opinions on the matter.

matt grime

I took it off precisely because people might leap to an unfounded conclusion as you did: that it was my perceptions that I was talking about, and seeing as the first line in my reply was that I believe Sussex has a good physics department you have been disingenuous to leave it off. Indeed I pointed out that it had exactly the same RAE ranking as where I work.

You have struggled to obtain a job in your chosen area. It would be foolish to overlook the possibility that you have been unfairly overlooked because of people's misconceptions. The job market is saturated, jobs have many applicants for one place as you have found out. Recruitment people do make large scale and potentially unfounded assumptions about candidates simply because there are so many people. You have 300 applicants for one position, all with 2:1 or better from universities ranked in positions 3-13 in your list. Do you interview them all?

The other extreme might be that your degree and university actually aren't sufficiently good (to get the job you want). Again I am not expressing a belief in this fact before you start to get angry. Your perception is that they are both good, and I agree with that; it is the job market that is in a mess these days, and even though you don't believe it I am very sympathetic with that: I have been at the wrong end of the stereotypical recruitment officer in HR with a 2:1 in media studies attempting to decide if a pure maths degree is suitable for some undemanding job.

alfredblase

We agree that the physics job market is saturated.

My opinion is that to make the grade in a pure physics career you have to have an outstanding CV. It was my advice, from experience, to potential physics students. As far as I can see from all the feedback, its actually good advice.

I freely admitted in the OP that I do not have an outstanding CV.

I merely have a good education. Your first ignorant reply to my OP suggested that in your opinion this was not true. Now since having been proved wrong you've shifted your argument to saying that people in general don't percieve it to be true. Again BULL, you're the only person in this thread who has made those kind of comments. Every other post has been at the very least respectful, and without going over all of them again many have even been complimentary and/or encouraging. Get your facts straight please.

matt grime

In the first reply:

"this is going to sound harsh, but Sussex does not raise pulses on many people's radar for its science."

and you agreed:

"To be honest there are only 3 universities I'd get "my pulse racing over" to quote you, and those are Cambridge, Imperial and Oxford in that order."

It is perfectly possible, indeed plausible, to get a job in the sciences with a 2:1 from a good university. I know plenty of people who have PhDs who obtained 2:1's, and not just from Oxford Cambridge or Imperial, so my experience is that it is not a barrier to a career in the sciences to obtain a 2:1 from some universities, and to tell everyone else that it is based solely upon your experience is not necessarily accurate.

It would appear that 13th on that list you cite doesn't practically make it a good enough university these days. I guess this means that I shall have to amend my opinion, an opinion that you instilled in me, that Sussex was a good university to obtain a physics degree from, if you are representative of people's experiences there.

alfredblase

I agree completely with everything you said in your last post. =)

And yes I am representative of people's experiences at Sussex in physics, at least in my year. The only people from Sussex, doing Physics PhD's, out of the 100+ who started their degree at the same time as I did, are people who got firsts.

All those with 2:1's are pursuing succesful careers, however not physics careers. As I have been looking for physics opportunities, we understand my lack of success.

The best course of action I can think of right now, is that suggested by J77 in his second post here.

Oh and I cited it as being in the top 20 of the Guardian's list. I cant see the name right now but the postion of 13th was cited by somebody else in this thread, from Wikipedia. As was also pointed out a rating of 5 in the RAE. Three independent evaluations that place the university in a good position can't be all that far off the real mark...

Thanks to all those that have shown an interest. At least there's plenty of food for thought.

Actually there's something I didn't mention, the PhD's I've been applying to have all been leaning strongly towards the theoretical side of things.. perhaps those types of PhD's are harder to get into, I don't know.

J77

A 2:1 from Oxbridge is better than a 2:1 from any other British university.

The style of teaching is entirely different from all (I may stand corrected) universities and, in my experience, it shows in the understanding of their graduates.

You're right tho', and I stood corrected in one of my first posts, Sussex is high in Physics research with a 5A; one below the top mark (Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial and Lancaster only acheived the 5*A).