I’m interested in moving from the US to England to study and I’m curious as to how the educational system – Universities, more specifically, grade assignments and go about ranking the students as well as each student choosing their specific profession. (Do they use majors or a GPA-like ranking system like the US educational system does?)
The more detail you can give me the better. If you are somewhat of an expert on this, please do not hesitate to email me. It’s a topic I desperately need to be educated about.
The university system is completely different. Remember that the UK has been around a LOT longer, Oxford and Cambridge started about 900 years ago, and the rest of it, especially the more "traditional" universities, have evolved slowly from that. Slow evolution and just moving with the times pretty much describes everything abou the UK – why else are we still a monarchy?
Majors and minors are, well, a minority thing. The most traditional courses consist simply of studying one subject for three years, like mine did. Two-subject degrees with a major and minor subject are also now common but you sign up for it right at the beginning. The nearest to the US way of doing things is, I suppose, the University of Keele, where everyone does the same "foundation year" and settles on a major and a minor after that – very unusual when it first started in the 1960s as that makes the course four years long, but even they now offer the traditional three-year single or double subject kind of degree.
It reflects the fact that British students specialise earlier anyway – school leaving age is 16, if you want to go to university you stay on for another two years to do A levels, and A levels are so rigorous that you do only three subjects or four at the most. University entrance is based on A level results. So if you have a specific future profession in mind you really need to be thinking about it at 16. It’s easier to switch around between arts subjects as the skills required are more transferable but if you want to do a science, you’re stuffed if you make the wrong choice at 16.
What we’re finding now is that A levels seem to be getting easier so the most popular universities are now introducing entrance tests for law and medicine, the key courses where you need a degree in the subject to get into the profession, as so many applicants are getting 3 grade As that the A level doesn’t discriminate sufficiently any more.
GPA or anything like it doesn’t exist. Each university will have its own system for giving results for exams taken during the course, but the only common thing is the classification system at the end. British universities don’t give Latin results of the "cum laude" kind – you get first class honours, upper second class honours, lower second class honours, third class honours, pass (or "a degree without honours") or fail. Even that is getting dumbed down… I entered university 27 years ago and my lower second class degree was perfectly respectable then, but I doubt I would get into the same profession now with it. It’s because the number of universities and graduates has exploded so much in recent years as a result of government policy.
Take me as an example… at 16 I chose A levels in pure mathematics, physics and chemistry as I knew my interest at that time was in the "hard sciences", passed well enough (AAB) to enter Imperial College and spent 3 years there studying nothing but physics, graduating with a BSc. We sat exams every year but the 1st and 2nd year exams were graded according to their own system which didn’t necessarily match up with the way any other university worked. (I have a BD and an MA as well but those are as a result of private study outside the "normal" system – in particular my MA is from the Open University which specialises in "distance learning". I really don’t like socialist governments but the one we had 40 years ago gave us the Open University and it’s an amazing thing. It tried setting up in the USA a few years ago and then folded again because there are so many US universities that offer the same kind of thing.)
Oxford and Cambridge are a little different – they actually classify the exam results in the middle of the course as well, so if you hear of historical personages getting a "double first" it just means they got a first class result both in the middle and at the end. Cambridge is the most different as the Tripos system there means you can switch course totally in the middle if you want to and it’s permitted as a result of your qualifications – Prince Charles did that. He did Part I Archaeology and Anthropology and then switched to Part II History. All Oxford and Cambridge bachelors’ degrees are BA anyway even if you study science so it works for them.
British universities tend to be popular with foreign students if only because the course is shorter so you graduate after only three years. It’s just more intense during those three years but it makes the total fee cheaper.
I hope that gives you a feel… feel free to email if you want to ask more.
#1 by The Dark Side on July 26, 2010 - 9:36 am
The university system is completely different. Remember that the UK has been around a LOT longer, Oxford and Cambridge started about 900 years ago, and the rest of it, especially the more "traditional" universities, have evolved slowly from that. Slow evolution and just moving with the times pretty much describes everything abou the UK – why else are we still a monarchy?
Majors and minors are, well, a minority thing. The most traditional courses consist simply of studying one subject for three years, like mine did. Two-subject degrees with a major and minor subject are also now common but you sign up for it right at the beginning. The nearest to the US way of doing things is, I suppose, the University of Keele, where everyone does the same "foundation year" and settles on a major and a minor after that – very unusual when it first started in the 1960s as that makes the course four years long, but even they now offer the traditional three-year single or double subject kind of degree.
It reflects the fact that British students specialise earlier anyway – school leaving age is 16, if you want to go to university you stay on for another two years to do A levels, and A levels are so rigorous that you do only three subjects or four at the most. University entrance is based on A level results. So if you have a specific future profession in mind you really need to be thinking about it at 16. It’s easier to switch around between arts subjects as the skills required are more transferable but if you want to do a science, you’re stuffed if you make the wrong choice at 16.
What we’re finding now is that A levels seem to be getting easier so the most popular universities are now introducing entrance tests for law and medicine, the key courses where you need a degree in the subject to get into the profession, as so many applicants are getting 3 grade As that the A level doesn’t discriminate sufficiently any more.
GPA or anything like it doesn’t exist. Each university will have its own system for giving results for exams taken during the course, but the only common thing is the classification system at the end. British universities don’t give Latin results of the "cum laude" kind – you get first class honours, upper second class honours, lower second class honours, third class honours, pass (or "a degree without honours") or fail. Even that is getting dumbed down… I entered university 27 years ago and my lower second class degree was perfectly respectable then, but I doubt I would get into the same profession now with it. It’s because the number of universities and graduates has exploded so much in recent years as a result of government policy.
Take me as an example… at 16 I chose A levels in pure mathematics, physics and chemistry as I knew my interest at that time was in the "hard sciences", passed well enough (AAB) to enter Imperial College and spent 3 years there studying nothing but physics, graduating with a BSc. We sat exams every year but the 1st and 2nd year exams were graded according to their own system which didn’t necessarily match up with the way any other university worked. (I have a BD and an MA as well but those are as a result of private study outside the "normal" system – in particular my MA is from the Open University which specialises in "distance learning". I really don’t like socialist governments but the one we had 40 years ago gave us the Open University and it’s an amazing thing. It tried setting up in the USA a few years ago and then folded again because there are so many US universities that offer the same kind of thing.)
Oxford and Cambridge are a little different – they actually classify the exam results in the middle of the course as well, so if you hear of historical personages getting a "double first" it just means they got a first class result both in the middle and at the end. Cambridge is the most different as the Tripos system there means you can switch course totally in the middle if you want to and it’s permitted as a result of your qualifications – Prince Charles did that. He did Part I Archaeology and Anthropology and then switched to Part II History. All Oxford and Cambridge bachelors’ degrees are BA anyway even if you study science so it works for them.
British universities tend to be popular with foreign students if only because the course is shorter so you graduate after only three years. It’s just more intense during those three years but it makes the total fee cheaper.
I hope that gives you a feel… feel free to email if you want to ask more.
References :
#2 by luddite on July 26, 2010 - 9:53 am
What The Dark Side said.
You can’t really compare the two systems, like apples and oranges.
References :