Ahahah, wrong hat! Spot the girl who only rarely mods her community >.<
I'm sure PhD comics has saved many a grad student from freaking out ;)
I'm not sure how similar the UK and US systems for graduate study are (or the Canadian version, for that matter). Remember though that in the UK, undergraduate degrees are specialist: you study your subject for 3-4 years (and maybe take a couple of electives, but you are basically majoring all the way through). So when you do a Masters/PhD in the UK, you've already spent a few years studying your subject at university level, whereas my impression of the US is that most undergraduate degrees are fairly broad (e.g. liberal arts) and don't confer the same depth of subject-matter, or specialization. Also, in the UK, people do degrees in things like medicine and law at undergraduate level, from the age of 18 (though you can then do graduate study in them too if you're keen, or crazy; but the qualifications you need to train/practice are undergraduate degrees) - they're not subjects you wait until grad school to do. So it's a little different, I guess.
Oh, also, in the UK, you're only a professor when you've attained a fairly serious level of seniority (like, a few people per faculty will have this title, and the position affords them more money and different responsibilities). So most college lecturers who have PhDs and permanent contracts (we don't have a tenure system) would never be addressed as "professor", though I can see this changing eventually to reflect the US system - one university has already instituted the change.
And thanks, I had a very good two-hour nap this afternoon. Today was a fairly epic duvet day.
Remember though that in the UK, undergraduate degrees are specialist: you study your subject for 3-4 years (and maybe take a couple of electives, but you are basically majoring all the way through). So when you do a Masters/PhD in the UK, you've already spent a few years studying your subject at university level, whereas my impression of the US is that most undergraduate degrees are fairly broad (e.g. liberal arts) and don't confer the same depth of subject-matter, or specialization. Also, in the UK, people do degrees in things like medicine and law at undergraduate level, from the age of 18 (though you can then do graduate study in them too if you're keen, or crazy; but the qualifications you need to train/practice are undergraduate degrees) - they're not subjects you wait until grad school to do.
Erm, well, they can be quite broad if you're majoring in something that falls under the liberal arts banner. Really, though, it's up to the student. I double-majored in Spanish and English and took real pains to make sure that I took at least one course outside my majors each semester, otherwise all I would have ended up with would have been Spanish and English classes. If you're going to study medicine, a lot of people take the pre-med track (which almost every school has) while majoring in some kind of science to make their lives a bit easier. Same goes for law, there are pre-law tracks and most who follow those major in either history or poli-sci. So, really, it can be as broad as you choose, but most people tend to stick closely to their tracks. (There once was a "liberal arts major", but most schools have eradicated it since it was only good for turning out private school teachers and extremely smart cashiers.)
I'd heard that but was never entirely sure how it worked. I've seen professors who kill themselves to attain tenure, and then once they do, they slack like mad. For instance, at my first college I had a professor who prided himself on keeping his meetings with students to under five minutes. As you can imagine, he was supremely unhelpful most of the time. However, the tenured professors I interacted with at my second college were, for some reason, way more invested in it than the non-tenured ones. I can see both sides of the argument and I pick neither! Hah!
Gotta love duvets. I got a new one for Christmas and it was the highlight of my year.
otherwise all I would have ended up with would have been Spanish and English classes
See, you just described the typical undergraduate degree in the UK. I think electives are mostly only a first-year thing. And in fact very few people have a double major ;)
Right, right - I know someone who's pre-Econ, I think? But she took some classes in English and German and whatever. We rarely allow that.
(There once was a "liberal arts major", but most schools have eradicated it since it was only good for turning out private school teachers and extremely smart cashiers.)
Heheh.
I've seen professors who kill themselves to attain tenure, and then once they do, they slack like mad. For instance, at my first college I had a professor who prided himself on keeping his meetings with students to under five minutes. As you can imagine, he was supremely unhelpful most of the time. However, the tenured professors I interacted with at my second college were, for some reason, way more invested in it than the non-tenured ones. I can see both sides of the argument and I pick neither! Hah!
Heh. I'd say that at least the tenure system is broadly fair; in the UK, the degree of volatility in the job market is mainly down to the economy (and nothing else). So you can graduate at a good time and get offered a permanent contract, despite having little so far to recommend you, or you can be absolutely shit-hot but graduate at a time like now when the economy's still a bit shaky, and have the hardest time even finding a limited contract (which might only be for a year). You get judged on your publication output, never on your teaching (which is retarded - I mean, you honestly can't improve your employment prospects through being a brilliant teacher - though I'm not a fan of ratemyprofessors.com either, because then I think it just becomes a popularity contest). Oh, and students can't negotiate their grades with you.
Duvet love! I can't believe I'm abandoning mine right now.
Oh, meant to add that in the UK, whether faculty have much time for students is partly a result of how research-driven they are, but also just about their personalities. It rarely seems to reflect their employment status (temporary or permanent contract).
I think electives are mostly only a first-year thing. And in fact very few people have a double major ;)
Right, right - I know someone who's pre-Econ, I think? But she took some classes in English and German and whatever. We rarely allow that.
Wow. Wow. Uh, that is...really specialized. What happens to those idiots who don't know what they want to study, or worse, change their mind? (I was totally one of those idiots.)
I'd say that at least the tenure system is broadly fair; in the UK, the degree of volatility in the job market is mainly down to the economy (and nothing else)
Well, that's certainly true right now in the US. Jobs are rare and hard to find, believe you me.
You get judged on your publication output, never on your teaching (which is retarded - I mean, you honestly can't improve your employment prospects through being a brilliant teacher
That makes literally no sense to me. I can see how the college/university wants someone prestigious, but I'd think they'd also want someone who is capable of communicating their awesome theories to students.
Oh, and students can't negotiate their grades with you.
? I'm not sure if you're saying that students cant negotiate their grades with you when you have a short-term contract, or when you're a professor in the UK. As opposed to the US? It is true that you run into the assholes who think their grades are negotiable because they've been told their whole lives how smart and special and deserving they are when, really, they're none of the above. (And nothing gets my goat faster, seriously. Why should you get an 'A' because you whined to the professor, while I'm still stuck with this 'B' if my work was actually better than yours?) On the whole, though, I think students understand that you get the grade you worked for, and nothing more. I do know one person who got a grade changed, but it was only due to the fact that she was able to defend a point verbally that the professor had dismissed while reading her paper. (Keep in mind that this was at my first college, which was a suck-fest beyond all measures.)
I definitely remember in high school that kids were able to essentially bully their teachers into giving them better grades - when mommy and daddy are lawyers, for some reason, bringing them up in conversation doesn't give anyone the warm and fuzzies - and at the middle school and high school I worked at this past year the parents were the bullies, but my feeling is that grades are grades at the college level.
You also have to realise that by the time kids come out of high school in the UK, they are already specialists. In England and Wales, if you're the academic type, you pick maybe three or four subjects at age 16 (if you're staying in school; these days, you have to, but it wasn't always so), and just study those for two years. If you're very bright, you might do five. In Scotland, you pick five or six (different educational system, often more highly regarded. The English system is in the process of mellowing out a bit, because picking just three subjects at age 15-16 is plainly ridiculous).
What happens to those idiots who don't know what they want to study, or worse, change their mind? (I was totally one of those idiots.)
I was one of those idiots too. Five weeks, it took me, to change my mind. Much later and it wouldn't have been possible!
Believe me, SO many young people now go to university with no idea of what to study, or why they are there. I blame the previous government, which thought it would be excellent if 50% of people went to university. In some regards this proposal is unimpeachable, but now you have the entire sector insisting that its standards haven't dropped when its entry requirements clearly have, at least in some quarters. It's like everyone's pretending that we now have four times the number of incredibly smart/academic people we used to. Devaluation, much?
That makes literally no sense to me. I can see how the college/university wants someone prestigious, but I'd think they'd also want someone who is capable of communicating their awesome theories to students.
Nah, they just want the research prestige. Seriously. There is no meaningful career progression through teaching excellence. Of course, they want us all to be excellent teachers (because it impacts on student feedback if we're not), but you can't make Prof on the back of it unless teaching is actually your research area and you publish a lot of papers.
(No, I'm not at all demotivated and cynical - why do you ask?)
I'm not sure if you're saying that students cant negotiate their grades with you when you have a short-term contract, or when you're a professor in the UK. As opposed to the US?
Sorry, poor phrasing on my part. I had gotten the (perhaps erroneous) impression that there was some wiggle room for grade negotiation in US education generally. Here, it's just not even on the table. Ever. Unless you appeal formally and go through a whole thing. But it seems like I might have overestimated the extent to which this occurs in Norteamerica, so scratch all that ;)
You also have to realise that by the time kids come out of high school in the UK, they are already specialists. In England and Wales, if you're the academic type, you pick maybe three or four subjects at age 16 (if you're staying in school; these days, you have to, but it wasn't always so), and just study those for two years. If you're very bright, you might do five.
From what I remember from my brief stint in Spain as an exchange student, it goes pretty much the same there. Or, well, it might have only been that particular private school, but the kids picked "career tracks" in the liberal arts or sciences at fifteen and then specialized until graduation. The girl I lived with picked journalism.
I was one of those idiots too. Five weeks, it took me, to change my mind. Much later and it wouldn't have been possible!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH. AHAH. Five weeks! Ahhhh, you kill me. Um. Okay, I was always always always a Spanish major, and also always a double major, but that second major changed all the time. For a while I was Spanish / East Asian Studies - actually, besides English, that lasted the longest. About a year an a half. Then Spanish / Poli-sci, then Spanish / pre-med, then Spanish / education, then Spanish / English, and if I'd had even just one more year, I'd have made it Spanish / Afro-Am lit instead because I found I liked Afro-Am lit more than the general English lit. Alas, my second college required that you graduate within 4 years of starting college, which still applied if you were a transfer student, just in a credit-y way. So I transferred in as a starting junior and was given two years to be there, and two years only.
the previous government, which thought it would be excellent if 50% of people went to university. In some regards this proposal is unimpeachable, but now you have the entire sector insisting that its standards haven't dropped when its entry requirements clearly have, at least in some quarters.
This raises a lot of questions for me. Did the gov't insist that colleges lower their entry requirements in order to get more students in? Was it very difficult to get into university before, or was it just something that most people didn't want to do? And is the influx of grads making it more difficult for everyone to find jobs?
The way the UK system has been explained to me is that having a high school degree in the UK is like having a college degree in the US. Having a college degree in the UK is like having a graduate degree in the US, and so on, and so on. Is this a fairly accurate statement on my part?
There is no meaningful career progression through teaching excellence. Of course, they want us all to be excellent teachers (because it impacts on student feedback if we're not), but you can't make Prof on the back of it unless teaching is actually your research area and you publish a lot of papers.
Did you by any chance have plans to become a professor that you ended up scrapping? 'Cause, damn, I would have scrapped my plans if that's all they're looking for.
I had gotten the (perhaps erroneous) impression that there was some wiggle room for grade negotiation in US education generally.
Hmm. Well, it depends on the circumstances, to be perfectly honest. It depends on your college's rules surrounding grades; frequently, if you want a final grade changed (after final grades have come out), you must petition whatever board your college has and you'd better have a damn good reason for why you're questioning one of their professors' judgment. It is very, very rare that final grades get changed, but it has been known to happen. If you're asking about changing the grade on simply a paper, you approach the professor and, in this case, it depends entirely on how well you are able to present your case, as well as a) how much the professor likes you and b) how much the professor wants to get you the hell out of their office because they've got something else to do. You're much more likely to get a grade changed on a paper than a final grade changed, though it still doesn't happen often. Here is the greatest Special Snowflake email I've ever read. Basically it tells you how not to ask for a grade change, but, god, I was laughing so hard that I choked on air.
Oh, jeez, yes it is. I re-read it when I hate my students, and remind myself that at least I don't get letters like this.
No problem. I've actually run in to a lot of people - in Europe, at least, not so much in South America - who had the same impression. I guess movies and such - and complaining newspaper editorials - can really play up that aspect of college in the US.
Also: So, so, so sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I've been on vacation and while not sans-computer, totally avoided checking email, voicemail, lj / dw, whatever. I did not want to give people a way to get in touch with me, mainly because I've been badgering people to do certain things and was absolutely sick of them asking very obvious questions.
Sorry, meant to reply to this ages ago! Busy week.
Okay, I was always always always a Spanish major, and also always a double major, but that second major changed all the time. For a while I was Spanish / East Asian Studies - actually, besides English, that lasted the longest. About a year an a half. Then Spanish / Poli-sci, then Spanish / pre-med, then Spanish / education, then Spanish / English, and if I'd had even just one more year, I'd have made it Spanish / Afro-Am lit instead because I found I liked Afro-Am lit more than the general English lit. Alas, my second college required that you graduate within 4 years of starting college, which still applied if you were a transfer student, just in a credit-y way. So I transferred in as a starting junior and was given two years to be there, and two years only.
Wow. Nice that you had that flexibility! I don't think you could have done this in the UK: you basically have to know what subject you're doing from the get-go. In some universities, on some degree programs, there's room to mix and match, but by start of your second year you are basically committed to your degree program, and if you want to switch, you're looking at repeating a year.
This raises a lot of questions for me.
Oh, honey, get in line ;)
Did the gov't insist that colleges lower their entry requirements in order to get more students in?
Nope. The official line from all universities is that they have not lowered their standards. But also, there are many more universities now than there used to be (what used to be called colleges and polytechnics are now all universities), so the sector has swelled to meet demand.
Was it very difficult to get into university before, or was it just something that most people didn't want to do?
It was harder (maybe more competition for a small number of places) but also it was something that only a small percentage of people were encouraged to do - you know, the obviously academic kids. Now even kids who aren't that academic go to university, because that's just what you do now after leaving school (especially given the state of the economy when there now aren't that many jobs).
And is the influx of grads making it more difficult for everyone to find jobs?
I think it's probably a lot harder to find the kind of work that used to be called a 'graduate job' - obviously those jobs are still there, but I guess they will now go mostly to the very best. A lot of our students end up in relatively unskilled jobs, though that's partly because we have a lot of home students who don't want to move away from the area because their families are here, and there aren't very many graduate-level jobs in the area (at least, not nearly enough to meet the numbers of graduates we pump out). I don't think "having a degree" means what it used to mean, because so many people now do, so it's probably harder for prospective employees to screen? I don't know.
In some universities, on some degree programs, there's room to mix and match, but by start of your second year you are basically committed to your degree program, and if you want to switch, you're looking at repeating a year.
So...I would have been an undergrad for about 8 years. Awesome. /0\
Nope. The official line from all universities is that they have not lowered their standards. But also, there are many more universities now than there used to be (what used to be called colleges and polytechnics are now all universities), so the sector has swelled to meet demand.
Hmm. That's a pretty good official line, actually. Patently false, but fairly smart when you consider the additional schools. Now, what's the difference between a college and a university in the UK? The difference in the US is in size, not education level, and in fact, most believe you get a better education at a college (fewer students to take up the professor's time).
Now even kids who aren't that academic go to university, because that's just what you do now after leaving school (especially given the state of the economy when there now aren't that many jobs).
In the US, if you only have a high school diploma, very few jobs are open to you. Your lifetime earning potential quadruples if you have a BA, and doubles again after that if you have an MA. Is that an impetus behind everyone's decision to go to uni, or is that again, more due to the immediate economic prospect?
Part 2! I are verbose ;)indyhatAugust 8 2010, 11:39:41 UTC
The way the UK system has been explained to me is that having a high school degree in the UK is like having a college degree in the US. Having a college degree in the UK is like having a graduate degree in the US, and so on, and so on. Is this a fairly accurate statement on my part?
Um, I actually couldn't say? *laughs* I know the UK education system is generally well-regarded, internationally, but I'm not sure that having a university degree here is equivalent to having been to grad school (for even, say, a Masters) in the US. The people who are graduating well, near the top of their class, may well be equivalent to your grad school guys, but the people at the bottom of their classes should not really have come to university (but the system now allows them to, and universities are loath to throw them out, because asses on seats = money).
I may be slightly bitter ;) Some of it I can live with, but I have a Masters and a PhD from good schools, and I don't want to see those qualifications devalued.
Did you by any chance have plans to become a professor that you ended up scrapping? 'Cause, damn, I would have scrapped my plans if that's all they're looking for.
I am what in the US would be called a prof (I have the UK equivalent of tenure), but I'm giving serious thought to getting out and doing something else. The job I do now is not the job I signed up for nearly a decade ago :-/
Re: Part 2! I are verbose ;)forsweatervestsAugust 14 2010, 22:16:35 UTC
universities are loath to throw them out, because asses on seats = money).
Yup. Totally the mentality in the US. Especially since all those colleges lost their endowments via stock market crashes, etc, etc.
I may be slightly bitter ;) Some of it I can live with, but I have a Masters and a PhD from good schools, and I don't want to see those qualifications devalued.
I think you've got good reason to want your schools to continue to be top-notch. Part of the reason to go to a good school is to get help from the brand name they've got, and if the brand name gets devalued by inferior product...they're not helping you at all.
The job I do now is not the job I signed up for nearly a decade ago :-/
How so? Less time for research? More idiots in your classes? (That one I'm betting is a definite yes.) What makes it worth leaving? And what are you interested in doing?
I'm sure PhD comics has saved many a grad student from freaking out ;)
I'm not sure how similar the UK and US systems for graduate study are (or the Canadian version, for that matter). Remember though that in the UK, undergraduate degrees are specialist: you study your subject for 3-4 years (and maybe take a couple of electives, but you are basically majoring all the way through). So when you do a Masters/PhD in the UK, you've already spent a few years studying your subject at university level, whereas my impression of the US is that most undergraduate degrees are fairly broad (e.g. liberal arts) and don't confer the same depth of subject-matter, or specialization. Also, in the UK, people do degrees in things like medicine and law at undergraduate level, from the age of 18 (though you can then do graduate study in them too if you're keen, or crazy; but the qualifications you need to train/practice are undergraduate degrees) - they're not subjects you wait until grad school to do. So it's a little different, I guess.
Oh, also, in the UK, you're only a professor when you've attained a fairly serious level of seniority (like, a few people per faculty will have this title, and the position affords them more money and different responsibilities). So most college lecturers who have PhDs and permanent contracts (we don't have a tenure system) would never be addressed as "professor", though I can see this changing eventually to reflect the US system - one university has already instituted the change.
And thanks, I had a very good two-hour nap this afternoon. Today was a fairly epic duvet day.
Reply
Remember though that in the UK, undergraduate degrees are specialist: you study your subject for 3-4 years (and maybe take a couple of electives, but you are basically majoring all the way through). So when you do a Masters/PhD in the UK, you've already spent a few years studying your subject at university level, whereas my impression of the US is that most undergraduate degrees are fairly broad (e.g. liberal arts) and don't confer the same depth of subject-matter, or specialization. Also, in the UK, people do degrees in things like medicine and law at undergraduate level, from the age of 18 (though you can then do graduate study in them too if you're keen, or crazy; but the qualifications you need to train/practice are undergraduate degrees) - they're not subjects you wait until grad school to do.
Erm, well, they can be quite broad if you're majoring in something that falls under the liberal arts banner. Really, though, it's up to the student. I double-majored in Spanish and English and took real pains to make sure that I took at least one course outside my majors each semester, otherwise all I would have ended up with would have been Spanish and English classes. If you're going to study medicine, a lot of people take the pre-med track (which almost every school has) while majoring in some kind of science to make their lives a bit easier. Same goes for law, there are pre-law tracks and most who follow those major in either history or poli-sci. So, really, it can be as broad as you choose, but most people tend to stick closely to their tracks. (There once was a "liberal arts major", but most schools have eradicated it since it was only good for turning out private school teachers and extremely smart cashiers.)
I'd heard that but was never entirely sure how it worked. I've seen professors who kill themselves to attain tenure, and then once they do, they slack like mad. For instance, at my first college I had a professor who prided himself on keeping his meetings with students to under five minutes. As you can imagine, he was supremely unhelpful most of the time. However, the tenured professors I interacted with at my second college were, for some reason, way more invested in it than the non-tenured ones. I can see both sides of the argument and I pick neither! Hah!
Gotta love duvets. I got a new one for Christmas and it was the highlight of my year.
Reply
See, you just described the typical undergraduate degree in the UK. I think electives are mostly only a first-year thing. And in fact very few people have a double major ;)
Right, right - I know someone who's pre-Econ, I think? But she took some classes in English and German and whatever. We rarely allow that.
(There once was a "liberal arts major", but most schools have eradicated it since it was only good for turning out private school teachers and extremely smart cashiers.)
Heheh.
I've seen professors who kill themselves to attain tenure, and then once they do, they slack like mad. For instance, at my first college I had a professor who prided himself on keeping his meetings with students to under five minutes. As you can imagine, he was supremely unhelpful most of the time. However, the tenured professors I interacted with at my second college were, for some reason, way more invested in it than the non-tenured ones. I can see both sides of the argument and I pick neither! Hah!
Heh. I'd say that at least the tenure system is broadly fair; in the UK, the degree of volatility in the job market is mainly down to the economy (and nothing else). So you can graduate at a good time and get offered a permanent contract, despite having little so far to recommend you, or you can be absolutely shit-hot but graduate at a time like now when the economy's still a bit shaky, and have the hardest time even finding a limited contract (which might only be for a year). You get judged on your publication output, never on your teaching (which is retarded - I mean, you honestly can't improve your employment prospects through being a brilliant teacher - though I'm not a fan of ratemyprofessors.com either, because then I think it just becomes a popularity contest). Oh, and students can't negotiate their grades with you.
Duvet love! I can't believe I'm abandoning mine right now.
Reply
Reply
Right, right - I know someone who's pre-Econ, I think? But she took some classes in English and German and whatever. We rarely allow that.
Wow. Wow. Uh, that is...really specialized. What happens to those idiots who don't know what they want to study, or worse, change their mind? (I was totally one of those idiots.)
I'd say that at least the tenure system is broadly fair; in the UK, the degree of volatility in the job market is mainly down to the economy (and nothing else)
Well, that's certainly true right now in the US. Jobs are rare and hard to find, believe you me.
You get judged on your publication output, never on your teaching (which is retarded - I mean, you honestly can't improve your employment prospects through being a brilliant teacher
That makes literally no sense to me. I can see how the college/university wants someone prestigious, but I'd think they'd also want someone who is capable of communicating their awesome theories to students.
Oh, and students can't negotiate their grades with you.
? I'm not sure if you're saying that students cant negotiate their grades with you when you have a short-term contract, or when you're a professor in the UK. As opposed to the US? It is true that you run into the assholes who think their grades are negotiable because they've been told their whole lives how smart and special and deserving they are when, really, they're none of the above. (And nothing gets my goat faster, seriously. Why should you get an 'A' because you whined to the professor, while I'm still stuck with this 'B' if my work was actually better than yours?) On the whole, though, I think students understand that you get the grade you worked for, and nothing more. I do know one person who got a grade changed, but it was only due to the fact that she was able to defend a point verbally that the professor had dismissed while reading her paper. (Keep in mind that this was at my first college, which was a suck-fest beyond all measures.)
I definitely remember in high school that kids were able to essentially bully their teachers into giving them better grades - when mommy and daddy are lawyers, for some reason, bringing them up in conversation doesn't give anyone the warm and fuzzies - and at the middle school and high school I worked at this past year the parents were the bullies, but my feeling is that grades are grades at the college level.
Reply
You also have to realise that by the time kids come out of high school in the UK, they are already specialists. In England and Wales, if you're the academic type, you pick maybe three or four subjects at age 16 (if you're staying in school; these days, you have to, but it wasn't always so), and just study those for two years. If you're very bright, you might do five. In Scotland, you pick five or six (different educational system, often more highly regarded. The English system is in the process of mellowing out a bit, because picking just three subjects at age 15-16 is plainly ridiculous).
What happens to those idiots who don't know what they want to study, or worse, change their mind? (I was totally one of those idiots.)
I was one of those idiots too. Five weeks, it took me, to change my mind. Much later and it wouldn't have been possible!
Believe me, SO many young people now go to university with no idea of what to study, or why they are there. I blame the previous government, which thought it would be excellent if 50% of people went to university. In some regards this proposal is unimpeachable, but now you have the entire sector insisting that its standards haven't dropped when its entry requirements clearly have, at least in some quarters. It's like everyone's pretending that we now have four times the number of incredibly smart/academic people we used to. Devaluation, much?
That makes literally no sense to me. I can see how the college/university wants someone prestigious, but I'd think they'd also want someone who is capable of communicating their awesome theories to students.
Nah, they just want the research prestige. Seriously. There is no meaningful career progression through teaching excellence. Of course, they want us all to be excellent teachers (because it impacts on student feedback if we're not), but you can't make Prof on the back of it unless teaching is actually your research area and you publish a lot of papers.
(No, I'm not at all demotivated and cynical - why do you ask?)
I'm not sure if you're saying that students cant negotiate their grades with you when you have a short-term contract, or when you're a professor in the UK. As opposed to the US?
Sorry, poor phrasing on my part. I had gotten the (perhaps erroneous) impression that there was some wiggle room for grade negotiation in US education generally. Here, it's just not even on the table. Ever. Unless you appeal formally and go through a whole thing. But it seems like I might have overestimated the extent to which this occurs in Norteamerica, so scratch all that ;)
Reply
From what I remember from my brief stint in Spain as an exchange student, it goes pretty much the same there. Or, well, it might have only been that particular private school, but the kids picked "career tracks" in the liberal arts or sciences at fifteen and then specialized until graduation. The girl I lived with picked journalism.
I was one of those idiots too. Five weeks, it took me, to change my mind. Much later and it wouldn't have been possible!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH. AHAH. Five weeks! Ahhhh, you kill me. Um. Okay, I was always always always a Spanish major, and also always a double major, but that second major changed all the time. For a while I was Spanish / East Asian Studies - actually, besides English, that lasted the longest. About a year an a half. Then Spanish / Poli-sci, then Spanish / pre-med, then Spanish / education, then Spanish / English, and if I'd had even just one more year, I'd have made it Spanish / Afro-Am lit instead because I found I liked Afro-Am lit more than the general English lit. Alas, my second college required that you graduate within 4 years of starting college, which still applied if you were a transfer student, just in a credit-y way. So I transferred in as a starting junior and was given two years to be there, and two years only.
the previous government, which thought it would be excellent if 50% of people went to university. In some regards this proposal is unimpeachable, but now you have the entire sector insisting that its standards haven't dropped when its entry requirements clearly have, at least in some quarters.
This raises a lot of questions for me. Did the gov't insist that colleges lower their entry requirements in order to get more students in? Was it very difficult to get into university before, or was it just something that most people didn't want to do? And is the influx of grads making it more difficult for everyone to find jobs?
The way the UK system has been explained to me is that having a high school degree in the UK is like having a college degree in the US. Having a college degree in the UK is like having a graduate degree in the US, and so on, and so on. Is this a fairly accurate statement on my part?
There is no meaningful career progression through teaching excellence. Of course, they want us all to be excellent teachers (because it impacts on student feedback if we're not), but you can't make Prof on the back of it unless teaching is actually your research area and you publish a lot of papers.
Did you by any chance have plans to become a professor that you ended up scrapping? 'Cause, damn, I would have scrapped my plans if that's all they're looking for.
Reply
Hmm. Well, it depends on the circumstances, to be perfectly honest. It depends on your college's rules surrounding grades; frequently, if you want a final grade changed (after final grades have come out), you must petition whatever board your college has and you'd better have a damn good reason for why you're questioning one of their professors' judgment. It is very, very rare that final grades get changed, but it has been known to happen. If you're asking about changing the grade on simply a paper, you approach the professor and, in this case, it depends entirely on how well you are able to present your case, as well as a) how much the professor likes you and b) how much the professor wants to get you the hell out of their office because they've got something else to do. You're much more likely to get a grade changed on a paper than a final grade changed, though it still doesn't happen often. Here is the greatest Special Snowflake email I've ever read. Basically it tells you how not to ask for a grade change, but, god, I was laughing so hard that I choked on air.
Reply
And thanks for the clarification re grade negotiation, that's helpful :)
Reply
No problem. I've actually run in to a lot of people - in Europe, at least, not so much in South America - who had the same impression. I guess movies and such - and complaining newspaper editorials - can really play up that aspect of college in the US.
Also: So, so, so sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I've been on vacation and while not sans-computer, totally avoided checking email, voicemail, lj / dw, whatever. I did not want to give people a way to get in touch with me, mainly because I've been badgering people to do certain things and was absolutely sick of them asking very obvious questions.
Reply
Okay, I was always always always a Spanish major, and also always a double major, but that second major changed all the time. For a while I was Spanish / East Asian Studies - actually, besides English, that lasted the longest. About a year an a half. Then Spanish / Poli-sci, then Spanish / pre-med, then Spanish / education, then Spanish / English, and if I'd had even just one more year, I'd have made it Spanish / Afro-Am lit instead because I found I liked Afro-Am lit more than the general English lit. Alas, my second college required that you graduate within 4 years of starting college, which still applied if you were a transfer student, just in a credit-y way. So I transferred in as a starting junior and was given two years to be there, and two years only.
Wow. Nice that you had that flexibility! I don't think you could have done this in the UK: you basically have to know what subject you're doing from the get-go. In some universities, on some degree programs, there's room to mix and match, but by start of your second year you are basically committed to your degree program, and if you want to switch, you're looking at repeating a year.
This raises a lot of questions for me.
Oh, honey, get in line ;)
Did the gov't insist that colleges lower their entry requirements in order to get more students in?
Nope. The official line from all universities is that they have not lowered their standards. But also, there are many more universities now than there used to be (what used to be called colleges and polytechnics are now all universities), so the sector has swelled to meet demand.
Was it very difficult to get into university before, or was it just something that most people didn't want to do?
It was harder (maybe more competition for a small number of places) but also it was something that only a small percentage of people were encouraged to do - you know, the obviously academic kids. Now even kids who aren't that academic go to university, because that's just what you do now after leaving school (especially given the state of the economy when there now aren't that many jobs).
And is the influx of grads making it more difficult for everyone to find jobs?
I think it's probably a lot harder to find the kind of work that used to be called a 'graduate job' - obviously those jobs are still there, but I guess they will now go mostly to the very best. A lot of our students end up in relatively unskilled jobs, though that's partly because we have a lot of home students who don't want to move away from the area because their families are here, and there aren't very many graduate-level jobs in the area (at least, not nearly enough to meet the numbers of graduates we pump out). I don't think "having a degree" means what it used to mean, because so many people now do, so it's probably harder for prospective employees to screen? I don't know.
Reply
So...I would have been an undergrad for about 8 years. Awesome. /0\
Nope. The official line from all universities is that they have not lowered their standards. But also, there are many more universities now than there used to be (what used to be called colleges and polytechnics are now all universities), so the sector has swelled to meet demand.
Hmm. That's a pretty good official line, actually. Patently false, but fairly smart when you consider the additional schools. Now, what's the difference between a college and a university in the UK? The difference in the US is in size, not education level, and in fact, most believe you get a better education at a college (fewer students to take up the professor's time).
Now even kids who aren't that academic go to university, because that's just what you do now after leaving school (especially given the state of the economy when there now aren't that many jobs).
In the US, if you only have a high school diploma, very few jobs are open to you. Your lifetime earning potential quadruples if you have a BA, and doubles again after that if you have an MA. Is that an impetus behind everyone's decision to go to uni, or is that again, more due to the immediate economic prospect?
Reply
Um, I actually couldn't say? *laughs* I know the UK education system is generally well-regarded, internationally, but I'm not sure that having a university degree here is equivalent to having been to grad school (for even, say, a Masters) in the US. The people who are graduating well, near the top of their class, may well be equivalent to your grad school guys, but the people at the bottom of their classes should not really have come to university (but the system now allows them to, and universities are loath to throw them out, because asses on seats = money).
I may be slightly bitter ;) Some of it I can live with, but I have a Masters and a PhD from good schools, and I don't want to see those qualifications devalued.
Did you by any chance have plans to become a professor that you ended up scrapping? 'Cause, damn, I would have scrapped my plans if that's all they're looking for.
I am what in the US would be called a prof (I have the UK equivalent of tenure), but I'm giving serious thought to getting out and doing something else. The job I do now is not the job I signed up for nearly a decade ago :-/
Reply
Yup. Totally the mentality in the US. Especially since all those colleges lost their endowments via stock market crashes, etc, etc.
I may be slightly bitter ;) Some of it I can live with, but I have a Masters and a PhD from good schools, and I don't want to see those qualifications devalued.
I think you've got good reason to want your schools to continue to be top-notch. Part of the reason to go to a good school is to get help from the brand name they've got, and if the brand name gets devalued by inferior product...they're not helping you at all.
The job I do now is not the job I signed up for nearly a decade ago :-/
How so? Less time for research? More idiots in your classes? (That one I'm betting is a definite yes.) What makes it worth leaving? And what are you interested in doing?
Reply
Leave a comment