Dan725

Heres some rankings from a 2007 study in China - Harvard still is top...

http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2007/ARWU2007_Top100.htm

dukeynorton

These ratings mean almost nothing except, of course, for bragging rights.

I am in academia in the US and amongst all degrees, the British degrees have the most respect. This is especially true of the postgraduate degrees (PhD). The MOST important point is that a UK student will be AT LEAST 2 years more advanced in their chosen "major" than their US counterparts at the end of their Bachelors. This is because US students spend much more time on non-major courses. In my opinion, this has a direct impact on their postgraduate study as they have to spend a lot of time catching up in their chosen field. I think there are merits to both systems, but at the end of the day they are just different.

Bob

Depends what your studying though...some are more specialised ain't they...and lets face it, IVY league is a different kettle of fish, they'll have kudos and price tag to match, but any other good uni won't mean jack.

looselips

Totally agree.

Maybe in academia they mean something per dunkeynorton.....but in my experience in business especially dealing with CEO level they want Harvard, Yale and Stanford etc and the kudos that comes with it.

There is something to be said for global experience but I find the really successful non-Americans also have some sort of qualification from a US institution that helps them translate those skills/education.

Tracym

I don't feel much like a dunce.

I'm pretty tolerant of the homesick Brit comments - it is somewhat what this board is for, and I realize you want to go home - but is the insult really necessary?

dunroving

I agree that in general (as far as generalities can go) at the undergraduate level, the level of rigor in UK degrees used to be consdierably higher than the US. The fact that UK students start to specialize in secondary school means they hit the ground running from Year 1 of university taking classes in their major subject (whereas in the US, students take around a year of general subjects). Certainly, the monitoring of universal standards (via external examiners) is greater in the UK.

In recent years, however, I think the trend is towards lower standards (inevitable, as more people attend university) and less time spent on studying (again inevitable, as more students have to finance their education). Although the best students are still pretty good, the range goes down to a much lower standard than it used to when only 10% of the population went to college.

I must admit to being more impressed with the US postgraduate system than the UK, and think that over the 4-6 years it takes to get a US masters and PhD, American students overtake the deficiencies that may have resulted from a more watered-down undergraduate program of studies. I have been quite shocked at the lack of monitoring of masters and doctorate studnets going through "degree by research" programs here in the UK. Whereas in the US, students are required to attend many formal classes to train them further in research methods, statistics, and their core subject areas, UK students are left to fend for themselves in a mentoring system that often ends up being a non-mentoring system. I'm currently working with an MPhil student who has collected the data for her thesis (which was very poorly designed and in my opinion isn't even equivalent of a class project) and she doesn't even know what a standard deviation is. It's just disgraceful that a studnet taking a degree by research is far less knowledgeable than a US student who takes a taught masters degree with a thesis tacked on at the end. I was asked to be the MPhil student's second supervisor and declined because I'd be ashamed to have my name associated with her research (that's obviously not the reason I gave when asked, of course.

dukeynorton

I agree with what you say....except for the last paragraph. The PhD programs in the US are way too long and many students spend the early years away from the bench, which for a biological scientist is not ideal. I admit that for the poor students this may be a good thing as you can bring them up to speed with other areas that help a researcher (i.e. stats). This approach would also benefit the weak PhD students in the UK. I will also admit that there are many, many terrible research students in the UK. This is what the MPhil degree is for to be honest, to soak up all the failed PhD candidates. But too many students get through higher degrees when clearly they shouldnt. However, I still think that a top rate fresh PhD from the UK will beat most top rated US PhDs in their chosen field of study.

I was in a very good PhD program at Nottingham and the medical school there provided core courses in stats, research methods and presentation skills that we all had to take and I think this certainly helped. You will also see the UK Grad program becoming more of a force and this provides lots of additional classes for PhD students to take. Many unis now insist that you have a minimum level of credit from this before you can graduate. Whether the crappier unis put so much effort in remains to be seen.

Dan725

I'm currently undertaking a distance learning Masters via a very well established UK university. It's a modular taught syllabus as opposed to true "by research", however, I definately am feeling that there is a distinct lack of mentoring. This is in comparison to a friend here who has just completed a US based distance learning degree - his was much more interactive throughout the whole process. Obviously with working as well, too much interaction and tasks would be a bad thing.....but similarly too much hands off is not so good either.