Reputation of University of London - external programme

I do think yes you can study a few weeks before and pass. i am not saying I am smart, and i am not saying by doing that you would get good grades,

but you could pass . most people i knew at bachelor, masters level do this.

the actual exams on the day typically consist of around 7 or 8 essay type questions. you choose 3, and have 4 hours to answer. for business subjects these are very general. and yes for some electives (i.e. finance there may be a multiple choice element).

the courses and are exams are actually the same materials that the full time campus students take, shared across the london network (ucl, kings, brunel etc)
and so they are graded by the same people.

my point is, that yes they have a wonderful history. However, would a new school with no history get away with the product/service they are offering? As I am currently going through state approval myself for an institution, no i dont think so..

 

I'll ask him about labs next time I talk to him. I know he had to drive up to Belfast to take the exams from SW Eire.

 

I don't know the UNISA cost, but the UOL LLB can range between 2200-3300 GBP for the entire program and is a qualifying law degree in the UK and Wales, which I suspect is similar to ABA approved here. Also, I looked into the Bachelors programs and the ones directed by the London School of Economics as its lead college will allow you to transfer into LSE as a campus student provided you do well on the exams. That sort of willingness to take in distance students implies a high level of scrutiny and difficulty and not simply a degree mill in my opinion.
The high fail rate is also a good indication of the level of difficulty in taking these courses. If they don't have the same high admissions standards that on campus students have, there should necessarily be a high fail rate.

 

http://www.londonexternal.ac.uk/current_students/programme_resources/lse/exam_archive/exam_papers_2009.shtml

 

Also see:

http://uolexternal.yuku.com/

This only deals with LSE exams, not with say the Bachelor of Divinity exams.

 

The answer to your question is different depending on whether or not you would have completed the program pre-2007 or post-2007.

Pre 2007 all University of London member schools issued diplomas and transcripts from the University of London and advised of the lead school responsible. This was largely due to the governing body that regulated what academic body could issue diplomas.

In 2007 the London School of Economics became accredited to issue its own diplomas. During the transition if you were in the program you could choose which school gave you your diploma, but all current students taking courses locally in classrooms are now issued LSE diploma.

If you're in the University of London External programme, you get a University of London diploma with lead school advisory still even if your lead school is LSE.

Therefore, yes, there's a difference but is it one that anyone other than academics would notice.. probably not.

Best,
ITJD

By the way, my account somehow got orphaned and I had to re-register, losing association with my previous post counts. Any way that can get fixed?

 

There is no way the University of London External Programme is a diploma mill. It was infinitely harder than my undergrad degree done at a state brick and mortar university. Yes a lot of people probably don't pass and quit along the way. That is their loss. For those of us who go the whole way through the education is excellent. The exams are very hard. I work with a lot of people with MPH degrees from good US brick and mortar schools and even though they received better grades than I did in the MSc in epidemiology I have a much deeper understanding than they do.

I mean, take some f'n responsibility for what you learn.

 

There is no way UOL is a diploma mill. LSE allows transfers from their external program. LSE, one of the most selective colleges in the world, feels the UOL external program is that legitimate.

 

Thanks for your response

I really appreciate the insight all of you have given regarding the external program. I so want to do this now. I know the exams will be extremely difficult but fulfilling none the less.

I just hope I can get into the program.

 

CS1: "Do you really think you could do nothing all year then cram for finals?"

John: Yes, in some situations, but not, I think, a great many. There are two skill sets operating here:
1. knowledge level
2. exam-taking ability and strategy.

Some people who are very high on 1. and low on 2. will fail.
Some people who are not so high on 1 and very high on 2. will pass.

I monitored this situation closely during the years I was the US/Canada agent for the Heriot-Watt University (Edinburgh Business School) MBA, which had nine 3-hour exams, taken in person and closely proctored. A person could take anywhere from one to all nine exams during the sermi-annual five-day exam week.

Of the 4,000+ people who took exams on my watch, there were a huge number of interesting stories, all over the map. The Fortune 500 company VP who bought all nine courses on March 31 (the last qualifying day), signed up for all nine exams in June, and passed them all, claiming he hadn't opened a book. The maximum security prisoner in Arkansas, for whom English was his third language, who crammed intensively all day, every day, for months -- and got the highest scores of any of the 4,000 students in North America. The full professor at the Harvard Business School who took one of the elective courses to fill in a gap in his knowledge . . . and failed.

'Street wisdom' has long maintained that of the two leading exam prep companies, Kaplan teaches knowledge and content, while Princeton teaches how to pass the exams.

--John Bear, who crammed intensively for the two foreign language exams that were a required part of my Michigan State PhD program, passed both, and almost literally felt the knowledge trickling away immediately afterwards, knowing I would not need that skill again.

 

I just wanted to chime in before this thread goes away. I did a UoL masters in finance, and I can vouch for the quality and rigor in their courses and exams. The exams required a lot of preparation. The exams for the masters in finance are only offered once a year, so this usually meant that you had to unearth all your references and "re-study" material that you finished 8 or 10 months earlier. The course work was also graded to a very high standard. I had the distinct feeling that there were some readers/graders who would rather give up their first born than award a 70 on an assignment essay.

You can find information online about the awarding of honors and such. When I reviewed my program a few years ago, there was data available for 3 years. Out of 210 masters conferred, only 1 was awarded with distinction. Only 25 earned an award of merit. The rest earned no honors. When I graduated, I thought I had earned distinction, but was awarded merit. When I enquired, they told me that one of my grades had been "rounded up", and the somewhat convoluted formula for earning distinction would have required another "round up". I was denied, and in the end I didn't really care. As a point of comparison, my BA is in math from Berkeley, and while they are two different subjects and modes of study, they were comparable in terms of what was expected and required. This is no degree mill, and there is absolutely no grade inflation either, absolutely none!

There have been many threads at this site about all the ins and outs of the UoL external program. A few years ago there was a particularly contentious thread about whether an external student could legitimately claim himself as a student of the lead college or not. There were some who claimed it would be unethical to claim the lead college on a resume. Others insisted it would be misleading and wrong to claim a degree from the University of London solely, as, of course, there is no such beast. There is always a lead college associated with the degree. At first I was interested in that debate, and then I realized I didn't care in the least. The coursework was hard enough that I was going to be satisfied and proud if I made it through - period. I now claim a masters from the University of London, and when pressed, I say "the External Progamme, of course".

 

Correspondence degree from "University of London" has reputation to study further?

Hi,

One of my friend has his Diploma in Computer Science and is working for around 8 years, in a well reputed MNC company. He wishes to do his Bachelor degree from "University of London", because we read that this university has really good reputation. The main target why he wants to do bachelor degree is, to later do his Master degree in 'regular/direct' abroad. So my question here is, does correspondence degree from University of London is really considered in other universities when applying for further studies or when applying for a Ph.d in future?Also is the degree accepted in companies like IBM, Accenture, Yahoo etc?I request anyone of you to please help me out as we are really confused and most of the correspondence courses from universities here in India are not accepted for further education or in companies.. Friends ur inputs are essential.. Thanks!