Anyone have input on the University of London's International Programmes? (Online)

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by Learning101, Mar 2, 2011.

Loading...
  1. sgelam

    sgelam New Member

    Trust me ITJD, I've already extensively looked at their site and did my research thoroughly. And, you just used a keyword here..."there will be discrimination." Come on. Really? That's you answer? Yes, there will be bias, but to have the bias directly written into an entrance requriements statement? That brings up a red flag. If schools are so willing to state it blatantly, then people need to check to see why.

    Let me give you an example if this isn't clear. I'm sure Harvard and Stanford want to accept top undergraduates from top schools to their grad programs, but they don't have things written like: "If you didn't come from an Ivy League school, you need to do this extra step." They have statements like "A GPA well-above 3.0 and must have majored in this and that." For two schools (and one that created the materials for the program, LSE) to state, in writing, that external programme grads need extra verification shows that there is some blatant discrepancy beyond just "discrimination." They need to state why that BSc is seen as different than all other UK BScs.

    And, no, I'm not trying to give "drama." I think it's a legitimate question. If you're paying for X, you should get X and not find out later that "oh X is not really X, it's X with these missing things." And, also, yes, I've seen the grads that go on to LSE or other schools. But, what it is it about those specific programs that see external degrees not making the cut?
     
  2. sgelam

    sgelam New Member

    You just said it yourself "discrimination happens." My question is: Why is it explicitly written in their entrance requirements? This is not simple discrimination or an elitist attitude. There's probably something they think is missing. I can understand discrimination or biased opinions behind-the scenes. But, when they write it out explicitly as a policy, then it's a red flag. Let me give you an example. This is like Harvard and Yale explicitly writing out "People who went to an Ivy League don't need a GRE, but people who have other 4 year degrees will." They, in reality will only write: "Applicants need a 4 year degree and at least a 3.0 GPA." To have it explicitly written out means that there is something missing. I'm not saying that Cambridge and UOL are elitists. But, they must see something that's missing. What is it?

    Also, some of your reasons don't make much sense either:

    1. I'll give you this one. Fine, maybe you'll have the lifelong cheater and they need a double-check.

    2. Come on. Faculty contact?

    3. This makes the least sense as a reason to support your answer. If you're saying accreditation is a reason, then you answered it yourself. The degree is not the same and it is inferior.

    And, no, I'm not being a drama queen. I'm giving another simple example in which you missed the point. I'm just clarifying the fact that I'm not here to get a degree to get the name. I'm seriously considering this degree to learn something. That's what you pay for. As a student, you're coming in to a school where they have topics prepared. How do you know if you're missing something? This is like a person being exposed to calculus for the first time. That student takes an illegitimate calc class. Let's say they don't cover integration. They say he knows all the calc in the world now. How would he know to look up integration? Ever hear the term "The more you know, the more you know what you don't know"? I'm not looking to be spoon-fed, but I need to know that if I go through this, the topics you're having me read will educate me fully and is the math foundation I need.

    Yes, I'm fully aware of people that have gone on to post-grad degrees at UoL after the external degree. But, why is that specific program and Cambridge and LSE calling the external system out for their econ grad program and not other UK schools.

    And, I've already thoroughly done the reasearch on the school. It does not "allay" my concerns. My question is simple, why is it treated differently and explicitly called out in writing? Just saying, oh discrimination happens is not a good answer. That answer can only be applied if they didn't write it out and ended up not accepting certain students. Then you can say, "Okay, there's an elitist attitude going on." But, when schools go as far as pointing it out, you need to find out what is it that doesn't fulfill it. There's a reason. If you don't know, then you don't know. I'm not looking to "feel good" about anything.
     
  3. GeneralSnus

    GeneralSnus Member

    The fact is all DL programs lack the cultural experience found in their on-campus counterparts. To what degree, if any, this distinction matters is questionable. Perhaps LSE and Cambridge place a premium on that cultural experience.

    Rather than speculate, have you thought of contacting the schools directly to learn their reasoning?
     
  4. KLite

    KLite New Member

    My Bachelors is from UoL External while my Masters is from EBS.
     
  5. KLite

    KLite New Member

    Ah, I couldn't have put it in words better than this.
     
  6. jfosj

    jfosj Member

    BTW the name now is University of London International Programmes... External is no longer used...

    JFO
     
  7. ITJD

    ITJD Active Member

    Um. They are telling you that a GMAT is required. It's no clearer than that. As to what's missing I've posted that twice now and other forum members have taken the time to rewrite some of the things I've already said in different ways with less text. You're not ass in chair. Nuff said.

    Thanks. All that's needed is one really.

    As you move higher and higher up the chain towards a doctoral program; faculty contact becomes more and more of a necessity. Just take a look at any of the threads on getting into a B&M doctoral program and you'll get the vibe of where I'm coming from with that.

    Or the school could realize that accreditation boards have more stringent requirements for distance programs considering all the negative press. I have no idea what the standards are in the UK, but I do know that AACSB accreditation for business schools requires that school to administer a standard entrance exam (which is the US is defaulted to either GMAT or GRE with waiver).


    Yes, you are. In part because I think you are, in part because you're letting me goad you, and in part because you used a Navy SEAL training reference/death reference as a metaphor to not being prepared in math (which is why I'm taking the time to write a reply now).

    1. If I missed the point then you're not explaining it well because my replies are being echoed elsewhere in the thread.
    2. Good, your heart is in the right place cause no online degree from any school is going to have the same name value.

    1. Until you apply the things you learn in the classroom to real problems you're not fully educated. That's not the point of any school in and of itself. The point of school is to give you a grounding to prepare you to start learning properly.

    2. If you want complete coverage of topics you're going to need to read your textbooks because no professor can ever be counted upon to cover all areas of any material based on a 16 week semester. Doesn't matter if you're talking Harvard or San Dimas community college.

    No real idea, however I can tell you something that may play into it. A good number of LSE faculty do not want to be a part of the University of London system and has tried to break away on a few occasions. Next up, graduates since 2008 have received LSE diploma and not University of London diploma.. so if your lead school is LSE, and you're getting a UoL diploma (regardless of wording differences) it's going to be known that you didn't go ass in chair.

    Then don't go.

    You're feeling something or you'd have stopped posting by now :)

    Couple things:
    1. No one posting regularly on this forum is going to know. I don't believe anyone works for UoL here. (if I'm wrong correct me).
    2. No one at UoL is going to answer that question straight up as it will end up on the Internet, causing more problems than it's worth in interpretation. (probably on this forum :) )

    Just call the ball and make the decision that's good for you. If you have concerns that should tell you something.
     
  8. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    After my initial post to this thread I haven't really paid much attention but GeeBee's experience was essentially the same as mine (same program too). I divided everything up into chapters/week and had a very hard time covering the material. It wasn't so much that the material was ultra difficult, I just didn't have enough spare time (or maybe not enough self-discipline) to keep up. Maybe I'm not a natural at Math but I'm no slouch either. I thought the exams were hard. Other genius' may disagree.
     
  9. bookworm80

    bookworm80 member

    The programs are really great. I have colleagues that have studied there. On the other hand I've found a lot of luck through Online Colleges & Universities, Online Degrees & Education Resources | eLearners.com which offers incredible accredited programs that really cater to your needs. I know they offer this degree at many of their universities. If you go to the main page you can search for the degree you want, and it will match you with a slew of options. :)
     
  10. sgelam

    sgelam New Member

    So, after reading your responses, I think you're getting extremely defensive and projecting your insecurities on to me. All I did was ask a question and you're getting into this tirade. If you don't know the answer, then you don't know. I know you probably would like to think you do, but you're arguing in circles here. Trust me, I've already talked to UOL about it and they're going to get back to me.

    I posed this question in this thread to simply see what other people's thoughts are about this. It seems you wanted to personally attack me for no real reason. You do bring up some good points that we can speculate on (LSE attitudes and culture), but I'm just stating a question of whether or not they can objectively tell me any difference they are truly seeing in International Programme students versus internal. Seems I might've touched a raw nerve with you.

    And, letting you goad me? LOL. That's very funny. I simply stated I'm not being overly dramatic to clarify and see if you understood my example (I could've used a lawyer that never had courtroom experience, or a teacher that never knew how and what to teach, as examples), I just thought the Navy SEAL example would be more entertaining. The jist was only this: "I'm looking for a place that will give me proper training so that when I need to perform, I can to the best to my ability and expectations." Obviously, you didn't understand the true essence of my example.

    ITJD, if you can't answer my questions then you can't. No hard feelings and no reason to get defensive. I stand by my original question: "If they claim it to be the same, why the extra check and it not being even equal to a UK bacheors." When I find out, I'll let this forum know.

    Thanks. And, ITJD, it's been entertaining.
     
  11. sgelam

    sgelam New Member

    To both Kizmet and GeeBee, I would love to hear more about your experiences. Kizmet, I know that you said you couldn't spend as much time as you wanted. If you did have the luxury of time, what would you have dedicated each week? Also, I understand that British exams are notoriously and brutally difficult. What made the exams hard? Was it the curve-balls they through? Unexpected questions? Or, that they required immense detail? I'm also not familiar or know what sort of materials they give you. Do they break down the week by week learning for you? I downloaded a couple of their study guides and they seem to be pretty high quality. I like the layman prose they use, and I'm sure, after reading the books and doing the problems, the knowledge can be pretty much solid.
     
  12. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    I could have used 15 hours per week. At that point in time I just didn't have that many hours to give. The exams were difficult in that i'm accustomed to having two or three exams in a semester, not just one in a year. It was the comprehensive nature (and thus the length) of the exam that made it difficult for me.
     
  13. ITJD

    ITJD Active Member


    You're welcome and no problem. I've answered your questions as fully as anyone else has. I just took exception to your BS, which you've justified with more BS.

    "Insecurities, Drama, SEALs, raw nerve, essence of examples blah blah."

    Example of said BS. You're going to college to learn how to learn. That's it. There's no correlation between success and schooling. If you suck before going to school, you're going to suck after it. If you're good before going to school, no matter where you go; you'll be good after it.

    Please note that every ounce of solid advice that anyone who's gone to UoL has given you in this thread is available either on their sites or prospectus content and asking individuals if things are easy or hard is very subjective. Call the school, get some examples and find out.

    Good luck.
    ITJD
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 17, 2011
  14. sgelam

    sgelam New Member


    Yes. Solid advice from everyone, but you. Like I said, seems like you're very defensive in your posts and always on the "attack." Example: The "BS" you just wrote. Compensating for something? ;-)
     
  15. GeeBee

    GeeBee Member

    I think in my case, it had a lot to do with learning style. I had some previous background in statistics, and I did well in that course. I had never taken a calculus class, and trying to teach myself was hard. I expected it to be hard, of course, but it was much harder than I expected.

    Math, in particular, was a problem. The required textbook is "Mathematics for Economics and Finance," by Martin Anthony. If you already understand the mathematical concepts, it does a good job of showing you how they are used in Economics. But it is not a good book for learning how to do math. Unfortunately, the study guide for the course is also written by Martin Anthony. It really doesn't offer anything that is not in the text.

    Both the text and the study guide have a number of practice problems. None of them will prepare you for the level of problems that are on the exam. For example, the text has a chapter on techniques of integration. It has a few practice problems for each technique. But on the exam, there will be ONE problem, and it requires using a combination of three techniques in sequence. Nothing in the text or the study guide prepares you to tackle such a problem.

    Now that I have taken Calculus I and Calculus II at a local community college, I think I could probably pass the U of L exam for Math 1. Maybe.

    Another thing to be aware of is that the British don't divide up math courses the way we do here. We take a three-course calculus sequence, then a course in differential equations, then one in linear algebra. The Math 01 course at U of L has a bit of all of these. Then Math 02 has them all again, but at a somewhat deeper level.

    Some people thrive in the U of L system. I have a great deal of respect for anyone who can do well there. I met a number of students through their forum who were doing very well, although most of them were Asians, who were studying at affiliated institutions. They basically take classes at their local equivalent of a community college, then take the U of L exams and get a U of L credential. That system seems to work very well.

    Another thing to be aware of in their system: It is better, in a way, to fail a course than it is to make a barely passing grade. If you fail an exam, you can re-take it (although you have to wait a year, as they are only offered in May). But once you pass it, you can't take it again.

    You only get three tries, though. One reason I moved to another program was that I failed the Math 1 examination twice. One more time, and I would be forced out of the program, since I couldn't try again and Math 01 is a prerequisite for, well, everything.
     
  16. sgelam

    sgelam New Member

    GeeBee, thanks for your detailed response. Yes, from reading the syllabus they provided on the site, I was wondering why linear algebra and multivariate calculus was covered in Math 1 and also Math 2. And, you satisfied my question fully. I guess they think it's better for us to get a broad understanding of all topics and then go deeper. I can maybe see some benefit to that. Meaning, you can see the relationships of mathematical concepts to each other. I know that when I took linear algebra over 10 years ago, my professor used some differential equations. Students who took differential equations from a year ago or two years ago were at a loss and had to do some reviewing. So, the UK system probably has a reason doing it that way. Like you said, it's different. Not necessarily better or worse.

    That's why I've been nervous about the mathematics and economics BSc. I actually wrote to Rosemary Gosling, the director of the international programmes for LSE courses. She said I would be fine when I gave her my history. Who knows if that was just emcouragement and her not being able to make a full true assessment.

    GeeBee, you might've mentioned this in a previous post, but what was your original major in? What was your background coming into this program? You mentioned you had some statistics under your belt. From what I read from other posts, most students also concur with your assessment that statistucs was a "breeze" compared to the Math 1 and 2 sequences.

    What program did you switch to? And, how do you like it so far?

    Thanks.
     
  17. BizProf

    BizProf New Member

    I've heard it said in this thread and elsewhere "I'm not pursuing such-and-such degree to get a name". I understand the sentiment, but what exactly is wrong with pursuing a degree for the name? Virtually always the name implies something, that a student was held to a certain standard.

    As a B&M academic, knowing something about the way the process works from the inside, let me say this about LSE's grad admissions requirements. I will be willing to bet my nickel against your hundred dollars that the LSE grad school admit bias against externals is purely a political matter, likely representing the views of a handful (or perhaps one) old guardsman or woman at LSE who sniff at external learning. They want to make the hurdle to grad studies a bit higher for those who didn't do it their way. You'd be surprised how little coherent thought and how much jackassery goes into administrative decisions in academia--I've seen individuals, all high-IQ types, collectively make decisions and support policies they'd never make or support on their own. Group think: individual intelligence--collective stupidity. Just because the LSE grad school has made a certain admissions decision does not mean there's a general consensus among LSE academics that external students are suspect. It means merely what it means, that there's a policy. The reasons may be historic or political or anything under the sun.

    Anyone who can pass, via independent study, the same exams as an in-seat LSE student, is a flat out crackerjack.
     
  18. BizProf

    BizProf New Member

    Continuing in the vein of my previous comment, bet you could call up ten UoL or LSE professors and get ten different responses. The majority of them probably aren't even familiar with the policy, they're just out doing what all of us here do: teaching grad and undergrad classes, desperately cranking out papers, presenting at conferences, wondering if they're doing the proper sort of university and community service to get tenure or promotion. Most probably have NO IDEA about any given grad school GMAT admissions policy for externals and if they did, many would probably commisserate with you and opine: "That's a stupid policy".
     
  19. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    Ok, ok, take a deeeeeeeep breath everyone. It's ok to argue a point, but it is not ok to say anything personal about another member of this board, including psychological diagnoses.

    ************************** NO BICKERING BELOW THIS LINE ********************************
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________
     
  20. jfosj

    jfosj Member

    I agree the main textbook for the course is horrible. However, I found that some of the suggested textbook do an excellent job in giving you the basic information that you need to understand the material. I found that I had an easier time understanding the material by first watching the explanation on math courses videos that are available for free at YouTube and other online sources. Once I finished watching the videos and done some exercises I could go and read the Anthony Biggs textbook.

    Also, UoL is now trying to provide you with more interactive resources so you can have a better chance of getting a good grade on your examination. That said, this is not an easy DL programme. If you don't have at least 10 hours per week to dedicate to each course, you might not be able to finish it.

    JFO
     

Share This Page