Oxbridge "MA" to be scrapped?

"The Master of Philosophy in Law (MPhil) is a research degree available only as an add-on to the taught BCL and MJur degrees. Admission to the MPhil is conditional upon good performance in the BCL or MJur. Students must normally take up their MPhil places straight after the BCL/MJur, although a one-year deferral is sometimes possible. MPhil candidates must write a supervised thesis of up to 30,000 words, as well as completing a course in legal research method. The MPhil is a one-year full-time programme. (Requests for MPhil extensions beyond one calendar year are granted only exceptionally and for at most one term.)"

- University of Oxford

http://www.law.ox.ac.uk/

 

What's even MORE bizarre is that, after finshing the M Phil in Law, one can either continue for the D. Phil. in Law, for which we Americans have the rare J.S.D. equivalent, or something called an M. Litt. in Law, for which I don't think even the University of London has an equivalent.

It's therefore possible to have FOUR ascending Master's degrees in Law from Oxford: MA (Juris), BCL/M.Jur., M.Phil., and M. Litt.!

Well, to paraphrase the good Dr. Bear, who said the English are easy to understand?

 

If I am not mistaken these degrees can all be earned between a 3 to 4 year time period?

I know one English girl who was shocked to learn that some North American colleges award credit for prior learning portfolios based in part on knowledge gained via life experience and hobbies. She thinks it is a scam to this day.

 

Has anyone else noticed that the article in the original post is over 5 years old?

I wonder how this debate was resolved, if at all.

 

As far as one is aware, nothing has happened. We're still awarding the MA.

Angela

 

That is quite sad to hear.

 

Er, why sad?

Just because a couple of people may have played fast and loose with their MA doesn't invalidate the Oxford MA as a concept: it merely shows that you can matriculate chancers at any institution. It's also quite possible that the person you quoted entered both their MA and their original BA as qualifications because of questions worded like "list *all* your academic qualifications", which would quite often lead somebody from Oxford or Cambridge to list both the BA and the MA.

The system as it currently exists may occasionally be confusing outwith the UK, but it's worked for several centuries and will probably need an Act of Parliament to change, so unless the harmonisation of qualifications within the EU will actually demand change, it's probably best left alone.

And no, I don't have an Oxford MA. I have worked at Oxford, and I'm currently a director of a wholly-owned spin-off of the university, but my degrees are from Warwick and Sussex.

Angela

 

If the QAA attempted to institute a national qualifications framework and if that framework was aborted by political pressure exerted by Oxford and Cambridge, then not only has a needed reform been derailed, but something rather ugly has been revealed about power and privilege in British academic politics.

Put more bluntly, I see little difference between this tradition and the practice of the worst degree mills. In each case "degrees" are awarded that imply academic achievement without actually requiring it.

Frankly, I prefer the degree mills because they provide low income people with an equalizer, they don't simply award the elite with yet another advantage of their station.

 

Oxbridge presents an unearned degree that can be presented as an earned academic qualification.

Sadly, in the earlier case I mention this has happened. How is this fair to someone who has actually earned their MA and must compete with the joker who presents his "elite" Oxford MA as a qualification?

How is the Oxford MA a qualification? What coursework or exams must be completed to earn it?

 

The article that caused this furore mentioned a TEN YEAR time frame as the ABSOLUTE minimum for the end of the Oxbridge MA, and never mentioned the ancient Scottish univeristies and their MAs (I'd love to see a Labour government try to abolish the MA-as-first-degree at St Andrews et al., given that it would take rewriting the Universities Act (Scotland) 1860, which would have, uhm, intersting political overtones.)

But one poster here has a chip on his shoulder (and like Angela, I'm red-brick -- well, after that Scottish place...)

 

Since the Scottish "first-degree" MA is actually a taught degree, I doubt that it would fall under the axe.

Tell me Jon if the Oxford MA is a "first-degree" as you claim why is it not listed in Oxfords undergraduate course prospectus?

http://www.admissions.ox.ac.uk/courses/

 

And LSU offers the B.C.L. with their J.D. for civil law lawyers. No rhyme - no reason! I wonder if their Master of Laws is a similar program [B.C.L.] for the common law folk.

 

Is LSU Louisiana State University? If so, that does make sense; Louisiana is the only Civil Law state in the union.

That's one reason why thay have a very low Bar exam pass rate. When you go to law school in Louisiana, you have to choose between Civil and common law obligations courses.

 

A "chip on his shoulder"? Oh, please. It's a silly convention, and it should be changed. It matters not a whit that it "has always been this way," and that it is steeped in tradition. It's a tradition that's ripe for abuse, despite the fact that most probably don't abuse it.

If we assume that most people are honest, I guess we could also assume that most would “fess up” to their unearned MA if asked about it (say in an interview). However, how many of those would offer up that information without being asked? How many have benefited from their unearned credential because an employer didn’t know enough to ask, and the potential employee didn’t feel it important enough to mention (as in “doesn’t everyone know about the arcane and provincial nuances of UK academia?”?) A variation of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, I suppose.

The fact that it might take ten years to change is unfortunate, but even this doesn't matter, as long as people/employers know about the practice and can discount the MA, correctly, as being meaningless. I suppose that's what this thread is about.

The only "chip" seems to be on the shoulders of those who might feel "outed" by this.

 

One last comment on Louisiana State: Not only do they OFFER a Bachelor of Civil Law, but as I read it, ALL JD students must earn the BCL as well to graduate.

Interesting; I wonder if Quebec would accept the LSU professional BCL for licensure?

 

I spent some seven years in the British university system, so I have a fairly decent grasp of how it works (and don't quote Lord Deering at me -- he was the Chancellor at Notts when I was a student there and before he got his peerage). I'm not prepared to argue with people who do not understand the system -- I have too many papers to grade.

 

Why don't you answer my question Jon? If the Oxford MA is a "first-degree" as you claim why is it not listed in Oxfords undergraduate course prospectus?

http://www.admissions.ox.ac.uk/courses/

 

Out of hand

I think this is all getting out of hand. Firstly, I am not an Oxford or Cambridge graduate but I do understand the UK education system, by and large! In fact, the Oxbridge MA is more a 'right of passage' than an academic degree. It originally evolved to enable people to demonstrate their development after graduation and conferred on those who achieved this 'degree of membership' just that - membership of the regulatory bodies of the university - Convocation being one of them. Various bodies make the major decisions about how the universities operate (although all of this, rightly or wrongly, is changing under the new UK higher education audit regimes that are now appearing) and to be considered for membership of these bodies a person has to have been matriculated with the MA degree - even the robes are different from those worn for the BA award!

Over the years I've even heard it argued that people should be awarded the MA because the standards at Oxbridge are so high a BA is equivalent to a master's degree at other UK universities!

So, technically, the Oxbridge MA is a regulatory award rather than a statement about academic ability. Over here in the UK anyone who is 'in the know' understands all of this and takes it all in their stride. I've spent years interviewing people and have always seen the MA for what it is - a quirk in terms of an academic statement but just part of the rich diversity of British university life. Essentially, the person has a first (bachelor's degree). You'll find a similar pattern of activity in some of the British professional bodies. A person can apply for membership (with the appropriate letters) and then, after a number of years of experience can apply for the next (superior) level of membership (and relevant letters) providing they can show some personal development. Of course, some bodies do require examinations to be passed!

AJJ

 

Everyone here understands the system. That's the problem. We understand it, and it makes no sense. In this day and age, it’s an untenable practice, and that is why there is a sudden controversy. The fact that you have spent considerable time in the system is irrelevant. If there’s a compelling defense you’d like to offer beyond the “it’s always been this way and you just don’t understand” variety, then I’m sure we’d all like to hear it. Until then, the criticisms are valid.

 

Re: Out of hand

I think we all understand that awarding the MA is a convention that has nothing to do with academics. I think we also understand that those "in the know", as you say, can make the proper adjustment and recognize the MA for what it is - essentially an honorary title that has little or nothing to do with actual achievement. The problem is that most of the rest of the world is not "in the know", and that is where the abuse can stem from. Clearly that was the case in the referenced article. In fact, there may be a lot of MA-holders who have banked on the fact that the rest of the world is not in the know, and have used the MA to their advantage merely by passively letting their credential be misinterpreted. That's the part that's not fair. If all the UK'ers understand the historical roots of this degree and agree that it is just a title, then why be so resistant to changing the practice?

This practice is really just a vestige of provincialism in UK academe. It's hard to argue that a provincial concept should be understood and accepted universally. If it were, it wouldn't be provincial in the first place.