International Comparison of Academic Qualifications (External and Internal)

Last Year Thesis

Canadian three-year bachelor's degrees (i.e. ordinary degrees) usually do not require a thesis, however, the more common four-year (honours) degree universally requires a thesis to graduate.

 

Lawrie,

Often you make a fine argument but you also let your personal banter get in the way which puts a stretch on what you are trying to convey. Hey, you even seemed to take offense that I did a "large snip" to your post. You have not injured me (I am worried that you would make that assumption) nor have I previosuly accused you or think you are lying. I do believe that there is room for disagreement. You want to throw in various arguments that I am ignoring your evidence. Your analogies have included that you know the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West, you also know that there are solar eclipses even though you have never seen one. Wonderful. Bear in mind that for centuries those who actually saw solar eclipses thought of them as bad omens. Observations of the Sun and stars rising and setting and moving across the sky in a circular motion led many to believe that they all revolve around the Earth. What you don't get is that what you typically post I do not take for gospel because you present strong biases in your statements.

As for the education matter. If secondary school education, based on your posts and those of others, in the UK can give students a head start in US Colleges that is great. US students can somewhat compensate by taking AP, CLEP, etc. to get advanced standing when they start university studies. There have been some posts poking fun at US students not knowing their geography. Such educational laxes aren't just part of American education. There are some Brits who think Hitler was head of Great Britain during WWII (http://creativeeducationalsystems.com/forums/main/posts/18.html)! UK A-levels have also been accused of grade inflation which appears common in most of education today. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/education/newsid_1814000/1814153.stm

and for a look at A scores see

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/education/newsid_1495000/1495184.stm

Nonetheless, my disagreement comes when comparing university degrees and going back to Scott's original post. So let me bring some information to bear:

The Fulbright Commission in a presentation to bring UK students to the US for study had some interesting statements:

"Unlike UK postgraduate degrees, both American master's and PhD programmes involve coursework as well as independent research. There are no pure research degrees. Most American graduate qualifications generally take longer to complete than their British equivalent. US master's degrees are usually completed in 18 months - two years. A US doctoral degree will rarely take less than 5-6 years, with the average in some subjects being 8 years"

In addition:

"The USA may be considered the 'best' place for a field of study, perhaps because of pioneering work or better facilities."

http://www.fulbright.co.uk/eas/careers/pgnotes.doc

Maybe it is because British universities need to maximum their potential in the modern world. Here is a discourse where Cambridge has the "potential" to become like a Silicon Valley. http://brie.berkeley.edu/~briewww/pubs/rn/rn6.pdf

WorldStudent.Com publishes and interesting degree comparison chart. Worth a look: http://www.worldstudent.com/uk/mag/features/tablo-diplom.html

I also had previous looked at the Dearing report. What I really liked about the Dearing report is that it put American education into perspective and gave a good background the the structure of AMerican education.

however, you need to get your cites correct. When I went to "* DEARING REPORT - APPENDIX 5 SECTION 7.1" I read something completely different than what you quoted. It reads: "7.1 Education is highly-prized by the citizens of the USA and this is reflected in the 7.5 per cent of gross domestic product spent on education, amounting in 1994-95 to just over $500 billion. About 60 per cent of the education spend is on schools and 40 per cent on post secondary education."
You posted:
"* DEARING REPORT - APPENDIX 5 SECTION 7.1
"The team gained the impression, based on an inspection of syllabuses and examination papers, that the American high school diploma compares in standard with GCSE and the associate degree with GCE A-level and Advanced GNVQ, the bachelor’s degree with a UK pass degree or higher national diploma and the Master’s degree with a bachelor’s honours degree from a British university. "

See <http://www.ncl.ac.uk/ncihe/>
Appendix 5 Section 7.1 "
In fact after reading Appendix 5 and all of Section 7 again I could not find your quote. There is very little in this section comparing UK to US qualifications. In fact there is a discussion on degrees awarded in the US in 1995 from the associate to the doctoral level with no comparison of equivalencies to British degrees. You may want to give me a different cite or else help me check my reading glasses.

In fact I also found that the Dearing report consisted of a lot of recommendations as to where education in the UK should go. Instead of being based on years of study it should be based more on achievement (sounds like an American type model to me). It read, from the summary report, section 43: (Qualifications & Standards)

"43. It is fundamental to our approach that awards should be based on achievement, with less emphasis on the length of study required. The framework will cater for a range of aspirations and achievement and enable students to progress through higher levels as well as to move between programmes. It encompasses vocational and academic qualifications. The framework must have recognised standards at each level, and achieve standing here and abroad. We envisage individuals building up a portfolio of achievements at a range of levels over a working lifetime. The framework of qualifications we propose is set out in Chart 1, with some examples of people moving through the framework in Chart 2."

Again: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/ncihe/
Dearing also points out some recommendations for changes in how master degrees are perceived:. It states:
"45. There is a need to clarify the current confusion over the designation of Masters degrees. We believe that the award of a Masters degree should be reserved for postgraduate research and for taught programmes whose requirements are appropriately more demanding than for a first degree in the subject. We propose the name ‘Higher Honours’ for advanced undergraduate programmes (such as the present MEng and MPharm)." (Ibid)

I found this interesting but here or elsewhere there is no connection to the doctorate (UK or otherwise). In fact, an interesting read on the state of Ph.D. education in the UK can be found at http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf00318/pdf/c2s5.pdf I hope you will take the time to read it as it is part of Graduate Education Reform in Europe.

You also pointed out in a post: "And we can compare the required level of attainment of a US Ph.D. graduate with the requirements that need be met to earn a UK M.Phil or other UK master's research degree. Looks to me like an ideal subject of investigation for your next doctorate, John. "

Lawrie, this is stretch of equating the UK M.Phil. attainment to the US Ph.D. By agreeing to this one would also have to agree that the UK Ph.D. is a higher doctorate than the U.S. Ph.D. You have presented no evidence here to even come close to supporting this claim. I am sure that there are probably some very high quality M.Phil. thesis but by their very nature the M. Phil and the Ph.D. are not the same --Suns rises, sun sets, etc., etc. It would seem that the UK doctorate is trying to say it is the best in the world when in reality there are a lot of reforms being looked at in Bristish education -- again read: http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf00318/pdf/c2s5.pdf

Some notes: The M.Phil is considered by some a terminal degree as at the University of Utah (http://www.cs.utah.edu/dept/handbooks/1997/handbooks/node47.html). It is I believe more often a stepping stone to the Ph.D. as noted at Columbia University (http://www.gsb.columbia.edu/doctoral/requirements/mphil.html) and here is also a UK source http://www.econ.qmw.ac.uk/phd.htm.

Finally, if you want my opinion I think the UK education system is a good one. However, I also do not think that American higher education needs to take a back seat.

John

 

As they say in the Western North Carolina mountains, Sic Em John.

 

Just want to share my experience and thoght with all of you. I hav 2 nieces who are going to John Hopkins U., and one nephew going to UCLA. All of the them are undergrad students. They took 4 to 5 AP (advance Placement) classes during their high school years in CA. These classes used college textbooks and credits were accepted by most US universities. With these AP credits, all three of them can shorten at least 1/2 yr of study in the school they are attending. What I am trying to say here is that it is absolutely possible for any US high school student to complete a BA/BS degree in three yrs or less depending on how much time and effort you are willing to spend before entering college. The major reason for high school graduates from Aussie/UK/Canada get more credits from US univ is that they are primarily mandated to take much more prep classes during their high school years while US high school kids are NOT required to take the AP classes! Another point I am trying to make here is that the academic competency of the secondary school system between US and Aussie/canda/UK is REALLY the one to create some confusion.

Jason

 

Dear Posters,

Thetopic of this specific debate is ridiculous. As a neutral European citizen, and having lived in both the USA and United Kingdom and having studied in both countries, I know that the American education system is definitely better than the British (same occurs with health systems). It is a different story for High School level, of course. But this is unjustifiable, it is a particular perception. I was happy with the interest of the American faculty in my education, the very limited size of the classes for my major, the extraordinary sport facilities, and so on.

Somebody carelessly said that a HND is equivalent to a American Bachelor degree. I do not mean to offend, but it has been years since I didn't hear such a colossal stupidity. An American bachelor's is roughly equivalent to a British bachelor, as stated by the LSE (London School of Economics) amomg others, an international leader in education.

Please see the page where they detail the minimum British requirements for a postgraduate award and its worldwide equivalency. Allow me to advance that there is no mention whatsoever to HND degrees. This is the link

http://www.lse.ac.uk/graduate/entry.htm

Many UK universities allow students to pursue a Master's degree without formal academic background , provided they can follow the course. In America this would be unthinkable (unless Mr. Lawry has come out with a 3 day intenssive do-it yourself- masters program). Maybe in CCU or one of those fraud universities.

In addition, a degree from the LSE for instance, it is very different from a degree from HW university or Sunderland or Oxford Brookes (without any animosity to these great institutions). Could we honestly compare a Bachelor's from, say, Leicester or Brunel, with a Bachelor's from Harvard or Yale? Again, ridiculous debate.

 

Oops, I forgot one more thing:


Can somebody explain to me why hundreds of thousands of foreigner students go to the USA to get a Bachelor's degree which costs, (excelsior and the like apart) tens of thousands of dollars and not go to the UK to get a HND that only costs two years and barely two thousand pounds????

Thank you

 

If I have this right, you compare these universities degrees and find them to be of differing standards, then you go on to say that because they are of differing standards they cannot be compared.

I stand in awe of the thought that went into that one.

 

Perhaps they fear that if they did an HND they might never acquire the kind of analytical skills you have exhibited in this thread.

You're welcome.

 

Well, I am concerned for your sight more than I am for my cite.

When I transcribed the citation header, a numeral "2" was inadvertently deleted. The appendix is 5 as stated, the section is 7 as stated, and subsection 21 is further down the very same same brief. Section 7 is not that large. That is it should be Appendix 5 Section 7.21, not Appendix 5 Section 7 .1., but all you had to do was continue to the end of the section text. Why didn't you do that?

While I made every effort to direct you to the appropriate source material, I am a little bit put out that you should expect me to lead you by the nose to every exact and last syllable of that evidence in the specified text. A minor error was made in transferring the text, not a fatal one. It took me seconds to find the relevant text within the SAME subsection. No great research skills were required of you to find the paragraph given that you were told:

1. URL
2. the document title
3. the appendix number
4. the section to inspect

All were correct, yet still you could not find the text? An automatic, <select all> - <Find> would have sufficed. All you had to do was find a subordinate section within a very limited range of script. Anyway . . . let's keep to the substance of the thread.

See <http://www.ncl.ac.uk/ncihe/>
Appendix 5 Section 7.21
"7.21 The team gained the impression, based on an inspection of syllabuses and examination papers, that the American high school diploma compares in standard with GCSE and the associate degree with GCE A-level and Advanced GNVQ, the bachelor’s degree with a UK pass degree or higher national diploma and the Master’s degree with a bachelor’s honours degree from a British university."

Interesting but not relevant to the issue at hand. Need I remind you the question is whether UK degrees on average, level for level, demand and signal, a higher level of academic competence than do US degrees. That is the crux of the matter. That this or that methodology or paradigm MAY require revision or replacement at some later date is neither here nor there. We have a very simple issue before us, let us focus on the issue of relative competence level for level.

Uh, yes John, that is implicit in the proposition that a UK M.Phil equates approximately to a US Ph.D. Clearly, given the foregoing, if the UK Ph.D. is an advance on the UK M.Phil, it must be that it is in advance of the US Ph.D. And at the end of the day, that is what irks you. I understand and sympathize. I am not lacking in empathy nor in compassion.

I invite you to revisit my original post where that specific issue is addressed, and to help you I will offer the following additional guidance.

Dearing found that US degrees lagged UK degrees in terms of academic level by about two years.

The nominal academic level of the UK M.Phil and certain other masters by research, beyond a good honors degree, is two years (4 years part time study). The nominal academic level of a US Ph.D. is two to three years full time study beyond US masters. That it may take individual learners a longer period to complete requirements (for any number of reasons) is irrelevant.

If the UK bachelor degree is about two years beyond the US bachelor degree (there will be variations but we are saying "on average"), then the nominal full time study of a UK MPhil or certain other masters by research, is approximately 4 years beyond the level of a US bachelor's degree.

Since the NOMINAL academic level of the US Ph.D. is 2 to 3 years beyond a US taught master's, the UK M.Phil and certain other UK masters by research, equate very well to the US Ph.D. in terms of academic level. That is, both are approximately four years full time study beyond US bachelor degree level.

Now, over the course of many lengthy posts, the argument has been laid and made, firmly on the basis of the evidence. I do not know that there are any "i"s or "t"s left undotted or uncrossed.

 

This awe may be due to the lack of arguments when facing reading unfavorable comments. I am going to re-explain to you what I meant last night (this time slower so you can follow).

What I am saying is that a prestigious British university such as the LSE requires a British bachelor's as a minimum requirement to be accepted in one of their graduate programs. There is no mention whatsoever to HND holders, who, I am afraid, need some more education to be considered for admission at this school. However, the LSE registrar office states that an American Bachelor's degree is acceptable for entrance. Get it so far?

In addition, a mere HND is not acceptable for graduate admissions to most British Universities since it has to be accompanied of several years of working experience. And the good ones do not want HND..... So those claims above that an HND suffice to be accepted in a British Master's program are rigorously false.

Then I said that, in any case, a degree from any of those new British Universities (such as the ones I named yesterday) couldn’t be HONESTLY compared to an American undergraduate award from Harvard or Yale? Would you rather go to Sunderland if you had been accepted by Harvard? Why is this so difficult to understand? Didn't you acquire concentration skills during your four-week long undergrad education?

Do not hesitate to ask if you have again problems understanding.

 

Lawrie,

Yes, it was my sight as I missed that small link at the end of the page called "Rest of Chapter." I did find your cite in 7.21. Directly I find some of the content here as questionable because a broad statement is made and then Howard University and John Hopkins are thrown in for comparisons and not really addressing all of the conclusions given. In addition, the Higher Education Funding Council for England Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals Standing Conference of Principals, http://www.hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/HEFCE/1996/m14_96.htm brings to bear some discrepancies on the categorization of levels in the UK. They state:

"4.5 We were well aware of the high quality and standards of UK institutions, which have made UK HE an internationally marketable service. But because of this, we have taken very seriously the possibility, and certainly the perception, that there may be instances of mismatch between expectations and what is actually delivered, in respect of both the quality of provision in certain instances, and also of what exactly is to be offered and at what price. The best safeguard against any such mismatch is transparency in the description of pg provision, through information which is auditable or verifiable.

4.7 Nevertheless, we believe that information currently available is not sufficient, or is not appropriately compiled, to meet the needs which we have identified. In particular, commercial directories may not be sufficiently objective or uniform to perform the required functions - and, above all, information in such directories may not be validated or audited with appropriate assurances. A particular and very important gap in existing information is that on levels of courses (the intended intellectual challenge which courses set out to present and the prior knowledge which is assumed) and associated standards (in terms of the measurement against the norm determined by the level of the course, or against the qualification title). Information on levels, in particular, will need to have the imprimatur of a public authority with the standing to speak confidently on such matters. We recommend to CVCP and SCOP: that additional public information - what we have thought of as a 'directory' of pg courses - should be produced. A critical objective of the directory should be to specify the nature of the course in ways that are appropriate to different types of courses and informative for students, employers and funders. "

In addition, this same body gives a breakdown of the UK master degrees:
"Masters - subject specific titles
These titles should be used for courses of >= 120 credits or around 9 (eg MEcon) months f-t in length, (which also must contain <30 ug credits or <25% ug material)

Masters - generic titles
These titles should be used for (eg MA and Msc) courses of >= 180 credits or >= 1year f-t in length, which must also meet all the following conditions
the taught course work contains >90 pg credits or >75% pg material - and in total the course contains >135 pg credits
the proportion of time spent on a research project or dissertation(or equivalent for practice-based) is >= 25% of the course
the method of assessment includes examination of the project or dissertation by an examiner with responsibility for the masters programme and dissertation

MPhil
This title should be used for courses of >180 credits or 1-2 years f-t in length, which must also meet all the following conditions:
a substantial proportion of time (>= 50% of the course) is spent on a research project or dissertation (or equivalent for practice-based)
the method of assessment includes individual external examination of the project or dissertation

PhD/DPhil
This title should be reserved for a qualification awarded on the basis of an individually produced piece of research which is free-standing and makes an original contribution to the subject area. The target for completion of the degree should be 3 years for a f-t student.

Taught doctorates
Other doctorates should be distinguished by referencing the relevant subject area, such as the EdD
a substantial proportion of time (>= 50% of the course) is spent on a research project or dissertation (or equivalent for practice-based) the method of assessment includes individual external examination of the project or dissertation"

Now, I am not sure how the UK definition of credits comapres to US sem. hrs., qtr. hrs., etc. but the time spent on the degrees will hardly equate to a US Ph.D. I also see that there is much room here, based on the Council's comments, on the academic level of UK degrees.

Also, do not get too stuck on the Dearing report because it also has it critics in the UK. For instance, why does Dearing even want to recommend 2 yr. degrees even though there are 3 year Bachelors. Note: "Similarly, on the proposals for a qualifications framework, "two year associate degrees are rejected because every one with a vested interest in three year degrees thinks they are a bad idea. Instead we are offered a different terminology for the qualifications that exist already." (Dearing Report a Missed Opportunity, http://ioewebserver.ioe.ac.uk/ioe/cms/get.asp?cid=1397&1397_1=2123, February 17, 1998)

This same article also says about Dearing: "The Dearing report is criticised by leading academics for its superficial analysis of the complex issues facing the university sector today, in the latest edition of Higher Education Quarterly. Superficiality is singled out as the central weakness of Higher Education in the Learning Society:

"The report lacks the kind of fundamental analysis which its broad conclusions require." Research and analysis are treated in a "cavalier" way. "Despite the mass of evidence gathered, at point after point, the report shows a shocking ignorance about how universities actually work."

For the moment let's take a look at Richmond, The American International University in London. When you graduate here you get an American Bachelor's along with the equivalent of the British Bachelor (Hons). http://www.richmond.ac.uk/academ/usuk/usukac.htm If the Dearing analysis was correct or acceptable they should be awarding these folks American master degrees for getting a British (Hon) degree. The Open University Validation Service in the UK provides the validation of the US Award at the B. (Hons) level. In the US the degree is accredited by Middle States (http://www.msache.org/dirover.asp). For OUVA you can find this institution at: http://www.open.ac.uk/validate/accredited.html
You will alo see a comparable representation of degrees of American Bachelors to British Bach. (Hons) at American Intercontinantal University (SACS and OUVA) http://www.aiulondon.ac.uk/generic/two_degrees.htm

Here is a list of secondary qualifications required for entrance into the British Amercian College from around the world. The American HS Diploma is listed as equivalent to the UK GCSE's (at least 7 at grades A-C). http://www.bacl.ac.uk/admissions.htm

Based on what I have seen so far I would be curious and interested to explore further OUVS evaluation of American credentials and how they, as a UK validation service, place US credentials. My guess is that they are much closer than you imagine.

John

 

Hello all: This is a pretty compelling topic, it seems. The only real issue here, interestingly, is the relationship between American and UK degres--specifically English. There is no mention of the fact that Japanese BA degrees, for example, are more or less a joke even in Japan. (Now GETTING into a top level Japanese university is an entirely different issue than STAYING in one.) No one has mentioned at any length the quality or lack of quality in German, Italian or other European credentials. I think the direction of this thread is constrained by the history of Anglo-American education. Dr. Bear tells an interesting story in his book of how Harvard awarded the first American doctorate. (I wish I could get a Harvard doctorate that way.) As Americans, it is important for us to believe that our educational system is at least as "authentic" as theirs. And it is--by any standard of measure. The problem is that in America, English education IS the standard of measure. My point is that study can only get so advanced, can only be so sophisticated, can only reach a certain level, a level that we fid, in fact, in any good English or American graduate school. In other words, an English Ph.D pulled off the street, of say, Liverpool, is going to be just about as impressive and just about as unimpressive, as his or her American counterpart in Boston. In my opinion, the GAAP class universities of the entire English speaking world compare very favorably against any national or international standard. But a degree can only mean so much. A degree, even from one Oxbridge, does not make the man. With that said I think I better go sign up for another degree.

Craig

 

An HND is deemed equivalent to a UK pass degree by Dearing and by the British Council. That has been stated more than once in this thread. While others may have said an HND offers general direct entry into a UK master's degree, I have not. So I am afraid you are arguing with the wrong person. An HND or UK pass degree will often or usually allow entry into the postgraduate diploma program which articulates into the master's degree. The usual difference is the thesis (dissertation UK) or project portion of the master's degree, and involves an extra six months work for the HND or pass degree student. There are variations, but that would be about average.

Again, you are arguing with the wrong person, direct your comments to those who have made that claim. Read the thread and identify with whom you are disagreeing, and about what.

So far as it relates to this thread, what matters is actual relative academic level of attainment. That LSE may accept this or that US degree is neither here nor there. That is an indicator of degree utility in a particular context. This sub issue and its relevance as an indicator of real academic attainment has already been covered at length in this thread. It may help you to read previous posts.

You said:
" In addition, a degree from the LSE for instance, it is very different from a degree from HW university or Sunderland or Oxford Brookes (without any animosity to these great institutions). Could we honestly compare a Bachelor's from, say, Leicester or Brunel, with a Bachelor's from Harvard or Yale? Again, ridiculous debate. "

The point is that the degrees from these institutions can indeed be compared for level of academic attainment. We may find that when comparing a degree from Sunderland to one from Harvard, that the Harvard degree is of finer quality. How does this narrow comparison render the broad sweep of the debate "ridiculous"? What happens when we compare class with class? Say, a degree from Morehead State with one from Sunderland in terms of content and level, course by course? You have offered opposite extremes to make the case for the average situation.

That there may be variability of quality within each nation's higher education system does not mean that we cannot compare the average and the general situation and draw useful conclusions from the data. We can. Anomalies will be present whenever we compare two systems and make generalizations. However, this does not render the findings useless. The argument that we cannot make useful comparisons between systems because of some internal non uniformity is spurious and patently inconsistent with everyday experience.

You mean during the time it took me to write the exams to earn two degrees from US regionally accredited institutions? No, not really. My analytical abilities and powers of concentration, such as they are, were developed and refined over many decades, as indeed was the knowledge base necessary to successfully complete these rigorous academic programs.

You disparage such degrees, yet they will also provide entry into UK masters programs. So, what happens to your argument that such acceptance speaks to the relative academic quality of a US degrees? I does seem that in this respect and with that last statement, you have hoisted yourself high with your own petard. I have argued that such acceptance is exclusively a measure of utility, not quality. If your assessment of my degrees is correct, then you have offered eloquent testimony that that is indeed the case.

The debate is about the relative academic level of UK versus US credentials. If you want to discuss the relative merits of Excelsior/COSC/TESC degrees by examination in this manner, you would be better engaging Russell, and exchanging smiley faces with him.

 

The crucial issue in this debate and one that has not been mentioned, is each the different methods of quality control.

In the UK and Canada (and other countries probably but I am not aware) the educational "authorities" strive for what is known in the UK as "common coin". In other words, you should be guaranteed a high quality of education regardless of your school of choice. Of course all the schools are not equal but the structure of the post-secondary system and of quality control at the University level does provide for a relatively consistant and high level of academic quality.

In the US the method of quality control is intended to provide consumer protection or an academic "floor". Some US schools strive for the highest academic standards... other strive to make a profit while maintaining the academic floor... and everything in between.

Personally, I believe the UK standard is well above the US academic floor. Of course, this does not mean that all US schools are below the UK standard or perhaps even that a majority are... that is up for debate.

However, it does mean that a student of British education can be assured of attaining a high standard academic experience regardless of university, a US student... buyer beware!

 

HND

Indeed, it seems that an HND won't get you into British graduate study in most cases, as the information below suggests:

http://prospects.ac.uk/student/cidd/specials/hnd/findeg.htm

"Getting directly on to a postgraduate degree or research course straight from an HND is extremely difficult as most courses require an honours degree on entry."

The University of Glasgow states in its undergraduate catalog
that a HND generally may qualify you for first year entry, in some cases for the second and very rare for the third.
http://www.gla.ac.uk/prospectus/admissions/entry/

So, I think those claiming that an HND is equivalent to an American bachelor need to further explain why an US Bachelor qualifies you for a direct entry into British graduate study; however, an HND only does not.
I think, there are only two conclusions you can draw from this: either British, Australian etc. universities are lax towards acceptance of American degrees(as John already mentioned) or an HND is not completely the same as an American bachelor.

Dennis Siemens

 

Here's my take (I can't guarantee I'll follow up on responses--to be honest, I didn't check this thread until today and skipped half of the posts when I did--but in the name of adding my two cents):

British pass bachelor's = American associate's degree plus additional coursework. Some pass bachelor's are equivalent to some U.S. bachelor's degrees (particularly in the liberal arts), but others are clearly inferior (compare a British pass bachelor's in engineering with an ABET-accredited U.S. bachelor's in engineering, for example).

British honours bachelor's = American four-year bachelor's plus, where "plus" is a variable amount depending on the field and the institution.

British master's = Although the British honours degree is usually much further along than the U.S. four-year bachelor's, my experience has been that master's degrees tend to be at roughly the same level. (If Heriot-Watt were that much more difficult than the average regionally accredited U.S. MBA, do you really think it would attract so many American students?)

British Ph.D. = American Ph.D. without the coursework, but with more research.


Cheers,

 

Rinri has suggested something that I don't believe has been remarked upon yet.

In the United States, university programs are divided into these bite-sized chunks called classes. Classes have these things called prerequisites. In order to be admitted to a class, a student needs to have studied the prerequisite material.

If a kid graduates from an AP (advanced placement) program in secondary school, he or she may be able to knock off some university work beforehand, and shorten their university program a bit. That happens a lot.

But the opposite is probably even more common. Kids come from weaker high school backgrounds, and may not meet the required prerequisites for their freshman level college courses. That means that they need to take additional coursework to bring them up to speed. Often that is in math and writing skills. In some cases, these additional remedial courses carry university but not major credit, counting as electives. In other schools they don't carry university credit at all. Still other universities don't even offer them and won't admit these kind of applicants.

So when prople talk about variations within American secondary programs, we need to remember that secondary programs do not always translate seamlessly into university admission. Although most secondary graduates will probably find a college that will admit them (community colleges are open admission), it shouldn't be assumed that all students proceed through the university system at the same rate.

American bachelors degree programs theoretially take four years. But five years is probably the average and six is common. The reasons for this are complex, including part-time enrollment, major changes and availability of classes. But meeting prerequisites is certainly a part of it, particularly for freshmen.

 

Lawrie,

I will use these smilies in my posts:



And you can use these: