International Comparison of Academic Qualifications (External and Internal)

That's not a very good response to the questions I asked you.

I don't believe that NOOSR only accepts 250 American higher education institutions as being of Australian standard. I think that you are probably just repeating an apocryphal story that is told in Australian universities without fully understanding the facts of the matter.

Even if NOOSR is only talking about doctoral degrees, the story is not very credible, because there are more than 250 doctorate-granting universities in the US. 261 'doctoral research' universities plus 54 stand-alone medical schools already total 315. I can't imagine Australia rejecting an M.D. or a Ph.D. in a medical science from the SUNY Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn. (One of their researchers shared the 1998 Nobel prize in physiology and medicine.)

If NOOSR is talking about bachelors and masters degrees, then the claim that you are making is worse than incredible, it is ridiculous. Add them up. There are far more than 250 schools in the United States offering bachelors degrees. If you only accept 250 of them, you are excluding schools that are not only good, but strong and prestigious.

Let's look more closely at this. Suppose we take the top 150 schools from the 'doctoral research' category and the top 50 each from the 'masters' and bacalaureate' group. I am defining 'top' by use of the academic reputation score from 'USNews' America's Best Colleges', latest edition.

If you take the top 150 'doctoral' universities, you are excluding places like U. Montana, U. Missouri-KC, U. Denver, U. Maine, U. Nevada-Reno, U. Texas-Dallas and the U. Hawaii. These schools compare very well with most Australian universities.

If you take the top 50 from the 'masters' category, you are excluding Western Washington U., U. Redlands, Embry Riddle, San Jose State and all of the City University of New York branches except its graduate center downtown. (That includes places like Baruch, Hunter and CCNY.) Again, these don't look half bad compared to Western Sydney. US Secretary of State Colin Powell graduated from CCNY. Too bad Australia might not recognize his degree.

If you take the top 50 'baccalaureate' schools, you are excluding a bunch of schools that an Australian is unlikely to have heard of but which offer top undergraduate programs. Gettysburg (PA), Whitman (WA), Beloit (WI), Lewis and Clarke (OR), Morehouse (GA) (Martin Luther King attended this one.), Evergreen State (WA), Virginia Military Institute (VMI), Hampshire (MA), Whittier (CA), Antioch (OH), Bennington (VT)...

And you would also be excluding graduates of specialized schools that can't be overlooked. Music graduates from Julliard. Engineering graduates from Harvey Mudd or the US Air Force Academy. Graduates in international affairs from the Monterey Institute of International Studies, or in international business from Thunderbird. BFAs from the Art Institute of Chicago.

Bottom line: Either Australia's NOOSR is doing something very stupid, or else the Peters, both French and Tucker, are mistaken about what they have been claiming on this group.

It's ironic that I seem to have more respect for Australia's NOOSR than either of them do.

 

If this information actually exists on the NOOSR site then it would be nice to see a direct link to that page. I scanned the site but was unable to find the referenced list of schools. I'm not implying that it doesn't exist, just that I haven't been able to find it. If it is there somewhere, I'd like to be able to determine it's relevance for myself.

This is something that interests me as I have considered the possibility of migrating to Australia someday.

 

Mmm. Just back up the cart a bit, Bill.

NOOSR produce a booklet titled "Country Education Profiles - USA - A comparative Study". The latest edition is 1993 and it was written in collaboration with J.B.Bear (who could that be?).

On page 16, under the heading "Relative standing of tertiary institutions" it says in part...

"NOOSR's Guidelines single out some 250 institutions whose mainstream awards receive immediate assessment at face value. These institutions include research universities and colleges, as well as other institutions whose qualifications have been endorsed by NOOSR in the past. This list is not intended as a 'top 250' institutions; nor should omission from the list be taken as an indication of lack of quality. However, on the basis of information available to NOOSR - in the form of both published material and precedent cases - the institutions on this list all offer high-quality courses."

The booklet refers to these 250 schools as "Section 1" schools and goes on to list them. It states on page 24 that Bachelor, Master and PhD degrees from Section 1 schools are "assessed as comparable" to an Australian degree.

The booklet also talks about "Section 2" schools, which are all the RA schools not listed in Section1.

It is open about the comparability of degrees from these schools in Australia and urges they be subject to "additional scrutiny in order to determine comparability ..." (page 17).

The booklet is available at a cost of AUST$13 from http://www.detya.gov.au/noosr/cep/index.htm

I am scanning the 250 list into PDF and will be happy to email to anyone who contacts me.

What does it all mean? It means there are no hard and fast rules and that comparing education qualifications from one country to another is a difficult task. But it is apparant that if a holder of USA degree wanted to, say, work or teach in Australia, then his/her employer would likely look closely at that degree. The NOOSR booklet is only a guide, but the fact it DOES list 250 schools "whose awards receive immediate assessment at face value", means the holders of degrees from those schools already have a leg-up.

Bill thinks NOOSR is doing something "very stupid". Yeah, sure Bill, but an "urban legend" it ain't.

As I said earlier, make of all this as you will.

If you want to know more either email NOOSR from their web site, get the booklet yourself, email me for the 250 list, or ask the co-author.

Very kind regards

 

Peter, this is not the same thing that you stated earlier. I find it very disturbing that you change your story, yet act as though you are being consistent. Either you were being intentionally misleading in the first place, which I hope is not the case since you would be flippantly hurting those of us who are truly interested in this matter, or else you need to "back up the cart a bit" yourself and let everyone know that you were initially mistaken.

I'm not sure if this was your intention, but please, please don't provide inaccurate or misleading information in order to support some hidden agenda. It really isn't fair to the people who rely upon this forum for more than an exercise in diversionary debate. The recognition of credentials is something that has a profound effect upon people's lives; it isn't a matter that should be trifled with.

I'm sorry to take a harsh tone, it just unsettles me that I may have been intentionally misinformed, though I earnestly hope that has not been the case. I do appreciate that you eventually posted the true situation, and are going through the effort of scanning in the list of US schools issuing degrees that are automatically assessed as comparable to those issued by Australian schools.

 

I'm sorry you did, too Gary.

Wowee, there's some heat in this.

Now have another look at my posts and tell me where I haven't been honest. My first post was about 250 doctorates, which I admitted was wrong, and which I corrected quite openly. It was one of the Bills who said he didn't believe what I was saying and suggested I was promulgating an "urban legend". (In fact he dragged Peter French into it too.)

"Well", I thought to myself this morning, "I said what I said about the 250 schools in good faith believing it to be correct but I hadn't read the NOOSR booklet and I should check."

So I did.

Now Bill turned out to be wrong. He DIDN'T check and made some assumptions (and have a look at those assumptions and conjectures - shows a pretty good imagination) that were incorrect. No big deal. It is easier for me to check than him, but I think I could have been spared the diatribe. Just a simple question asking me if I was sure I was correct in my statements would have done the trick. That would have been enough to send me to the bookstore and it all could have been settled.

But no, that is not what I got. I got all the stuff about "urban legends" which some reader might have interpreted as me telling porkies. I think me suggesting he “back his cart a bit” is a fairly mild response to what had been written.

I didn't write the booklet, I don't even claim to agree with it. I was merely stating what I believed to be the case, was aggressively questioned on it, and then went and had a look to see if I was right. If you didn't want to know the answer then you shouldn't have issued the challenge.

After I made my correction and changed my story from 250 doctorates to 250 schools I was right all the way.

Oh, and please don't claim the high moral ground. Your overly sanctimonious lecture I can do without. I have been honest and open, have admitted when I was wrong, and have supported my statements with facts. I haven’t made any personal attacks or attacked the US education system. So you are "disturbed", "hurt" and "unsettled" by my input into this thread? Crickey Gary, in comparison to what I've seen dished out here over the years you must have a glass jaw. I'm a novice: if one of the expert flame throwers ever got hold of you ...

Look, you guys have not been set up by me. If you're feeling a little vulnerable then do your research first before opening your mouth.

In any case, you’re shooting the messenger. If you want to know the whys and wherefores about NOOSR's stand, go ask the author of the book.

Otherwise, email me and I’ll send you the list.

Kind regards

 

In a previous post you wrote this:

Then you wrote this:

The first version seems to be saying that 3,691 out of 3,941 American colleges and universities have been found by NOOSR to be beneath Australian standards. I found that ridiculous.

The second version seems to be saying that NOOSR has checked out about 250 American schools and found them equivalent to Australian programs. It can't comment on the others without looking at their syllabi. I find that reasonable.

Suggesting that NOOSR has found more than 90% of it to be substandard sure sounded like an attack to me.

If that isn't what you originally meant, then I misunderstood you. But given what you actually wrote, taken in the context of a thread about how American degrees are substandard compared to British and Commonwealth degrees, I that think my reading was the natural one.

 

Re: Hi, Scott

I would suggest that you spell favour and colour incorrectly, but then your Presidential elections are "kinda funny" too, which kind of explains things.

Darren.

 

A fraternity is in order here, Bill!

S igma
M u
I ota
L amda
I ota
E psilon

 

Peter, you wrote:

Then you wrote:

Then, you quoted directly from the NOOSR booklet:

And then you made an observation:

Now, how can you honestly believe that your latter quotation and observation do not contradict your previous statements? This is ridiculous. At first you claim that only degrees from a specified 250 RA universities will be considered equivalent to Australian degrees by the NOOSR, while later you change your story to say that schools not in that list of 250 are simply subject to additional scrutiny. Do you really not see the difference here? Is it that hard for you to just say that you were initially mistaken?

Peter, don't take my words out of context, it's childish. All I am really interested in here is obtaining legitimate information regarding the recognition of US degrees in other countries. I am especially interested in the Australian perspective, since, as I stated earlier, I am considering the possibility of migrating to Australia at some point in the future. I was relying upon your perspective and knowledge as an Australian, and I expected that you would be forthright rather than just making inaccurate statements to support a position. Obviously what you say cannot be completely taken at face value, so I will revise my expectations.

I do not have a "glass jaw," and for the most part I simply ignore flame throwers. However, you were not flaming, you were disseminating misinformation with the facade of legitimacy, and then pretending consistency. I wasn't sure if you had done it intentionally or not, but given your attitude it seems likely, or at least possible, that it was intentional. That is something that I simply cannot tolerate, so I called you on it.

I believe that I can in fact claim the high moral ground here, Peter. I never intentionally misinform people, especially about something that may have great impact upon their lives. If I ever unintentionally provide false or misleading information then I am quick to aplogize and not only admit my mistake, but also point it out if noone has noticed it. Damn those pesky ethical considerations.

Is it really that difficult for you to just say that you were initially mistaken? I get the feeling that you may have a genuine interest in honest discourse, but that an unwillingness to admit an error is interfering with this. I suspect that you may have just become caught up in the confrontational nature of this thread, and couldn't find a way to step out of it while saving face. Though I realize that I have now joined in this confrontation, I would really like us to move past that and on to the real issues here.

 

Good One!


Tony

 

People who defend generalizations to the rhetorical death must always choose the UK candidate in the following scenarios:

- - - Scenario 1 - - -
Basil
BS Biology, <any UK Uni with this degree>
MD, <any UK Uni with this degree>
PhD Neurology, <any UK Uni with this degree>

Dirk
BS Biology, Duke
MD, Johns Hopkins
PhD Neurology, Harvard

- - - Scenario 2 - - -
Sybil
BS Physics, <any UK Uni with this degree>
MS Physics, <any UK Uni with this degree>
PhD Physics, <any UK Uni with this degree>

Betty
BS Physics, Princeton
MS Physics, Stanford
PhD Physics, Cal. Inst. of Tech.


- - - Scenario 3 - - -
Basil
BS CS, <any UK Uni with this degree>
MS CS, <any UK Uni with this degree>
PhD CS, <any UK Uni with this degree>

Dirk
BS CS, Stanford
MS CS, Carnegie-Mellon
PhD CS, MIT

- - - Scenario 4 (Mechanical Engineering - -
Basil
BS ME, <any UK Uni with this degree>
MS ME, <any UK Uni with this degree>
PhD ME, <any UK Uni with this degree>

Dirk
BS ME, Stanford
MS ME, MIT
PhD ME, UC-Berkeley

In the medical scenario, I could have put any one of 15 medical schools that I would have chosen over all-UK-schools-are-the-same:

---15 better-than-a-poke-in-the-eye medical schools---
Harvard University
Johns Hopkins University
Duke University
University of Pennsylvania
Washington University in St. Louis
Columbia U. College of Physicians and Surgeons
University of California–San Francisco
Yale University
Stanford University
University of Michigan
Baylor College of Medicine
Cornell University (Weill)
University of Washington
University of California–Los Angeles
Mayo Medical School

The same goes for any of the other scenarios and many more.

Anyone who evaluates U.S. candidates via a one or two-page generalization without regard to the huge educational wealth found in the 3000+ institutions in the US, simply stated, are incompetent or don't care. Those generalizations are interesting, but useless in view of the unique and egalitarian structure of U.S. higher education.

 

In UK BS = Bachelor of Surgery, a degree in Biology would be BSc

In UK MD (= Doctor of Medicine) is a higher doctorate (i.e. above PhD), awarded for published work. The basic qualification for a medical practitioner is MB BS (Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery), usually taken without another bachelor's degree (although some, mainly those who intend to do research, will take a degree in Physiology in the middle of their medical training). An MD would have to have a previous MB BS qualification or something equivalent.

Malcolm S Jenner

 

People who defend generalizations to the rhetorical death must always choose the UK candidate in the following scenarios:

- - - Scenario 1 - - -
Basil
BSc Biology, <any UK Uni with this degree>
MB BS, <any UK Uni with this degree>
PhD Neurology, <any UK Uni with this degree>

Dirk
BS Biology, Duke
MD, Johns Hopkins
PhD Neurology, Harvard

- - - Scenario 2 - - -
Sybil
BSc Physics, <any UK Uni with this degree>
MSc Physics, <any UK Uni with this degree>
PhD Physics, <any UK Uni with this degree>

Betty
BS Physics, Princeton
MS Physics, Stanford
PhD Physics, Cal. Inst. of Tech.


- - - Scenario 3 - - -
Basil
BSc CS, <any UK Uni with this degree>
MSc CS, <any UK Uni with this degree>
PhD CS, <any UK Uni with this degree>

Dirk
BS CS, Stanford
MS CS, Carnegie-Mellon
PhD CS, MIT

- - - Scenario 4 (Mechanical Engineering - -
Basil
BSc ME, <any UK Uni with this degree>
MSc ME, <any UK Uni with this degree>
PhD ME, <any UK Uni with this degree>

Dirk
BS ME, Stanford
MS ME, MIT
PhD ME, UC-Berkeley

In the medical scenario, I could have put any one of 15 medical schools that I would have chosen over all-UK-schools-are-the-same:

---15 better-than-a-poke-in-the-eye medical schools---
Harvard University
Johns Hopkins University
Duke University
University of Pennsylvania
Washington University in St. Louis
Columbia U. College of Physicians and Surgeons
University of California–San Francisco
Yale University
Stanford University
University of Michigan
Baylor College of Medicine
Cornell University (Weill)
University of Washington
University of California–Los Angeles
Mayo Medical School

The same goes for any of the other scenarios and many more.

Anyone who evaluates U.S. candidates via a one or two-page generalization without regard to the huge educational wealth found in the 3000+ institutions in the US, simply stated, are incompetent or don't care. Those generalizations are interesting, but useless in view of the unique and egalitarian structure of U.S. higher education.

 

Three cheers for that, Gary, I’ couldn’t agree more.

I've looked at all the posts again and at your reasoning and for the life of me I can't see where my information has been inconsistent or misleading, intentionally or otherwise. But if that's the way you read it, well, its a free internet.

Now to the real issues which you are quite correct to bring to account:

1. NOOSR list 250 USA schools whose mainstream awards "are assessed as comparable" to an Australian degree.

2. NOOSR states that degrees from all other RA schools be subject to "additional scrutiny". (Yes, and that is consistent with me saying in an early post that the majority of RA schools are not considered to grant degrees equivalent to Australian degrees, despite your label of "ridiculous"). The booklet goes into quite a bit of detail on what this scrutiny should involve (and talk about words out of context, I never said "simply subject to" extra scrutiny, Gary). For example, for a bachelor degree to be comparable it must include at least 40 semester hours credit gained at 3rd and 4th year levels.

Here is my statement again which appears to have caused you the angst:

"In other words, the degrees offered by about 250 US universities (some of which will offer doctorates) are considered equivalent to degrees granted by Australian universities. From NOOSR, that is all I know. From that piece of information I am prepared to say:
(1) I do not know how many of these 250 offer doctorates.
(2) There are many (the majority, ie. thousands?) of RA schools issuing bachelors and masters which are not considered to grant degrees equivalent to Australian degrees."

It was a general statement made in good faith. It was queried in no uncertain terms. Not "this looks a little odd, Peter, can you provide some evidence or check it out?" No, I got both churlish "urban legend" barrels.

Well, I did check it out. We've both read the posts and you see a contradiction in what I said subsequently. Well I'm sorry, but I can't, not even a small one. There ARE 250 USA universities whose degrees are comparable ON FACE VALUE. The rest are NOT considered to grant equivalent degrees.

My general statement stands. My later detailed statements stand. I quoted honestly from the source and that source supported me all the way. I never said that holders of degrees outside the 250 would be turned down flat.

Sorry if any offence was taken; none was meant. I don't mind being questioned on what I have said or providing evidence for my views - and I will admit when I'm wrong, as any search of this board will prove - but please don't preach to me about your virtues over mine. By all means claim the high moral ground, Gary, it is for others to judge if you hold it.

And I'll say this for a third time: I don't believe Australia has a superior education system to the US, just different. I didn't write the NOOSR book, I don't necessarily support it. If you want to know more, either buy it or ask the author.

Surely that's the end.

 

Peter Tucker said:

"My general statement stands. My later detailed statements stand. I quoted honestly from the source and that source supported me all the way. I never said that holders of degrees outside the 250 would be turned down flat"

Peter, Peter - you have done a great job in this topic, but mnay DON'T want to hear your point of view - they only want to stick to theirs ... it makes me wonder at times how many 'educated' persons are really on this group

I am currently examining 5 US Bachelor degree files. They are all RA. I will not disclose which universities they are from, except that they are not at the 'bottom end'. The students are variably seeking recognition for entry to post graduate study and professional practice - accounting, banking & finance. engineering. I have the files as i am deemed competent to make a professional and academic jusgement.

They all unfortunately typify what is pointed out in the NOOSR guides, that many [the majority in fact] undergraduate programs at US universities have a considerable content that matches our years 11 and 12 at secondary school. This means that the remaining content does not have the breadth of topic areas nor the depth within topic areas present, to consider these applicants suitable for either post graduate study or professional practice here.

Yesterday I dealt with Indian and UK applicants. Their bachelor studies were suitable for entry to post graduate study, and they will be able to enter profesional practice on the understandably necessity for completing specific Australian content law subjects.

This is a common and regular dilemna for US students seeking to work here. If they come from the top list [the '250'] we will still check the degree content and depth of studies for entry to whatever they are seeking. Usually they receive a similar access to UK and India, to use 2 current examples.

I didn't write the books for NOOSR - John Bear did - but I agree with the reasoning. NOOSR is but a guideline anyway, and any prudent and cautious person will do their own evaluation to protect both the school, and the student.

This does not mean that one system is better or worse than another. I think that many of the arguments put above show some lack of maturity - maybe? Someone will immediate spring into action to defend this - that is one thing that sets this group apart )

I am a firm believer, and have written to this point, that US professionals are more mature professionals - at least in the area I operate in...which for the sceptics, isn't in degree mill venture or promotional activity! Our students have to choose their vocation at age 16 before they enter the combined years 11 and 12 at high school. Thier scores at year 12 then set in concrete [almost] their choice of career and education. They then enter university and emerge as accountants 3 years later, engineers 4/5 years later, scientists 4 years later, doctors 5/6 years later and so on. Admittedly they have their practica and professional accreditation programs to fulfil, BUT they have undergone the formative part of their professional indoctrination when they are barely adults. For example - compare ethical issues studied by an Australian student aged 19/20 (year 2) with a US student aged 22/23 (year 1 of masters studies) - do you see the difference? Maybe sit at my desk for a couple of days ...

Anyway, I have added my bit, and will check back to see the 'responses' or as usual, the lack of them. Soemtimes I wonder why this group is even open to non US contributors unless it is to ... no i shouldn't even think that.

 

Qoute from Peter E. Tucker
"I've looked at all the posts again and at your reasoning and for the life of me I can't see where my information has been inconsistent or misleading, intentionally or otherwise."


Wow that is a scary statement. You have taken a factual statement and changed the meaning of it then can't or won't recognize that fact.

 

We'll just have to disagree on this. There's no point in further jibes or arguing it ad infinitum, so I won't bring it up again.

If you look back, my initial query to you was very much to the point. I haven't done anything of the sort that you suggest. Your response, however, seemed unnecessarily hostile, using phrases such as "Get over it, boys," and taking an adversarial tone. I suppose that it really doesn't matter though.

I've never taken issue with the content of the NOOSR booklet (I'm not sure where you got that impression), I was simply concerned about getting accurate information. If nothing else, it's clear to me that I should order this booklet for myself, and I thank you for bringing it's existence to my attention. I'm currently evaluating graduate programs, and part of that process involves weighing the benefit now and in the future of obtaining a US RA degree vs. an Australian degree. I'm trying to determine if an Australian degree will be better received in the US than a US RA degree will be in Australia, or vice-versa. It really doesn't matter to me whose educational system is "better". The only thing that really has relevance to me is the practical recognition of credentials between countries.

 

This discussion has been quite interesting... it confirms many of the things I have heard from anecdotal sources over the years... unfortunately it appears impossible to have a rational discussion of these issues without American jingoism perverting the discourse.

 

Thank you for bringing the debate back to where it belongs: about the relative utility of degrees between countries.

Clearly we read things differently in the way the discussion has proceeded to this point, and I think it is best to let that rest now. I would prefer that we agree to differ than get caught up in a debate over honesty. If you think I've said hostile things, well, when a man's unreasonably provoked ... crickey, I've been quite reserved. Think of me what you will (and Dave Hayden finds me scary: beat that!) but my conscience is 100% clear and I can assure you I have been 100% honest. Honest.

There probably is no hard and fast answer to your question about Australian degrees compared to the USA and how one is accepted in the other; but I laud you for doing the research and I hope we go on discussing that.

Clearly, there are more variables in the American system than the relatively homogeneous Australian system, which means your evaluation of an Australian degree in the US market should be more straightforward than the other way around. Also, being an American in America will help. I don't mean you shouldn't check each Australian University out individually, as of course there are pecking orders and some universities are better known or have a reputation in one area over another. What is your interest? Research in a particular field or a particular professional program like business or law? I might be able to help in some way by giving an Australian perspective.

If you are thinking about migrating (and I'd buy you a beer, no probs), would you get an Australian degree by distance first, or migrate first then look at your education options here?

I'm taking the weekend off. I'll check back on about Tuesday to see if this thing stays on track!

Kind regards (even to those I scare - boo!!)

 

This discussion has been quite interesting... it confirms many of the things I have heard from anecdotal sources over the years... unfortunately it appears impossible to have a rational discussion of these issues without ANTI-American jingoism perverting the discourse.