Oxbridge "MA" to be scrapped?

You've tried to summarily dismiss those who disagree with you by calling them ignorant. I quoted the Dearing Report in order to illustrate that the Dearing Committee, which presumably wasn't ignorant, disagrees with you as well.

 

I disagree. I have seen numerous online CV's in which people list the Oxford BA and the MA as academic qualifications.

This could result in an Oxford undergraduate student beating out a student with an earned examed MA simply because he paid a fee after an elapsed amount of time for his MA.

I have already demonstrated with my earlier link from New Zealand how this MA can be abused and has been abused.

This is nothing more then arrogance and elitism. The gentleman from New Zealand I mentioned earlier also tried to use this angle.

 

Because I'm up to my eyeballs in student essays, and spent the day on a jury dealing with a child molesting case.

 

Was Rumpole defending?

 

A PhD and can't get out of jury duty???

 

Considering that you had the time to post the above statement it would be reasonable to believe that you had the time to post an answer to my question.

 

Excellence

I have tried seven times to add this item to the debate on Oxford MAs but to no avail. Hence I will try here:


I always respond to proposals to reform British universities into a uniform list of similar insitutions with the plea that whatever reforms are passed by Parliament they leave Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh, Glasgow, and St Andrews out of the remit - just in case the good chance that they cock it up does not destroy some ancient centres of excellence. (Trinity College, Dublin, has escaped the net of mediocrity.)

Adam Smith (1723-90) went first to Glasgow (1737-40) and before he completed his BA degree he went on to Oxford on a "Snell Exhibition" (the magnifcent stipend was GBP40 a year) and studied at Balliol College from 1740-46. He passed the requirements of 12 terms for his Bachelor BA in 1744 and stayed on to complete his MA. In his case he left Oxford for personal reasons in 1746 but did not resign his Exhibition until 1748. At this point he was awarded his MA from Oxford.

In 1762 he was awarded his Doctorate in Laws (LLD) by Glasgow University for teaching Jurisprudence from 1742-62. His lectures are available from Liberty Fund, USA (try Amazon.com) and judge if he earned it.

All this fuss from people who may have less than memorable achievements in academe about a few chancers misleading the gullible is out of control. Love them or hate them, the ancient universities of England and Scotland, have done enough for the replublic of the intellect to merit some relief and protection for half-baked, ill-thought out, reforms which will only destroy and not create excellence.

Your university system may need GPAs and 'regional accreditation' and all the rest to justify themselves, but the universities named above do not, and nor do their graduates. Leave alone what you do not understand.

 

Re: Excellence

That's ad-hominem, isn't it? The fact that you consider us your inferiors doesn't imply that we are mistaken about the ethics of awarding unearned degrees with titles identical to earned degrees elsewhere.

If you believe that we don't understand something, then by all means feel free to educate us about it. Try to present a persuasive argument for the practice.

 

My dear professor, you are sounding positively shrill these days. It seems that the Brits on this thread are unable to mount a convincing argument, other than to invoke antiquity and lamenting that we just don’t understand. You have stooped to naming your questioners as inferiors. That’s an argument used by schoolboys. Is that really the best you can do? You should have learned long ago that you can’t raise yourself up by pushing others down. That tactic necessarily backfires and puts the attacker in a very unflattering light, and this you have done.

Your history lesson, though interesting, is largely germane to nothing (all together now, “non sequitur”). Are you really justifying the continuing practice of this novelty by citing an example that is 250 years old? And are you really trying to extend the validity to the present day? Let’s remember how this thread started, with the referenced article, and the chap who was nonplussed that his employer didn’t recognize his unearned MA. Are you defending the practice by citing Adam Smith? Good Lord, please do better than that. You mention that a few chancers can mislead the gullible, so no big deal. I pointed out earlier that one need not be a chancer to mislead. One can merely passively let his or her credential be misinterpreted. Moreover, the “gullible” in this case refers to most of the rest of the world. Excuse us if we don’t have the same reverence for, and insider knowledge of, your outdated practices.

I’m afraid the real thrust of your argument is really spelled out in black and white: when push comes to shove, the ugly truth is that you really do feel as though you and your ancient institutions are better than the rest of us - we “common folk,” with our RA hysteria and GPA obsession (really??). I suggest that any future subscribers to your wit and wisdom on this site take notice of this fact and weigh your advice accordingly. The tacit assumption of superiority is the impetus behind this quaint practice in the first place, and, sadly, it’s the only defense you can muster in this modern age, because there is no sensible reason for it.

I’m afraid your thinking is somewhat delusional, the same sort of thinking that made a mess of your Empire in the first place – like the amputee who still feels his leg, I guess. I have news for you. Though you no doubt love your institutions (and, admittedly, Oxbridge still commands and deserves respect), the rest of the world has caught up, and the center of the academic world has largely shifted. By almost any measure that you care to mention, the real players in academia can be found in universities residing in Cambridge (MA, not England), New York, Chicago, Princeton, Palo Alto, and Berkeley (and others, as well; there’s a pretty good little science & engineering school about 350 miles south of here in a place called Pasadena.).

You can continue to hold on to 250 year-old arguments, just as you can continue to believe that your ancient universities are the center of academia. However, at the risk of offering my own unsolicited advice, may I suggest a reality check? As for your last sentence: “Leave alone what you do not understand,” I must point out that since we don’t leave it alone, it must mean that we do understand – and all too well, it seems.

Take heart, though. All is not lost for the British Empire. You all make a damn fine mint – and a curiously strong one at that. Keep them coming. We in the real world like them and appreciate them.

Cordially,

Tom (one of the commoners - from the Berkeley backwater)

 

Hi everyone,

I just wanted to say I've loved this thread, especially some of the Professor's insights and Tom57's comments. On a similar theme some people on the board might be interested in the article in today's Guardian - Are British universities world class?

All the best,

Brendan

P.S. Frankie, I think it depends on the individual college policy but I certainly didn't pay anything for my M.A. (Cantab.).

P.P.S. Nosborne, all I can say is wait until the Bologna agreement comes to pass and then see how easy we Europeans are to understand.

 

Milton-I think!

I think it was John Milton who wrote:

Let England never forget her precedence in teaching the other nations how to live!

As true today as it was all those hundred of years ago!!!

(Tongue in cheek guys!....well...ish!)

AJJ!!!

 

If you wrote exams, a thesis and/or completed module essays to earn your MA then I would agree that it is valid.

But would you not view it as unfair if you lost out on a job to an Oxbridge graduate who bought his MA? Imagine losing a job because the employer believed the Oxbridge grads "elite" post-graduate education was superior to yours even though in reality the Oxbridge grad does not possess an earned graduate degree and you do?

 

Hi Tom57

In this and other threads to which I have contributed, you have jumped on my views in a highly personal way - I never take anything personally - and this one is no exception.

I have not attacked anybody 'questioning' me as being 'inferior', mainly because I did not say anything that anybody until Bill Dayson was in a position to question. I was replying to two pages of others on the subject of the thread - a call for reforms to the ancient universities of Britain (Oxford, Cambridge, Glasgow, Edinburgh, St Andrews and, until 1923, Trinity College Dublin) for their practice of awarding MA degrees as the Bachelor degree, which some ill informed people, and a few rogues counting on their ignorance, pass off as graduate degrees. No such confusion exists in the UK.

But my point was in this and other calls for certain reforms to our universities that the above universities (excepting Trinity) should be left out of these occasional experiments. A wholly modest request on the cautionary principle that wholesale reforms might do more damage to excellence than intended. How this is regarded as 'shrill' is an opinion, not an argument.

I gave an example of one such 'MA' of someone I thought well known to most viewers, Adam Smith, to illustrate that the origins of the MA system were not a degree mill invention but a venerable tradition from one of our universities - er, sometime before George Washington led the democratic revolution in the then colonies. As an admirer of the US Constitution (as, incidentally, was Adam Smith) I admire it for its content and for its longevity, and its roots in 18th century democratic thinking.

Now your argument appears to be that the academic world has moved on and therefore the older traditions of excellence have been superceded. I have my doubts about whether the regimented system of GPAs, RAs, unofficial 'accreditations', grade drift, incidents of fraud and such like, would be an improvement if imported wholesale into the UK and superimposed on the univerisites I mentioned above (none of which I have attended). I only put in a plea that their abolition based on ignorance of their history would make the world worse not better. I did so by invoking their contribution to the republic of the intellect, a contribution of longer vintage than, perhaps, that of the promoters of 'one size fits all' reformers.

What this has to do with the 'British Empire' I cannot imagine. Adam Smith was not in favour of an Empire, nor of forcing the American colonies into it. Neither am I. But I do have respect for certain traditions that have proven their worth. This would include the British Regimental system, rather than numbering units with recruits with little geographical connections. It would include sportsmanship, rather than gamesmanship, in which, in cricket (a game I do not watch), for example, it used to be the case than a batsman who knew his pad had been touched by the ball when it blocked the wicket, would not wait to be declared 'out' by the Umpire but would begin his walk off field without a decision. That takes character; today's gameship in many sports, symbolised by arguing with the umpire or referee, is a real drop in standards.

Now, you mock this, perhaps, and in your rush for reforms of things you do not understand, to protect, in this case, only the gullible and not the best interests of academic standards, you are in danger of destroying something that has been nurtured over the centuries.

I am not even sure I take to being classed a 'Brit' (I do not refer to 'Yanks'). I am a Scot and also a member, I hope, of the republic of the intellect. Not leaving something alone does not mean you understand it, as any person concerned with species destruction would soon explain to you.

 

Sadly, confusion apparently exists in other nations...

"After writing many letters and, indeed, after publishing this site, the Oxford MA degree has now been recognised by the Ministry of Education and the appropriate salary adjustments have been made. NZQA, however, do not as yet recognise the degree."

http://www.nzqa.co.nz/

 

Professor,

If I have jumped on your views in a highly personal way, it is because your responses are often exceedingly condescending (and personal). Admittedly, my response is both personal and emotional – fighting fire with fire, so to speak. I guess I am neither proud of this, nor particularly apologetic.

As an example, in one sentence, you have seemingly classified others on this thread (and on the entire site?) as having “less than memorable achievements in academe”, as well as naming those who would question this MA-business (which would include many of us on this thread) as, “gullible.” Moreover, you and others on this thread have repeatedly claimed that we just “don’t understand,” a particularly frustrating response. Finally, you have referred to “Your university system” in a highly condescending way. (I’m at a loss to explain exactly what you mean by this phrase, since of course there is not one system here, or anywhere for that matter). I can’t speak for others explicitly, but in one fell swoop, it’s not hard to imagine that you offended any number of people on this thread without any real justification.

As far as this argument goes, it seems that part of the problem between us stems from the fact that you are interpreting those who question the awarding of unearned MA’s as advocating a wholesale overhaul of British academia, while I am focused on the awarding of MA’s solely. I will admit that I did not read the entire Dearing report, only those parts that were posted in this thread that seemed to deal exclusively with making the awarding of degrees more consistent. As such, professor, I admit to not doing all of the required reading.

I am not in favor of a complete overhaul of your system. By and large, I am a fan of it. I am glad that the ancient universities exist. They are, without question, one of the great achievements of civilization (perhaps in some sense, defining, civilization itself). If I could travel back in time, one of my top three visits would be to Cambridge during Newton’s time.

That said, I am in favor of doing away with the awarding of unearned MA’s. I realize (and understand fully, believe me) that this practice has ancient roots. I also realize that the vast majority of people in the UK know the history and are not confused by the practice. I fail to see, however, why preserving this practice also preserves excellence. I realize it would be a royal pain in the ass to change it, but so is changing to the metric system (which we still haven’t done completely). It’s presumptuous to think that the rest of the world should know about this practice, especially when you make such a distinction between your ancient universities and the rest of academia. Moreover, it’s insulting to be told, in essence, “Get over it; that’s the way it is.” My perhaps overenthusiastic response to this idea in the previous post was my way of saying that, increasingly, that attitude is a case of the tail trying to wag the dog. It is not 1750 anymore.

The fact that our world is shrinking makes what is largely understood in the UK a problem elsewhere. I have worked in areas of finance here for nearly 20 years, and there is a fairly well established pipeline amongst the financial centers of London, New York, Chicago, and San Francisco (and other cities, as well). I can tell you that this practice could be a huge source of misunderstanding among workers and employers here. No doubt it already has been a source of confusion. More seriously, perhaps, is that it probably “should” have been a problem in many cases, and was not. There are, perhaps, MA-holders here who have been hired under the assumption that their degree is an “advanced” degree. The corollary to this is that there are probably others with comparable credentials that were overlooked because of this misunderstanding.

I’m sure we both agree that the confusion on this issue needs to be eliminated – as you claim it has been in the UK. Either the practice needs to be changed, or the rest of our “global community” needs to be informed. I suppose it’s a matter of debate over which is easier.

 

Hi Frankie

New Zealand is not the UK. The person punting the idea that the MA from Oxford, or from the other ancient Universities, is a Masters degree when in fact it is an ancient title for a 'Masters of Arts' degree is the one who is deluded. He could not pass it off as such in the British system.

He could, of course, expect attantion as a graduate of Oxford University, but this would be unlikely to trump a BA from another university outside the ancient ones, where the BA also had a MSc, unless they wanted a MA from Oxbridge, etc.

In my first application for a teaching post, I lost out to an Oxford MA. It happens. I did not call for a reform of the Oxford system. I simply applied elsewhere and was faintly amused when the school that had rejected me in favour of the MA called me a few weeks later and said that the MA had subsequently withdrawn from their job offer, and would I wish now to take it up. But we cannot decide issues as important as education on incidents of this kind.

That the MA who went to New Zealand expecting his MA to be recognised as a graduate degree tells us more about his disrespect for traditions and his arrogance (an infliction sometimes found in people of 'less than memorable achievements' and 'wannabees'). Graduating from Oxford, or any of the ancient universities, is indeed an honourable achievement, only sullied by rogues who unnecessarily pretend it is something more again than it is.

My comments were aimed at a wider issue, not the trivia of people who misuse their privileged start in academe. Which leads me to clarify Bill's point about being considered an 'inferior'. That was not a statement of mine - I know nothing of Bill's achievements - and I was referring to people who are still on the journey to membership of the republic of the intellect who seem most anxious about such misleading statements, which do not fool people qualified to know the difference between a 'Master of Arts' from an ancient university and a graduate degree earned from other British universities. The confusion only arises from a lack of fluency, if I may say so, in the 'foreign language' of British academe.

 

How does criticism of the practice of awarding unearned academic degrees with the same titles as other universities' earned degrees imply "the regimented system of GPAs, RAs, unofficial 'accreditations', grade drift, incidents of fraud and such like"? Why would halting the practice "make the world worse not better"?

What has any of this got to do with Adam Smith, the regimental system or the game of cricket?

 

Double post...Ooops!

 

I know.

"Sadly, confusion apparently exists in other nations"

-Frankie

But the fact that he has been able to pass it off anywhere outside of the U.K. is the problem.

You must admit that a foreign government agency is likely to accept an "MA" degree from Oxford or Cambridge at face value, why would they not...after all it is Oxford or Cambridge.

Now that a foreign government agency has bought this, it gives
people with Oxford "MA" degrees an advantage that they should not have.

I would say that Oxbridge has a moral duty to the world community to make it clear that the MA is not a postgraduate academic qualification on parchment/transcripts etc... or to scrap the BA and offer the MA as a sole first degree instead.

Offering the BA and MA as separate degrees is easily misunderstood and allows for abuses.

Sadly, that could also reflect negatively on Oxbridge. This is something they should consider.

Imagine what would happen if Oxbridge was labelled an MA "degree mill." It could happen if such abuses of their traditions continue.

Normally, I would firmly support the position that Oxbridge should be able to maintain their historical traditions. I agree with you. But we live in a world where traditions are abused and honour amongst men is near dead.

Oxbridge should consider putting a disclaimer on their "MA" parchments or transcripts explaining what the degree is truly representative of.

Sad part is people are immoral and tradition will suffer for it Professor Kennedy.

 

True enough, although one might argue the confusion stems from an unwillingness of the British to conform to a more widely recognized academic standard.

After all, Churchill said, "There is nothing wrong with change, if it is in the right direction."

So the question becomes, what is the right direction?

Some issues of fluency are easily overcome. It's not hard for me to adapt to spelling center as centre, or program as programme, even with my "less than memorable achievements in academe".

This issue, however, is not so easily reconciled.

I contend it's easier to change the practices of a relatively small subset of the academic population (no matter how ancient the roots), rather than changing the many millions who operate under a different standard.

If the honest are truly honest, then why would it be a problem for the ancient universities to inform their graduates that, "From now on, please refer to your honorary MA for what it is, a BA."? I suspect that the real reason is that even the most honest of us sort of like the idea that the rest world interprets the MA as an MA, and, what the heck, it's just too much bother to change.