Oxbridge "MA" to be scrapped?

I think tradition is a wonderful thing. Every school does not have to be a carbon copy of every other.

The UK has such wonderful traditions that the world wishes they could have. British stamps do not name a country on them because they were the first. Oxbridge were the first.

Uniqueness is British - generic is American. British army regiments each have unique dress, American is generic.

Every tradition a country gives up means one more step toward the generic human.

I live in a country where all our traditions were British. In an effort not to offend the French Canadians our traditions have become more generic American. As a result the French Canadians are more American than Americans and we are getting there.

Celebrate the differences. They are not wrong, just different.

 

I detect a cooling down of first impressions all round. Good.

Nobody expects the world to change to accommodate the minority of British Universities that traditionally have kept the designation MA. Many Scottish universities use the designation for a Bachelor Arts degree (but not a science degree), including Heriot-Watt. Nobody fluent in the 'language' is misled. Our degrees are issued for our purposes, not for the rest of the world.

Two examples. When Heriot-Watt was a College it did not award degrees (only institutions with Royal Charter could do that) but it issued a graduating award known as an 'Associate of Heriot-Watt College'. Now when it became a University, Heriot-Watt informed all of its Associatship graduates that they could change their designation to BSc (Bachelor of Science) by returning their Associate diplomas for exchange for a BSC degree parchment. Many did, but many more did not; they were proud of their Associate designation (so proud, that many argued they were better recognised professionally as engineers, etc., than someone with a common 'BSc'). That is what I meant by 'understanding' something.

Second example. If you go into a hospital many of the graduate medical staff are called 'Doctor'. It is a clear academic and earned professional designation. However, once doctors qualify as surgeons, or 'consultants', by membership of the relevant and ancient 'College', they must cease to use the title Doctor and become plain 'Mr' (or its femine equivalents) again. This apparent demotion is difficult to understand to outsiders. Nobody is confused between 'Mr Smith' the senior consultant, who never uses his post-graduate title of Doctor, and 'Mr Smith', the porter or the patient. Both these are examples of traditions.

My point, before changing everything, leave an albeit small space for the ancient traditions. Once they have gone in the interests of saving the gullible or the uninformed from confusion, you destory something more precious - and you can never get it back.

OK?

 

That is where the "honour" system should be coming in. Oxford MA holders should be honest about the status of their "degree."

People like the gentleman earlier are doing a severe disservice to Oxbridge's desire to maintain tradition when they are presenting tradition based "credentials" in other nations as something that they are not.

This argument should be offered to those who use the "MA" in a less then honourable manner.

 

I feel like I’m repeating myself. Nevertheless, a few observations:

Why do the defenders of this practice keep reacting as if the entire British system is under attack? Go back and read the posts, and you will see that the only aspect that is under attack is the awarding of unearned MA’s. I will admit to making fun of the provincialism of the British academia, but I am not calling for changing the whole system, and I said that in an earlier post. I have yet to hear anyone defend the practice of awarding unearned MAs directly, except by invoking other aspects of British tradition. You have extended the argument on your own, without provocation.

Dennis, it’s hard to imagine a bigger generalization: “Uniqueness is British - generic is American.” There are generic aspects about some things American, but visit any urban city in this country and you’ll see great variety and diversity, in just about every way that you can imagine. That’s why millions stream into this country every year. Recall your basic history as to why the first English emigrants fled to America in the first place. Your simplification is hard to comment on beyond that.

Professor, your doctor example is interesting, but it’s a wholly different beast. Let’s remember that Oxford BA-holders “buy” their MA. They pay a small fee for the “upgrade.” So let’s also remember basic financial economics. There must be a payoff for the fee. So what’s the payoff for the average Oxford grad?

Let’s try a little thought experiment. Professor or Dennis, why would 1,497 out of 2,452 BA-holders buy the qualification in 1997-98?

Do they want to be like Adam Smith?
Are they trying to be in step with hundreds of years of tradition?
Do they buy the qualification because their roomie at Oxford bought one (careful on this one!)?
Do they buy it because, deep down, in their heart of hearts, they feel that they sort of deserve the qualification, because they graduated from one of the finest universities in the land?

Maybe you have an answer of your own. If so, I’d like to hear it.

I contend that one of the reasons (there could be many) is that the MA is subject to misinterpretation, especially as the world shrinks and we all become neighbors. That misinterpretation has a clear payoff in some instances. One need not be “chancer”, as you say, to subscribe to this notion. The payoff can be as subtle as an unspoken feeling of superiority that’s never admitted to.

Big deal, you might say. Well, yes and no. I think the roots of this practice are slightly unsavory, and I also think that no one want to admit it. Instead a smoke screen is issued – one that talks endlessly about tradition, and how the entire system is under attack, and organizational difficulties, and blah blah.

There was an interesting study done here in generic America a few years back. I have forgotten many of the details, but I believe it was a rigorous study. In any case, a large population of the very wealthy was polled. It was discovered that the vast majority of the very wealthy feel as though there is some substantial, underlying reason for their wealth (and likewise why others are poor). In short, they believed that they deserved it. Granted, some certainly do, but this phenomenon held for even those whose wealth was entirely by inheritance. And there is the closely related (I think) concept of self attribution in economics: if something good happens to me, it’s because I’m skilled; if something bad happens, it’s just plain bad luck.

Feelings of superiority and privilege can be subtle. Until someone here convinces me otherwise, I think that’s an element of what’s going on here, and it smells bad. Convince me.

 

Unfortunately, Oxford graduates sometimes travel beyond the borders of your imaginary republic.

Oxford graduates seek employment from individuals who aren't acquainted with that university's peculiar traditions. They offer their professional services to clients. They write books that are read beyond the narrow confines of British academe. They live in the broader world.

To suggest that confusion caused by the practice of granting misleadingly titled unearned degrees is of no consequence because it only confuses non-academics strikes me as wrong.

 

My wife's direct ancestor received his MA from Cambridge in 1795. Just because other schools created a similar named degree that was earned is the worst reason to change. Let everyone else change.

Where did the earned masters degree come from anyway? Many people did and still do go directly from a bachelors degree to a doctorate, obviously not in the US.

The top student in my daughter's graduating class with a BSc from a 30,000 plus university was already accepted into a doctoral program at a top Canadian University.

Labelling American as generic is obvious to anyone not American. Canada is almost generic. It's not a put-down just an observation.

 

You are not saying that Oxbridge is in the right for selling untaught MA "Degrees" to BA graduates are you?

 

A little bit more!

I a to Oxford abd Cambrudgem not particularly bothered one way or another as to whether the Oxbridge MA remains or disappears. I'm not an Oxbridge graduate but here is a little more historical background. I could write about this at length but will try to be brief!

In the Middle Ages education was essentially controlled by the Church and anyone who taught had to have Church approval - basically from Rome/the Pope. The Pope handed down his teaching authority to Oxbridge, both universities being church run and controlled. Thus began the BA and MA degreeb tradition. Yougmen would go to Oxbridge around age 14/15, would study for 3/4 years and be awarded the BA degree. Please bear in mind most of these young people would go intio the church, become teachers, lawyers, etc. There then followed what essentially was a period of apprenticeship. Just as a young person would enter the various craft guilds and complete and apprenticeship before becoming a Master Craftsman, likewise with scholars. The awarding of the MA degree happened 7 years after first matriculating. So, at the age of 21 the MA (a teaching qualification/licence) Master of the Art of Teaching was conferred just as the craftsman easrned his letters patent from his guild! Thus, the Oxbridge MA was the church's licence of qualified teacher status. The people reciving it had proved themselves. This is the background and it will require all sorts of legal unravelling to get rid of the Oxbridge MA system. However, the Oxbridge MA is essentially the first degree of these two universities and in days gone by that was how it was seen by both institutions. MA gradautes were masters in their particular art(s) and could go and teach.

I guess here in the UK we have all manner of similar historical practices, e.g. the Archbishop of Canterbury awards Lambeth degrees and the holders wear the robes of the Archbishop's own university - usually Oxford or Cambridge. Likewise with professor Kenney's example, medical doctors here qualify with the degrees of BM/BCh and then are called 'doctor'. The MD degree is classified as a doctorate degree (similar to a PhD) and few doctors go on to take this award -normally earned by research and thesis. A doctor who becomes a specialist consultant in a hospital drops the title Dr and uses Mr/Mrs/Miss but only (in England at any rate as distinct from Scotland) but only if they are a surgeon! Consultant physicians retain the title Dr - thus making the distinction that surgeons are classified/perceived as being superior!

I think this is enough for one day!

AJJ

 

Thanks for the history lesson but the issue of concern is Oxford MA graduates trying to pass their MA's off as academic qualifications in addition to the BA degrees that they were awarded.

Even if Oxbridge did not scrap the MA they could at least put a disclaimer on the parchment or transcript that states that the degree in itself is not an academic qualification or is a first degree...if they wish to "upgrade" it from the BA.

 

Not so

The original thread may have been to do with the extent to which someone holding an Oxbridge MA should, or should not, try to pass it off as an earned postgraduate award. However, the thread has widened to include a discussion as to whether such 'historical' practices such as that of awarding the MA for no additional work should continue. Hence my history lesson! The two isues are quite different.

Best wishes.

AJJ

 

Dennis, after much struggling, I’m at a loss to figure out what your point is; however, your very sloppy generalization is certainly a put down, not just an observation. It’s impossible to imagine just what is so “obvious” to non-Americans when you give absolutely no detail and no examples. I have a feeling that you don’t actually speak for all non-Americans.

I admit to thinking way too much about this issue. However, last night I got to thinking about the 955 graduates from 1997-98 who did not buy the MA. Why would a graduate choose not to buy the upgrade?

I’m sure a substantial number of them realize just what some of us have been arguing – that their unearned degree will be more of a burden in the global community, as they have to explain its rather bizarre existence over and over.

Many graduates have plans to go on to graduate school. Any student who expects to “earn” an MA, MS, PhD etc., wouldn’t bother with the upgrade.

Third, any “chancers” who “do” plan on abusing the credential, “will” purchase the upgrade, of course.

So it’s interesting that having the unearned MA may actually be a signal that the student is not particularly ambitious (no plans for graduate work, and perhaps lacking the grades to do so). It may also signal a willingness to abuse the credential once the “chancer” moves beyond the narrow confines of the British system.

Not having the credential may signal awareness of the entire global community and of operating honestly within it. I suspect that more of these students actually go on and earn graduate degrees.

I imagine that, given enough time, this practice will die out on its own, as more graduates realize the title does them no good, and perhaps enlightened companies actually end up screening applicants out of the mix based on having the unearned degree.

 

I doubt anyone has an issue with Oxbridge maintaining tradition. In fact I bet most people here would not give it a second thought if Oxbridge either designated the MA an "honourary" degree or at least put on the degree parchment "non-academic qualification."

I have no objection to Oxbridge maintaining its traditions but they should work to clarify what the MA truly is. However, the following parchment hardly does this:

http://nzqa.co.nz/certificate.html

 

Thinking along these lines. This is strictly a military example.

http://canadaatwar.tripod.com/55pics/

I am sure that you could count the 1913 US army uniforms on 1 hand. When I was in the army reserves each, of two regiments, had distinct dress uniforms.

Diversity not conformity. That's what they teach us in school. America has described itself as a melting pot. Canada describes itself as a vertical mosaic.

That's why almost everyone in Quebec speaks French but few in Lousiana.

I didn't invent this stuff.

 

Dennis,

Have you spent any time in the States? America is described as a melting pot because emigrants from every corner of the earth come here to live. Most keep much of their cultural heritage. Melting pot does not mean we all conform to some standard; it means we all come here from different backgrounds and learn to live together (most of the time).

My neighborhood here in Oakland includes: African Americans, Anglos, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Latinos, Vietnamese, Laotian Tongan, and many others. The coffee house down the street is owned by a Swedish-Philipino couple, and frequented by all of the above. Poetry readings there range from classic poetry to to Def Poetry Jams.

Whites at UC Berkeley are a minority. Other universities in the area look like the United Nations. Do I need to go on?

If you want to resrict yourself to miliatary garb,and if you believe that defines a country, then go ahead. Otherwise your point is lost on me.

Canada is a lovely country, but people the world over are not clamoring to live there. Why is it that millions come here every year? There are more people in California than in all of Canada, and it's far more diverse to boot. Sorry.

 

Are you ever wrong. Vancouver changed from a white English city to an Asian majority city in my lifetime. Canada takes in excess of 200,000 legal immigrants yearly.

In my province people attend public school in French, German, Cree, Ukrainian, and other languages. Recently, in California, was not Spanish deemed to be taught only to prepare people for school in English.

 

I think we are getting a tad off-topic folks?

 

The US has more than that in "illeagal" immigrants alone.

Canada is diverse. So is the US. You're happy there; I'm happy here. Case closed.