UK vs US, Education Compared

I did a PhD in the U.S. and a Doctor of Social Science in the UK. Both were scholarly doctorates and "taught" degrees. I spent considerable time in residence with both. (And did a PhD in higher education at one.) I fail to see any significant differences. One limitation is that I was a full-time residential student at neither, so I don't have a complete perspective on this comparison. Still, I might be a bit unique on this board having done such extensive work in both systems.

One significant factor that belies the author's thesis is that, in the U.S., undergraduate education has a liberal arts basis--one takes a variety of courses away from one's major area of study and provides a broader experience. In the UK, undergraduates study their major area exclusively. Also, the UK bachelors can be 3 years long instead of 4 (by taking a pass degree instead of an honours degree).

The U.S. is consistently ranked first in countries' higher education systems, with the UK routinely being ranked second. I'm sure graduates from either system are well served and prepared.

 

No dispute there. Documented over and over again. But that's for tertiary education.

Secondary education - I'm not so sure. One factor: High School is a lot longer in both UK and mainland Europe. It starts around 11 and goes on to 18 for those intending to go to University. So - those intending to go on get seven years - the last two being very good prep. time for University - A Levels in UK, Abitur in Germany - and other similar schemes.

Under Euro-UK systems, the person leaving school at the minimum age - 16 - has had five years of high school. One more than US or Canada. That's a lot - especially for a 16-year-old. They can pack that pretty well -- and I think they do. The person in US or Canada who intends going to University has four years of high school. In Europe and UK, they have seven years - 75% more time. And they arrive at University at the same age.

I have a friend in Europe with whom I'm in pretty well daily contact, who has children in his country's high school system. He often tells me what they get to do in school, and and what's expected of them. I'm impressed. For example, his eldest daughter qualified for a professional designation in Spanish translation at age 16 - and has studied several other languages. I'm almost sure - not quite - that the school also counts the third-party Professional award on her academic record, for additional credit. The same daughter is also interested in psychology and has access to those courses in High School.

Back in the Dark Ages (1950s) when I went to high school here in Canada, we had a fifth year - Grade 13 - for people who, ostensibly, wanted to go on to University. It was often more or less a refuge for young people who didn't feel prepared to go to work quite yet and wanted an extra year of education - after all, it couldn't hurt their job chances. (There were no Community Colleges as such in Ontario till 1967.)

University prep it WASN'T. I felt it was like more Grade 11 or 12. The only difference was that final exams were Province-wide and your term marks through the year counted for nothing. Grade 13 was officially abolished in 1988 and replaced by OAC (Ontario Academic Credits) until 1993. Then Grade 12 was the official requirement for University and Community College, both.

Maybe we should take a hard look at the way we've both been arranging K-8 and 9-12 for so many decades...

 

I shouldn't be TOO critical of the Canadian System. His High School is a great help to my youngest grandson who is 16. I hope he will be the first jazz musician (Alto Sax.) in my family. He plays in Jazz and regular bands at school, is an extremely high academic achiever and is looking at University music programs now.

 

I am not sure about all of this. The UK undergraduate education is far more focused on one's major, while the US undergraduate program typically contains around two years of general education. One would think that those many hours of general ed courses would provide a more well-rounded education. Maybe we've lost the magic of liberal arts here in the US. There are strengths and drawbacks to both models. I did an MA at a good British university. The program was far more independent than what I experienced in my US MA program. Further, my program required a significant research dissertation (i.e., thesis in US English) that comprised about forty-five percent of the program. Rarely would one find that in a US program except in the higher graduate degrees. Since the UK equivalent of the MDiv is a BDiv, I'd like to think of the program I completed as tantamount to a ThM in its style and format. I'm not convinced one model is better than the other. It's a matter of preference, I think.

 

Absolutely - but I think that might be because a lot of the gen. ed component of a US undergrad program is learned in the extra years of the secondary school program in UK. 4 years US vs. 7 years UK. 5 years, plus two more (A-levels) specifically aimed at University prep, spread over 3-4 subjects.

 

My grandson also gets considerable help from a teacher at his school, who takes a special interest and encourages him greatly.. My grandson is in one of his classes and the guy even drives him 15 miles to school - and home every day! That teacher is also his Dad --- and my son. We're all proud to be on his team.

 

Me, either. But that might be a function of huge variance caused by local control.

I certainly think so. But here's a problem: The U.S.'s culture has always been about winning. We've made graduating high school de rigueur. If you do not, you're an immense loser. But students today aren't any better (or worse) than, say, 50 years ago. It's just that now we demand they (nearly) all graduate. Frankly, this dumbs down the process. It's why we have a separate curriculum (AP) for some.

Failing to graduate high school is a great stigma here, an anti-social non-achievement. The pressure to get everyone through is huge and skews the results tremendously.

I'd love to see the diploma be issued after Grade 10, with two years of trade training or college prep available beyond that.

 

That's done in India I believe. In fact the qualification Indian students need for University entrance is actually called the "10 + 2."

 

Right. Other countries do this. In UK, you do the GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education) exams at 16. The "O" (ordinary) levels. That's a high school diploma. Beyond that there are "A" (advanced) level exams at 18 for those wanting to enter University.

A lot of vocational courses are taught at Further Education Colleges, and are FREE for students 16-18. (I've read they're for "anyone" 16 or over i.e. GCSE not mandatory.) The main difference between Further Education Colleges in UK and Community Colleges in US, is that Further Education Colleges do not award degrees. Diplomas etc., yes. Degrees no.

And yes, @Rich Douglas -- as you have said before, a National Qualification Framework would be a very good thing to have here. Not having one is part of the problem under discussion.

 

You could finish your GCSE by 16 and gain entry into a US university. Places like ASU, UA, Purdue, and UW - Madison accepts 5 GCSE for admission.

If you did 4 years of college + summer classes, you could graduate by 19+

source - my kid is going through this now.

 

That's pretty much proof that American academia regards the UK high school system as superior. A UK diploma earned at 16 works as well for US University entrance, as an American diploma usually received around 18.

Brits themselves don't accept GCSE (0 levels) for their Universities. That requires "A" levels that finish at 18. But then, the UK student with A Levels doesn't have to do (or pay for) numerous "Gen Ed" requirements at UK University. They've already done them in high school.

 

Yes and No. After researching through quite a number of Unis in the US, I noticed only some flagship state Us and tier 2 Unis accept GCSE as entry.

The top tier Unis still need A levels for admission. Once admitted, you'll get credit exemption for your A levels.

Based on my WES evaluation when I did mine last time, 1 A level subject gets you 6 credits, and a B grade at A levels is an A under the US system - I'll need to dig for my old WES evaluation for the exact results.

So far from my research for my kid's higher education, US has the easiest barrier of entry to start college/uni. had she not been able to secure a place in a state U with her GCSE, she could still go via the CC route that has a guaranteed admission program with their flagship Uni so no worries there.

so it's all good

 

Oh, I also wanted to add, there is a 'hack' to start Uni in UK using just your O levels.

that's to go through the University of London's international programs

https://www.london.ac.uk/study/courses/undergraduate/bsc-marketing

 

Does UK education include many bachelor's doctorate degrees?

 

Not quite sure what you mean.
If you mean many Bachelor's AND doctoral degrees - yes. Lots of variety in both.
If you mean Bachelor's TO Doctorate (no intervening Master's) - yes, that's possible.

Do I need a Master’s to get a PhD in the UK?

In the UK, you might be able to apply for a PhD programme if you have a 2:2 aka Honours Bachelor’s of Science. Some higher education institutions, like the University of Liverpool, for example, even allow you to enrol in a PhD course without requiring a Master's degree.

From here: https://www.mastersportal.com/articles/730/can-you-get-a-phd-without-a-masters-yes-but-heres-why-you-shouldnt.html

 

Thanks, Johann for your clarification. Apparently, I made a failed sarcasm. I was thinking of MD, JD, etc. vs. MBBS, LLB, etc.

 

You're forgiven - instantly. And yes, the UK was strange, when I lived there 70-odd years ago and it still is. They call physicians "Doctor," who hold bachelor's degrees in medicine, and call medical specialists who hold higher degrees "Mr. / Ms."

The same confusion prevails in North America. Lawyers seem divided. Many of them say the JD "just isn't a doctorate" and many others defend their JD's as a "real" doctorate. Here in Canada, the JD is starting to replace the LL.B.

My doctor holds a MBBS. She's Canadian, graduated from an Irish med. school. I don't care what the postnominals are. She's a stellar doctor - and a very good person.

 

This is because term as it is used there is rooted in professional practice, not higher education. There were doctors long before there were standardized and accredited medical schools.

The reason for moving from Doctor to Mister or Ms. is a mystery to me.

In Downton Abbey, where you can learn all things British (/s), the doctor was looked down upon by the nobility and not worthy of marrying into it.