I wonder which are more prestigious between the degree from University of London or University of Sydney,Australia. I realise both school offer distance learning program the difference is the London state that the degree is done externally whereas the Sydney is not. So I need your opinion guys which are more well known and recognised internationally as well as the prestige in general. Thanks Susan
That's a tough one; they're both extremely credible schools. The only thing that might go in the favor of Sydney is that the London degrees are specifically marked as coming from the External Programme, and I would wager money that the Sydney programs are not. Either way, you get a solid credential from a top-notch school. Good luck! Peace, ------------------ Tom Head co-author, Get Your IT Degree and Get Ahead (Osborne/McGraw-Hill)
I would agree that both schools are very well respected, at least within the world of academia. If your resume/CV shows employment outside the country of the school where you get the degree during the time you got the degree, it will be obvious enough anyway that you probably did it through DL. Therefore, if you must account for all time periods (as on most CVs or on many job applications), it may not make much difference that the UL degree states explicitly identifies the External Programme. I am considering a master's through the UL external programme, and the officials at the External Programme office assured me that it would be acceptable to include the name of the lead institution (along with "University of London") on the CV. Alex
Which means that the prestige depends on the lead institutions. Some of UoLs colleges are among the best in the world... some are merely average, although none are dogs.
By the way: I meant to mention earlier in this thread that you have every right to say "I told you so." You'll remember the last major discussion we had in AED was over whether it was ethical to list the UoL Lead College instead of External Programme; you said it was, I said it wasn't unless the UoL itself recommended it as a practice (something I saw as highly unlikely), since the UoL would logically be the policy-setter here. Well, according to an earlier post in this thread, the UoL has in fact recommended it as a practice, so I should reverse my position: it *is* perfectly acceptable to list the Lead College instead of the External Programme. Your instincts on this were perfectly sound. Peace, ------------------ Tom Head co-author, Get Your IT Degree and Get Ahead (Osborne/McGraw-Hill)
Just to clarify, I did not ask the External Programme whether it would be acceptable to imply that the degree was awarded by the lead institution. Instead, I asked whether an entry like one of these would be acceptable on a CV: M.Sc. University of London Lead institution: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine or M.Sc. University of London, External Programme Lead institution: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine The reply from the External Programme official emphasized that it is a University of London degree (and not, for instance, a London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine degree), but that it is acceptable to identify the lead institution as such on a CV. She did not specify that the External Programme must be mentioned on a CV. The External Programme will, of course, be listed on the diploma. If I go through with applying and eventually earn the degree, I would be more inclined to list the both the External Programme and the lead institution on my CV. It would prevent potential employers from wondering how you completed a British degree while living in the United States the whole time. Better to be up front than to have potential employers think you might be pulling some trick on them. Alex
Well, that's close enough. My only concern was whether it would be ethical to list the Lead College without listing the External Programme and, if the answer to that is yes, I'm pretty much comfortable leaving the details to other folks. Peace, ------------------ Tom Head co-author, Get Your IT Degree and Get Ahead (Osborne/McGraw-Hill)
I'm still not convinced that it is ethical to list the "lead college" without listing the External Program, Tom. In order to make a good argument that it is, one *must* attend to the details. This thread started out as a discussion of academic prestige. We all know that some people out there tend to grade individuals as "better" or "worse" simply on the basis of the name of the school they attended. In many cases, there is some validity to those kind of assessments. Often the prestige schools are highly selective, requiring high grades and test scores, excellent recommendations and extra-curricular activities. They accept only a small proportion of their applicants. So simply being accepted implies that one has survived a highly selective process. Once in, the quality of instruction is often excellent. One interacts daily with other students as highly selected as one's self. Your instructors could be world famous authorities, the leaders of their fields. You take part in an ongoing series of projects and assignments, receiving detailed feedback on your performance. You have the opportunity for discussion that permits you to identify and clear up conceptual difficulties and misunderstandings, and to pursue more subtle questions. Not only do you receive a state of the art education through intellectual discussion and debate with those kinds of people, you receive the benefit of networking with them. The lifelong connections of friendship that can open many doors later in life and exercise a lot of influence. When one knowingly lists a prestige school on one's resume, intending the name of the school to do its magic and give you an advantage over other applicants, those are the kinds of things that you are suggesting to employers and coworkers. If those implications are not true in your particular case, then you are trying to get something by pretending to be something that you are not. That's unethical by definition. In this University of London case, external students are not selected according to the same standards employed by the "lead institution". The lead institution at no time considers the external students as being enrolled at the lead institution. External students have no contact with students or faculty from the lead institution. Students have little contact with each other, and in many cases there are no faculty at all. The pedagogical model is entirely different: class instruction in one case, credit by examination in the other. I'm not surprised that the External Programme office approves of putting the lead college's name on one's resume. They are already advertising their programs on their website by highlighting the lead instutions. It is a basic part of their marketing to use the prestige of those institutions as a selling point. But I would be more surprised if the lead institutions felt the same way. If, for example, the London School of Economics approved of an External Program management graduate stating that he or she had graduated from the LSE. I'm almost certain that they would disapprove. The University of London is a confederation of many different semi-autonomous units. I have no trouble in thinking that they may sometimes operate at cross-purposes. You see the same thing in large American university systems like the University of California, after all. And I'm not surprised to see some of them engage in what to me is unethical marketing. It's not unprecedented. I want to make clear that I consider the External Programme a fine program. It's just not the same thing as the LSE (or any other of the lead colleges), and it is unethical to falsely suggest that it is. I also have no trouble with an External Programme student just writing 'University of London' on his or her resume. That's technically true, since the External Programme is part of the UoL and the UoL grants the diploma. The name 'University of London' is plenty prestigious in its own right, and is probably better known around the world than the names of any of its constituent colleges. If I were going to try to massage an External Programme degree for maximum resume effect, I think that's how I'd do it. I'd leave off the name of the branch of the university entirely, and only state it (truthfully) if asked.
If the University of London recommends it as a practice, I'm not going to argue with them; so far as I'm concerned, it's their decision to make. Peace, ------------------ Tom Head co-author, Get Your IT Degree and Get Ahead (Osborne/McGraw-Hill)
Did the "University of London" really "recommend it as a practice"? Or did somebody in the Exernal Programme office simply say something ambiguous? And even assuming that the UoL as an institution did "recommend it as a practice", how does that make it ethical to do so, if doing so involves a misrepresentation? Finally, I don't think that it is ever a wise course to delegate one's own ethical decisions for others to make. If you are just saying that you don't want to argue about this, cool. You brought up the subject, we both stated our opinions, and I am happy to leave it there if you would like.
It sound like they recommended (or perhaps permitted) it as a practice. Being the institution in question, they would have the authority to decide whether it was an accurate representation of the way things work. I do so frequently; for example, I used to regularly take coffee without paying for it on the basis of something called a tab, which meant that it was okay for me to take coffee without paying for it if I covered the total cost later. If I hadn't let the coffee shop make this decision for me then, regardless of whether I paid for it all later, I would have been shoplifting. That's cool by me; I just felt that it was worth mentioning that, in my view, Ken was right on this one and I was wrong. Not that I recommend misrepresenting one's credentials as residential, but that's not really the issue anyway; my California State University, Dominguez Hills diploma will say nothing about the external nature of the program, but I will certainly describe it as an external program anyway, if asked. What we're discussing here isn't so much a matter of honesty, now, as it is a matter of aesthetics. Peace, ------------------ Tom Head co-author, Get Your IT Degree and Get Ahead (Osborne/McGraw-Hill)
Once again, who is "they"? The whole University of London, speaking officially as an institution, or some person in the External Programme office? As I argued in my first post, we already knew that the External Programme is marketing its courses by appealing to the prestige of the "lead colleges". But I'm willing to bet that if you asked the LSE whether External Programme management graduates can truthfully present themselves as graduates of the LSE itself, the LSE will say 'no'. In other words, I don't think that what the external programme office is apparently saying reflects what the 'lead colleges' would say. If External Programme graduates are claiming the prestige of being LSE graduates, and thereby implying that they survived the highly selective LSE admissions process, that they studied with and were mentored by LSE's world class faculty, and that they come with personal contacts that range from Nobel prize winners to Whitehall ministers, and *if none of that is true*, then what difference does it make what the external programme office says? If they really are suggesting that their graduates misrepresent themselves (I'm not sure that they are really saying that), then they are suggesting that their graduates behave unethically. Right. This issue doesn't directly involve the residential/distance education distinction. Rather this is a question of graduating from one program and then falsely claiming that one's degree is actually from a far more prestigious program. I think that it is a question of honesty, and that it goes far beyond aesthetics. While I think that far too much attention is spent on questions of perceived degree prestige and pursuing the "top tier" education, the fact remains that it often does make a difference on who is hired and who isn't. That's important. If it weren't, questions of relative "prestige" like the one that started this thread wouldn't be such a recurring topic around here.
The External Programme office did *not* advocate presenting oneself as a graduate of the lead institution, but they did state that it is permitted to identify the lead institution on your resume/CV. I only asked about one particular program, so I can't speak for those where other colleges (eg, London School of Economics) are the lead institution. In the case of the program I'm considering, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine tutors actually do interact with external students, give feedback on assignments, and reply to students' questions. It's not solely exam based. I believe it is reasonable to indicate the lead institution on one's CV, given this level of involvement in developing and presenting the course materials. Here is the quote from the e-mail: "If you are registered as an External student on the External Programme, you are registered as a University of London student. The University of London is currently the only institution stated on the certificate. You can, however, state in your curriculum vitae that the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine is the lead institution for this course." There is a difference between writing (for example) M.Sc. University of London Lead Insitution: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and M.Sc. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine The two versions imply different roles of the LSHTM. Any prospective student interested in how they should present UL External Programme credentials on their resume/CV should inquire about that particular degree program. The suggestion may differ from program to program. Alex
Maybe so, but it was my understanding that technically only the first is accurate even if you studied residentially--when you get an "LSE degree", isn't the degree technically a UofL degree? (or do the colleges have the authority to issue degrees? -me
On a similar note, I am pursuing a Ph.D. through Potchefstroom University via their UK accredited school, Greenwich School of Theology. All course work is completed via Greenwich, examined and collaborated on, then approved by promoters from both Greenwich and Potch, with the degree being awarded by Potch. Greenwich awards no degrees of its own. Therefore, it is perfectly honest and ethical to list on one's resume: Ph.D., Potchefstroom University. This is the institution which awarded the degree, regardless of the methodology employed in earning the degree. Russell
Oh, my. What have I done. Point by point: - We all agree that it would be unethical for a graduate of the External Programme to unequivocally state that s/he attended the London School of Economics and graduated from it. - We all agree that it would not be unethical for a graduate of the External Programme, completing a program designed by the London School of Economics, to include clear mention of the fact that the curriculum was designed by the London School of Economics. - The moral issue, then, seems to be this: does listing the University of London and the LSE as relevant Lead College, without mention of the External Programme, necessarily imply that the student attended and graduated from the LSE rather than completing an LSE-designed curriculum? - Bill correctly pointed out that the External Programme has been marketing LSE as the "Lead College" for certain programs for years. The LSE administration is no doubt aware of this practice, and yet the LSE continues to design and maintain the relevant External Programme offerings. Wouldn't this suggest that the administrators of the External Programme are acting with the blessing of the LSE administration? - If this is the case, and if the External Programme does have a policy stating that it's okay to do roughly the same thing on one's resume, why should the student hesitate to describe the degree in a manner consistent with the External Programme catalog? Peace, ------------------ Tom Head co-author, Get Your IT Degree and Get Ahead (Osborne/McGraw-Hill) [Note: This message has been edited by Tom Head]
Of course it does. If you write: MBA, University of London, London School of Economics You are saying that you graduated from the LSE. Just as if I wrote: PhD, University of London, The Courtauld Institute I would be saying that I had studied art history at the Courtauld Institute. How else would an employer or a professional colleague be expected to understand it? Perhaps, if all you are talking about is recognizing that the LSE designed the curriculum and the exams. The LSE mentions the services they perform for the external programme on their own webpage as well. But as I've said repeatedly, and I'll say again, I am willing to wager that the LSE does not approve of external programme graduates claiming to be LSE graduates. In fact, the LSE's webpages do not list external students in LSE student statistics at all. They specifically say that external programme students that want to study at the LSE will have to apply for admission alongside all other applicants. External programme students are warned that LSE admissions are very selective, and they are told that they might have better luck applying to other British universities. The reason that the LSE gives for not automatically accepting transfers from external programme students is that the two programs have very different entrance requirements, and because the two programs are not equivalent in the kind of work that is required. In other words, while the external programme website seems intent on minimizing the difference between the LSE and the LSE designed external management programme, the LSE itself stresses the difference between them and never once implies that they are equivalent. The external programme catalog? Where did that come from? Isn't it a bit of a non-sequitur to jump from the LSE accepting recognition as the 'lead college' for the external management programme, to claiming that the LSE approves of external programme graduates omitting all mention of the external programme on their resumes, and implying that they graduated from the LSE? I haven't seen anything from the LSE remotely suggesting that. Even the external programme seems to only be saying that they endorse the practice of writing the name of the lead college along with the name of the external programme. In other words, writing: MBA, University of London, London School of Economics is a misrepresentation. But writing: MBA, University of London external programme, lead college: London School of Economics is probably misleading to anyone not acquainted with the Univerity of London, but it is at least technically true.
