BSc + MSc or straight to Masters?

zee · Post by **zee** » Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:14 pm

With the huge expansion in the number of people getting degrees, a Masters is becoming more and more of an expectation in some fields.

However, does anyone have any thoughts or knowledge on the relative merits of doing a Bachelors and then doing a Masters (offering the possibility of swapping to another uni) or just applying for a 4 year Masters at the outset, as offered by some universities.

Also, how much notice is taken by employers etc of whether it is a taught Masters (one year) or research-based Masters (usually 2 years, I think)?

Thanks

Looking for help · Post by **Looking for help** » Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:32 pm

My husband works in a large American company and often (although not so much in the current economic climate

) has to interview and employ graduates. He says that nowadays, he more often looks at A Level results than degrees, because these are comparable whereas it is becoming harder to decide who has the better degree from the better university.

LFH

zee · Post by **zee** » Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:07 pm

Thanks for that, LFH, though I have to say I find it rather baffling.

When so many have a string of As at A level, how do they help him distinguish between candidates, when university admissions departments say they find them useless for that purpose?

And whilst comparing subject A from Russel Group Uni B with subject X from RG Uni Z is tricky, surely in most people's minds an Oxbridge college is still thought of as a "better university" (your words) than a Russell Group one, which still trumps the former polys - in the same way that maths will generally trump media studies?

Looking for help · Post by **Looking for help** » Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:26 pm

I think there are far too many universities out there nowadays, and too many groups - Oxbridge, Russell Group, 1992 group (or whatever).
If he has to compare 2 people, one with AAA in Maths English and Chemistry (say), and one with AAA in Media Studies, Business Studies and Tech, I'd guess the first candidate will prevail.
Although employers are not daft and if the second candidate had a first from Oxford, that might help his chances.
Realistically, whatever the universities say, in the workplace people need to compare like with like, and that is a good thing. It is very difficult to compare a 2nd class honours BSc from a Russell group university with a first class honours BSc from another university, so they may just go back and look at the A Levels ( certainly that is what my husband does)

LFH

KES Parent · Post by **KES Parent** » Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:14 pm

Looking for help wrote:My husband works in a large American company and often (although not so much in the current economic climate ) has to interview and employ graduates. He says that nowadays, he more often looks at A Level results than degrees, because these are comparable whereas it is becoming harder to decide who has the better degree from the better university.

LFH

Meanwhile, the top universities are looking at GCSE results rather than A level predictions/results when offering places. Where will it all end?

Ed's mum · Post by **Ed's mum** » Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:15 pm

The early learning goals in the foundation stage?

Or perhaps the Apgar tests after birth?

Snowdrops · Post by **Snowdrops** » Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:40 pm

To be really, really sure who is the 'best' these days it's all down to how early you get a positive pregnancy test dontcha know!!

zee · Post by **zee** » Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:03 pm

Actually, the logical extension is to go back before conception and consider the parents!

And some unis are doing that, but as a form of reverse discrimination: those whose parents have degrees have to be a bit better than those who don't in order to get in. As my OH and I both have postgrad qualifications, live in an affluent postcode and DC are at selective schools, we're considering putting each into care for the last year of school in the hope that will help them overcome the disadvantage of some their advantages!

But returning to my original question... what's the best way to do a Masters, and does it matter? (No definite decisions required yet, but it's good to know which way the wind is blowing.)

T.i.p.s.y · Post by **T.i.p.s.y** » Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:10 pm

Depends on the uni but I would have thought that a Masters tagged onto a Batchelors may not be as rigorous as a separate Batchelors and Masters.

KES Parent · Post by **KES Parent** » Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:30 pm

Ed's mum wrote:The early learning goals in the foundation stage?

Or perhaps the Apgar tests after birth?

My DS1 only scored 8 out of 10 on the Apgar, the lowest test score he has ever received. For the life of me I can't remember which parts he failed, but obviously it was my fault for not getting him some prenatal tutoring.