Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
I agree with the general tenor of your post. The hate is somewhat warranted.
But don't BS pls. You say I don't understand the "rigour" of local unis. But neither can you understand the "rigour" of Part A. You never took Part A. Don't provide a dumb comparison based on experience on one end and one end only.
Second paragraph - generally true. However, that being said, there must be a cut-off for reasons of parity. Where you would like to draw a line is really up to you. It's an objection from fairness and every single lawyer must be subject to the same exam.
Even if you say, for instance, every single UK grad must take NUS modules marked on a bell curve, that would be palatable. Don't need to make it a "Bar exam".
The lack of parity is disappointing and, to say the least, rigged. |
I also agree because there are some foreign schools that print degrees. We know who the culprits are. No need to keep publicising. A 2.2 from
NUS may even be better than a FCH from some places.
But the objection is parity. It is not school-shitting. I really do not give a **** about the vitirol that comes out of entitled local YPs.
To have parity:
1. Either make all foreign grads take the first part of the Bar based on
NUS papers marked on a bell curve
2. Make
NUS modules which are tested in Part A marked on a pass-fail-distinction basis.
It is rubbish to categorise each person based on perceptions about school and reputation.
You advocate merit. So there isn't any reason for a lack of parity - even your perception about reputation, if true, does not apply to every single person from a particular school. Many duds around in every school.