From: eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad)
Subject: Re: US vs British university degree
Organization: Nanyang Technological University - Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 06:02:34 GMT

echong@porpoise.ecn.purdue.edu (Edwin Chong) writes:
: In article <l9kvr9INN4n0@nyquist.usc.edu> goh@nyquist.usc.edu (K.C.Goh) writes:
: >[comparison of UK and US education deleted]
: >
: 
: A terrific summary.
: 
: >I've discussed undergraduate degrees. The situation is probably
: >not similar for MSc/PhD degrees.
: >

Unfortunately I do not have any experience with US method of education.
I only read their prospectus and talk to colleagues.

I hope someone can clarify a few points that I may raise based on my
observations.

: 
: In the UK, you can get away with receiving a PhD without ever having to
: take a single course beyond the undergraduate level (in some places at
: least), whereas in the US every MS/PhD student takes several graduate
: courses before getting their degrees (many places have strict course
: requirements).
If you are good at passing exams you can do well in US universities. For
example there was a Malaysian PSD scholar who graduated with PhD in 5 years
after MCE(GCE O level). This is fact, I read in in Malaysian newspaper.
	 In UK , no matter how brilliat you are, you can only
get it in 6 years, 1 year A level, 3 year BSc, 2 year PhD.
	Because you can take exams in USA for your PhD, your research work
need not be of greater depth. In UK system, you must do more original unguided
work to complete your PhD.
	A colleague of mine who got his PhD from USA commented that, in USA
ordinary student can get PhD because he is guided whereas he may fail in a 
UK system because he is unguided.

: 
: US universities typically have larger graduate programs, and as
: such they have more opportunity (and reason) to offer graduate courses 
: at all levels. In the Univ of Adelaide in South Australia, where I 
: did part of my graduate studies, there were *no* graduate courses. 
: Everything had to be learnt on your own.
: 
: Virtually all PhD programs in the US require students to pass a
: "qualifying exam". This is a comprehensive exam on the student's area
: of specialization, typically at an advanced level. Preparation for
: this exam is usually much more intensive than any undergraduate exam.

Those who graduate from UK system like Hong Kong can score A easily in these
courses.

: 
: For the above reasons, it normally takes longer to get a PhD in the US 
: than in the UK.
: 
: Another difference I've noticed, at least in engineering, is that PhD
: research in the US is typically more theoretical than in the UK.

I thought it is the opposite.

: This may be another reason why advanced courses are seldom offered in
: the UK (or Australia); it's difficult to teach something at an
: advanced level without having a lot of "academic" knowledge at the tip
: of your fingers.

I had studied for my MSc at Edinburg. We study some so called advanced topics
invented at Edinburg but these are experimental knowledge which may not be 
successfully applied for Industry.
	In fack UK system is known to produce brilliant theoretical foundations
but are not good at exploiting it. In was the USA and Japan who exploited the
theoretical discoveries. In fact UK is weak in practical work because of lack
of funding compared to MIT and UCB.
	Even in so called advanced work in RISC computers, the originality is
suspect. The idea come from the professors. There is a team of graduate
workers working on the same project guided by Patterson. USA project management
and funding is excellent but the originality of their PhD work is suspect.
It is more like working for someone rather than doing original research.
Any comment?

: 
: >
: >Is anybody from Singapore/Australia/NZ in a position to compare their
: >undergraduate curriculums with  those in US?
: 
: I did my undergrad degree in Elec. Engr. (EE) at the Univ of Adelaide. 
: The program was very rigid; not even a single elective. Every course 
: was predetermined.  Everyone in EE took exactly the same courses.
: The program was also very comprehensive. We studied courses ranging
: from power systems to stress analysis to VLSI circuit design. In
: contrast, a typicall US undergrad in EE only takes courses in a
: certain specialization; e.g., either power systems *or* VLSI, but
: seldom both.
: 
: Unlike in the UK, the B.E. and B.E.(Hons) programs take 4 years. However,
: just like in the UK, as pointed out by K.C.Goh, the material is covered
: at a rather shallow level (I guess something has to give if you want
: to do everything).
UK only teach you the fundamentals. Like Maxwell equations. The rest you must
solve yourself. You are not taught. You must work out from first principles
in order to solve your problems. Now I realise that some of our exam questions
are actually taken from "published papers" which we are asked to prove.
	You can imagine how difficult it is to pass in the UK system.

Now that I have worked in Industry and lecture at a University, I strongly
believe that we must teach student fundamentals instead of practical skills
which are just the application of those fundamental theories. The practical
skills are argueable and "will become obsolete". The fundamentals will not 
become obsolete.

This explains why UK trained professionals tend to develop original ideas and
are in great demand even in USA, at least the better ones. This is called
brain drain from UK and Europe.

HOw do you feel if a group of students were sent to UK and another to USA with
similar MCE exam results, and find that in USA everyone passes? From UK,  a lot
of them failed or only manage to get general degree.

In USA, to get 90% in normal. In UK, you are lucky to get 70%.
There is no point in having a large syllabus when the exam questions are 
easy and straight forward, and the marking also less strict.

Marks in UK is not based on statistics. It is based on ability. If the quality
of student intake is poor, you may not have a single First Class honours for
many years. From Cambridge University, 90% got 1st class.

In USA, it is based on average mark for students. If you study in a low class
university where student quality is poor, you can still get 3.5. The same
student studying in MIT will even fail. This is documented in some journals
who commented on some attempts to place "black students" at prestigious
Universities and found that a lot of them failed. 
	The article commented that it may be better to put the students at
less prestigious schools so that at least they learn more.

Malaysian newer Universities are following USA system with semesters and
point average. Now hardly anyone fails.

In USA the employers know about this so they judge the graduates from the 
University that they graduate. The same is true to Japan. The battle is
therefore to get into the Elite Universities.

IMHO Malaysian Government should only send scholarship holders to the top
Universities in the World, after spending so much money on them, instead of
sending to the lower class ones. They may as well be sent to local Universities.

For me, I do not care which university I come from. What matters is my
 intereset and I did practice this. Wealth and fame is not my aim, only
knowledge. Knowledge can be found by reading books and journals, and talking
to people like this usenet groups.


--
Othman bin Ahmad, School of EEE,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 2263.
Internet Email: eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg
Bitnet Email: eoahmad@ntuvax.bitnet

Newsgroups: soc.culture.asean