Why got people keep bashing UOL international programme.

[Cutieayako]

They say no good etc. Even hard also no standard. I want to take it's course one.

 

[Number_Theory123]

Becos those ppl whom bash UOL dont believe that it is hard.

They find that it is because the students studying for it has no standard. That is why they(UOL students) find that it is hard and thus keep failing.

In the first place, those ppl whom bash dont believe that UOL is hard to begin with.

 

[Bedokian]

UOL has been doing distance learning since 1858, which in fact (no offence) is older than our local universities.

 

[rollbread]

Nobody bash uol, its actually bashing the students taking uol course.

 

[simon_84]

UOL is famous for being tough...if you as their student, can't do 4 hours or more self-study after every lecture then don't hope to clear the module easily.

 

[chiwawa23]

I was their student now and I was mugging and studying everyday till like no life like that.

 

[Blue Blood]

What's the use of being only hard? I see people saying u give any local uni students study UOL they also can score. As seen on edmw

 

[patryn33]

I wonder if I stepped into EDMW

 

[aircraft]

What's the use of being only hard? I see people saying u give any local uni students study UOL they also can score. As seen on edmw

Lol, those must b envious of UOL ranking n reputation compared to most local unis, maybe except NUS

 

[Number_Theory123]

Lol, those must b envious of UOL ranking n reputation compared to most local unis, maybe except NUS

This is the exact reason why local unis students bash SIM-UOL students.

Can u pls be humble? ZzzzzZzzzzz

 

[meinteel]

What's the use of being only hard? I see people saying u give any local uni students study UOL they also can score. As seen on edmw

Not true. Not all local undergrads are unable to score for UOL papers.

UOL is truly difficult if you wish to do well - getting second upper or first class honours. That being said, its not those type of courses were its unreasonably difficult whereby everyone fails. Yet as Professor Amos has said, there is no honour in getting third class honours (which by far is what most people are getting). Local university students should be able to do UOL papers, so should UOL students be able to do local universities examinations.

While only a handful, there are instances where UOL graduates move on to Oxford, LSE & Cambridge for further studies. Such instances tells us that UOL certification are widely recognised in UK, and should also be for most commonwealth countries. There will be a level of standard applicable to the examinations rather then a degree mill.

The biggest difference is the students involved. Many students who enter UOL because they didnt do well for their diplomas or GCE A levels. We have a disadvantaged start but it doesn't mean we will end up being disadvantaged. Given hard work, much is possible.

Another difficult to UOL is that it is 100% examinations based - on an annual basis. It is Os or As again for 3 consecutive years. Attendance, homework, projects does not count towards your degree in any way. These are items that you could consult your tutors, lecturers, professors, family & friends outside to help you improve and achieve better friends.

UOL is a good platform for someone who has met with some form of failure in their earlier academic achievements and wishes to do better for his future. You must be willing to put in some effort beyond the standard lecturers provided by the partner institute (be it SIM or IPCAS for Singapore).

 

[bugmenot45]

Such instances tells us that UOL certification are widely recognised in UK, and should also be for most commonwealth countries.

QFT. I've met employers outside of singapore who place the UOL international certification in high regard, but have never heard of NTU or SMU before.

 

[TauNowBoHoSay]

QFT. I've met employers outside of singapore who place the UOL international certification in high regard, but have never heard of NTU or SMU before.

In a way, yes. U are correct.

 

[Genesisz]

Not true. Not all local undergrads are unable to score for UOL papers.

UOL is truly difficult if you wish to do well - getting second upper or first class honours. That being said, its not those type of courses were its unreasonably difficult whereby everyone fails. Yet as Professor Amos has said, there is no honour in getting third class honours (which by far is what most people are getting). Local university students should be able to do UOL papers, so should UOL students be able to do local universities examinations.

While only a handful, there are instances where UOL graduates move on to Oxford, LSE & Cambridge for further studies. Such instances tells us that UOL certification are widely recognised in UK, and should also be for most commonwealth countries. There will be a level of standard applicable to the examinations rather then a degree mill.

The biggest difference is the students involved. Many students who enter UOL because they didnt do well for their diplomas or GCE A levels. We have a disadvantaged start but it doesn't mean we will end up being disadvantaged. Given hard work, much is possible.

Another difficult to UOL is that it is 100% examinations based - on an annual basis. It is Os or As again for 3 consecutive years. Attendance, homework, projects does not count towards your degree in any way. These are items that you could consult your tutors, lecturers, professors, family & friends outside to help you improve and achieve better friends.

UOL is a good platform for someone who has met with some form of failure in their earlier academic achievements and wishes to do better for his future. You must be willing to put in some effort beyond the standard lecturers provided by the partner institute (be it SIM or IPCAS for Singapore).

Well said.

 

[Genesisz]

QFT. I've met employers outside of singapore who place the UOL international certification in high regard, but have never heard of NTU or SMU before.

I have similar experience before and received similar feedback.

 

[booyakasha]

partly because some UOL students like to claim that they are better than NUS/SMU/NTU because their degree is "from LSE". however, this is bull**** because their degrees are not awarded by LSE. the only link to LSE is that they provide "academic direction" (as quoted from SIM's website).

they like to think that because of this claim, what they study is the same as what an LSE student is studying in London, and that if they do well (e.g. getting first class honours), this proves that they are high caliber students and are equivalent to an LSE graduate.

sad to say, this is far from the truth. LSE doesn't even have degrees in banking and finance, which many SIM students take, and the modules which SIM students ARE NOT modules which LSE students study.

so how good is the program and how rigorous is it? well it is hard to say because no one who gets into NUS/SMU/NTU biz will choose to go SIM to do a similar course. you only end up with local uni rejects who have no where else to go. with ridiculously low entry standards, the academic quality of the majority of its students is just mediocre at best.

what can be argued is that these students find it tough because they aren't the brightest students in the world, and not because the course is of the same standard as LSE.

i would say that there are rare cases where there are truly bright students who enter the program and excel, and are of a higher standard than the rest, however these students are only a handful.

the question is, given the low entry standards and questionable rigor of the SIM (UOL) program, are the arguments made by their students for equivalent opportunities and pay as NUS/SMU/NTU graduates justified? obviously SIM students would scream yes, but local uni students would say no.

TS, i guess its up to you to decide. good luck.

 

[TauNowBoHoSay]

partly because some UOL students like to claim that they are better than NUS/SMU/NTU because their degree is "from LSE". however, this is bull**** because their degrees are not awarded by LSE. the only link to LSE is that they provide "academic direction" (as quoted from SIM's website).

they like to think that because of this claim, what they study is the same as what an LSE student is studying in London, and that if they do well (e.g. getting first class honours), this proves that they are high caliber students and are equivalent to an LSE graduate.

sad to say, this is far from the truth. LSE doesn't even have degrees in banking and finance, which many SIM students take, and the modules which SIM students ARE NOT modules which LSE students study.

so how good is the program and how rigorous is it? well it is hard to say because no one who gets into NUS/SMU/NTU biz will choose to go SIM to do a similar course. you only end up with local uni rejects who have no where else to go. with ridiculously low entry standards, the academic quality of the majority of its students is just mediocre at best.

what can be argued is that these students find it tough because they aren't the brightest students in the world, and not because the course is of the same standard as LSE.

i would say that there are rare cases where there are truly bright students who enter the program and excel, and are of a higher standard than the rest, these students are only a handful.

the question is, given the low entry standards and questionable rigor of the SIM (UOL) program, are the arguments made by their students for equivalent opportunities and pay as NUS/SMU/NTU graduates justified? obviously SIM students would scream yes, but local uni students would say no.

TS, i guess its up to you to decide. good luck.

I have to agree with u on most account.

 

[blurbloco]

partly because some UOL students like to claim that they are better than NUS/SMU/NTU because their degree is "from LSE". however, this is bull**** because their degrees are not awarded by LSE. the only link to LSE is that they provide "academic direction" (as quoted from SIM's website).

they like to think that because of this claim, what they study is the same as what an LSE student is studying in London, and that if they do well (e.g. getting first class honours), this proves that they are high caliber students and are equivalent to an LSE graduate.

sad to say, this is far from the truth. LSE doesn't even have degrees in banking and finance, which many SIM students take, and the modules which SIM students ARE NOT modules which LSE students study.

so how good is the program and how rigorous is it? well it is hard to say because no one who gets into NUS/SMU/NTU biz will choose to go SIM to do a similar course. you only end up with local uni rejects who have no where else to go. with ridiculously low entry standards, the academic quality of the majority of its students is just mediocre at best.

what can be argued is that these students find it tough because they aren't the brightest students in the world, and not because the course is of the same standard as LSE.

i would say that there are rare cases where there are truly bright students who enter the program and excel, and are of a higher standard than the rest, these students are only a handful.

the question is, given the low entry standards and questionable rigor of the SIM (UOL) program, are the arguments made by their students for equivalent opportunities and pay as NUS/SMU/NTU graduates justified? obviously SIM students would scream yes, but local uni students would say no.

TS, i guess its up to you to decide. good luck.

Actually, the course is of similar standard as LSE and all were put to the same examination.

UOL International Programmes are designed for students who had no means to get standard education route.
(For example, in Singapore there are 3 Universities, about 30k places, for 5m people (or 3m if you discount foreigners), that is essentially 1 places for every 33,333 people, it does not help when more than 25% of the places are reserve for foreign scholarship holders and X% of place are for foreigners paying full fees)

In fact some of our best lawyers were previously educated from UOL externally, before UOL external degree were bar from the bar (The only country in the world to do that. It is even accepted in US where NUS degrees were not seen as a criteria for bar exam in US).

Whether should it be on par with local Universities will be up to individual employers and not up to the students.

 

[booyakasha]

what do you mean it is of similar standard and all were put to the same examination? if you are saying that the modules which SIM (UOL) students study are the same as LSE, and that the examinations are identical, sorry but you are wrong.

yes, you are right that it is up to the employers. but the fact is that many employers do not think too highly of the SIM (UOL) degree, resulting in lesser opportunities or lower salaries, which results in much furor amongst its students and graduates.

 

[gld998]

what do you mean it is of similar standard and all were put to the same examination? if you are saying that the modules which SIM (UOL) students study are the same as LSE, and that the examinations are identical, sorry but you are wrong.

yes, you are right that it is up to the employers. but the fact is that many employers do not think too highly of the SIM (UOL) degree, resulting in lesser opportunities or lower salaries, which results in much furor amongst its students and graduates.

Not only UOL la.. any DL degree also kena bash wan la...