Study Abroad Year Report: Conclusion

As April rolls around, my year abroad and therefore my SAY blog enter their final stages. The entire process has been an overwhelmingly positive adventure with new lessons learned, friends made and perspectives developed on a daily basis. I would therefore like to briefly reflect on my experiences of living and studying abroad and the process of documenting my year through the SAY blog.

Reflections on living abroad

Having grown up in London it was to many people’s surprise that I chose to study at UCL. My response to suggestions that I leave the city to experience somewhere different was that London is an enormous and beautifully varied city. Moving from N6 to WC1 would therefore be an exciting change which indeed it was. However it was not until I moved to Los Angeles that I realised how thrilling living in a new city and country could be.

Los Angeles, my home for the year

Before coming to the US my father graced me with one piece of advice: ‘don’t be deceived; the only thing Americans have in common with the British is our language and even that we don’t really share’. While this is partially true, it has been the differences between our two cultures which have made living abroad such a rich learning experience. These differences have also encouraged me to adopt new lifestyles and philosophies. For example the slower pace of life here in Southern California encourages you to enjoy the moment rather than worry too much about the future.

There are of course many things I do not like about living in Los Angeles. As mentioned in several posts, poor public transport infrastructure and horrific congestion make moving around the city a constant challenge. I have also found the insular views of many Angelenos to be quite frustrating. These are often facilitated by a belief that the US is the single most important country in the world with everywhere else being its subordinate. This outlook is mostly held by those who have not travelled beyond its borders. However I can only see these as positive experiences for helping me appreciate other places and people, and making me more aware of our differences in opportunity.

Reflections on studying abroad

Studying for a year abroad is a fantastic and refreshing experience, one that I would recommend to anyone for whom it is available. I think it is very different to studying full time as an international student. Having already spent two years studying Geography at UCL, I came to UCLA with prior experiences and future expectations that would shape my entire year of studies.

Throughout my time here at UCLA I have been constantly comparing my studies with those at home: the size, length and content of my classes, their various forms of assessment, and the overall major/minor degree structure adopted in the US. While I was initially critical of a system that forced students to extend their degree by a year* in order to take a wider breadth of classes, I have come to appreciate the opportunity to broaden my academic horizons by taking courses from a range of different departments. Many of these have supplemented my geographical studies while others have allowed me to engage with passions I would not have been able to explore otherwise.

Numerous UCLA clubs and societies advertising on Bruin Walk 

The experiences of studying abroad extend beyond the classroom to the whole university. At UCLA I have been exposed to many aspects of college life that are not present in the UK. These include extraordinary pride in college sport, ‘Greek life’ (fraternities and sororities) and an enormous variety of different clubs and societies. Taking part in these and many other aspects of American university life has been both fun and deeply insightful, allowing me to draw my own conclusions on what I believe is conducive to a positive university experience in both countries.

Reflections on the SAY blog

As a geographer living and studying in a new place, I am always making comparisons between life here and at home. My SAY blog has not only enabled but also encouraged me to do this. By providing me with a platform to write about my thoughts and experiences, it has helped me understand and explain many differences between the UK and US both at university and beyond.

My favourite spot for working on my SAY blog

The flexibility of the SAY blog has also allowed me to explore themes and topics that are of particular interest to me, urban transport being a key example. While I initially intended to write a single post on the matter, this blog has encouraged me to look further into the subject by writing a series of linked posts. This has been of wider use in helping me choose a thesis for my dissertation. The SAY blog has also encouraged me to examine topics I had previously not studied at much depth, fortification being an example. All of the issues examined in my blog have been formative as I generate views and opinions about UCLA, Los Angeles and the US.

Working on my blog has developed my ability to write concisely (this post perhaps being an exception) and passionately about things that matter to me. It has also opened my eyes to how something that appears mundane, such as a food truck, can in fact be a fascinating topic when forming an argument. The end result has been a series of blog posts that reflect how my thoughts have evolved throughout the year. I am therefore grateful for all the fantastic and formative experiences I have had along the way.

* Undergraduate degrees in the US are typically four years, one year longer than undergraduate programmes available in the UK.

Grades in the UK and US: what’s the difference?

One of the first things I noticed as I began my studies in September was the difference in grading systems between the US and UK. When asked by another student about my ‘GPA’ (grade point average), the best response I could offer was my average percentage of 71 that I had achieved over the past two years at UCL. ‘71?’ they asked, ‘you must be really struggling!’ I was quickly informed that 70% equates to a C- in the US higher education system, the minimum score required to pass a class at UCLA.

Having completed my first quarter of classes abroad, I have now become more acquainted with the American grading system and how it translates to the UK’s. As the table below illustrates, it is a fairly simple conversion (Fulbright Commission n/d). In each case grade classifications are separated by 10%. With both systems offering five classifications, the highest grade is therefore separated from a fail by 31%.

UK Classification	UK %	US Grade	US %	GPA
First-class	70+	A	90+	4.0 (A+ = 4.00; A- = 3.67)
Upper second-class	60-69	B	80-89	3.0 (B+ = 3.33; B- = 2.67)
Lower second-class	50-59	C	70-79	2.0 (C+ = 2.33; C- = 1.67)
Third class	40-49	D	60-69	1.0 (D+ = 1.33; D- = 0.67)
Fail	0-39	F	0-59	0.0

UK versus US grade classifications (Fulbright Commission n/d)

The only difference between the two models is the absolute percentage values of each grade range. However this carries particular significance when considering the highest grades offered by each system. In the US an A-grade (90% or above) informs a student that they are at most 10% below an entirely perfect piece of work. By contrast, in the UK a first-class (70% or above) could be as much as 30% below this level.

I first realised the significance of this when I was awarded 98% for a reflective coursework essay written for my UCLA FTV106 class. While I was pleased with this mark and proud of my work, I could not help feeling that this paper was nowhere near 2% below a perfect argument of my thesis. Rather I am sure that had I spent more time and care on the essay it could have been a far better piece. Contrasting with this, my highest mark achieved at UCL to date has been 77%. This somehow felt like a much greater achievement and I am still unsure what I could have done to improve by 23%.

In an attempt to find out what separates these two marks from 100% I have looked at the marking criteria offered by both universities. UCLA’s (n/d) measures are very concise. Students are offered an A-grade (90-99%) for work of ‘superior’ quality, while an A+ (100%) is reserved for work of ‘extraordinary’ quality. UCL’s (n/d a) grade descriptions are a little more comprehensive:

First-class (70-79%): Shows a deep understanding of the question, and is very well organised and expressed. Evidence of very good analytical skills, critical thinking and appropriate reading. Very good grasp of concepts. Comprehensive use of relevant examples. 

First-class excellent (80-89%): Surpasses the standards associated with the 70-79% level. The work displays a deep, critical understanding of the question, with excellent level of organisation and expression. Evidence of excellent analytical skills, critical thinking and appropriate reading. Excellent grasp of concepts. Extensive and critical use of relevant examples. 

First-class outstanding (90-100%): Exceptional thoroughness and clarity. Exceptional insight or originality in the use of evidence. Outstanding critical ability based on extensive reading. Clear ability to formulate responses to questions in novel and relevant ways.

Clearly, the two grading systems value 100% very differently. It seems that in the US 0-100% is a measure of what is expected of students, thus full marks are perfectly attainable. At British universities 0-100% appears to be a measure of what is expected in the academic community. This is suggested by UCL’s usage of words such as ‘originality’, ‘critical’ and ‘novel’, implying that an outstanding first-class should be awarded to an article of journal standard. Indeed many university departments state that work receiving above 85% is publishable (see Nottingham University 2011; UCL n/d b). Thus students in the UK mostly receive marks in the 60s range, rarely reaching above the high-70s. I believe the impact this has on the psyche of British students is quite significant. A score of 70% informs us we do not need to do any better, but that we can do almost 1.5 times better. For those students not only driven by grades but also by doing the very best possible, this extra 30% is an enormous incentive to improve the quality of their work. This perhaps helps lay a clearer path towards a career in academia amongst UK graduates than it does in the US.

It is important to note that this blog is written from the perspective of a liberal arts student and that this article refers to the marking of essays rather than short answer questions such as those found in the sciences.

References

Fulbright Commission (n/d) ‘Marks’ (WWW), London: Fulbright Commission (http://www.fulbright.org.uk/pre-departure/academics/marks; 5 January 2016).

Nottingham University (2011) ‘Writing essays’ (WWW), Nottingham: Nottingham University (https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/philosophy/documents/ug/essay-guidelines.pdf; 6 January 2016).

UCL (n/d a) ‘Grade Descriptors and Marking Criteria’ (WWW), London: UCL (http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/current-students/undergraduate/grade-descriptors; 5 January 2016).

UCL (n/d b) History Department Undergraduate Marking Criteria’ (WWW), London: UCL (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/history/undergraduate/current-undergraduates/marking-criteria; 6 January 2016).

UCLA (n/d) ‘UCLA General Catalogue: Grades’ (WWW), Los Angeles: UCLA (http://www.registrar.ucla.edu/archive/catalog/2005-07/catalog/catalog05-07acadpol-2.htm; 5 January 2016).

Religious Studies at UCLA and in the US

I recently read an article in the LA Times (Pearce 2015) that outlines the difficultly of teaching religious studies at schools in the US. In response to the numerous Islamic terrorist attacks that have taken place in the past decade or so, most recently in Paris and San Bernardino, Islamophobia in the US is at an all time high. This has particularly manifested itself in schools where parents fear religious indoctrination in the classroom. The aforementioned article reports on the closure of all schools in Augusta County, Georgia when an angry parent body responded negatively to a Religious Studies assignment where students were asked to copy the Shahada (the Islamic statement of faith) in order to encourage an appreciation of the importance of calligraphy to the religion.

The keeping home of 10,500 students that this caused was, in my opinion, something of an overreaction. I can appreciate parents’ fears of indoctrination in schools where religious studies is taught with an overly dogmatic syllabus. However there is an equal danger that by whitewashing the importance of religion, students will not appreciate both the historical and contemporary relevance it has to the world we currently occupy.

As someone who is not remotely religious, there is little I like less than preaching (this includes the preaching of atheism). I maintain that everyone has a right to their own beliefs and practices and it is not anybody’s duty to change that. In addition to this, and despite going to a secular high school, I feel that religious studies is an essential aspect of gaining a holistic education. Through this I believe students will be equipped to make their own decisions regarding religion and to respect the faith of others. It was in this light that during my first quarter at UCLA I enrolled in a class entitled Judaism, Christianity, And Islam: Interrelated Religious Traditions.

I would like to suggest the model in which this class was taught be used in all schools where parents fear either an over- or under-consideration of religion. Rather than taking an overly theological approach, the three Abrahamic religions were studied through a historical and analytical examination of the texts that dictate their doctrines. Alongside this came a deep consideration of how these religions impacted the development of human civilisation and the tensions that have arisen between the three since their creation. I found the process to be a deeply rewarding and enlightening experience. This was extended by my final research paper which examines the causes, commonalities and differences in fundamentalism across the three religions. Through this I was able to look further at the extremist sects which, particularly in the case of Islam, have been inaccurately generalised to define an entire religion.

It is no surprise that, in a country whose constitution separates Church and State, religious studies is such a contentious issue. Indeed as a geographer abroad, examining this tension has been particularly interesting. Despite the US being a secular country, I have never experienced people (both on and off campus) so deeply entrenched in and proud of their religious beliefs. This surprisingly contrasts with my experiences in the ‘non-secular’ UK where I feel religion, while still hugely important, is not such a visible component of people’s lives. I truly believe that if students were taught about religion in a similar manner to my class last quarter they would have a much more well-adjusted, critical and comprehensive understanding of religion, free of overzealous dogma or cynicism.

A public display of religious expression, not an unusual sight in the US

References

Pearce, M. (2015) ‘Public schools struggle with lessons about Islam amid renewed fears of terrorism’ (WWW), Los Angeles: LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-na-islam-schools-20151220-story.html; 20 December 2015).

Comparing UCLA and UCL class content through IDS 191

A key development critique covered at UCL in last year’s GEOG2014 (Development Geography I) class was the neocolonial argument. Since joining UCLA I have revisited the topic in my International Development Studies 191 class: China’s Trade with Africa: Neocolonial or Win-Win? The class follows a question proposed by Howard W. French in his book China’s Second Continent (2014).

As discussed in a previous post this class aimed to answer the above question by examining and writing a group paper describing China’s relationship with a specific African country, in my case Tanzania. For the sake of brevity I will not delve too much into the details of this paper (which can be found here) other than to say that we found Tanzania, while having an asymmetrical trade relationship with China, not to be dependent on the Asian giant. In addition, while Chinese infrastructure projects in Tanzania may be evocative of neocolonial administrative power, we argue that these should instead be seen as investment projects in response to Tanzania’s promising pool of natural resources. Thus while China can be seen as benefitting from easy access to these reserves, Tanzania also benefits greatly from an efficient and reliable partner to monetise them.

As well as providing a chance to study a particularly salient issue in Geography, this class has also been an excellent opportunity to explore how Geography is taught differently here at UCLA compared with UCL.

The most interesting difference I came across was the structure and content of the class. In GEOG2014, neocolonialism was contained within a single lecture with Africa being given as a mere case study. IDS 191 on the other hand affords 10 weeks (thirty hours) to examining one question. This is not the only example: UCLA IDS 192 (Africa’s Changing Classes) and IDS 102 (Gendered Development) both focus on themes that are covered by UCL's GEOG2014 in single lectures. I believe this to be an exemplary difference between the two universities. Indeed UCLA IDS is an entire department devoted to studying a field that UCL Geography covers in only two modules. I must also add that, beyond a detailed understanding of Sino-Tanzanian trade, I do not feel this class has offered any more than what was covered in a single lecture on neocolonialism last year.

I therefore believe that, at least when comparing the two universities’ Geography departments, UCL teaches a greater breadth of content at a faster pace than UCLA. While UCLA’s lower division courses do offer more breadth than its higher division classes, for example GEOG 4 (Globalization: Regional Development and World Economy), comments made by students suggest this comes is at the expense of depth. Indeed such classes are mostly taken as a prerequisites for others such as IDS 191.

It is important to state that these observations are limited to this one class, complemented by other class syllabuses and student comments. I hope that next quarter’s GEOG 141 class (Uneven Development Geographies: Prosperity and Impoverishment in Third World) will add further insight into this comparison between the two universities and their Geography departments.

References

French, H.W. (2014) China’s Second Continent, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.