This is a question which came up recently, which I thought was pretty interesting.
Intercalated degrees, are, by most people standards, pretty different to a normal degree, despite the fact you do just about the same coursework as those studying for a ‘normal degree’.
However, there are a few important distinctions between the two. For example, BMSc’s involve joining in with 4th year students from a different course who have been taught by the same department for the last three years, meaning they are familiar with timetabling formats and what to expect at exam time. For BMSc people, you tend to be forgotten about. For example, if I got a penny for every time I heard the phrase “as you’ll from from previous years…” This all very well if you’ve been on the steady ascent to fourth year of a science degree, however, if thrown into the deep end with minimal basic science background, this proves to be a significant amount of work to catch up on.
Therefore, I would argue that BMSc’s basically give no indication of a persons intelligence. I feel it tests their adaptability to new situations instead.
Interestingly, a friend of mine mentioned that when his supervisor receives job applications, he specifically makes the distinction between a BMSc and a ‘normal degree’ and takes this into consideration when looking at the grades a person receives from them, as they imply quite different things about the individual.
Anyone else have any thoughts on this? I’d be keen to hear your opinions… I’d also be keen to hear what post-graduates think about this one!