Were they "real" M.Sc degrees or "conversion course" M.Sc degrees (the equivalent of an expensive boot camp with a official piece of paper at the end)? I'm part

Were they "real" M.Sc degrees or "conversion course" M.Sc degrees (the equivalent of an expensive boot camp with a official piece of paper at the end)? I'm part time staff at a UK university which offers a 'conversion course' degree. It is vaguely annoying (from my vantage point of 25 years in industry) that these students are getting M.Sc degrees - the good students learn the basics of programming, so I'm not throwing shade on them, but I would hire someone with a B.Sc over them if I had to choose. Those with a B.Sc are more knowledgeable due to having 3 years experience in IT stuff versus just one. But they are getting M.Sc degrees because part of the course involves learning how to "do research", i.e. the process. That apparently is a general requirement for students getting an accredited M.Sc degree. But it doesn't have to be original research... or even good research. Honestly, the whole program is sort of a diploma mill and given that students typically go into the program in order to retool and get a job in IT, they would be better served learning more focused stuff like one does in a boot camp than "how to do research". Or maybe a not-MSc degree, but something that indicates they're good enough to be junior programmers but are not really MSc level. The uni is trying to play the "boot camp" game while adhering to "academic standards". I OTOH went thru a "real" MSc program from a much better uni (Edinburgh) and you absolutely had to have the basics of IT under your belt before taking that program.