Is a 2:1, 2:2 and even 3rd class oxbridge degree looked favorably upon then a 1st

You'd be surprised how much you can gauge about an applicant in 20 minutes

Aptitude tests are not used in general, only for some subjects.

Even in educational circles, it'd be very interesting to see which proportion of the Oxford and Cambridge lecturers/professors/teachers etc did their undergrad degrees there...

So best not to generalise. That's what concerned me about your post.

I've read about the first 5 pages of this and thought I'd chuck in a few anecdotes - both on the academic side and on the job-finding side. I claim the following to only be valid for Cambridge science courses and for investment banking.

Regarding difficulty of the degree, I believe Cambridge is a lot harder than even other top universities. Friends who did a lot worse at e.g. STEP back at school ended up getting triple firsts at Warwick/Imperial/etc. Without exception all my friends who got 2.2s in their degrees and went on to masters courses at other universities ended up getting the top grade possible. Probably the most ridiculous example of this is a guy who got a 2.2 in Maths at Cam, did a masters in nanotechnology at KCL with no prior knowledge of the subject and was the only one in his class awarded a distinction. On the flipside, people who come to do 4th years at Cambridge from other universities will almost always have firsts and on average perform a good deal worse than home-grown undergrads with 2.1s.

Weirdly though, foreign students who come for 4th years in Cambridge seem to do just as well as the home-grown lot, even if they're not from the most well-known institutions in their country (e.g. non-Ivy League Americans). I don't know why that seems to be the case for other countries but not the UK.

Now on job-finding, on one side of the coin the computerised systems most recruiters use will simply reject you outright if you put your degree class as 2.2 or less, Oxbridge or not. Nevertheless I know a fair few people who have managed to work around the system by speaking directly to HR or forming relationships with people in the bank. I even have a mate with a 3rd who's on the grad scheme at a top name house. In these cases dropping the Oxbridge name certainly helped cover the stigma attached to the class. I would think though that any other top university would help in the same way - but I can't be sure.

Obviously it depends what you want to go into, but I personally would think of an Oxbridge 2:1 as somewhere between a first from a third-tier university and a first from a second-tier university.

I've read about the first 5 pages of this and thought I'd chuck in a few anecdotes - both on the academic side and on the job-finding side. I claim the following to only be valid for Cambridge science courses and for investment banking.

Regarding difficulty of the degree, I believe Cambridge is a lot harder than even other top universities. Friends who did a lot worse at e.g. STEP back at school ended up getting triple firsts at Warwick/Imperial/etc. Without exception all my friends who got 2.2s in their degrees and went on to masters courses at other universities ended up getting the top grade possible. Probably the most ridiculous example of this is a guy who got a 2.2 in Maths at Cam, did a masters in nanotechnology at KCL with no prior knowledge of the subject and was the only one in his class awarded a distinction. On the flipside, people who come to do 4th years at Cambridge from other universities will almost always have firsts and on average perform a good deal worse than home-grown undergrads with 2.1s.

Weirdly though, foreign students who come for 4th years in Cambridge seem to do just as well as the home-grown lot, even if they're not from the most well-known institutions in their country (e.g. non-Ivy League Americans). I don't know why that seems to be the case for other countries but not the UK.

Now on job-finding, on one side of the coin the computerised systems most recruiters use will simply reject you outright if you put your degree class as 2.2 or less, Oxbridge or not. Nevertheless I know a fair few people who have managed to work around the system by speaking directly to HR or forming relationships with people in the bank. I even have a mate with a 3rd who's on the grad scheme at a top name house. In these cases dropping the Oxbridge name certainly helped cover the stigma attached to the class. I would think though that any other top university would help in the same way - but I can't be sure.

That's because people from Eton and XYZ sit the same examinations which are centrally assessed and graded.

People at different universities sit different exams, and universities have complete autonomy in awarding classifications.

Not true. Eton is an independent school which is exempt from the National Curriculum. They have their own means of assessment.

No, they don't.

Do you see no distinction between second tier and third tier? So would you say a LSE 1st is equal to a low Oxbridge 2:1..I'm guessing LSE is second tier...

er...one glance at their website will tell you that they do. It's an independent school for a reason.

I went to an independent school too and have friends at Eton. They do A-levels....

Weirdly though, foreign students who come for 4th years in Cambridge seem to do just as well as the home-grown lot, even if they're not from the most well-known institutions in their country (e.g. non-Ivy League Americans). I don't know why that seems to be the case for other countries but not the UK.

but they can choose what to teach up to an extent, what contents a subject should include and dont have to follow the NC rigorously like comprehensives do. Otherwise they wouldn't have iGCSE's.

You're all missing the mark, I'm afraid.

Any Oxbridge 2.1 would have achieved a 1st anywhere else (including Imperial/LSE), that's why they are chosen; a 2.2 might have done which is why an Oxbridge 2.2, with the exception of Law, gives you a decent chance in most graduate schemes - I could give you lists of Oxbridge 2.2s who have, in recent years, secured top graduate jobs in banks and other leading financial services firms. The truth of the matter is that we have seen a number of people leave Oxbridge after or during the first year, not being able to take it, and ending up with firsts at places like Imperial. The joker who thinks that a first from LSE is comparable needs to stop dreaming - it's nowhere near. The Cambridge Economics Faculty has found that those with 2.1s from Oxbridge are outscoring firsts from the next best universities in their MPhil courses - Oxbridge and Imperial/LSE aren't remotely similar, sorry.