This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

****** up my imperial degree, what next?

Reply 60

Formaggio

OP

3

Smack

Wow, over 40% of Warwick maths students get a 1st!

Exaggeration? Even Cambridge can't do it lol If it's true, that's real kind of the department, and difficulty doesn't even matter, for a 2.1 in oxbridge will lose out against 1st in warwick in most cases. stop making me jealous!

Reply 61

Sirocco11

3

I can't speak from experiences of my own or others I know but I really wouldn't despair too much. Worry maybe, but it is salvageable - do you know the weighting of 2nd and 3rd year ? Usually third year has a higher weighting than second, and if you manage to consistently get high 2.1s/1sts you might be able to pull a 2.1 out of the hat. Even if you do get a 2.2 it doesn't mean you're doomed, as you might have an excellent work experience record pipping you ahead of those who just have a degree alone with little else to show. These days a degree is not the only differentiating factor in employment.

Reply 62

Krush

10

Smack

Wow, over 40% of Warwick maths students get a 1st!

Source?

Formaggio

Of course this does make Imperial 2.1s valuable at the expense of other students.... who could get a 2.1 in other unis provided they are willing to work hard.

Not so sure about that, at least for maths. There are three former Imperial maths grads (one may have done physics) on my course, all of whom had got firsts. One is near the bottom and the other two are pretty average. So despite being amongst the rare Imperial maths students to get a first they aren't anything special, far from it.

This is obviously a very small sample and doesn't say much but if three students who are amongst the small minority of students to get a first aren't that great I find it hard to believe that getting a 2.1/first from Imperial is that much harder than other good unis (see my previous post about Oxbridge having more good honours degrees). That said, I do find it very stange that Imperial don't give out more good honours degrees. This isn't just a problem with maths, it seems to be the case for most of its subjects. This occurs despite the presence of external examiners who make sure standards are met.

Reply 63

Formaggio

OP

3

Krush

Source?

Not so sure about that, at least for maths. There are three former Imperial maths grads (one may have done physics) on my course, all of whom had got firsts. One is near the bottom and the other two are pretty average. So despite being amongst the rare Imperial maths students to get a first they aren't anything special, far from it.

This is obviously a very small sample and doesn't say much but if three students who are amongst the small minority of students to get a first aren't that great I find it hard to believe that getting a 2.1/first from Imperial is that much harder than other good unis (see my previous post about Oxbridge having more good honours degrees). That said, I do find it very stange that Imperial don't give out more good honours degrees. This isn't just a problem with maths, it seems to be the case for most of its subjects. This occurs despite the presence of external examiners who make sure standards are met.

This is exactly what i am talking about. For most subjects the good honour is about... 70%-ish but maths is around 15% lower which makes things worse. It is more difficult to get a 2.1/first from imperial, coz they don't want to give them out. Difficulties isn't just defined by the material themselves but also how willing the department is to give out good degrees and how good are those people you're competing with. I could have been to some rubbish unis which have 70% good honours ratio but there it is so easy to be top, but not in top unis.

Krush

Source?

Unistats.

Reply 65

Krush

10

Smack

Unistats.

Thanks. I'm pretty sure they must have counted MMath student in the pie chart, and given that the majority of MMath graduates get a first (to stay on the fourth year you usually need to have averaged a high 2.1 in your third year). Either that or they've taken stats from a truly exceptional year because when I graduated it was 30% firsts.

Reply 66

Eien

16

First of all, consult your student handbook which should be on the Uni website, which should explain how classifications are given out. They do vary between unis, such as for mine, it is not decided at all on the average, but simply on the number of units of a certain classification, so if you get a borderline mark like 59 or 69, it's tough luck.

Also, your result only really bears the most weight in the first couple of jobs you do - after that, you work experience is far more significant, so being creative with job hunting and networking will get you far. Sometimes somebody with a lower grade who has more savvy and a sense for how companies work can do a lot better than somebody who is academically able but unable to apply their skills effectively, so it pays to have both types of skills.

Also, some firms have a section asking whether there were any extenuating circumstances that may have affected your grade - they certainly do for KPMG Tax and Auditing (where I have applied for, and have an interview for this week!) so an explanation can also be made there.

I know one person who dropped out of Imperial and didn't even get a degree, and now works in a decent investment banking position simply by working from the bottom up.

And just so you know, Carol Vorderman got a Third (albeit from Cambridge!)

Reply 67

Nichrome

18

Krush

Thanks. I'm pretty sure they must have counted MMath student in the pie chart, and given that the majority of MMath graduates get a first (to stay on the fourth year you usually need to have averaged a high 2.1 in your third year). Either that or they've taken stats from a truly exceptional year because when I graduated it was 30% firsts.

That site seems to show up some pretty strange stats. It shows Cambridge only give out 20% firsts compared to Warwicks 40%. Since (not trying to offend anyone here) a lot of Warwicks maths students are likely Cambridge rejects surely that might suggest that either the Cambridge course might be a bit harder or that in fact the Cambridge admissions process is crap, STEP is no test of mathematical skill and that they should have taken all the Warwick mathmos on their course instead!

Nichrome

That site seems to show up some pretty strange stats. It shows Cambridge only give out 20% firsts compared to Warwicks 40%. Since (not trying to offend anyone here) a lot of Warwicks maths students are likely Cambridge rejects surely that might suggest that either the Cambridge course might be a bit harder or that in fact the Cambridge admissions process is crap, STEP is no test of mathematical skill and that they should have taken all the Warwick mathmos on their course instead!

Well I've heard that Cambridge marks its students against their peers, so only a certain amount of people can get a 1st, regardless of the amount of people that get 70+%.

Reply 69

Byllie

There really is no comparison between different unis and different classifications. Trying to do so is like trying to piss in the dark after a heavy binge.

****** up my imperial degree, what next?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you