If you don't get in to Oxbridge, does it mean you are inferior?

Cambridge and Oxford are not the best universities, their staff hardly make any scientific contributions

LOL I can't comment on this comment.

Spoiler

Reply 61

THUG*LYF

1

Original post by Princepieman

Did you just pull this out of nowhere to prove a point?

Because it's false btw

Posted from TSR Mobile

No it's not.

My friend did engineering at oxford, enjoyed doing electrical engineering, did a PhD, then left to work for a consulting firm and now works as a quant for a top hedge fund.

No one is doing that from southampton lol

You you me self know Southampton is not target, why the hell are you saying all this crap - because Alexion is your buddy and you don't want him to feel bad?

Reply 62

THUG*LYF

1

Original post by MahuduElec

LMFAO stop chatting out of your ass 😂😂😂😂

I actually got tears from reading this steaming pile of ****. Clearly you haven't a clue about the electronics/engineering industry.

Nobody should want to actually work in the electronics industry. It's crap.

People do engineering at places like Oxbridge and then get extremely well paying jobs in the city. You just can't do that from somewhere naff like southampton.

Reply 63

Serine Soul

18

Original post by 1 8 13 20 42

So is someone who gets into Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic at Cambridge with A*AA academically better than someone who gets into Imperial Engineering with 5A*s and BMO2 qualification? :colonhash:

Tbh you never know

5A*s and BMO2 qualification maybe a result of excellent training and top notch resources at a leading private school, combined with lots of support from a family with a strong academic background.

On other hand, the A*AA may be achieved at a failing school placed under special measures, combined with family who barely passed their GCSEs and are in low-paid work/unemployed....

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 64

Serine Soul

18

Original post by jamesthehustler

what about getting into a university that makes Oxbridge the paupers choice

The founder of Harvard graduated from Cambridge.
I found this out today and was thoroughly amused :biggrin:

Reply 65

lawlieto

14

Original post by jamesthehustler

what about getting into a university that makes Oxbridge the paupers choice

StaNford, Harvard etc are not better than Oxbridge...

Reply 66

math42

20

Original post by Serine Soul

Tbh you never know

5A*s and BMO2 qualification maybe a result of excellent training and top notch resources at a leading private school, combined with lots of support from a family with a strong academic background.

On other hand, the A*AA was achieved at a failing school placed under special measures, combined with family who barely passed their GCSEs and are in low-paid work/unemployed....

True. We know that proportionally speaking Oxbridge significantly favour private school candidates, so similar arguments can be used to discredit the notion that being at Oxbridge means you have more academic ability/potential which was mainly what I was trying to get across.

Reply 67

MahuduElec

5

Original post by THUG*LYF

Nobody should want to actually work in the electronics industry. It's crap.

People do engineering at places like Oxbridge and then get extremely well paying jobs in the city. You just can't do that from somewhere naff like southampton.

In the UK yes, I agree it's quite bad, barring a few major companies. But internationally, eg USA and Germany, the electronics/computing industry is one of the most highest paying sectors for STEM areas.

Also, although Southampton may not be a direct target for banking jobs, it is very possible to get into the sector through summer internships etc.
Having a degree from a target isn't a free pass to a 6 fig salary in the city.

And I'm not being biased here, my firm is a target uni.

Also, do you realise that the courses at Oxbridge specifically don't appeal to some people? And that not all people just want to make money and work at some bank.

Edit: also, im pretty sure I've seen people that have graduated from southampton working at various IB's / typical city jobs on LinkedIn. So unless you have some sort of evidence to back up your claims, please don't spew stuff that you don't know if it's actually correct.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 68

Serine Soul

18

Original post by 1 8 13 20 42

True. We know that proportionally speaking Oxbridge significantly favour private school candidates, so similar arguments can be used to discredit the notion that being at Oxbridge means you have more academic ability/potential which was mainly what I was trying to get across.

That's definitely true

And I daresay in subjects such as History of Art and Classics at Oxbridge, it's more a case of how much disposable income your parents have rather than your academic ability

Reply 69

drandy76

13

Original post by asinghj

Now for Warwick it's A*AA plus 1 in STEP or A*A*A plus 2 in STEP
for Cambridge it's A*A*A plus STEP (the website doesn't say if it's 1 or 2)
So yeah they are pretty similar

No, they're not

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 70

lawlieto

14

Original post by 1 8 13 20 42

True. We know that proportionally speaking Oxbridge significantly favour private school candidates, so similar arguments can be used to discredit the notion that being at Oxbridge means you have more academic ability/potential which was mainly what I was trying to get across.

They do not favour private school candidates, moreover, they do not care about anything other than your academic abilities.

Reply 71

drandy76

13

Original post by Serine Soul

That's definitely true

And I daresay in subjects such as History of Art and Classics at Oxbridge, it's more a case of how much disposable income your parents have rather than your academic ability

Aren't you doing bio Nat sci? Pretty sure that's basically a social science

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 72

Ayman!

15

Original post by drandy76

Aren't you doing bio Nat sci? Pretty sure that's basically a social science

Posted from TSR Mobile

savage

Reply 73

drandy76

13

Original post by Ayman!

savage

After year 12 I get triggered by Biology

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 74

jamesthehustler

19

Original post by lawlieto

StaNford, Harvard etc are not better than Oxbridge...

they cost far far more

Reply 75

math42

20

Original post by lawlieto

They do not favour private school candidates, moreover, they do not care about anything other than your academic abilities.

Not in the sense that they favour people by virtue of their being private school candidates, but in the sense that private school candidates simply do better, and have more access to resources that prepare them for the specific demands of the Oxbridge admissions procedure, hence are more likely to be accepted, which I highly doubt can be attributed to innate ability/potential. Their procedures try to ascertain how people will cope/how well they will be able to succeed at Oxbridge (well, in particular at Cambridge for Cambridge and Oxford for Oxford obviously), not in general, and I think that their tutorial system, which the interview is, from what I have heard, meant to be similar to, is more suited to those who are more self-assured and articulate, and private schools churn these out far better than state schools.