The Student Room Group

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

Scroll to see replies

What on earth...
Original post by B4LL3R
That includes people that never applied


I didn't apply so I'm inferior....
Original post by drandy76
No just have a good memory, vaguely remember you were doing something biology related so I picked between that and biochem


Posted from TSR Mobile

Yeah I wanna do biochem and if I get the grades for Cambridge, I'll be doing bio natsci there and specialise in biochem in the third year :smile:
Original post by jamesthehustler
they cost far far more


and then what? Oxford and London Metropolitan University both cost £9000 for a year. Are you saying that they both provide the same level of education because they cost the same? (Your answer implies that more expensive unis are better)
Original post by 1 8 13 20 42
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.


Yes, I'm afraid I have to agree with this. In private schools, they do mock interviews and they are most likely better prepared for the admissions process. However, if an applicant goes to a school which had less than 10 students with AAA grades in the past 3 years, they get a "red flag" (they get another red flag if they have much better GCSEs than their secondary school average). Although I'm not sure to what extent Oxford admissions tutors care about these red flags. Obviously you will have a bigger chance of getting an offer if you've been prepared for this for years.
Original post by THUG*LYF
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?


So he doesn't work in engineering and the field he ended up in has nothing to do with engineering either? Btw, as someone who knows a fair amount of people within the finance industry, yes, people from Southampton have done exactly what you've stated - sorry to break it to you*

Southampton is a top tier engineering school, especially for electronics. All sorts of tech and engineering companies actively recruit their graduates because they know for a fact that the blend of theory and practical work embedded into the degrees there equip grads with solid skills. Engineering employers on the whole are much less elitist and frankly, couldn't care less about the Oxbridge moniker. My dad used to hire new grads at Shell (he was a VP) and oftentimes his fellow coworkers would comment on how ill prepared some Oxbridge grads (not all) were for the job.

Because he's talking about engineering and NOT finance. There is a difference. Even if Southampton 'isn't a target' doesn't mean their grads don't go into front office finance (news flash: they do).
(edited 7 years ago)
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.


You're spouting a lot of nonsense here
Original post by Serine Soul
Yeah I wanna do biochem and if I get the grades for Cambridge, I'll be doing bio natsci there and specialise in biochem in the third year :smile:


Good luck fam, only one month till we're all put out of our miseries


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by B4LL3R
That includes people that never applied


No it doesn't - Oxbridge is not the best choice for all degree subjects.

People turn down places and do absolutely fine :smile:

What is 'sad' is people that apply because their school/parents tell them to -
Original post by drandy76
Good luck fam, only one month till we're all put out of our miseries


Posted from TSR Mobile

Or put in more misery :redface:
Good luck to you too man
Original post by Princepieman
So he doesn't work in engineering and the field he ended up in has nothing to do with engineering either? Btw, as someone who knows a fair amount of people within the finance industry, yes, people from Southampton have done exactly what you've stated - sorry to break it to you*

Southampton is a top tier engineering school, especially for electronics. All sorts of tech and engineering companies actively recruit their graduates because they know for a fact that the blend of theory and practical work embedded into the degrees there equip grads with solid skills. Engineering employers on the whole are much less elitist and frankly, couldn't care less about the Oxbridge moniker. My dad used to hire new grads at Shell (he was a VP) and oftentimes his fellow coworkers would comment on how ill prepared some Oxbridge grads (not all) were for the job.

Because he's talking about engineering and NOT finance. There is a difference. Even if Southampton 'isn't a target' doesn't mean their grads don't go into front office finance (news flash: they do).


Yes I'm sure Goldman Sachs and Mcskinsey are just lined with Southampton grads

Newsflash, stop talking socialist ****

Oxford, Cambridge, imperial, UCL, Warwick or GTFO
Original post by THUG*LYF
Yes I'm sure Goldman Sachs and Mcskinsey are just lined with Southampton grads

Newsflash, stop talking socialist ****

Oxford, Cambridge, imperial, UCL, Warwick or GTFO


In the tech division of GS, yeah, definitely. In FO, still a decent amount.

I'm not talking socialist anything, I'm trying to dispel this elitist view on life that is so bloody rampant on here.**
Reply 92
Original post by THUG*LYF
Oxford, Cambridge, imperial, UCL, Warwick or GTFO


Warwick and UCL have weaker engineering departments than Soton
Original post by Ayman!
Warwick and UCL have weaker engineering departments than Soton


Yep

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by THUG*LYF
Yes I'm sure Goldman Sachs and Mcskinsey are just lined with Southampton grads

Newsflash, stop talking socialist ****

Oxford, Cambridge, imperial, UCL, Warwick or GTFO


You clearly have no idea about engineering if you think that Warwick, UCL or even Oxford are anywhere near Cambridge and Imperial for engineering. Where did you go, btw?
Original post by Serine Soul
Or put in more misery :redface:
Good luck to you too man


Nah my mum will kill me if I do too badly , so there's a bonus


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by lawlieto
and then what? Oxford and London Metropolitan University both cost £9000 for a year. Are you saying that they both provide the same level of education because they cost the same? (Your answer implies that more expensive unis are better)


normally you pay for quality so hence my university of choice is £12,500 a month as it so specialised but sets you up to a £60,000 career if you work for someone else or a lot more if you choose to work for yourself
Reply 97
Original post by drandy76
Nah my mum will kill me if I do too badly , so there's a bonus


Posted from TSR Mobile


Where are you going by the way? What's your offer?




I'd much prefer engineering Bristol, Bath or Soton to UCL or Warwick.
Original post by Ayman!
Where are you going by the way? What's your offer?




I'd much prefer engineering Bristol, Bath or Soton to UCL or Warwick.


Kings(the London one, not Zacins one) for Maths


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by jamesthehustler
normally you pay for quality so hence my university of choice is £12,500 a month as it so specialised but sets you up to a £60,000 career if you work for someone else or a lot more if you choose to work for yourself


Imperial charges £27k for internationals while Oxford charges £22k for internationals for my course. They both charge £9k for UK/EU students. So do internationals students at Imperial get better quality education?
High fees don't necessarily mean high quality...
Stanford charges $14,728 which is much less than Oxford/Imperial for internationals. (hey, so American universities don't charge "far far more" after all???)
Even if you pay 12k a month you still have to finish your degree and you still have to work hard to get a good degree, and still have to build a career. tbf your university is a rip off, no education is worth 12k a month.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending