This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The Cambridge Chat Thread - it's over 90,000!

As a side note to the grades discussion, how many of you would have chosen to go elsewhere because you think you would have been able to get a better grade?

Had I gone to a different university I may well have had a better chance of getting a first (although I wouldn't necessarily make that assumption as I've never actually been to a different university and I don't know precisely how much standards differ). However, even if that were the case I still wouldn't swap going to Cambridge. I met some guys from other well respected universities when I was on my year abroad and we chatted a bit about what Russian literature we'd studied - they essentially did one book or one author per term in their second year, whereas at that point I had already read a wide variety of novels, short stories and poetry from 1865 until the present day. Even though they'd studied Dostoevskii in detail and I'd only done two or three supervisions on a few of his stories (and read some novels in my spare time), I could still hold my own in a discussion with them about his works. It's Cambridge that has given me the combination of a really broad framework and the opportunity for in depth discussion in the supervisions, and has taught me how to think (not in a prescriptive way, but the actual act of thinking) and how to discuss. I don't think I would have been self-motivated enough to give myself that if I had been somewhere else. However, I think that is somewhat easier for me to say, partly because I was never at university in order to get myself into the job market (university has always been pretty much the apex of my ambitions) and partly because I'm doing an arts subject in which about four people per year get lower than a 2.i in Part II.

I am the only person that I know of from home who didn't get at least a 2:1 - that includes people who got Bs and Cs at A level when I was top of my school. I feel that my degree disadvantages me against other graduates and that the cambridge label will not make people look twice at the 2:2. From an academic point of view I would go somewhere else like a shot if I had my time again.

I don't know whether I would though. Apart from the academic work, which I hate, I've been quite happy here. The music scene is good and I wouldn't have been able to do as much stuff elsewhere. So I don't know. It isn't a definite "Yes, I'd switch", but equally it isn't a definite "No, I wouldn't".

Reply 7261

alex_hk90

19

Original post by Zoedotdot

As a side note to the grades discussion, how many of you would have chosen to go elsewhere because you think you would have been able to get a better grade?

That's a very difficult thing to answer because I can't know how things would have turned out at any other uni. Cambridge still has that added reputational benefit.

Original post by ukebert

I am the only person that I know of from home who didn't get at least a 2:1 - that includes people who got Bs and Cs at A level when I was top of my school. I feel that my degree disadvantages me against other graduates and that the cambridge label will not make people look twice at the 2:2. From an academic point of view I would go somewhere else like a shot if I had my time again.

For large schemes where it is an automatic cut-off below 2.1 then I would agree, but for smaller organisations I think the Cambridge label will at least compensate enough so that you could get through to interview (ceteris paribus, of course).

Reply 7262

It could be lupus

12

Original post by Zoedotdot

As a side note to the grades discussion, how many of you would have chosen to go elsewhere because you think you would have been able to get a better grade?

I might have. For medicine, the uni doesn't matter for the MTAS, so going here would have made no difference... then again if I was getting high marks I wouldn't say that

EDIT: to be fair though, I have enjoyed my time here

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 7263

Topaz_eyes

12

Original post by ukebert

I am the only person that I know of from home who didn't get at least a 2:1 - that includes people who got Bs and Cs at A level when I was top of my school. I feel that my degree disadvantages me against other graduates and that the cambridge label will not make people look twice at the 2:2. From an academic point of view I would go somewhere else like a shot if I had my time again.

I don't know whether I would though. Apart from the academic work, which I hate, I've been quite happy here. The music scene is good and I wouldn't have been able to do as much stuff elsewhere. So I don't know. It isn't a definite "Yes, I'd switch", but equally it isn't a definite "No, I wouldn't".

Exactly the same here (although I don't know what grade I'll get this year). I love my social life here, but I think I'd be happier academically somewhere else. I enjoy the challenge, but when I'm stuck doing work for hours and getting nowhere, it's not a challenge - it's impossible.

Reply 7264

Craghyrax

17

I would definitely never swap Cambridge for anywhere else.

Reply 7265

BigFudamental

13

Original post by Craghyrax

Sick? I think there are far worse issues in the world to waste your energy on.

Like KONY 2012?

Maybe "sick" was too strong a word, but as issues go, Cambridge graduate employment is reasonably close to my heart.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 7266

Craghyrax

17

Original post by BigFudamental

Like KONY 2012?

Hilarious.

Reply 7267

BigFudamental

13

Original post by Craghyrax

Hilarious.

It's not meant to be. As I said in the edit, Cambridge prospects are pretty relevant to me. Selfish brat that I am I care more about them than most of the more "important" issues you were alluding to.

Reply 7268

Craghyrax

17

Original post by BigFudamental

It's not meant to be. As I said in the edit, Cambridge prospects are pretty relevant to me. Selfish brat that I am I care more about them than most of the more "important" issues you were alluding to.

I'm not objecting to you caring about an issue that affects you (although I could write you a supervision essay explaining why actually it won't disadvantage you, and why several other details going for you will ensure that you still come out on top in our society). What I object to is referring to the possibility of ending up ever so slightly less fortunate and set for life than you already are as 'sickening'. Is the top that narrow? Does it bother you that much if bright students at other Universities share in some of the success?* I fail to see how 'sickening' could ever be seen as an appropriate way to describe this situation. If we're talking about justice and fairness in life (which is what I assume you were appealing to) then you are in a bubble of note.

*Not that getting into Oxbridge is exactly proof of being deserving or brighter than the rest. Plenty of very average people make it in, while a fair few geniuses don't get picked because of a bad day at interview/the joke that is A level marking.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 7269

BigFudamental

13

Original post by Craghyrax

I'm not objecting to you caring about an issue that affects you (although I could write you a supervision essay explaining why actually it won't disadvantage you, and why several other details going for you will ensure that you still come out on top in our society). What I object to is referring to the possibility of ending up ever so slightly less fortunate and set for life than you already are as 'sickening'. Is the top that narrow? Does it bother you that much if bright students at other Universities share in some of the success?* I fail to see how 'sickening' could ever be seen as an appropriate way to describe this situation. If we're talking about justice and fairness in life (which is what I assume you were appealing to) then you are in a bubble of note.

*Not that getting into Oxbridge is exactly proof of being deserving or brighter than the rest. Plenty of very average people make it in, while a fair few geniuses don't get picked because of a bad day at interview/the joke that is A level marking.

Don't get me wrong, I'm fully aware how trivial this problem is compared to the sorts of difficulties that 99% of the global population contend with, but that's beside the point. I think the "tick this box if you have at least a 2:1" phenomenon is a big problem as far as fairness in graduate employment goes, and I think it's also damaging to a lot of recruiters. I'm not saying there aren't people at other universities that are also getting shafted, but (following on from what others have said above) it seems to me that Cambridge students are disproportionately disadvantaged because of the tougher competition and tougher workloads they face, regardless of whether they are average or not. You're right there are probably several compensating sociological factors in any case, but it just seems odd that people are being penalised for going to top unis.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 7270

swbp

10

Original post by nuodai

Re: people above talking about maths... I hope you all replied to my email last week :wink:

You might be interested to know that Durham gave out 66% firsts in 2009.

In descending order of %age 1sts in Maths (in 2009):
1. Durham (66%)
2. UEA (45%)
3. Bath (42%)
4. Sussex (40%)
5. Warwick (38%)
6. Oxford (38%)
7. City (35%)
8. Kent (35%)
9. Reading (35%)
10. UCL (33%)
11. Queen's Belfast (32%)
12. Nottingham (32%)
12. Cambridge (32%)
13. York (31%)
14. Liverpool (31%)
15. Cardiff (30%)
...

I wonder what you guys think of that.

I'm going to Sussex next year (not for maths though), and this is actually a very pleasant surprise! Obviously it shows that students are dedicated, but could it also suggest that the course is easier than others? Someone expand upon this.....

Reply 7271

nuodai

17

Original post by swbp

I'm going to Sussex next year (not for maths though), and this is actually a very pleasant surprise! Obviously it shows that students are dedicated, but could it also suggest that the course is easier than others? Someone expand upon this.....

It comes down to the fact that unis set their own grade boundaries, and subject to input from some external examiners, there isn't an awful lot of effort made to standardise what is meant by "a 1st" and "a 2:1" (in contrast to the job market, where you're severely handicapped by writing "2:2" on an application form). In a way, it's good, because it means that you're not instantly advantaged or disadvantaged by going somewhere which has better or worse lecturing, and the grade you get might reflect the effort you put in and not just some objective quantification of "how much you know".

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 7272

Craghyrax

17

Original post by BigFudamental

Don't get me wrong, I'm fully aware how trivial this problem is compared to the sorts of difficulties that 99% of the global population contend with, but that's beside the point. I think the "tick this box if you have at least a 2:1" phenomenon is a big problem as far as fairness in graduate employment goes, and I think it's also damaging to a lot of recruiters. I'm not saying there aren't people at other universities that are also getting shafted, but (following on from what others have said above) it seems to me that Cambridge students are disproportionately disadvantaged because of the tougher competition and tougher workloads they face, regardless of whether they are average or not. You're right there are probably several compensating sociological factors in any case, but it just seems odd that people are being penalised for going to top unis.

Hmm, I'm not really sure I agree with this.
As mentioned very early on in the discussion I am very sympathetic for (especially) scientists at Cambridge who are genuinely above average/brilliant, but still can't get 2.1s because of a basic number distribution issue. This is alot less true for Arts students. Even at Cambridge, anyone who isn't a lazy bum (or suffering life issues unrelated to their potential/ability) should get a 2.1. A good 2.1 is hard to get, but not a 2.1.
However I don't think discrimination by employers is really as much of an issue as it seems, and I don't agree that Cambridge students are disadvantaged. Overall there are other features which make up for not having a 2.1.
Criteria like having a 2.1. are ways that companies use to slim people down, but that doesn't mean they stick to this. They pick people they like who don't match all of their criteria. And the fact is that employers are biased towards Oxbridge graduates over those of other Universities. In some ways I actually see it as a kind of fortunate lucky handicap that has emerged. I think in employers minds its something like 'they must have a 2.1 from an ok University OR be from Oxbridge'. They might not explicitly think that, but I think that in practice people do cut Oxbridge students slack over grades because of where they're from.

And there are so many other advantages that Oxbridge students have that graduates elsewhere in the country don't. The supervision system gives us an unmatched advantage in terms of confidence and practice for interviews, as well as ability to bull ****. Employers are also more likely to prefer us because they know our system forces us to get used to solving really tough problems under insanely tight deadlines. Whether or not you think you're networking at Oxbridge, simple social maths means that you are actually beneficially connected just through attendance and ordinary activities here. Those connections do make a difference, without it necessarily being an explicitly nepotistic thing.

And that's before I bother predicting your fortunes using stats and your socio-economic profile :wink:

I know it seems really stressful before you apply for jobs and its natural to feel pessimistic and for these things to loom large. But taking all things into consideration, I truly think that we aren't disadvantaged. Furthermore I know plenty of scientists with 2.2s who've gotten good jobs.
I personally think the thing is more irking because of pride. It makes me really frustrated to think that I would have had a first anywhere else. Particularly as I had one in my second year, and elsewhere those marks would have been counted up into the overall degree mark. But I can't honestly say it held me back. I got into the MPhil in my department despite just missing their offer because they knew me and had seen my performance at undergrad (giving me a whopping unfair advantage over everyone applying for that course, clearly), and I got fully funding at another University despite a 2.1. at undergrad!

Reply 7273

alex_hk90

19

Original post by Craghyrax

However I don't think discrimination by employers is really as much of an issue as it seems, and I don't agree that Cambridge students are disadvantaged. Overall there are other features which make up for not having a 2.1.
Criteria like having a 2.1. are ways that companies use to slim people down, but that doesn't mean they stick to this. They pick people they like who don't match all of their criteria.

While I agree that some employers do cut Oxbridge students (more) slack over their grades, it is also the case that many automatically filter any candidates with below a 2.1. There have even been some graduate job application systems I have seen that will force you to answer some questions before you can fill out the rest of the form, and this will inevitably include "have you obtained or are you expected to obtain at least a 2.1 in your undergraduate degree" along with "have you obtained at least 320 UCAS points in your A-levels" (the figure is a guess).

Reply 7274

harr

15

I think the upper/lower employment distinction is silly for several reasons:
(1) The spread of achievement varies hugely by subject, while it's not clear that ability does. This means that it advantages people doing certain subjects.
(2) It's not clear that the standards are the same at different universities.
(3) School results are arguably more likely to give a good indication of basic numeracy and literacy skills.
(4) Most people work with others, so the amount of effort put in at school seems likely to be a better indicator of how much effort people will put into a job.
(5) Cambridge don't give an overall class, which is confusing.

I'm not surprised that employers use it as a filter though. If you have loads of applicants it's a simple way to narrow things down. You save hugely on the cost of assessing people in exchange for the risk of rejecting a candidate you would have chosen if you gave them the chance. Since degree class is likely to be a reasonable indicator of how good an employee you will be, this is probably a sensible trade-off. It's possible that some other measure such as UCAS points would be more effective, but degree class is a very simple measure of recent performance.

Original post by nuodai

Re: people above talking about maths... I hope you all replied to my email last week :wink:

You might be interested to know that Durham gave out 66% firsts in 2009.

[...]

I wonder what you guys think of that.

I think that anything that unbelievable isn't true.

Your link defines the category you've ranked by as "percentage of maths sci students getting a first class degree, according to unistats". Unistats allows you to search by university and/or subject. Alternatively they offer this spreadsheet.

Unless it's changed dramatically since 2009...

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 7275

ebam_uk

20

Original post by ukebert

I am the only person that I know of from home who didn't get at least a 2:1 - that includes people who got Bs and Cs at A level when I was top of my school. I feel that my degree disadvantages me against other graduates and that the cambridge label will not make people look twice at the 2:2. From an academic point of view I would go somewhere else like a shot if I had my time again.

I don't know whether I would though. Apart from the academic work, which I hate, I've been quite happy here. The music scene is good and I wouldn't have been able to do as much stuff elsewhere. So I don't know. It isn't a definite "Yes, I'd switch", but equally it isn't a definite "No, I wouldn't".

Yeah, Im pretty convinced that I would be getting much higher grades at another university ( perhaps a less prestigious uni)... So I think I would swap in a heart beat for that reason... Also Engineering at Cambridge seems particularly intense as well I noticed... perhaps it would be less so...

Reply 7276

Leipzig

Things in my life that would be better at a different uni:
a) my social life
b) my bank balance
c) my knowledge of pop/youth culture
d) my wardrobe

Things in my life that would be worse at a different uni:
a) my ego
b) my knowledge of chosen subject areas
c) my liver
d) my health

Looks like it's 50:50... might as well stay here for the final term *shrug*
(Bizarrely, my grade average was pretty much the same last year, at a different uni, as it is here.
Dunno what that says about me, other than I work to the level that's expected of me, perhaps)

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 7277

Slumpy

16

Original post by nuodai

Re: people above talking about maths... I hope you all replied to my email last week :wink:

You might be interested to know that Durham gave out 66% firsts in 2009.

In descending order of %age 1sts in Maths (in 2009):
1. Durham (66%)
2. UEA (45%)
3. Bath (42%)
4. Sussex (40%)
5. Warwick (38%)
6. Oxford (38%)
7. City (35%)
8. Kent (35%)
9. Reading (35%)
10. UCL (33%)
11. Queen's Belfast (32%)
12. Nottingham (32%)
12. Cambridge (32%)
13. York (31%)
14. Liverpool (31%)
15. Cardiff (30%)
...

I wonder what you guys think of that.

I did not. But then, I'm not there anymore. Fill me in? :P

Original post by Zoedotdot

As a side note to the grades discussion, how many of you would have chosen to go elsewhere because you think you would have been able to get a better grade?

Had I gone to a different university I may well have had a better chance of getting a first (although I wouldn't necessarily make that assumption as I've never actually been to a different university and I don't know precisely how much standards differ). However, even if that were the case I still wouldn't swap going to Cambridge. I met some guys from other well respected universities when I was on my year abroad and we chatted a bit about what Russian literature we'd studied - they essentially did one book or one author per term in their second year, whereas at that point I had already read a wide variety of novels, short stories and poetry from 1865 until the present day. Even though they'd studied Dostoevskii in detail and I'd only done two or three supervisions on a few of his stories (and read some novels in my spare time), I could still hold my own in a discussion with them about his works. It's Cambridge that has given me the combination of a really broad framework and the opportunity for in depth discussion in the supervisions, and has taught me how to think (not in a prescriptive way, but the actual act of thinking) and how to discuss. I don't think I would have been self-motivated enough to give myself that if I had been somewhere else. However, I think that is somewhat easier for me to say, partly because I was never at university in order to get myself into the job market (university has always been pretty much the apex of my ambitions) and partly because I'm doing an arts subject in which about four people per year get lower than a 2.i in Part II.

I think I could've done better if I'd worked harder. But I guess I'll never know. However, had I been elsewhere, I'd not know even moreso, and that would've been hard to live with(or rather; to accept I'd given up a challenge for security). If that makes sense!

Original post by Craghyrax

And there are so many other advantages that Oxbridge students have that graduates elsewhere in the country don't. The supervision system gives us an unmatched advantage in terms of confidence and practice for interviews, as well as ability to bull ****. Employers are also more likely to prefer us because they know our system forces us to get used to solving really tough problems under insanely tight deadlines. Whether or not you think you're networking at Oxbridge, simple social maths means that you are actually beneficially connected just through attendance and ordinary activities here. Those connections do make a difference, without it necessarily being an explicitly nepotistic thing.

I don't know that I agree with this, at least for sciences. I get the impression supervisions elsewhere are much the same as far as scientists go(I'm willing to believe it could be quite different for social sciences/arts though). The rest I can't argue with though.

Also-full time work is tiring! Don't do it guys!

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 7278

Canned Door

Go to the cinema instead! Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was amazing. A long, good quality film, loads of amazing actors and a plot I think I'd need a second viewing of to fully grasp. Not really an action film, but still so gripping. Anyone else seen it yet? I don't know when it came out in the UK, or if anyone will have had a chance to see it in term time... Definitely recommend it!

Reply 7279

Zoedotdot

OP

18

Original post by Canned Door

Go to the cinema instead! Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was amazing. A long, good quality film, loads of amazing actors and a plot I think I'd need a second viewing of to fully grasp. Not really an action film, but still so gripping. Anyone else seen it yet? I don't know when it came out in the UK, or if anyone will have had a chance to see it in term time... Definitely recommend it!

Bless you, it came out months ago here :p:

I really enjoyed it as well though. I think a lot of people were put off by the plot not being so explicit, but the issue is that the book itself is very psychological, and while I think they did a good job of conveying that aspect, they didn't always do a good job of conveying the specifics of what was going on. There's a lot of inference, and if I hadn't read the book I don't think I would have enjoyed it so much. Certainly the people I was with didn't really like it, and I had to explain the entire plot to them when we came out.

That said, my younger brother and sister both went to see it and understood it perfectly, so perhaps it's just a certain type of person who it appeals to?

The Cambridge Chat Thread - it's over 90,000!

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you