[Harry S Truman]

(Original post by Computerised)
And if it really is harder then why not just go to a London uni and get a (nearly as) prestigious degree for (much less) work?

Because then you wouldn't be an Oxbridge graduate.

Plus I love my course, so more work = more fun.

[Eien]

I'm sure Oxbridge degrees are harder than average, but it's rather difficult to compare to every other university into UK, and certain differences are subjective.

[Computerised]

(Original post by Derek_the_Sheep)
This is going to sound snotty and pretentious - but, anyway....

I't doesn't sound snotty and pretentious.

(Original post by Derek_the_Sheep)
Some students actually rather like the challenge of working up to the edge of what they can do, enjoy their degree subject for itself, and doing so in the company of like-minded people, rather than just trying to get away with as little work as possible to get a degree.

Of course, it may not always seem that way at 4.30 am with an essay to finish. And of course not all students of that type are at Oxbridge, and of course not all students at Oxbridge are of that type.

I agree with that but Imperial/UCL aint exactly easy though. Your mind will still be stretched (less) and you got a better chance of getting a first and a good job at the end. Maybe Oxbridge is a little unnecessarily hard? The way I see it is that Oxbridge design their courses for only the very best to do well, so signing up to that is like taking a special challenge to prove yourself to others (employers, academics, yourself). Your degree years are too pivotal a moment to be risking it on challenges I say. If you play the 'safe way' and go to say Imperial their course is designed for very good students to do well, so if you get all As at A level and you work hard in your degree you will do well. Conversely if you get all As at A level and think you're top of the world and can handle Oxbridge and then find out 3 years later that you're only 2:2 material there you're pretty screwed. I'm not trying to say "go Bedfordshire to have an easy ride", I'm saying that while there is nothing wrong with aiming for the stress of Oxbridge, there is nothing wrong with sacrificing a bit of prestige for less stress at another top 5 uni. Your parents will still be proud of you, you will still be working your butt off, you can still read around your subject/challenge yourself/whatever, and you will end up in the exact same job as the Oxbridge grads.

[M.R.]

Yes, depnding on what you are comparing it with and the subject. E.g. Someone at Cambridge studying History is going to have to work much harder than say an UCL student to get a first.

(Original post by Computerised)
I't doesn't sound snotty and pretentious.


I agree with that but Imperial/UCL aint exactly easy though. Your mind will still be stretched (less) and you got a better chance of getting a first and a good job at the end. Maybe Oxbridge is a little unnecessarily hard? The way I see it is that Oxbridge design their courses for only the very best to do well, so signing up to that is like taking a special challenge to prove yourself to others (employers, academics, yourself). Your degree years are too pivotal a moment to be risking it on challenges I say. If you play the 'safe way' and go to say Imperial their course is designed for very good students to do well, so if you get all As at A level and you work hard in your degree you will do well. Conversely if you get all As at A level and think you're top of the world and can handle Oxbridge and then find out 3 years later that you're only 2:2 material there you're pretty screwed. I'm not trying to say "go Bedfordshire to have an easy ride", I'm saying that while there is nothing wrong with aiming for the stress of Oxbridge, there is nothing wrong with sacrificing a bit of prestige for less stress at another top 5 uni. Your parents will still be proud of you, you will still be working your butt off, you can still read around your subject/challenge yourself/whatever, and you will end up in the exact same job as the Oxbridge grads.

Imperial and UCL have quite different levels of workload, from what I hear from my friends.

[Computerised]

(Original post by M.R.)
Yes, depnding on what you are comparing it with and the subject. E.g. Someone at Cambridge studying History is going to have to work much harder than say an UCL student to get a first.



Imperial and UCL have quite different levels of workload, from what I hear from my friends.

True for science obviously. but for Law or Economics etc...

[Alex-92]

Imperial's bloody hard... just smashed through my first all nighter to get in my second lab report of the week. And it's show week, so musicals every night. Ahhhhh!

[bcrazy]

(Original post by Alex-92)
Imperial's bloody hard... just smashed through my first all nighter to get in my second lab report of the week. And it's show week, so musicals every night. Ahhhhh!

It's December and you have only just had an all nighter- reconsider your definition of "bloody hard"

[ebam_uk]

(Original post by Computerised)
I heard it's not so much harder but just more stuff covered at a faster rate. That's what I heard anyway.

And if it really is harder then why not just go to a London uni and get a (nearly as) prestigious degree for (much less) work?

Tbh, if only I could turn back the hands of time

[Alex-92]

(Original post by bcrazy)
It's December and you have only just had an all nighter- reconsider your definition of "bloody hard"

Well most days are 6am get up to travel to Hammersmith, and you don't get back in until 6pm. From then it's a rush to get all notes done (that's if you're lucky and don't have an essay/lab report/practical spreadsheet/assessment to revise for), so a good day would be getting into bed at 1am, most nights it's about 2ish. You don't go out, you just work. As it's opera week, I've only had one night off to do my lab report, hence the all-nighter. I'm a fairly organised person, so I work bloody hard to avoid doing all-nighters. If you are constantly doing all-nighters I'd consider looking at what you do on a daily basis and prioritise

[SunderX]

(Original post by Ivanka)
I've never studied at Oxford, but I would like to know what other members base their opinions on. I just doubt the difficulty can be that straightforward.

For example, I am assessed throughout the whole year and some things count towards my final grade. At Oxford (as far as I know), you only have exams at the end of either Hilary or Trinity term, but only once a year and even my friend studying history had none in his second year. It's true that Oxonians usually write essays intensively, but they don't count towards anything. I have to turn up in all my classes and ake sure I don't fail throughout year.

I'm not trying to imply that my degree at UCL's harder, I'm just pointing out there are several aspects that one can find easier or more difficult.

Don't know why anyone negged you for that post, but I repped to make up for it .

So you're right in that most Cambridge assessment occurs at the end of the year (That said, a lot of subjects i.e. Physics will have ongoing assessments in the form of lab practicals/reports). However, I'd argue that this makes things harder - instead of cramming for a particular topic, doing the exam and then forgetting about it, you have to be able to remember, understand and apply everything at once. Whereas the month preceding exam period still is pretty mental, there's just not enough time to relearn everything from scratch, so there is the strong motivation to get things right the first time round.

Lectures aren't compulsory, but supervisions generally are. If you miss them or don't do work for them, the only person you're hurting is yourself. All of this gets reflected in the final exams.

[pink pineapple]

(Original post by Dalek1099)
so is it harder to get a 2:1 at Oxford than a 1st at Sunderland and what are the specific equivalences of an Oxford degree and a degree from sunderland?

yes, obviously a degree from Oxford is going be more challenging than a degree at Sunderland. The terms at Oxbridge are much shorter, hence the amount of work in a certain amount of work. The grade requirements such as A*AA show that it is probably much more likely to be a challenging and rigorous enviroment tand the student will need to achieve that in order to have a chance in suceeding in an enviroment like that.

[dbou]

In science subjects I would say that there is a quantifiable difference. I only have experience in mathematics at Cambridge, but you have people who achieved 4 A*s in A Levels without effort working 40-60 hour weeks. Clearly they are going to achieve more than people who got 3 B's and are working 30 hour weeks.

[najabri]

Of course they are, at least in most cases, though by how much and in what areas depends on the subject and university to which you are comparing Oxbridge.

The things people will always look at are:

- Degree subject
- What you got in degree (e.g. 1st, 2:1)
- Where it's from

It's also worth noting that some people regard a degree from certain institutions instantly better than others, when sometimes a university is weaker in certain areas (like my brother looked at Durham for computer science, and it wasn't particularly impressive). However, on the other side of the coin, people to whom it matters the most (e.g. employers) will know which universities are truly the best for whichever subject you do.

Generally though, the higher entrance standards of Oxbridge show a person's ability, accompanied with different structure of work and workload, and the fact that it's harder to get a 1st from Oxbridge because you're competing against people of similar ability. This isn't to say that all other universities are rubbish, because that really isn't the case, just that if you've graduated from Oxbridge most people will view that very positively.

[michael321]

(Original post by Computerised)
I't doesn't sound snotty and pretentious.


I agree with that but Imperial/UCL aint exactly easy though. Your mind will still be stretched (less) and you got a better chance of getting a first and a good job at the end. Maybe Oxbridge is a little unnecessarily hard? The way I see it is that Oxbridge design their courses for only the very best to do well, so signing up to that is like taking a special challenge to prove yourself to others (employers, academics, yourself). Your degree years are too pivotal a moment to be risking it on challenges I say. If you play the 'safe way' and go to say Imperial their course is designed for very good students to do well, so if you get all As at A level and you work hard in your degree you will do well. Conversely if you get all As at A level and think you're top of the world and can handle Oxbridge and then find out 3 years later that you're only 2:2 material there you're pretty screwed. I'm not trying to say "go Bedfordshire to have an easy ride", I'm saying that while there is nothing wrong with aiming for the stress of Oxbridge, there is nothing wrong with sacrificing a bit of prestige for less stress at another top 5 uni. Your parents will still be proud of you, you will still be working your butt off, you can still read around your subject/challenge yourself/whatever, and you will end up in the exact same job as the Oxbridge grads.

Quite a wise post I thought. I think the point is that Oxbridge does "open some extra doors" - less so now than it used to, but there is still a certain advantage to going there over somewhere like UCL. I agree, the worst case scenario is going there and coming out with a 2:2, but the selection procedures are such that hopefully that doesn't generally happen. If you can go to Oxbridge and get a first, so long as you're half decent in interviews you will waltz into any job at the top end of any profession without trouble. I don't think worries about first vs 2:1 are that justified because employers do recognise that an Oxbridge degree is harder than a "normal" degree, and account for this; I'm not saying that someone with a First from UCL wouldn't very possibly be chosen over someone with a 2:1 from Cambridge, but I do think the employer would see them as substantially more equal than, say, a First from UCL and a 2:1 from Durham.

Also, given the student:teacher ratios and style of teaching, there are advantages to Oxbridge for those who really love their subject, and some people understandably like the collegiate system and the nice architecture/feel of Oxbridge.

There are probably certain advantages to turning down Oxbridge, but I think someone who does well or excels at Oxford or Cambridge stands a better chance than someone who respectively does well or excels at another good university.

[Aeschylus]

A lot of preening in this thread

[Computerised]

(Original post by michael321)
Quite a wise post I thought. I think the point is that Oxbridge does "open some extra doors" - less so now than it used to, but there is still a certain advantage to going there over somewhere like UCL. I agree, the worst case scenario is going there and coming out with a 2:2, but the selection procedures are such that hopefully that doesn't generally happen. If you can go to Oxbridge and get a first, so long as you're half decent in interviews you will waltz into any job at the top end of any profession without trouble. I don't think worries about first vs 2:1 are that justified because employers do recognise that an Oxbridge degree is harder than a "normal" degree, and account for this; I'm not saying that someone with a First from UCL wouldn't very possibly be chosen over someone with a 2:1 from Cambridge, but I do think the employer would see them as substantially more equal than, say, a First from UCL and a 2:1 from Durham.

Also, given the student:teacher ratios and style of teaching, there are advantages to Oxbridge for those who really love their subject, and some people understandably like the collegiate system and the nice architecture/feel of Oxbridge.

There are probably certain advantages to turning down Oxbridge, but I think someone who does well or excels at Oxford or Cambridge stands a better chance than someone who respectively does well or excels at another good university.

Thank you. I just wanted to point out one thing however. That UCL is actually the British university with the lowest student:teacher ratio in the country. That said UCL therefore has the 'manpower', money (they arent exactly a poor university) and space to do oxbridge style tutorials but for some reason they dont. They still do tutorials however but it's like 6+ to a class. I guess it's because UCL just likes to be different to Oxbridge. I mean they could get a fancy coat of arms, put up some expensive Renaissance paintings and close off access to their quad and be the really pretentious and posh 'University College' (they got the reputation, history and prestige of a central London location to do it)but instead they opt for a completely plain ( a nice old building which is not overly decorated on the interior) open to the public campus and a modern corporate logo/image. I like this about UCL. It has the reputation prestige and history without all the stuffiness of Oxbridge. Anyway that ramble is all going off on a tangent and has nothing much to do with your post lol

[The_Lonely_Goatherd]

(Original post by Computerised)
Thank you. I just wanted to point out one thing however. That UCL is actually the British university with the lowest student:teacher ratio in the country. That said UCL therefore has the 'manpower', money (they arent exactly a poor university) and space to do oxbridge style tutorials but for some reason they dont. They still do tutorials however but it's like 6+ to a class. I guess it's because UCL just likes to be different to Oxbridge. I mean they could get a fancy coat of arms, put up some expensive Renaissance paintings and close off access to their quad and be the really pretentious and posh 'University College' (they got the reputation, history and prestige of a central London location to do it)but instead they opt for a completely plain ( a nice old building which is not overly decorated on the interior) open to the public campus and a modern corporate logo/image. I like this about UCL. It has the reputation prestige and history without all the stuffiness of Oxbridge. Anyway that ramble is all going off on a tangent and has nothing much to do with your post lol

Most of Oxford really isn't stuffy though. I never found much stuffiness at Oxford and that's coming from a working class comp-educated student. Whereas the Music department at KCL was the most rah, up-itself thing on the planet

[Computerised]

(Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd)
Most of Oxford really isn't stuffy though. I never found much stuffiness at Oxford and that's coming from a working class comp-educated student. Whereas the Music department at KCL was the most rah, up-itself thing on the planet

Ok I agree with you about Oxford as When I stayed there for the summer school I was surprised at how non-stuffy it was. I was expecting everyone in a top hat and stiff upper lip. Cambridge on the other hand.........

That is interesting what you say about KCL. Please tell me more.

[The_Lonely_Goatherd]

(Original post by Computerised)
Ok I agree with you about Oxford as When I stayed there for the summer school I was surprised at how non-stuffy it was. I was expecting everyone in a top hat and stiff upper lip. Cambridge on the other hand.........

That is interesting what you say about KCL. Please tell me more.

I wouldn't say it was the whole of KCL. I only know about the Music department. I've never seen such rah behaviour from academics anywhere else. It was quite offputting and bemusing

[Computerised]

(Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd)
I wouldn't say it was the whole of KCL. I only know about the Music department. I've never seen such rah behaviour from academics anywhere else. It was quite offputting and bemusing

The academics were rahs?? Wow I never heard of rah academics before. Thought it was just a student thing. But this is why UCL>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> King's