Is a 2:1, 2:2 and even 3rd class oxbridge degree looked favorably upon then a 1st

Well my teacher went to oxford for his undergraduate and didnt make the cut for postgrad so had to go to Southampton.

check
http://www.phy.cam.ac.uk/teaching/teachingfiles/MASt.pdf

it's not offered in chem - don't know why maybe for the reason you said but it is in physics and materials science.

as you can see, students become the same as 4th years on the Msci , taking the same modules and same exams, research to get the MAst.

For this there is only 20 places and you're going up against internationals as well as all the brits from other good british uni's... so the reality of getting a place with a 2.1 or the course going unfilled is... well just not guna happen

Interesting. Relevant to this thread, the requirement for a Part II physics student to progress is only a 2:2!

I get the feeling that there is more opportunity to do work on a consistent basis at American unis, as they continuous test you, so if you are the kind inclined to go on to a postgrad it is easy for you to study all the time. Whereas in the UK we don't tend to have so much assessment and pressure to study except for occasional courseworks and end of year exams.

Hrmn yeah, possibly though at my uni I would only need a 2.2 to pass onto next year but all the phd programs will only consider 2.1's and over

so there could be some loyalty factor.

It would be pretty hard telling an imperial physics student with 69 that he knew the same as a cambridge one with 50

I'm not sure, the physics guys here have always attributed it to low interest in the Part III course. Both chemistry and materials require 2:1s from 3rd years for Part III (which makes this term really fun for me!!)

This is not correct. About 98-99% of Physics Part II students continue to Part III. In my year only 4 left at part II out of about 120. Not sure where the requirements for chemistry and materials come from either, I know of many let onto part III with 2.2s. There are unlimited spaces for students to do Part III physics, this is not the case with chemistry (and possibly materials).

1) well at my uni (Bristol) all 4th year modules are officially masters level.

kka25...

"Integrated master's degree programmes typically include study
equivalent to at least four full-time academic years, of which
study equivalent to at least one full-time academic year is at
level 7. Thus study at bachelor's level is integrated with study
at master's level and the programmes are designed to meet
the level 6 and level 7 qualification descriptors in full."

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Documents/FHEQ08.pdf

Official description...

Does that represent the whole world?



Try harder. Use your 'MSci' brain power.



Of course you nut crack. These are Unis based in the UK.



Good work to generalize!



Do you even have a degree yet?

Why do I need to provide you with that information? You're the one who arrogantly puts information out in the space. Burden of proof is with you now.



Do you know how to read and write? This is basically what I wrote.



Which Uni? Only in Bristol? Generalization again?



The UK, Wales and Ireland; that does reflect the whole world doesn't it?

It's quite interesting when I spoke to the senior admission tutor about the difference between the MSc and the MEng and he said that they are of course different; one is a UG degree and one is a PG degree. Then I asked, since the UG and PG Masters are taking almost 100% the same UG course/modules, so what's so significantly different about them that you have to charge more for the MSc students, other then the fact that you just extended their project for a tiny duration?

Senior Admission tutor: <Stumbles>

I LOL at this.

I do know that it all has to do with the fee plans and all e.g. loan, but when you really think about it, the MSc and MSci are nothing but a scam in the UK; just to get money from students specifically international students; and they had to pay astronomical fees just to do a degree that they already have!

An international student I know did an MEng here but when he went back home to do his PhD, he had to do another MSc because his MEng is not qualified as a Masters degree. Unless he got himself a First, then he has no chance of doing a PhD even if he has an MEng.

I can't be bothered anymore you're too stupid for words.
If you do an Msc after a Bsc many foreign universities want you to do their own masters before PhD. I don't have to prove it i've already stated universities that comply i.e oxbridge & usa (I don't care about 'all the uni's in the world' - most of them are crap and you're just trying to be awkward) and the official rules whereas, you have not found any evidence for your claims. If you claim there are exceptions to the proven rule, it is you that has to find them you moron. You clearly went to a **** uni if the degree is not being recognised, that's not my fault.

I don't think it's such a scam for me to cover completely new material at a higher level for ~3.5K.

MEng is also the same as MSci fool.

You don't see job applications with 'Minimum of 2:1 unless you went to Oxbridge which requires 2:2' do you?

what about a 1st from oxbridge?

wouldn't compensate for having a totally retarded sig file

Actually, you can get onto almost any postgraduate course if you have a decent amount of experience (MBA) or the funding. So no, there is no fraud in that statement whatsoever although I would be tempted to do my undergraduate studies again with a 3rd so good on him for not doing so. I know of people with thirds who have done postgraduate degrees at Oxbridge.

Basically, Oxbridge is generally taken as one grade above the rest, although in some subjects, like maths, it's probably two grades.

Basically, Oxbridge is generally taken as one grade above the rest, although in some subjects, like maths, it's probably two grades.

I daresay that many Oxbridge graduates in many subjects are deserving of a Phd
in many cases, I was more assured in my subject than the vast majority of academics at Essex university well before I completed my degree.

I do know of people who failed the first year or left before the end of the first year and ended up with firsts from Imperial, I could even point out a reasonably well-known assistant professor at a well-known university who was in that situation. But carry on frothing at the mouth in ignorance.

You state the 'normal' requirement for Part III, in the vast majority of cases, the 2.1s, on average, end up doing better than the firsts from elsewhere. You then churn out some hilarious extrapolations, not realising that Part III consists of a huge range of topics, many easier than others and there is a big difference between a distinction, merit and a pass.

It would kill me to admit anything - our school exams are some of the worst in the world, STEPs aren't all that either, they're just a damn sight better than A Levels. What you don't know, and what I do, is that any Oxbridge academic in maths will tell you that they have serious problems when recruiting Chinese students, simply because they have done far more maths at 18, the problem is that, in a large number of cases, by the time it gets round to the final year, they tend to lag behind and often end up with the worst grades - I suggest you ask around, it's well known.

The problem is that Oxbridge academics have no idea just how poor degrees outside Oxbridge are. The Cambridge Economics Faculty has realised this, they have found that Oxbridge 2.1s almost invariably outscore firsts from the next best institutions in the MPhil Courses.

Please feel free to resort to 'crap', I know it's all you can manage. Part II Maths and Part III Maths are widely regarded as the toughest maths courses in the world, so you can go on about the Chinese standards as much as you like.

Now try again.

I daresay that many Oxbridge graduates in many subjects are deserving of a Phd
in many cases, I was more assured in my subject than the vast majority of academics at Essex university well before I completed my degree.

I do know of people who failed the first year or left before the end of the first year and ended up with firsts from Imperial, I could even point out a reasonably well-known assistant professor at a well-known university who was in that situation. But carry on frothing at the mouth in ignorance.

You state the 'normal' requirement for Part III, in the vast majority of cases, the 2.1s, on average, end up doing better than the firsts from elsewhere. You then churn out some hilarious extrapolations, not realising that Part III consists of a huge range of topics, many easier than others and there is a big difference between a distinction, merit and a pass.

It would kill me to admit anything - our school exams are some of the worst in the world, STEPs aren't all that either, they're just a damn sight better than A Levels. What you don't know, and what I do, is that any Oxbridge academic in maths will tell you that they have serious problems when recruiting Chinese students, simply because they have done far more maths at 18, the problem is that, in a large number of cases, by the time it gets round to the final year, they tend to lag behind and often end up with the worst grades - I suggest you ask around, it's well known.

The problem is that Oxbridge academics have no idea just how poor degrees outside Oxbridge are. The Cambridge Economics Faculty has realised this, they have found that Oxbridge 2.1s almost invariably outscore firsts from the next best institutions in the MPhil Courses.

Please feel free to resort to 'crap', I know it's all you can manage. Part II Maths and Part III Maths are widely regarded as the toughest maths courses in the world, so you can go on about the Chinese standards as much as you like.

Now try again.

If Oxbridge grads deserve an MA for the BA degrees because you say their standards are that much higher than the rest and yet all the other graduates "only" get a BA, that means all other universities are of IDENTICAL standard. What rubbish is that?

If an Oxbridge maths degree is worth 2 grades more than others, then a 2:2 form Oxbridge is as good as a 1st from elsewhere, a 3rd = 2:1 so a PASS from Oxbridge is as good as a 2:2, meaning anyone FAILING from Oxbridge is as good as a 3rd elsewhere. Yeah that makes sense!

I'm surprised you don't say any Oxbridge undergrad (who has yet to graduate) is as good as a PhD from other places!

To do Part 3 at Cambridge, the normal requirement is a 1st from grads other than Cambridge, 2:1 otherwise.

By your assumption, since an Oxbridge 2:1 is better than a 1st elsewhere, nobody outside Cambridge is good enough for Part 3.

Funny how there ARE people who do pass Part3, some even with distinction, whose first degree were not from Cambridge.

It would kill you to admit the Chinese uni entrance exam, Gaokao is regarded as the hardest in the world, not STEP, where Oxbridge students are made to look ordinary.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/10010196/China_exam_season_questions_to_make_you_quail/

You're talking crap and waste people's time and effort trying to make you see sense.