[a.partridge]

(Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
On what basis is Imperial better than Oxford for physics ? Evidence ? The two systems of teaching are completely different and I mentioned earlier an up-and-coming assistant professor who failed at Oxford (for the subject you mentioned) and who ended up with a first from Imperial, please explain. Imperial dish out ridiculous marks like confetti. Their exams are stuffed with simplistic, short answer questions where you can literally score 100%, the Oxford questions are along the lines of old-style questions where it is virtually impossible to score the high grades.

A 70 from Imperial would struggle to get a 60 from Oxford, and that is putting it mildly. Sadly, when STEPs/Oxbridge entrance exams were around, everyone knew the difference in standards, now Oxbridge undergraduates have to slog without the recognition they deserve because successive governments have decided that state schooling in the UK is so poor that they need to have what are effectively quotas for state school kids.

Funny you mention physics, and big it up unjustifiably, I remember from A Level days that it was my easiest A Level, I got a distinction in the S Level too. The sad truth is that most scientists such as yourself are unable to answer a question that has no answer and you'll find the skills required to do an Oxbridge arts degree are far better suited to a role in management later on than a science degree from the one-dimensional nerds with no personality from Imperial.

You have no clue as to the mathematical demands of an Economics degree and you clearly know nothing about how to construct an essay or an argument, at the top level, all subjects are demanding, it's just that outside Oxbridge few study the subject in enough depth to understand this. I suggest you have a good look at the reading lists at Oxbridge for the subjects you mention (apart from sociology) and you'll get the fright of your life.

You have no evidence, just a string of low-grade scientist's prejudices. Even as far as research ratings go, Oxbridge generally outperform Imperial in the sciences and what you don't note is just how many of the academics at Imperial and other leading universities are of Oxbridge origin, it puts Imperial well in the shade.

Give me something worthy of a challenge.

Well i'll tell you how good they are at cambridge when I do the MAst Physics course there when the time comes (this is the course exactly equivalent to the 4th year of the Mphys course - same lectures same exams) - then I will have a direct comparison with the cambridge students that stay on for the 4th year... and don't try and say that the 4th years easier than the 3rd and second or that all the good students have already won their nobel prizes and retired or something else something equally ridiculous (as I'm sure you will).

Btw are you talking about simplistic low mark questions like in this cambridge first year past paper? http://www-teach.phy.cam.ac.uk/dms/d....php?node=6801

Even I would get a 2.1 on that paper and I have not even finished the 1st year yet at and the syllabus isn't exactly the same.

[Theophile]

(Original post by Bubblyjubbly)





The degrees clearly aren't comparable in difficulty, the exam style, questions, format, marking and course content are so different. I can assure you no Imperial graduate would be in a position to score a first at Oxbridge at the end of his/her three years at Imperial, based on that study, I'd bet almost all at Oxbridge would score a first at Imperial, based on their short answer, multiple choice, easy-to-score big exams. When you learn to construct an argument that isn't based on the childish assumptions typical of a scientist, let me know.

[Freier._.lance]

(Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
You obviously don't know what reason is, you're a scientist intent on inventing a strawman every time you don't get your own way. Coming from the chippy Oxbridge reject who has no place on this section of the forum, it is no surprise that you resort to ad hominems instead of addressing the issues I mentioned....

If you knew what ad hominem was, you'd realise the irony in what you just said.

(Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
As for what I said about Oxbridge degrees, I suggest you read what I actually said rather than what you would like to think I said, I mentioned what they deserved, if those at certain universities are allowed BAs. It's not surprising that comprehension is so low down on your list of priorities, an arts graduate would know exactly what I was getting at, as opposed to a second-rate scientist who thinks he's bright because he does an uncontroversial subject with numbers in it, in a country renowned for its population being functionally innumerate.

Ad hominem again... what were you saying about people who resort to ad hominem again?

(Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
I was referring to a repeated first degree, not a second degree, the person(s) made it quite clear they weren't upto the demands of the Oxbridge degree. They had second years and third years to improve, but clearly couldn't handle it. Your fatuous line line applies only to those leaving Oxbridge, I haven't seen any evidence that anyone has gone the other way.

A repeated first degree is ...well done ....a second degree.

To be fair, I have no idea about Arts subjects at Oxbridge or anywhere else, so I can't comment on those situations. However, on Mathematics and Physics, I can answer. If you know anything about these subjects then you'll know that in terms of the Physics aspects, a lot of the exam questions have the same structure, style and content as those exam questions where I did my undergrad, and I suspect many other institutions.

(Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
The degrees clearly aren't comparable in difficulty, the exam style, questions, format, marking and course content are so different.

I would believe this had you done both degrees and aced the latter. Clearly you haven't.

(Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
I can assure you no Imperial graduate would be in a position to score a first at Oxbridge at the end of his/her three years at Imperial, based on that study, I'd bet almost all at Oxbridge would score a first at Imperial, based on their short answer, multiple choice, easy-to-score big exams. When you learn to construct an argument that isn't based on the childish assumptions typical of a scientist, let me know.

Once again making assumptions with no evidence or arguments.

(Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
I suggest you ask to do the final exams at Cambridge, say, and let me know how you get on, then thank your lucky stars

Throughout my degree my curiosity got the better of me, and I would end up at the end of the year "trying out" Cambridge physics exam questions in similar courses to mine....you'd be surprised how similar they infact were.

[Tsunami2011]

bubblyjubbly is clearly trolling, but I think its pretty naive to think a non Oxbridge degree is as hard as an Oxbridge degree. I know people doing Law at Cambridge who have to break their backs to get a solid 2:1 and are in the library until 5 in the morning. Then you have people at other top universities (UCL, Warwick, Bristol, LSE) doing the same course, who only seem to complain about having to do 4 essays a TERM, and only really ramp it up come exam time, and yet still don't really seem to have to work as hard as Oxbridge students. I would say strong Oxbridge 2:1 (65%+) is equal to a low first at any other leading university. It seems like to me, that at Oxbridge you get through more content in a short period of time in comparison to other universities. At other universities it seems like, you can afford to let your work pile up and just turn it around during exam time, but at Oxbridge, you're constanly being assessed, so there's no room for passengers.

[curiousquest]

(Original post by kka25)
What's this? Please do elaborate.



Mind linking me up?

Re Geoff Parks thinks MA (Oxon / Cantab) is a load of bull, it sounds like you don't believe me.

Even if I did quote it, you'd probably say he's an eccentric or something.

But just for the record, here it is:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...rt-of-comments

[curiousquest]

(Original post by Freier._.lance)
If you knew what ad hominem was, you'd realise the irony in what you just said.



Ad hominem again... what were you saying about people who resort to ad hominem again?







A repeated first degree is ...well done ....a second degree.

To be fair, I have no idea about Arts subjects at Oxbridge or anywhere else, so I can't comment on those situations. However, on Mathematics and Physics, I can answer. If you know anything about these subjects then you'll know that in terms of the Physics aspects, a lot of the exam questions have the same structure, style and content as those exam questions where I did my undergrad, and I suspect many other institutions.



I would believe this had you done both degrees and aced the latter. Clearly you haven't.



Once again making assumptions with no evidence or arguments.



Throughout my degree my curiosity got the better of me, and I would end up at the end of the year "trying out" Cambridge physics exam questions in similar courses to mine....you'd be surprised how similar they infact were.

Bubblyjubbly is obviously a nut and nobody should waste tie responding.

We can use logic to dispel his theory re "no Imperial grad can get a 1st from Oxbridge".

For a particular year, the number of available places at Oxbridge is n. However, it is impossible for Oxbridge to fill the n places with THE top n students from th whole world because:

a) There is no foolproof way of choosing the "Best" student
b) Not EVERY "Best" student would apply to Oxbridge

So there must be AT LEAST one student studying elsewhere, say Imperial for argument sake. This / these students (being amazing, out of this world, Oxbridge whizz, etc.) can "only" get a 1st / score 100% in the exams they take at their non-Oxbridge university, ie they cannot possibly do better than 1st / 100%.

So how can one conclude they would NOT have got a 1st from Oxbridge?

[Tsunami2011]

I said a strong 2:1 not 'high'.. I would agree that a high 2:1 from Oxbridge is probably 'superior' to a low/middling first from the next rug of universities. We're all guilty of making assumptions, considering that the vast majority are unlikely to have done undergrads at Oxbridge and then other leading universities. If you're getting a 2:2 at Oxbridge in a rigorous subject, then I'm sceptical, that you would walk into a first at another 'top' university, considering that the vast majority of arts subjects at Oxbridge get 2:1s. I made that point about the large workload myself, but clearly if you're unable to cope with this workload, you're no better than the people at universities a tier down from Oxbridge. I would probably agree that an Oxbridge 2:2 may well translate to a 2:1 at other universities, but the claim that a 2:2 is equal to a first is frankly hilarious provided that we are only considering the top 10 or so universities.

Provide a source for the external examiners, else its just bull**** to me.

lol it seems very wise to compare Cambridge with one of the 'worst' universities' in the country. Smart move. Clearly a Cambridge degree is likely to be far more demanding than one at Anglia Ruskin. I've seen 3rd year sports journalism papers, asking along the lines of 'are referees in football hassled too much?' I'm confident that I could do that in a few hours. I don't dispute that an Oxbridge degree is harder, but some people luck their way into university, on the basis of potential showed in a 1hr interview. Therefore, it seems pretty insane, for you to claim, that this makes them inherently superior to any other university student in the country regardless of what marks they receive. If you're getting a 2:2 at Cambridge, then the chances are you probably would have got a 2:1 slightly lower down the table, but considering the amount of students who get 2:1s and 1sts at Oxbridge, its hardly the unattainable, which means that if you're getting a low 2:2 or less, then you're average academically, and are an example of someone who 'slipped through the net'

[Freier._.lance]

(Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
...You obviously know nothing about the arts, so stop speculating.

Well done for restating what I said...full marks!

(Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
The fact is, no matter what you claim, a 2.1 at Oxbridge is still beyond your grasp

I think I may have hit a nerve? The fact you think you know anything about me tells me more about you than you know.

(Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
you should be well aware that Oxbridge exams are notoriously supply-side orientated, meaning that marks are awarded not for whether you can necessarily answer a question, but the quality of the answer, a notion that is clearly lost on you. You're speculating about other institutions based on your own experience of a second-rate one.

(Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
Clearly, you weren't regarded as being upto the requirements of Oxbridge, so you're in no position to comment. I can compare Economics at Cambridge and LSE, and no matter what they tell you at the latter, aside from a bit of number crunching, they are nowhere near, except at postgraduate level. You'll never 'ace' anything in your life. When you actually come up with an argument, let me know. You have no evidence that your degree is remotely comparable to one elsewhere, you will know that there are a number of people who leave Oxbridge every year, end up at places like Imperial having failed at Oxbridge, that is something you choose to dismiss as you have no explanation for it.

You clearly haven't listened to a word I've said, since I've already explained this. So chances are what I'm saying to you is simple going in one ear and going out the other.

(Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
As for trying out Cambridge papers, you are blatantly lying, the marking schemes are completely different and when you actually arrange to sit the papers and have them marked by Oxbridge examiners, let me know, thus far you are a liar. You're typical Imperial right/wrong answer mentality precludes you from engaging in this debate with anything more than childish slogans. There may be similar topics, but the nature of questioning goes well beyond what you are capable of. Those at Oxbridge generally tend to roll around on the floor laughing at your lamentable workload and Mickey Mouse standard of questions.

Try again.

Why would I lie? You seem not to be able to string a coherent argument together without slighting whoever you're arguing against....trust me with this mentality there is no way you'd survive in academia. That is some advice for you, no insult intended.

[kka25]

(Original post by curiousquest)
Re Geoff Parks thinks MA (Oxon / Cantab) is a load of bull, it sounds like you don't believe me.

Even if I did quote it, you'd probably say he's an eccentric or something.

Owh, no no. It's a genuine question. Sorry for sounding like that =/

But just for the record, here it is:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...rt-of-comments

Further to Geoff Parks' comments on the Cambridge MA, my son received his Cambridge MA this year. He and his friends all referred to it as their 'fake' MA and there was a fair dgree of discussion/ embarrassment about whether to accept it.

As students they had ben told - either by the College or careers service- never to use it on CVs etc as a qualification because people in the know would know it has no academic value and would judge them negatively and people not in the know wiould be hacked off with them when they discovered it has no value.

It was however a chance to catch up with friends in a more relaxed setting than their graduations which follow immediately after final exams and on the day they leave university. In fact, as a parent, the day felt remarkably like my other son's first graduation and unlike his MSc where everyone was celebrating genuine hard work and achievement.

I suspect its days are numbered.

=/ and they called themselves the best of the best...

[Zoedotdot]

The arguments on this thread are becoming personal and going round in circles, so I'm going to close it now.