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

Scroll to see replies

Reply 260

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/2012/jan/10/how-cambridge-admissions-really-work?commentpage=all#start-of-comments

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 261

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?

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 262

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'

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 263

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.

Reply 264

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/2012/jan/10/how-cambridge-admissions-really-work?commentpage=all#start-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...