The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40
Original post by Chief Wiggum
Same (you go to Cambridge as well?), but that's not the final medical degree. The 2nd MB stuff is just pass/fail, the classifications are for Tripos.


This is true, but I'm fairly certain the 1st, 2nd etc is used for clinical school applications? Also, the medic I've talked to from Brighton also has classified degrees, so I think it's more common than often thought. Although I have no idea about clinical school, that's pass/fail afaik.

And yea, I'm at Cam.
Reply 41
Original post by Bubblyjubbly
I could does not mean I would. I could also give you lists of people who got rejected from Oxbridge and never really had any hope of getting in, but who went on to get firsts elsewhere.


Checked your profile...good trollin'
Original post by Hypocrism
This is true, but I'm fairly certain the 1st, 2nd etc is used for clinical school applications? Also, the medic I've talked to from Brighton also has classified degrees, so I think it's more common than often thought. Although I have no idea about clinical school, that's pass/fail afaik.

And yea, I'm at Cam.


Yeah, it's used for clinical school applications. But the actual degree you get that allows you to practice medicine isn't classified (nor, indeed, are the parts that you have to pass for the MB during preclinical, the classified stuff is Tripos which is a Cambridge thing rather than a "medicine thing").
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 43
Original post by Bubblyjubbly
with the exception of Law, gives you a decent chance in most graduate schemes -


Holy ****, bubblyjubbly agrees with me?! I'm stunned.
Original post by Hypocrism
Not true at all.


Which medical school gives you a 1st, 2.1 etc in your medical degree? i.e. the MBBS, MBChB or equivalent?

(preclin years =/= medical degree)
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Kirya
I haven't even been to university yet but,
based on my brother's experience, cambridge degrees are significantly harder. In fact, the final year determines your degree classification, the previous 2 years' grades are not taken into consideration - that makes it harder in itself. Many other unis give weighting to the first 2 years.

My older brother got a 3rd for his maths with physics degree at cambridge. Pretty weak, right?
He then went on to do a Masters at UCL in astrophysics and got a first with distinction - he actually achieved the highest grades ever awarded in history for his degree course. He is now doing a PhD at UCL and is doing very well.
In all fairness, his work ethic massively changed once he went to UCL, but it does show how even very capable students can get poor degrees from oxbridge as the level of work and difficulty is so much greater than that at any other uni



Callin fraud right here. Your brother would never get onto a Master's course with a 3rd, let alone UCL astrophysics.
Reply 46
Original post by Bubblyjubbly
I suggest you learn to read and work out what the Data Protection Act is for. Sadly, you've dissected nothing, but I'll leave you to stew in your own juices alone. I refer to "us" Oxbridge boys and girls.


Already very aware of that, thanks. Ideally, you wouldn't even be saying you had access to this information if you actually do but that's perhaps an ethical point rather than a concrete legal one.

As for stewing in my own juices, I didn't even attempt to dissect anything - I said I couldn't be bothered, so saying that I haven't when I didn't even try is absurd.

Original post by Bubblyjubbly
Typically lame comment that one expects from most in the UK; try end hide your envy slightly better. Going to Oxbridge does, on average, make you better than the rest in academic terms.


That was only a small facet of what he discussed. There are other factors at play which level the field somewhat.
Reply 47
Original post by Bubblyjubbly
You clearly aren't aware of much. If you didn't attempt anything then why mention "dissecting" ?


Did you even read what you said to me the first time? Go back and read it again.

You seem to assume that someone who is academically able must be socially deficient
No, although a correlation can sometimes be seen between the two. There are no hard and fast rules and it's far from a precise science.

which is a typical response in the UK to anyone who excels at anything.
Oh dear.

The other factors are largely meaningless for top-end jobs,
Nonsense. It's not all about academia, and saying that somebody has good academic credentials does not make them fit for purpose by default.

but I agree that if you are considering a career as a traffic warden that those at the former polytechnics might be more suited to such a role.
I am now convinced you are trolling. The UK may be heading towards being a society where you can't clean the toilets in McDonald's without a degree, but we're not at this stage quite yet.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by jjarvis
Holy ****, bubblyjubbly agrees with me?! I'm stunned.


You're doing better than me. Last time I suggested that a 2.2 at Oxbridge law wasn't as good as a 2.1 etc from another good Uni, he called me a Durham reject :wink: (Oddly didn't respond when I pointed out I'm a Cambridge law student who'd been speaking to several legal employers)
Reply 49
Original post by Cabine Sono Qui
Callin fraud right here. Your brother would never get onto a Master's course with a 3rd, let alone UCL astrophysics.


I understand why you think that, I left out an important fact...
I'm not lying at all, totally true, I'll explain.

Initially, he wasn't allowed to study it as master's because of his third, so he was allowed to enrole on the course as a 'diploma'. The same content is studied, but it is meant for people who will not achieve as highly in the course, so don't receive a master's
At the end, he got the highest grades, so they decided to give him a master's with distinction. Kinda makes sense IMO.
i think this all discussion is pointless.

employers value workers, not degrees.
Original post by Bubblyjubbly
No, they value both and given how hard Oxbridge undergraduates have to work, they get both.

not everyone in oxbridge has to work the same...

but apart from that you can be academically excellent, but if you lack the "team work" "leadership" skills you can always remain unemployed.
Reply 52
Original post by Bubblyjubbly
Is there anything in this actually worth responding to ?


That's up to you. I made myself abundantly clear and others are making the same points I'm making, which you choose to ignore and waffle around. Ever thought about quitting finance and giving politics a go? :holmes:

This is all very narrow minded for someone who claims to be ex-Oxbridge and hold a PhD...
Original post by poohat

Original post by poohat
A 2:1 from Oxbridge (or a similar university like Imperial/LSE/etc) will usually look better than a first from a non-Russell group university. A 2:2 generally won't though, and a third obviously not. if youre talking about an Oxbridge 2:1 vs (eg) a first from somewhere like Bristol or Edinburgh then thats much harder to say, and it will come down to the specifics of the employer and yourself. Remember that the degree only gets you the interview, and once youre in there you will be judged based on how you perform.

If you go somewhere like Oxbridge then it often doesn't matter whether you get a first -- as long as you have a 2:1 you'll get interviews, and getting the job will come down to your performance, along with extracurriculars/presentation/etc. A first might give you a small advantage, but I doubt its that much. The only time it might matter is for Ph.D funding in some non-science subjects where I think scholarships/etc sometimes require firsts (and I dont know whether they take university quality into account).


There will be no practical difference between a 2:1 from LSE and a 2:1 from Oxbridge in most cases, it only starts to matter once you have a significant gap in university quality. Maybe some small companies will only target Oxbridge, but for most jobs/phds/etc its not going to make a difference.


Sir, you are totally wrong sorry. The main reason why you are, is because their are a number of great universities, that are not members of the russell group namely; York university etc and a few more so sorry you are outrageously incorrect
Original post by ch0llima
That's up to you. I made myself abundantly clear and others are making the same points I'm making, which you choose to ignore and waffle around. Ever thought about quitting finance and giving politics a go? :holmes:

This is all very narrow minded for someone who claims to be ex-Oxbridge and hold a PhD...


PhD from Harvard may I add. The guy's hilarious. It's just a shame he only posts on Oxbridge-related threads.
Original post by poohat

Original post by poohat
A 2:1 from Oxbridge (or a similar university like Imperial/LSE/etc) will usually look better than a first from a non-Russell group university. A 2:2 generally won't though, and a third obviously not. if youre talking about an Oxbridge 2:1 vs (eg) a first from somewhere like Bristol or Edinburgh then thats much harder to say, and it will come down to the specifics of the employer and yourself. Remember that the degree only gets you the interview, and once youre in there you will be judged based on how you perform.

If you go somewhere like Oxbridge then it often doesn't matter whether you get a first -- as long as you have a 2:1 you'll get interviews, and getting the job will come down to your performance, along with extracurriculars/presentation/etc. A first might give you a small advantage, but I doubt its that much. The only time it might matter is for Ph.D funding in some non-science subjects where I think scholarships/etc sometimes require firsts (and I dont know whether they take university quality into account).


There will be no practical difference between a 2:1 from LSE and a 2:1 from Oxbridge in most cases, it only starts to matter once you have a significant gap in university quality. Maybe some small companies will only target Oxbridge, but for most jobs/phds/etc its not going to make a difference.


Oh yeah, what about the 1994 group sir, So are you trying to say or actually saying that a 2:1 from oxbridge is better than a 1st from the University of Durham, Bath, st andrews, SOAS, Queens mary, uol which does not get a lot of respect because it's in mile end, goldsmiths or royal holloway come on sir you are either deluded or extremely snobbery. There is no way a 2:1 from oxbridge is better then a first from the above mentioned universities no way or any 1994 group universities i.e all are non- russell group institutions to.
Original post by THECHOOSENONE
Out of interest, I was just wondering whether a 2:1, 2:2 and a 3rd class degree from oxbridge is looked favorably upon by employers, then a 1st class degree from a top 50 UK university, in most subjects but particularly law, medicine, economics and history.


Medicine is either a 'Pass' or 'Fail' - no Firsts, Upper Seconds etc.
It does not matter where you get it from.
From Peninsula or UEA = chance of getting a job in the first 6 months of 98%+
From Oxford or Cambridge = chance of getting a job in the first 6 months of 98%+

Hospitals do not care! All degrees regulated by Medical Council so they are all of same standard.
:fyi:

EDIT - Would that negative rating kindly be explained? A Cambridge medic hopeful who doesn't want to face reality. (Or just an annoying moron...)
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Bubblyjubbly

Original post by Bubblyjubbly
You're all missing the mark, I'm afraid.

Any Oxbridge 2.1 would have achieved a 1st anywhere else (including Imperial/LSE), that's why they are chosen; a 2.2 might have done which is why an Oxbridge 2.2, with the exception of Law, gives you a decent chance in most graduate schemes - I could give you lists of Oxbridge 2.2s who have, in recent years, secured top graduate jobs in banks and other leading financial services firms. The truth of the matter is that we have seen a number of people leave Oxbridge after or during the first year, not being able to take it, and ending up with firsts at places like Imperial. The joker who thinks that a first from LSE is comparable needs to stop dreaming - it's nowhere near. The Cambridge Economics Faculty has found that those with 2.1s from Oxbridge are outscoring firsts from the next best universities in their MPhil courses - Oxbridge and Imperial/LSE aren't remotely similar, sorry.


You are clearly out of our depth sir. I don't know how you can say a 2:1 from oxbridge is better than a 1st from a fellow russell group university and 1994 group sorry that's just plain lalala land thinking and snobbery.
Original post by THECHOOSENONE
Out of interest, I was just wondering whether a 2:1, 2:2 and a 3rd class degree from oxbridge is looked favorably upon by employers, then a 1st class degree from a top 50 UK university, in most subjects but particularly law, medicine, economics and history.



If I were an employer I would certainly not take on anyone who didn't know when to use 'than' instead of 'then', regardless of where they had studied! :smile:
Original post by Chief Wiggum
I read a post from an Oxford student a couple of days ago who said that a student he knew failed first year at Oxford (ie, got BELOW a third), then went to Nottingham and got the highest First in the year.

lol.


Come on lool. He probably regrouped and knuckled down, as he knew it was probably his last chance so don't try and undermine Nottingham:smile:

Latest