[THECHOOSENONE]

(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.

Just because a person was rejected from oxbridge does not make him or her less qualified to successfully complete a degree there. Some people are clearly over prepped for the interviews then most and get through but most people that apply to oxbridge get the necessary qualification like most that are offered places so again your wrong loool.

[KnowstheLaw]

(Original post by No Future)
Medicine is pass/fail

And hospitals can't see which med school you went to on your app form

Medicine is Fail/Pass/ Merit/ Distinction. Your latter point is correct though.

[No Future]

(Original post by KnowstheLaw)
Medicine is Fail/Pass/ Merit/ Distinction. Your latter point is correct though.

Medicine is unclassified in the UK (i.e. no 1st, 2.1 etc). The degree itself is unclassified.

Some medical schools award merit or distinction for some parts of the course.

[THECHOOSENONE]

(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

Still no excuse love, anyone can get onto a masters course as the money is upfront but good for him, that his doing well now, but as you stated he clearly buckled down and is more hardworking.

[THECHOOSENONE]

(Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
You will also find that many of the top accounting firms, for example, take Oxbridge 2.2s regularly notwithstanding the fact that they openly state the need for a 2.1. Other employers may take 2.2s "on review", which usually means Oxbridge or give you some kind of formula depending on A Levels scores - you are right about the third, though.

The Oxbridge "ship" you talk of has sailed, but that's down to the dumbing down of degrees and A levels generally and I can assure you the idea that going to Oxbridge is ever a formality now is something rooted in your own prejudices. Unfortunately, the idea that where you got your degree from doesn't matter is rather childish, it does, and you'll find that a disproportionate number of those in the most highly regarded graduate schemes are of Oxbridge origin, the 3-5 years you refer to tends to be irrelevant because those who congregate in these jobs tend to be from the best universities anyway. Those Oxbridge graduates elsewhere usually lie about where they went to university. And yes, on average, Oxbridge graduates are better, much better.

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.

Mate you clearly are very very snobbery, you don't help to remove those negative stearotypes of oxbridge alumni or existing student body do you now sad really.

[bouillabaisse]

Not at all. Seriously, experienced employers have probably seen 100s of bright ceam of the crop Oxford students go into the workplace, and flop massively.

It's pretty common knowledge that although there will be some excellent 'workers' at Oxford and Cambridge, there will be some who are completely incapable of it.

Anyways, employers look at how well you can do the job they want you to do - not how academic you are.

[middlj]

I would bloody hope so. I hope employers do take note of the university that you studied at. I did engineering and from speaking to friends its obvious that my course is much harder than engineering courses at some new or metropolitan universities, and I'm guessing its probably much easier than the equivalent course at oxbridge.

[THECHOOSENONE]

(Original post by Supportive mum)
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!

Thanks for pointing out a grammar error looool bravo bravo, you deserve a biscuit for that. Look it always amazes me by the sheer audacity of some folks great desire to point out grammatical errors on a online forum loool. This is not an exam i'm not being judged, its not for a job interview, but your biscuit is still available

[DynamicSyngery]

There are a couple of different issues here:

1. In academia uni rep does not matter much if at all. In general a 1st from Noname U is better for PhD applications than a 2.1 from Cambridge.

2. The vast majority of grad schemes will automatically filter out 2.2 applications and almost all will filter out 3rd and below applications. They do not look at the university they come from. Since most people want to apply to grad schemes, in general a 2.1 from any university is a lot more valuable than anything lower than a 2.1 from any other university.

3. Once you get to the stage of an application being read by a human, a lot of random factors and prejudices come in to play. Depending on who is reading the application, a 2.1 from Oxbridge may be better than a 1st from another university simply because someone with a say in whether you will be hired or not believes that it is. Even if it's not. It's largely random but I can certainly believe many people with hiring powers thing like this.

4. To be fair to these people, merely having been admitted to Oxbridge shows a high achivement at some point. Doing well at another university is not necessarily harder than being admitted to Oxbridge even if you subsequently dont work very hard.

[kka25]

(Original post by THECHOOSENONE)
Thanks for pointing out a grammar error looool bravo bravo, you deserve a biscuit for that. Look it always amazes me by the sheer audacity of some folks great desire to point out grammatical errors on a online forum loool. This is not an exam i'm not being judged, its not for a job interview, but your biscuit is still available

Would it be a strawberry flavored biscuit?

[Kirya]

(Original post by THECHOOSENONE)
Still no excuse love, anyone can get onto a masters course as the money is upfront but good for him, that his doing well now, but as you stated he clearly buckled down and is more hardworking.

Well no, not really. Not anybody can get onto masters - I think the standard requirement is a 2.1 for most, this is the case for astrophysics a UCL

[ArcadiaHouse]

(Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
You have no basis for this whatsoever. I don't know of any Oxbridge flops.

And you're all-knowing, right?

[lucas13]

id say yes for the 2.1 and 2.2 but not for a 3rd.

[gapyearstudent]

(Original post by hothedgehog)
You don't see job applications with 'Minimum of 2:1 unless you went to Oxbridge which requires 2:2' do you?

this made me laugh but i've run out of pos reps for the day!

[bcrazy]

(Original post by THECHOOSENONE)
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

You seem to be mistakenly supposing that hard work automatically implies good grade. That may more true in some subjects than others but in Maths at least it is ridiculous to suggest that if you work hard enough then you can get a 1st- in an Oxbridge Maths exam then working solidly should pretty much guarantee a pass, the rest is testing your ability to prove results you have seen before using your mathematical insight. I assume Physics, the subject that the girl in question was studying, is at least similar in testing understanding rather than knowledge. There is no way that someone who failed even after resitting would be capable of upping their grade to a 1st with hard work!

(Original post by THECHOOSENONE)
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.

I really can only assume you are trolling now but I'm concerned that others will buy into it. Given that some students doing maths at Queen Mary will only have a B at single maths A Level it is ludicrous to try comparing the course to one catering exclusively for those with A*A* at Maths/FMaths.
Although this is now going to sound extremely big headed, some of the most convincing anecdotal evidence I can give is personal experience. At school I was in a Further Maths class with people who went off to a variety of the top 15 unis not including Oxbridge. They are definitely intelligent but only one of them stood a chance at getting in at Oxbridge and got rejected and went to Durham. During sixth form I constantly outperformed them, getting better A Level grades and being awarded the subject prizes. What happened at uni? Every single one of them got a first every single year of their degree! Including the person doing Engineering at Durham who I had outperformed at Physics A Level. (and they were always very hard working at school so that doesn't explain it). I did scrape a 1st most years but got a 2.1 in my third year.
This is what convinces me that classifications aren't equal- it could be that each one of them suddenly turned from being extremely competent to near genius (the level required at Oxbridge to get an average anywhere near 80) or it could simply be that the level of competition was lower- I know which seems the more likely explanation.

[Ruthie!]

My Chemistry teacher knew some people in big companies up north and they told her to tell us (her chemistry students) that if we went to Northumbria instead of Newcastle uni, we'd need a 1st, but only a 2:1 from Newcastle if we wanted to be employed by them afterwards.
So I imagine to some extent it'd happen with Oxbridge and other unis.

[THECHOOSENONE]

(Original post by bcrazy)
You seem to be mistakenly supposing that hard work automatically implies good grade. That may more true in some subjects than others but in Maths at least it is ridiculous to suggest that if you work hard enough then you can get a 1st- in an Oxbridge Maths exam then working solidly should pretty much guarantee a pass, the rest is testing your ability to prove results you have seen before using your mathematical insight. I assume Physics, the subject that the girl in question was studying, is at least similar in testing understanding rather than knowledge. There is no way that someone who failed even after resitting would be capable of upping their grade to a 1st with hard work!



I really can only assume you are trolling now but I'm concerned that others will buy into it. Given that some students doing maths at Queen Mary will only have a B at single maths A Level it is ludicrous to try comparing the course to one catering exclusively for those with A*A* at Maths/FMaths.
Although this is now going to sound extremely big headed, some of the most convincing anecdotal evidence I can give is personal experience. At school I was in a Further Maths class with people who went off to a variety of the top 15 unis not including Oxbridge. They are definitely intelligent but only one of them stood a chance at getting in at Oxbridge and got rejected and went to Durham. During sixth form I constantly outperformed them, getting better A Level grades and being awarded the subject prizes. What happened at uni? Every single one of them got a first every single year of their degree! Including the person doing Engineering at Durham who I had outperformed at Physics A Level. (and they were always very hard working at school so that doesn't explain it). I did scrape a 1st most years but got a 2.1 in my third year.
This is what convinces me that classifications aren't equal- it could be that each one of them suddenly turned from being extremely competent to near genius (the level required at Oxbridge to get an average anywhere near 80) or it could simply be that the level of competition was lower- I know which seems the more likely explanation.

I don't buy that baloney story. unless you have concrete evidence of your self centered remarks, I will just believe you are clearly a snob. In my opinion a 1st is a first that means it's better than any 2:1 from any university.

Just like the American system, summa cum laude is better than magna cum laude and magna cum laude is better than cum laude. So you are clearly a person of high self righteousness sir it is astonishingly obvious

[Samus2]

I'd take a first from hull than a 2.2 from Oxbridge...

[Ronove]

(Original post by Samus2)
I'd take a first from hull than a 2.2 from Oxbridge...

I wouldn't. Voila, subjectivity.

[Samus2]

(Original post by Ronove)
I wouldn't. Voila, subjectivity.

Precisely. At the end of the day OP you're in good stead if you get a 2.1 plus from any uni.