[effofex]

doxbridge

[AspiringGenius]

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

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

Sometimes you can intercalated- particularly at Oxford/Cambridge + a few others essentially giving you a degree so you can, essentially, get a first for medicine.

[Ronove]

(Original post by AspiringGenius)
Sometimes you can intercalated- particularly at Oxford/Cambridge + a few others essentially giving you a degree so you can, essentially, get a first for medicine.

You'd be getting a first for your intercalated degree though, not your medical degree.

[Freier._.lance]

(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

The fact that the final year determines the entire grade in fact makes them very lucky.

I'm happy for your brother, but the fact so many in this thread seem to think that those that under-perform at Cambridge and then go elsewhere and achieve great success is indicative of the 'difficulty of Cambridge courses', are really simplifying a more complex issue, and quite off the mark.

You look at any applicant who does badly in their undergraduate degree and then goes to any other university to either retry or do a postgraduate course, they nearly always majorly improve their results, mainly due to their increases in motivation to do well and work ethic. This goes for any applicant from one university to ANY other university.

[Piprod01]

Even if it could be proven that one course is harder than another, it doesn't follow that an employer should value one over the other. It might even be preferable to chose the simpler course over the harder. The field that I study, in the Biological Sciences; having a good grasp of general concepts, and having practice in the lab, is of more value than extra concepts. It can be easy to make a course harder by increasing the number of concepts a student has to learn - but that can detract from what is actually important to the employer.

[bluemax]

Considering the job crisis these days i doubt it.

[Chief Wiggum]

(Original post by THECHOOSENONE)
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

I don't understand what makes you think they'd all be equivalent though. If you read the document I posted from the QAA on the first page, universities are pretty much free to do whatever they want. There are external examiners, yes, but they don't have the power to enforce changes, they can only make recommendations.

Obviously, people can give you anecdotal evidence all day, but at least that's a source from the body that regulates degrees saying that, essentially, it's very difficult to regulate degrees and that universities can do whatever they want.

[No Future]

(Original post by AspiringGenius)
Sometimes you can intercalated- particularly at Oxford/Cambridge + a few others essentially giving you a degree so you can, essentially, get a first for medicine.

Intercalated degree is not a medical degree.

[THECHOOSENONE]

(Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
I know for a fact that a good number of those at the institutions you cite failed to get into Oxbridge and achieved firsts by doing a fraction of the work done by those at Oxbridge. I'm sorry, but I know a number of Oxbridge 2.2s who would give firsts at those institutions you mention a good run for their money - maths graduates do come to mind. I know firsts from SOAS, Goldsmiths and QMW and most of them are as thick as two short planks.

You are ver funny indeed but look your right a third from oxbridge is not the end of the world look at, David Dimbley he got a 3rd class but has had a distinguished career at the bbc

[emilymay]

(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.

medical degrees are not awarded on a 1st, 2:1, 2:2 3rd basis, you get a degree, or a degree with honours.
Source: I am a medical student

[emilymay]

(Original post by AspiringGenius)
Sometimes you can intercalated- particularly at Oxford/Cambridge + a few others essentially giving you a degree so you can, essentially, get a first for medicine.

You cannot intercalate with medicine medicine is a stand alone subject, if you have a medical degree you can be a doctor and be in charge of peoples lives, someone in that position must have completed the ENTIRE degree, if you intercalate it is impossible to cover all the material from all subjects, therefore if you could incalate and still get a medical degree you could get doctors who only know half what they're supposed to. You can intercalate for a year in medicine, but it just gives you another degree, it is not a degree in medicine.

[AspiringGenius]

(Original post by emilymay)
You cannot intercalate with medicine medicine is a stand alone subject, if you have a medical degree you can be a doctor and be in charge of peoples lives, someone in that position must have completed the ENTIRE degree, if you intercalate it is impossible to cover all the material from all subjects, therefore if you could incalate and still get a medical degree you could get doctors who only know half what they're supposed to. You can intercalate for a year in medicine, but it just gives you another degree, it is not a degree in medicine.

I see, thanks for clearing that up (and the other person who quoted me ). I just remember someone phrasing the intercalation as a 'first in medicine'...

I know someone intercalating in French

[bcrazy]

(Original post by THECHOOSENONE)
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.

Err, OK...not really sure what you mean by concrete evidence? I could try getting degree certificates et al scanned for you but not sure it's really the done thing! Given that I supported my "story" with evidence such as better marks, in some cases better grades, and awarded prizes in direct competition, I can only assume that you mean that I made it all up. In which case there isn't going to be a whole lot to convince you realistically but if you look at any of my previous posts you will find that I generally only post facts to help those with specific questions- trolling random people on the internet doesn't seem like an interesting hobby. As I said, it was inevitable I was going to come across as somewhat arrogant referring to this stuff but it was to help make a point.

That aside, the idea that a 1st from ANY university is better than a 2.1 from another is taking it past debate. Once again, for obvious reasons, only anecdotal evidence is available but at least that is some evidence unlike for your viewpoint. Another friend failed his 1st year at a top 15 uni and went to a 50+ ranked uni. He will happily tell you that it was an utter joke and that he tried making official complaints when he saw the standard of other people's work that were being awarded decent grades. In a similar story to the Oxford->Nottingham student he came top of the year and in this case I know he does not claim to have increased his effort in the slightest. To go from failing a degree to being seriously concerned about the standard allowed by your next uni implies there are certainly discrepancies!

Again, as accepted, this is all anecdotal but I am interested to hear any kind of evidence you can offer for your side?

[Kirya]

(Original post by Freier._.lance)
The fact that the final year determines the entire grade in fact makes them very lucky.

I'm happy for your brother, but the fact so many in this thread seem to think that those that under-perform at Cambridge and then go elsewhere and achieve great success is indicative of the 'difficulty of Cambridge courses', are really simplifying a more complex issue, and quite off the mark.

You look at any applicant who does badly in their undergraduate degree and then goes to any other university to either retry or do a postgraduate course, they nearly always majorly improve their results, mainly due to their increases in motivation to do well and work ethic. This goes for any applicant from one university to ANY other university.

Perhaps, if you did badly/less well in your 1st and 2nd year. But if you did well in years one and two and messed up in year 3 you would still receive a poor degree. Anyway, the third year is the hardest makes it rather unlucky in many ways

[Kirya]

I'm sorry, but by what logic can you state that a 1st from one university is equal to a 1st from another?
In no way whatsoever does a first from hull equal a first from imperial/oxbridge.

If a uni admits students with BBB and another admits students with A*AA, the aptitude and capability of the students is not equal, and thus the degree classifications are not equal.

If they are deemed as being equal by employers, then the practice is totally wrong.

[Freier._.lance]

(Original post by Kirya)
Perhaps, if you did badly/less well in your 1st and 2nd year. But if you did well in years one and two and messed up in year 3 you would still receive a poor degree. Anyway, the third year is the hardest makes it rather unlucky in many ways

There was a study done once in which two groups of people were given some literature to learn. One group was told they had to pass a test on the stuff they'd learned and the other had no such pressure. After which both groups were interviewed on the area they'd learned. The group that did not have the pressure to pass the test ended up learning the literature much better than those who had to pass the test.

Arguably the most difficult degrees are European degrees, in hindsight I wish I had applied there!

[Kirya]

(Original post by Freier._.lance)
There was a study done once in which two groups of people were given some literature to learn. One group was told they had to pass a test on the stuff they'd learned and the other had no such pressure. After which both groups were interviewed on the area they'd learned. The group that did not have the pressure to pass the test ended up learning the literature much better than those who had to pass the test.

Arguably the most difficult degrees are European degrees, in hindsight I wish I had applied there!

I agree the European degrees are harder.

I do not see the point of your first paragraph.
Are you saying that not having the pressure of years 1 and 2 counting towards the final degree makes you learn the content better?
I don't quite understand

[Alexok]

The fact that the person was accepted into Oxford could be a benefit though? Employers sometimes look at A-levels

[Freier._.lance]

(Original post by Kirya)
I agree the European degrees are harder.

I do not see the point of your first paragraph.
Are you saying that not having the pressure of years 1 and 2 counting towards the final degree makes you learn the content better?
I don't quite understand

More or less. I am saying that it allows you the freedom to learn the content to a better understanding, rather than just to rote learn it enough for an exam.

[KJane]

I doubt employers are going to have a checklist of which University is better for that subject, I don't think any potential employer would look at my application and say "Well she got this grade from Herts, but this other one got the same grade from Kent. Let's employ them!" I like to think it would be more based on my experience for the actual job and the interview as well.