Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

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

Scroll to see replies

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.

You do realise that most of the time, entry requirements are made higher because of popularity, not so they only admit the brightest...

Reply 101

Kirya

Original post by KJane

You do realise that most of the time, entry requirements are made higher because of popularity, not so they only admit the brightest...

The courses are popular because, in general, they are better. And, if the applicants admitted achieved higher grades, they will be brighter.
Many courses have reasonably high grade requirements because the course itself will be strenuous.
But yes, I agree, the popularity of the course does have a huge effect on the entry requirements.

Reply 102

Intriguing Alias

Original post by KJane

You do realise that most of the time, entry requirements are made higher because of popularity, not so they only admit the brightest...

Not necessarily true. Medicine is more popular than most of the top maths courses in the country. Yet the latter usually require just as high (or higher) in terms of entry requirements.

Also, Anglo-Saxon, Norse & Celtic Studies at Cambridge only has about 50 applicants per year. Still requires A*AA...

Reply 103

KJane

Original post by hassi94

Of course there are some exceptions though for certain subjects, and I knew someone would quote me and talk about Oxbridge, which is why I said most of the time at other uni's. But I've seen courses at universities considered 'average' have higher entry requirements than more respected Uni's in the top 20 because of the popularity. I've known of people to complain about this.

It's not a black and white question really, since people choose Universities based on many factors, my course requirements were ABB, yet I know a ton of people who exceeded that offer and were always predicted higher from the get go. As I was responding to the other poster, it's not that giving out BBB offers really reflects the ability of that student, because they could be perfectly capable of achieving AAA and do, but may of chosen that Uni for it's location. Therefore it's not really right to say it, since the offer may be low to entice more applicants.

Reply 104

Intriguing Alias

Original post by KJane

Well even for other courses not including Oxbridge.

Maths is a good example in comparison to say Psychology or criminology. Maths almost always requires higher grades but isn't as popular at all.

Reply 105

NP473L

Excellent thread...top quality bant everywhere :wink:

Anyway, I think this entire topic is extremlely subjective, (and some of the supposed Oxbridge people aren't doing an awful lot to help themselves...we all know who I refer to), but that is immaterial. I think that the Oxbridge courses are harder...from my brother's experience. He's doing Maths at Cambridge, and I really think that he would be getting better marks at a 'worse' university (but that again is subjective).

I think the shorter terms really make a difference...something I don't think I've seen mentioned here. I obviously have no idea about the workload at Cambridge (or other universities for that matter), but I would assume (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the total work is the same. With less time to understand some of the material, you are more challenged and can feel behind (...well, he sometimes does). The pressure is also there and you are generally expected of better things. I don't know if the work itself is harder than at other universities...so I guess this argument (if you can call it that) is rather subjective :redface:

.

...on a more relevant note, I am: 1) Glad I won't be subjected to a classification of my main degree and 2) Not 100% sure why it's such a claim to suggest comparability of unequal degrees. I think it's perfectly reasonable (though not necessarily true) to suggest an Oxbridge 2:1 is the same as a first.

Source: Pre-undergraduate therefore everything you have read above is probably incorrect, since I have no first hand experience in the matter. I just felt like getting involved :smile:

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 106

Lord Jon

Original post by No Future

Medicine is pass/fail

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

Hospitals don't really care about the Med School where you graduated from anyway do they?

or rather would they?

Reply 107

gethsemane342

Original post by NP473L

I think the shorter terms really make a difference...something I don't think I've seen mentioned here. I obviously have no idea about the workload at Cambridge (or other universities for that matter), but I would assume (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the total work is the same. With less time to understand some of the material, you are more challenged and can feel behind (...well, he sometimes does). The pressure is also there and you are generally expected of better things. I don't know if the work itself is harder than at other universities...so I guess this argument (if you can call it that) is rather subjective :redface:

Nope. In addition to shorter terms, most degrees at Oxbridge will have more content. I know 2nd year medicine at Cambridge has possibly the highest workload of any UK undergrad degree.

Reply 108

NP473L

Original post by gethsemane342

Nope. In addition to shorter terms, most degrees at Oxbridge will have more content. I know 2nd year medicine at Cambridge has possibly the highest workload of any UK undergrad degree.

Thank you. This strengthens the argument even more :smile:

Reply 109

cambio wechsel

There's perhaps some mileage in the 2.1 = first idea, at least with regard to perceptions. Beyond that, there is none.

Consider how the universities of Oxford and Cambridge themselves sift and sort applications for postgraduate study... if you imagine that Oxford is choosing Cambridge 2.2s over Nottingham, Cardiff, or Southampton firsts, you're quite wrong in it.

Reply 110

sfs1012

For people who thinks that a first from Oxbridge is the same as anywhere else, you are tricking yourselve. I say that even though Im at Imperial.

Reply 111

sfs1012

Original post by THECHOOSENONE

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.

Do you know how difficult the Oxbridge exams are???

I would say a 2.1 from oxbridge is better than a first from others top 20 unis.

Reply 112

DynamicSyngery

Original post by sfs1012

Do you know how difficult the Oxbridge exams are??

No. How can anyone, unless they studied the same course at different universities? Post an Oxbridge exam and a comparable non-Oxbridge exam if you want to convince anyone.

Reply 113

sfs1012

Original post by DynamicSyngery

No. How can anyone, unless they studied the same course at different universities? Post an Oxbridge exam and a comparable non-Oxbridge exam if you want to convince anyone.

Well I don't need to convince anyone, im just stating the truth. Look it up yourself if you want.

Reply 114

DynamicSyngery

Original post by sfs1012

Well I don't need to convince anyone, im just stating the truth. Look it up yourself if you want.

Look up what? Universities generally do not publish their exam papers publicly, and mark schemes are rarely available except to faculty.

I also seriously doubt you have even seen an Oxbridge exam yourself.

Reply 115

Elbonian

Original post by AK0001

I spoke to the head of HR at one of the big IB's. He was telling me that someone applied for a grad job stating that they received a second-class degree, but did not state if it was a 2:1, or a 2:2.

The head called the applicant and asked him what he achieved, and he told him he received a 2:2. HR guy then told the applicant that "A 2:2 in ppe from Wadham, Oxford, is nothing to be ashamed of". I didn't ask if the guy got the job in the end though lol.

As much as I'd hate to say this, a 2:2 in PPE from Oxford is probably still a good achievement (though a relative of mine who got a 2:1 from Oxford back in the day would argue otherwise).

I wouldn't be surprised if the quality of a 2:2 degree in PPE from Oxford is better than a 2:1 degree in PPE from a middle tiered university. Nor would I be surprised if the Oxford person had to work harder as well.

I still think there is a distinct gap in how Oxbridge are perceived from the rest, but I also think the gap is closing.

Regardless I think city firms are less lenient now on Oxford graduates with 2:2s or less. A couple of years back I stumbled across some legal chambers which had mostly Oxbridge graduates (and some graduates of the odd traditional university) - many of whom achieved 1sts. I don't think there was single graduate with less than a 2:1.

Reply 116

Elbonian

Original post by sfs1012

Do you know how difficult the Oxbridge exams are???

I would say a 2.1 from oxbridge is better than a first from others top 20 unis.

I doubt that. I'm sure there are some first class degrees from top twenty universities that are 'better' than its corresponding Oxbridge 2.1. Economics at LSE for example?

Reply 117

sfs1012

Original post by DynamicSyngery

I know they don't publish their exam publically. Well get someone from Cambridge you know to show you a maths paper and you will know what i am talking about.

Reply 118

sfs1012

Original post by Elbonian

I doubt that. I'm sure there are some first class degrees from top twenty universities that are 'better' than its corresponding Oxbridge 2.1. Economics at LSE for example?

Yh but Economics at LSE is considered to be on par with Cambridge. Similar stories for science/engineering from Imperial.

Reply 119

Elbonian

Original post by sfs1012

Yh but Economics at LSE is considered to be on par with Cambridge. Similar stories for science/engineering from Imperial.

So how does a 1st in Economics from LSE not beat a 2:1 in Economics from Cambridge or Oxford?

I agree about Imperial. I don't go there myself (although I'm hoping to do an MSc there next year), but one of the Imperial students on this forum has said that all Engineering disciplines bar Chemical at Imperial are at least on par with Cambridge (and obviously better than Oxford). I am taking this with a pinch of salt though but to be fair to him, his views have also been emanated by others outside the two universities.

Engineering is an interesting case because Cambridge's undergraduate Engineering degrees are notoriously theoretical, whilst Imperial supposedly offers a solid balance between theory and practical work, which employers supposedly value greatly.

At least in Engineering, I honestly don't see a Cambridge graduate being preferred over an Imperial College one. I don't see a 2:1 in Engineering from Cambridge being as good as a 1st from Imperial either. Cambridge might have very rigorous methods of assessment, but so do Imperial.