[alex_hk90]

(Original post by Nichrome)
It would be interesting to consider a hypothetical situation where all degrees across all institutions were internally assessed, like A levels, wich would serve to stop debates like these happening really.

I presume you mean externally assessed, but yes that would be interesting. Most likely the majority at Oxbridge would get 1sts, some 2.1s and only the complete dossers getting any lower. I remember reading a few years back something from an external moderator looking at Cambridge Economics exam scripts and one of the comments went something like "the majority of those receiving 2.1s would have received high 1sts for the same quality of work at other top universities".

[Nichrome]

(Original post by alex_hk90)
I presume you mean externally assessed, but yes that would be interesting. Most likely the majority at Oxbridge would get 1sts, some 2.1s and only the complete dossers getting any lower. I remember reading a few years back something from an external moderator looking at Cambridge Economics exam scripts and one of the comments went something like "the majority of those receiving 2.1s would have received high 1sts for the same quality of work at other top universities".

Yeah I did mean that, thanks

[jjarvis]

(Original post by alex_hk90)
I presume you mean externally assessed, but yes that would be interesting. Most likely the majority at Oxbridge would get 1sts, some 2.1s and only the complete dossers getting any lower. I remember reading a few years back something from an external moderator looking at Cambridge Economics exam scripts and one of the comments went something like "the majority of those receiving 2.1s would have received high 1sts for the same quality of work at other top universities".

Similarly, I've seen a report from an external examiner looking at law scripts who said the overall standard at Cambridge was higher than at Durham, Sheffield, Bristol, and Keele.

[Focus08]

(Original post by Bubblyjubbly)

Oxbridge postgraduate courses are somewhat less reputable, particularly Cambridge..

How?

[EffieFlowers]

(Original post by Chief Wiggum)
That's because people from Eton and XYZ sit the same examinations which are centrally assessed and graded.

People at different universities sit different exams, and universities have complete autonomy in awarding classifications.

EDIT: taken from my post below,since apparantly some people don't believe me:

"An institution with degree awarding powers
is solely responsible for the exercise of those
powers and is therefore entitled to appeal to its
autonomy. In particular, it is solely responsible
for the rules it uses for classifying the honours
degrees it awards. External examiners may
comment on the reasonableness of these rules
if they wish, and there may be an obligation
on institutions to consider the comments and
advice it receives, but there is no obligation to
take action in accordance with the comments
or advice received."

I can't believe that, so my thread was right! http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1897500 So many people were all 'some people just aren't suited to A-levels'.

Hmm. To get a lower degree at a better university or to get a better degree at a lower university?

[Nichrome]

(Original post by EffieFlowers)
I can't believe that, so my thread was right! http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1897500 So many people were all 'some people just aren't suited to A-levels'.

Hmm. To get a lower degree at a better university or to get a better degree at a lower university?

Yeah, you were 100% right.

[lol_wut]

You don't know what you are talking about. The core economics courses offered at Oxford are not more difficult than those at other top universities. The success of Oxford graduates in joint degrees that included economics is largely due to selection bias rather than the rigours of their academic course. The situation might be different for physics, but such claims about economics courses are just not true.

You are also wrong about the depth of the specialist courses offered by Oxford. They only offer one extra econometrics course, which last year covered material at the level of Stock and Watson or Wooldridge. LSE, in contrast, offers a choice between two 'core' econometrics courses. The first of these is comparable to Oxford's course while the second takes a more sophisticated theoretical approach. In addition to this LSE has a further course in Problems of Applied Econometrics. There is a similar situation with microeconomics. LSE offers a choice between core courses of different mathematical difficulty and a further course that goes beyond material covered by the Game Theory course at Oxford. In practice not many people take the very advanced courses at the LSE, but still it is incorrect to claim that Oxford offers a far more demanding syllabus for those who wish to specialize. This difference is caused by the structure of the economics related courses offered by the LSE and Oxford, and is not a reflection on the relative quality of the two institutions.

[cambio wechsel]

(Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
Those who don't even know that every Oxbridge undergraduate degree is titled 'BA' aren't exactly in a position to comment further.

At least at Oxford, this isn't the case. I know that students on Cambridge courses which offer points of exit after both 3 and 4 years get the BA degree plus the other if they stay on for the extra year, graduating 'BA and MEng' or 'BA and MSci', for example, but at Oxford you do not get both and will graduate with the MMath or whatever it is in your subject. Oxford as well has 4 year courses which do not offer an opportunity to bail out at 3 years with a BA and which see students graduate MEng or MBiochem (etc.) or not at all.

[Ocassus]

Tbh, if you get a lower grade in Oxford than from anywhere else, it will count against you, because they expect better than that.

[tazarooni89]

Most employers I've had experience with require a 2:1 or higher - which means that if you have a 2:2 or lower from any university, even Oxbridge, you're just not getting in. They won't even see your application because the online system will filter it out from beforehand. In that regard, a 2:1 from the worst university in the country is better than a 2:2 from Oxbridge.

However, once you're past the 2:1 mark, then the university starts to make more of a difference. An Oxbridge/top5 degree might be more valuable than a degree from somewhere else at the same grade. When it comes to comparing an Oxbridge 2:1 with a First from an average university, it's very debatable which is "better", but at that stage, I don't think it's that big a deal, you're unlikely to be accepted/rejected on that basis. It becomes more about how you present yourself at the interview, any experiene you've got on your CV, and generally whether you have the right personality/soft skills for the job.

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
Pure garbage. Any Oxbridge 2.1 would have got a first anywhere else and possibly even a 2.2 and all the major (high end) employers know this - the major accounting firms have been taking Oxbridge 2.2s for years. A number of the major employers also take 2.2s 'on review' depending on UCAS scores and institution, but they won't advertise this openly.

An Oxbridge 2.2 getting a job which states that a 2.1 is a minimum requirement does happen, sure. But it's more of an exceptional case - like trying to get a place at university even though you didn't make the offer. You might need to show that there were mitigating circumstances in your exam, or show that even though you only have a 2.2, you have many other credentials in your favour.

It's not as though Oxbridge 2.2's are walking right in just like everyone else - and I say that based on the many people whom I work with myself.

[funsongfactory]

A 2:1 from Oxbridge will generally be looked upon more favourably than a 2:1 from another top 50 university. However, a 1st from, say, Southampton or Bristol, will be looked upon more favourably than a 2:1 or 2:2 from Oxbridge

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
I'm not talking about mitigating circumstances - PWC are well known for taking Oxbridge 2.2s on the sly after finals, for example. Accenture take Oxbridge 2.2s, I know that for a fact, no matter what they might claim in public.

They may well do. I'm just saying it's the exception rather than the rule. Though they might relax the rules on "minimum requirements" for some people, the rule is still there for a reason.

[dugdugdug]

This is debatable.

However, many people put MA (Oxon) or MA (Cantab) after their name when they've only got a BA degree. That is because at Oxbridge, you only need to do a BA degree, then wait a few terms and pay a small sum of money to automatically upgrade to an MA!

So to those who don't know (and unfortunately there are a great many), they might think that they've got a masters degree when in fact it's not the case.

[dugdugdug]

(Original post by milienhaus)
Agree with this. I do maths at Cambridge and the way it's marked means about 20% of the year get 2.ii's or below every year, and I know it's the same with most natsci courses and medicine. These are people who got straight A's all through school. It gets quite difficult to find internships / jobs, and I know a lot of people who've been rejected from a lot of places without interview, probably at least partially because of grades.

I'm surprised at your comment, re 20% get 2:2 and below. I thought 90%+ get 2:1 and above at Cambridge? Have I misunderstood your figures?

[dugdugdug]

Look at the number of Oxbridge that make up the members of the Houses Of Parliament.

They certainly are favoured but I can't see them doing a good job.

[dugdugdug]

(Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
Any Oxbridge 2.1 would be regarded as AT LEAST on par with a first at the best of the rest. Oxbridge undergraduates are chosen to be amongst the very best of the ability range, chosen ahead of those who would go on to get firsts elsewhere, I suggest you work it out. Given that 2/3rds of graduates across the country get at least a 2.1, are you saying that anyone at Oxbridge would achieve less than a 2.1 if rated nationally ? I'd be surprised if many got less than a first on that basis.

Let's assume in a particular year there are 100 places available at Oxbridge. However there is likely to be more than 100 "good" candidates, say 110.

Even assuming Oxbridge has a crystal ball to determine the absolute best, (and therefore admit the 100 "good" candidates) there are still 10 remaining who remember are "Oxbridge" material.

These 10 will go onto other unis and get a first, if your assertion "Oxbridge are the best" is correct.

However, had they been admitted to Oxbridge in the first place, they too COULD have got a first (which is obviously better than a 2:1).

So these 10 (holding a first outside Oxbridge) are better than a 2:1 from Oxbridge, contradicting your assertion.

[CocoPop]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Most employers I've had experience with require a 2:1 or higher - which means that if you have a 2:2 or lower from any university, even Oxbridge, you're just not getting in. They won't even see your application because the online system will filter it out from beforehand. In that regard, a 2:1 from the worst university in the country is better than a 2:2 from Oxbridge.

However, once you're past the 2:1 mark, then the university starts to make more of a difference. An Oxbridge/top5 degree might be more valuable than a degree from somewhere else at the same grade. When it comes to comparing an Oxbridge 2:1 with a First from an average university, it's very debatable which is "better", but at that stage, I don't think it's that big a deal, you're unlikely to be accepted/rejected on that basis. It becomes more about how you present yourself at the interview, any experiene you've got on your CV, and generally whether you have the right personality/soft skills for the job.

Agreed. This is why I'm glad I'm doing a degree that isn't offered at other universities - because it eliminates any speculation over how I would perform on equivalent courses elsewhere.

At the end of the day, comparing degrees across different universities is entirely speculative. One can safely assume that how your degree is regarded by employers will depend on the person reading your application. Bubblyjubbly has done a fine job of creating a pedantic persona, but shows no respect for the scientific method by making assertive claims without any objective basis. If there's anything to take from this thread it is that the matter is completely subjective.

[Joinedup]

(Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
I'm not talking about mitigating circumstances - PWC are well known for taking Oxbridge 2.2s on the sly after finals, for example. Accenture take Oxbridge 2.2s, I know that for a fact, no matter what they might claim in public. The vast majority get 2.1s or above, so how many of these people you know of is open to question.

hypothesis: no one thinks an oxbridge 2.2 is better than a 2.1 from anywhere else... they like hiring arrogant overgrown public school boys to go count their clients beans. Perhaps their air of assumed superiority facilitates inflating the fees

[milienhaus]

(Original post by dugdugdug)
I'm surprised at your comment, re 20% get 2:2 and below. I thought 90%+ get 2:1 and above at Cambridge? Have I misunderstood your figures?

That sounds about right overall, taking into consideration that it's basically impossible to get below a 2.i in arts subjects (if you do any work whatsoever), but in sciences a lot of people do, even higher than 20% in physics for example.