[Deep456]

(Original post by Zenomorph)
The reason for not hiring a MSc holder for an entry position cause they may want more than a mere BSc graduate is to me not convincing.

After all , I bet most MSc's will not complain as the whole reason was to land the job in the first place - they will be aware that they will start at the same level as a BSc.

No, I think it a prejudice vs MSc, for whatever reason legit or not.

I also noticed that most non Oxbridge high fliers tend to come from non UK unis; usually US ones.

BTW, the work load at Oxbridge IS much larger than the chasing pack easily - for any essay based module, I think they have an essay a week per module.

It's no way the same in Durham, ICL, LSE: they haven't got the staff for it, remember Oxbridge is much better funded.

Definitely not true. Probably an essay per week (maybe two), that's it. They also get shorter terms and more time to have fun and go exploring than most of us. It's sort of exaggerated how large their workloads are and in any case, when they signed up to applying for Oxbridge, they knew what was coming so I don't understand why Oxbridge students rant overlooking the great benefits that they receive.

I also don't see how being good at a degree has any relevance to how good you will be at banking, including the workload. What difference does it make? Most of the information that they learn whilst great academically, has little use in the real world and in many cases, academically as well.

[Zenomorph]

(Original post by Deep456)
Definitely not true. Probably an essay per week (maybe two), that's it. They also get shorter terms and more time to have fun and go exploring than most of us. It's sort of exaggerated how large their workloads are and in any case, when they signed up to applying for Oxbridge, they knew what was coming so I don't understand why Oxbridge students rant overlooking the great benefits that they receive.

I also don't see how being good at a degree has any relevance to how good you will be at banking, including the workload. What difference does it make? Most of the information that they learn whilst great academically, has little use in the real world and in many cases, academically as well.

Well, firstly let me clarify - I'm not promoting Oxbridge but this was what my research revealed, though I would still say 2 essays a week plus regular assessment is still a heck of a lot.
No, I wouldn't complain but then again I'm not sure I could handle that.

The workload issue relates to the long hours that IB's enslave you with, idea being if the guy/girl can take x hours of work a week at a top uni and come out with a 2.1 then he can handle 65hr work weeks or whatever.

I agree, I don't see how doing Biology at new college Oxford is going to directly aid you in your banking career. It seems to make more sense to target economics, finance and accountancy grads.

[KLL]

(Original post by Teenage Pirate)
instead of listening to this guy, why not listen to the people who are telling you that there are almost no "BSc only" analysts from continental universities in investment banks and therefore this guy is full of crap

exactly.
and lets not forget the guys who get their msc finance/management etc from unis and business schools like LBS, Imperial, Cass etc. I've met loads and i find it hard to believe that a recrutier won't give them even a chance, seeing those are courses targeted by IBs.

The guy clearly is just a guy full of bull, who has too much time on his hands trolling the place. Most of the reasons he lsits are far from true or in any way applciaable. Graduates have little negotiating power over their entry salary and i've never heard of a case of for example a HEC grande ecole masters grad saying he needs to earn a higher base salary than some random warwick undergrad. HR says what the salary is, and they take it or leave it unless they got leverage (counter-offer). Does anybody really think an MD who heads up a M&A division has the time to sit down and look at all the CVs in a "panel" and then spend hours chatting loads of **** on TSR. If he does, he must be god awful at his job.

(Original post by Zenomorph)
Well, firstly let me clarify - I'm not promoting Oxbridge but this was what my research revealed, though I would still say 2 essays a week plus regular assessment is still a heck of a lot.

depending on subject, that is not much. Other unis have similar workloads for certain courses.

[Deep456]

(Original post by Zenomorph)
Well, firstly let me clarify - I'm not promoting Oxbridge but this was what my research revealed, though I would still say 2 essays a week plus regular assessment is still a heck of a lot.
No, I wouldn't complain but then again I'm not sure I could handle that.

The workload issue relates to the long hours that IB's enslave you with, idea being if the guy/girl can take x hours of work a week at a top uni and come out with a 2.1 then he can handle 65hr work weeks or whatever.

I agree, I don't see how doing Biology at new college Oxford is going to directly aid you in your banking career. It seems to make more sense to target economics, finance and accountancy grads.

I have several friends at Oxbridge, in reality, they procrastinate more than they work. Basically, don't work efficiently. So what would only be 3-4 hours of work takes them 7-8 because of the constant toing and froing from facebook, etc.

Completely agree, I am under the impression they just take the people with most work experience, knowledge, etc. That is, once you are at a target university which they use as a method of de-selection for interview. Seems silly though and unfair in many ways, even though I will be studying at a target.

As I said, a degree should be just that but there needs to be a line drawn. You don't become the dog *******s by being good academically and has no bearing on how you will perform in the working world.

[Zenomorph]

(Original post by KLL)
exactly.
and lets not forget the guys who get their msc finance/management etc from unis and business schools like LBS, Imperial, Cass etc. I've met loads and i find it hard to believe that a recrutier won't give them even a chance, seeing those are courses targeted by IBs.

The guy clearly is just a guy full of bull, who has too much time on his hands trolling the place. Most of the reasons he lsits are far from true or in any way applciaable. Graduates have little negotiating power over their entry salary and i've never heard of a case of for example a HEC grande ecole masters grad saying he needs to earn a higher base salary than some random warwick undergrad. HR says what the salary is, and they take it or leave it unless they got leverage (counter-offer). Does anybody really think an MD who heads up a M&A division has the time to sit down and look at all the CVs in a "panel" and then spend hours chatting loads of **** on TSR. If he does, he must be god awful at his job.



depending on subject, that is not much. Other unis have similar workloads for certain courses.

What's it like for PPE at Oxford or Economics at Cambridge ?

[Zenomorph]

(Original post by Deep456)
I have several friends at Oxbridge, in reality, they procrastinate more than they work. Basically, don't work efficiently. So what would only be 3-4 hours of work takes them 7-8 because of the constant toing and froing from facebook, etc.

Completely agree, I am under the impression they just take the people with most work experience, knowledge, etc. That is, once you are at a target university which they use as a method of de-selection for interview. Seems silly though and unfair in many ways, even though I will be studying at a target.

As I said, a degree should be just that but there needs to be a line drawn. You don't become the dog *******s by being good academically and has no bearing on how you will perform in the working world.

Yeah, but at least they should give more respect to people studying relevant disciplines like A+F, economics etc.

[Deep456]

(Original post by Zenomorph)
Yeah, but at least they should give more respect to people studying relevant disciplines like A+F, economics etc.

They do, you probably get an extra tick for doing a top, relevant degree.

(Original post by Zenomorph)
What's it like for PPE at Oxford or Economics at Cambridge ?

PPE at Oxford is 1/2 essays a week. Not bad at all.

Surprisingly, Warwick have larger workloads in quite a few degrees because they do like 150 credits worth of units (Maths, Economics, PPE, MORSE) instead of 120 in year 1.

[KLL]

(Original post by Zenomorph)
What's it like for PPE at Oxford or Economics at Cambridge ?

I wouldn't know, I just know at other unis that wouldn't really be considered an exceptional workload either, depending on the subject you do.
I know for example language students at my old uni easily did 1,2 essays a week in addition to all other kinds of crap.
My current course, 1, 2 essays is also pretty standard, and they're not always just quick 2k word essays. During my undergrad however, i only did about 1 essay per term or so.

[Herr]

(Original post by Hackett)
Hi there,

sorry to go off topic but please may you go back to my HK thread and help answer a couple of questions?

Cheers

Do you have a link to that topic or where was it located at. I had a change in laptop and lost all the history.

Are you still in HK? Maybe I will bump into you

[Herr]

(Original post by KLL)
exactly.
and lets not forget the guys who get their msc finance/management etc from unis and business schools like LBS, Imperial, Cass etc. I've met loads and i find it hard to believe that a recrutier won't give them even a chance, seeing those are courses targeted by IBs.

Last I checked you needed a good 3 years of FINANCE related experience post-graduation in order to do a MoF at LBS. Most I know have at least 10 or more years of experience working in finance before they even applied, hardly the 10 days since graduation and off to a MoF course.

Rather rare to find anyone at Imperial's MSc Finance that is fresh out of uni, the exception rather than the norm, vast majority of those international students from Asia.


Thanks for your entertainment Too free lately as am clearing annual leave but thanks for the concern.

[KLL]

(Original post by Herr)
Last I checked you needed a good 3 years of FINANCE related experience post-graduation in order to do a MoF at LBS. Most I know have at least 10 or more years of experience working in finance before they even applied, hardly the 10 days since graduation and off to a MoF course.

Rather rare to find anyone at Imperial's MSc Finance that is fresh out of uni, the exception rather than the norm, vast majority of those international students from Asia.


Thanks for your entertainment Too free lately as am clearing annual leave but thanks for the concern.

OK for the LBS MiF yes, but not for Cass, LSE, Imperial (i've met a few without experience), Warwick just to name a few other programmes that a targeted etc.
And you don't need it for the LBS Master in Management either.

[Hackett]

(Original post by Herr)
Do you have a link to that topic or where was it located at. I had a change in laptop and lost all the history.

Are you still in HK? Maybe I will bump into you

Oh right no worries - here you go http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1966324

No not yet, going out towards of the end of september.

[bestofyou]

(Original post by Eldedu)
I've found a recurring theme on this forum to be that if you have a degree from Oxbridge, you can find yourself a job in IB, whether your degree's in archaeology or veterinary sciences. Meanwhile, a degree in finance or economics from a uni outside the top five offers much less promising chances of employment in the industry.

There seem to be be two philosophies at work here:

1.) The non-Oxbridge graduate philosophy: we will take only the brightest, hardest-working and best qualified graduates of the most relevant subjects, and only a few of these. Now considering the high compensation that exists in the industry, fair enough. But...

2.) The Oxbridge graduate philosophy: we want bright people (a 2:1 will do) with a varied skillset and considering how much of one's job is learnt whilst actually doing it or through specific training it doesn't much matter what they've studied and can even be an asset if it's unorthodox for the industry. However, this will apply almost exclusively to Oxbridge graduates.

Now, either Oxbridge are head and shoulders above other universities in every aspect (head and shoulders and torso even) or this is a ridiculous double standard. I'm not complaining because I'm an Oxbridge reject interested in IB and feel shut out. I know employment is a buyers market and if an employer decides they're more intersted in a third class grad from southbank than me that's their full right. What irritates me about it is that surely it can't be beneficial to IB itself?

A first class degree from a Russell Group outside the "top five" implies a certain level of personal ability, commitment and good teaching. Likewise, I don't believe the same philosophy is applied to the rest of the top five, which again seems odd. Is my understanding of the situation warped? Is there a good reason for this dichotomy? To be fair I know very little about the whole issue, but from my limited perspective it seems ridiculous.

I'm not trying to make a point, just asking for opinions and further information.

I think you, and quite a lot of other people look too much into the 'Oxbridge get all the jobs because they are Oxbridge' theory.

They are not employed because they go to a fancy uni that has been around to centuries. They are employed for the only reason that they are the most employable.

Getting a job is just like getting into university, meeting the requirements is only part of the process and selling yourself proves just as important. This is where the Oxbridge students excell. You need to remember the institution they attend is the hardest in Europe (the world?) to get into. So what does this mean to employers? **** all really. However, what will it show employers? Everything.

If they can make themselves look good enough on paper to get into Oxford for example you can bet your house that in a fews years when they are applying for placement/jobs, a couple of years at the highest ranked uni in the world will have only made them better at applications and selling themselves to people.

If anything I believe it would be the smaller and lower paid employers that would only give Oxbridge grads a job simply because they don't see as many and when they do probably want to employ them based on their university alone. Whereas Goldmansachs probably sees Oxbridges grads all too often.

My theory is simple. It is not one that employers are out to unfairly dismiss those at 5-40 ranked universities and hire Oxbridge becuase they are Oxbridge. It is that Oxbridge grads would have needed to look special on paper when applying there, so looking good on paper for Goldmansachs isn't going to be very hard for them.

That said, I live in a town where nothing happens and nobody tends to do anything special. Yet I know two locals that have got jobs with Goldmansachs and they got to Queens Belfast and Bath, neither of which are 'top' universities

(Original post by SW1X)
(Taken from Sig)

Oxford - PPE - Rejected, no interview
LSE - G&E - Rejected
Durham - PPE - Rejected
Edinburgh - E&P - Rejected
York - PPE - Offer, 36 points

^^ Says it all really

I don't think that says anything really...let alone everything.

[wilf69]

Didn't trawl through all of the posts but around 50% of people who work in IB didn't go to university at all. I work with some of them, now working part time having made their crust, some now with pstgrad qualifications and all of them making more money than me who did go to Uni. You can't learn everything from a book.

[moritzplatz]

(Original post by Deep456)

PPE at Oxford is 1/2 essays a week. Not bad at all.

Surprisingly, Warwick have larger workloads in quite a few degrees because they do like 150 credits worth of units (Maths, Economics, PPE, MORSE) instead of 120 in year 1.

i don't know how many credits we do in our first year but i doubt any other course can be much harder than maths at oxford.
some people i know who did the IMO and/or already published an article still struggled and in one case did not even get a first!

[Samtheman1]

(Original post by wilf69)
Didn't trawl through all of the posts but around 50% of people who work in IB didn't go to university at all. I work with some of them, now working part time having made their crust, some now with pstgrad qualifications and all of them making more money than me who did go to Uni. You can't learn everything from a book.

If you are talking about IBD - then this is wrong.

If you are talking about front office - then this is wrong.

If you are talking about an investment bank, from the cleaners, receptionists, all the way to the CEO - you might just be right.

But in general, people posting on thestudentroom tend not to apply for many cleaning positions.

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by Deep456)
PPE at Oxford is 1/2 essays a week. Not bad at all.

My brother is a PPEist at Oxford, in first year he had 3 essays a week (one in each discipline) plus an Economics problem sheet.

edit: in 2nd year I think he was doing two a week, but the overall workload was still pretty bad.

[Deep456]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
My brother is a PPEist at Oxford, in first year he had 3 essays a week (one in each discipline) plus an Economics problem sheet.

edit: in 2nd year I think he was doing two a week, but the overall workload was still pretty bad.

I guess it depends on the College. It's not really one size fits all, is it? Most of the PPEists I know do 1/2 a week, I know a fair few as well. As I said, when you are going to Oxbridge, you know what to expect. It isn't a bad workload at all given how good the course is in terms of academic exposure.

I mean, I would love to do PPE at Oxford and missed out by a place after interview. Would I complain about the workload? Most certainly not. The whole point of going to university is to learn and in that respect your brother and others are actually getting better value for money.

(Original post by moritzplatz)
i don't know how many credits we do in our first year but i doubt any other course can be much harder than maths at oxford.
some people i know who did the IMO and/or already published an article still struggled and in one case did not even get a first!

Cambridge Maths is better. Imperial and Warwick Maths are the same standard as the course at Oxford.

If you are good at Maths, it shouldn't be too bad. My friend this year got a 1st this year for Maths at Oxford, he was always going to get one and he didn't work particularly hard.

Maths across all universities is one of the subjects where a lot more people get a first. On that basis, you can say the likes of Law/History are harder. What is hard is a matter of subjectivity so that is a bit of a nothing comment.

[moritzplatz]

(Original post by Deep456)
I guess it depends on the College. It's not really one size fits all, is it? Most of the PPEists I know do 1/2 a week, I know a fair few as well. As I said, when you are going to Oxbridge, you know what to expect. It isn't a bad workload at all given how good the course is in terms of academic exposure.

I mean, I would love to do PPE at Oxford and missed out by a place after interview. Would I complain about the workload? Most certainly not. The whole point of going to university is to learn and in that respect your brother and others are actually getting better value for money.



Cambridge Maths is better. Imperial and Warwick Maths are the same standard as the course at Oxford.

If you are good at Maths, it shouldn't be too bad. My friend this year got a 1st this year for Maths at Oxford, he was always going to get one and he didn't work particularly hard.

Maths across all universities is one of the subjects where a lot more people get a first. On that basis, you can say the likes of Law/History are harder. What is hard is a matter of subjectivity so that is a bit of a nothing comment.

i got a first as well.

on what basis can you say cambridge is better?
you have no idea what you are talking about.

https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/mat...M1FJT2012Q.pdf
this paper from imperial is a joke compared to what we do.


the proportion of firsts has nothing to do with the difficulties of the course, look at how many fail or get 3 in history ...

[Deep456]

(Original post by moritzplatz)
i got a first as well.

on what basis can you say cambridge is better?
you have no idea what you are talking about.

https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/mat...M1FJT2012Q.pdf
this paper from imperial is a joke compared to what we do.


the proportion of firsts has nothing to do with the difficulties of the course, look at how many fail or get 3 in history ...

To get into Cambridge, you need to get 1+1 in step. To get into Oxford, you need to get A*A*A in A-levels. I know which one I prefer and the MAT has nothing on step, before you start.

Look take your ego elsewhere. As I said, what is hard is a matter of subjectivity. Your pig arrogance won't serve you well in later life.