Oxbridge 2:1 VS Top Russell Group 1st

All that proves is that you can give off the impression that you do. It's a neat turn of phrase but doesn't contain any actual substance. You've said that a 1st will give very little advantage at the Bar, which is completely untrue.

!

TL;DR

1. Top Russell Group constitutes, for sake of argument, the 10 universities listed below. If you feel that only some of the listed uni's are good enough to make their 1sts better than Oxbridge's 2:1s, weigh up those that do against those that don't and then decide. The 1st will be the median mark for a 1st, the 2:1 likewise the exact median, for the sake of balance.

2. Different uni's, different strengths in different courses blah blah blah. Just try to envisage a 'General' course, equally as prestigious and well-taught etc at all the uni's and where all else is equal except the prestige of the uni's and the degree classes. On this basis, is a top RG 1st better than an Oxbridge 2:1 in your eyes?

3. 'Better' here = superior career prospects and just what you'd rather have under your belt.

---

Not a debate that hasn't been had before, but just thought I'd reignite it to see today's opinions with my own twists.

Firstly, 'Top Russell Group', (though not meaning to judge against those which, for argument's sake, are excluded - please don't let this deteriorate into that) will constitute the likes of:

- UCL
- LSE
- Imperial
- Durham
- Bristol
- KCL
- York
- Warwick
- Edinburgh
- St Andrews

There will be some who feel that while, say, an Imperial 1st would exceed
an Oxbridge 2:1, the same should not be said of KCL. I ask those people to weigh up those 1st's which they would consider superior to an Oxbridge 2:1 from the universities mentioned against those they wouldn't and come to a conclusion by majority rule.

Secondly, courses. Different uni's have different strengths, how can we possibly say for all courses whether a 1st is better than an Oxbridge 2:1 blah blah blah. Just try to imagine a kind of 'General Studies' course at these uni's, except without the ridicule. A kind of fit-all course which is equally as served by all the aforementioned uni's and whose degree class prestige is dependent entirely on the prestige of the uni. When all else is equal but the prestige of the universities, is a top RG 1:1 better than an Oxbridge 2:1?

Better. What is 'better'. Largely which has more weight generally-speaking with employers, though again of course there will be some variation here try to envisage the general impressions. Which will give superior career prospects generally. Also just which would you rather have under your belt.

Vote away!

Just thought I'd point out St. Andrews isn't RG :P But I'd rather have a first from LSE than a 2.1 from Oxford.

TL;DR

1. Top Russell Group constitutes, for sake of argument, the 10 universities listed below. If you feel that only some of the listed uni's are good enough to make their 1sts better than Oxbridge's 2:1s, weigh up those that do against those that don't and then decide. The 1st will be the median mark for a 1st, the 2:1 likewise the exact median, for the sake of balance.

2. Different uni's, different strengths in different courses blah blah blah. Just try to envisage a 'General' course, equally as prestigious and well-taught etc at all the uni's and where all else is equal except the prestige of the uni's and the degree classes. On this basis, is a top RG 1st better than an Oxbridge 2:1 in your eyes?

3. 'Better' here = superior career prospects and just what you'd rather have under your belt.

---

Not a debate that hasn't been had before, but just thought I'd reignite it to see today's opinions with my own twists.

Firstly, 'Top Russell Group', (though not meaning to judge against those which, for argument's sake, are excluded - please don't let this deteriorate into that) will constitute the likes of:

- UCL
- LSE
- Imperial
- Durham
- Bristol
- KCL
- York
- Warwick
- Edinburgh
- St Andrews

There will be some who feel that while, say, an Imperial 1st would exceed
an Oxbridge 2:1, the same should not be said of KCL. I ask those people to weigh up those 1st's which they would consider superior to an Oxbridge 2:1 from the universities mentioned against those they wouldn't and come to a conclusion by majority rule.

Secondly, courses. Different uni's have different strengths, how can we possibly say for all courses whether a 1st is better than an Oxbridge 2:1 blah blah blah. Just try to imagine a kind of 'General Studies' course at these uni's, except without the ridicule. A kind of fit-all course which is equally as served by all the aforementioned uni's and whose degree class prestige is dependent entirely on the prestige of the uni. When all else is equal but the prestige of the universities, is a top RG 1:1 better than an Oxbridge 2:1?

Better. What is 'better'. Largely which has more weight generally-speaking with employers, though again of course there will be some variation here try to envisage the general impressions. Which will give superior career prospects generally. Also just which would you rather have under your belt.

Vote away!