More impressive: Undergrad at Oxbridge or PhD at Oxbridge?

A comment in another thread got me thinking, what would you guys perceive as being of higher "value" or prestige? Getting into Oxbridge as an undergraduate, or Oxbridge as a funded PhD student after having studied at a non-Oxbridge uni for the undergraduate degree (either UK or elsewhere, who cares). While both are clearly a good achievement, a case can be made for either I am sure.

N.B: Unfortunately A-level kiddies are banned from giving their opinions in this thread. In fact, the older the better.

Now talk.

phd at oxbridge, as oxbridge undergrads themselves get rejected

phd at oxbridge, as oxbridge undergrads themselves get rejected

But surely equally, people who do PostGrad/PhD at Oxbridge were often rejected for Undergrad there.

many more people were rejected at undergrad. i don't where he got that statement from

As others have pointed out, PhD is all about who supervises you and what you contribute to an academic area. The name of the university means absolutely nothing.

Anyone here who is claiming undergrad doesnt prove potential because A-Levels dont assess ability clearly know nothing about the admissions process. There are tests, written work, interview etc that test way beyond what a person has been taught at school/college. Undergrad is more prestigious especially because of how hard it is to get into; you're competing with so many others who have the same achievements as you, and need that extra something to get in. With a PhD or even masters people from all sorts of backgrounds and experiences apply that its almost obvious who will get in and who wont.

The first statement contradicts your second one (the bolded statements). To attract a potential supervisor and "contribute to the an academic area" you would have to demonstrate a high level of academic ability that is going to want to gain the attention of a faculty member who is most likely an expert in their respective field. I don't think they let any old so and so into postgrad at Oxford or Cambridge.

The people from external universities accepted into Oxbridge for postgrad studies were most likely the very best students from their previous institutions i.e. the top percentage and had glowing academic results and references.

PhD = prestigious to the subject area
undergrad = prestigious because of the university name

How on earth is that a contradiction? we're not discussing prestige in general, the thread is about what role the word 'Oxford' plays in each achievement.

Because you suggested that being accepted to undergraduate study at Oxbridge was a greater indicator of one's academic prowess than a phd at Oxbridge and hence attracted a greater deal of reputation and prestige which is total BS.

As I said supervisors at Oxbridge are some of the best experts in their field and hence they want to be teaching students who have the academic ability to occupy their time and potentially one day succeed them in heading the faculty.

They don't accept idiots to do postgraduate study at Oxbridge. Yes the entry process for undergraduate study at Oxbridge is particularly rigorous but doesn't require a superbly high level of intellect or genius. You don't have to be a genius for postgrad either but at postgrad they are looking for people who excelled at university level and can synthesise ideas together to propose research in a particular field...i.e. potentially be a leader in that field.

Most intelligent students who work hard can get high UMS marks, good GCSEs, glowing references from school, have lots of coaching for the admissions interview and get an offer. Once they get there they get spoonfed with lectures and tutorials whereas at postgraduate level whilst you do have some supervisions most of the time you are away doing self directed learning, teaching undergrads and proposing original research.

Not really, that was just a reply to people who wrote that A-Levels are easy and therefore dumb people could get accepted; and I said no, the admissions process has almost nothing to do with A-Levels (unless of course in the case of science subjects) and has a lot more to it.



ya but no tutorial system



I think its wrong to compare a 17 year old undergrad applicant with someone older with lots of experience applying for a masters; surely when the undergrad guy grows older and gets the same opportunities as the older guy, he has the same potential for a masters?

What im saying is that two undergraduate applicants competing is harder than two postgraduates competing, because its a lot easier to distinguish between grad applicants. Difference between an A* and an A* could be the difference between a 1st and a 2:1 later.



Again, you cant say person A (adult) consumes more food than person B (baby) and therefore person A naturally eats more; person B is not in the same stage to be of any useful comparison.

Also making applications at the postgraduate level from my own experience, I found I received next to no help from my university which may be unsurprising as it was the Open University. But I suspect they are not an exception and there may be a few potential postgrads out there who find that they are fighting off a pitbull with a breadstick given the lack of support and sound advice they are being given by their current institution with regards to applying for further study at Oxbridge.

Personally, I prefer undergrad over masters especially because of the fees. Oxford for grads charges a college fee (something undergrads arent charged) of like 2000 pounds and the courses and overall resources you need are much much more costly. Only a scholarship is worth it (unless you already have the money, which is a different case).

What are you going to study? im applying next admissions cycle for a BA in History and Politics

I'm already a postgrad at Cambridge.

Doing what subject? lol.

Doing an MPhil atm but hoping to stay on for a Phd.

Personally, an undergraduate at Oxbridge.

The first statement contradicts your second one (the bolded statements). To attract a potential supervisor and "contribute to the an academic area" you would have to demonstrate a high level of academic ability that is going to want to gain the attention of a faculty member who is most likely an expert in their respective field. I don't think they let any old so and so into postgrad at Oxford or Cambridge.

The people from external universities accepted into Oxbridge for postgrad studies were most likely the very best students from their previous institutions i.e. the top percentage and had glowing academic results and references.