This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

More impressive: Undergrad at Oxbridge or PhD at Oxbridge?

Scroll to see replies

PhD is far more impressive, as you can't be spoon fed into earning it.

Yes, thats all nice and good, but we're not discussing undergrad vs. PhD in general - the debate is whether a PhD is better than undergrad because of the Oxbridge factor.

A PhD is the same valuable work regardless of where one gets it from, because its your own research. Your experience as an undergraduate however will significantly vary between different universities.

Now, does someone with a PhD have a better chance at getting a job? of course! but NOT because its from Oxbridge

Reply 61

Freier._.lance

Original post by FSAisVictorious

A PhD is the same valuable work regardless of where one gets it from, because its your own research. Your experience as an undergraduate however will significantly vary between different universities.

This thinking is quite wrong. PhD's vary in difficulty, not always depending on where you get it from, but from who and depending on what project you pick.

Original post by FSAisVictorious

Yes, thats all nice and good, but we're not discussing undergrad vs. PhD in general - the debate is whether a PhD is better than undergrad because of the Oxbridge factor.

Now, does someone with a PhD have a better chance at getting a job? of course! but NOT because its from Oxbridge

The most selective jobs require PhD's from the top universities. In such cases, a PhD from Oxbridge far exceeds someone with a degree from Oxbridge.

Reply 62

scrotgrot

Oxford is prestigious at undergrad. At postgrad, it is more about the people you work with, who may well be based at universities around the country, or in a specialist research group at a relatively unremarkable university. The likelihood is that you would go into a field directly related to your Ph.D. specialism, so they would know about such people and groups, and so would be much more prestigious than Oxford.

But I suspect that a Ph.D. in something unmarketable like classics or literature or philosophy or to an extent politics would still be best done at Oxbridge. Doing so would very much mark you out as a high-minded idealist, however, and if you take it on, you'd better have the contacts to back that self-indulgence up (dad is an MP, columnist, professor, editor etc etc) so you have the opportunity to make those ideas worth something.

Reply 63

james_78

Original post by Freier._.lance

This thinking is quite wrong. PhD's vary in difficulty, not always depending on where you get it from, but from who and depending on what project you pick.

The most selective jobs require PhD's from the top universities. In such cases, a PhD from Oxbridge far exceeds someone with a degree from Oxbridge.

In addition, some people tend to think that due to the A-levels that it is more difficult to get into Oxbridge for an undergrad. But they are not aware that getting into an Oxbridge PhD typically requires that you get admitted to an MPhil first, and that it is some of the very best undergrads around the world who apply.

Moreover, one should not downplay that the competition is much tougher for getting into OXbridge postgraduate programmes, since far more people want to get an Oxbridge PhD and live the Oxbridge experience (quite understandably i believe).

Overall I am afraid that there are no European universities that can compete Oxbridge and the only plausible comparisons can be made with some Ivy league counterparts.

Reply 64

Freier._.lance

Original post by james_78

Once you get to post-graduate and post-doctoral study level you will find out how very wrong you are. European Masters degrees far exceed the level from any UK university including Oxbridge. I speak ofcourse about science degrees, it may be different for the Arts.

Reply 65

james_78

Original post by Freier._.lance

if you say so.

Reply 66

RussellG

Original post by Freier._.lance

I'm curious about how they are more advanced than UK masters (including oxbridge).
Can you give us more detail stories (entrance requirements, workload requirements, exam difficulties, graduate requirements etc)?
And also I want to know which country you are talking about.

Reply 67

username207685

Original post by james_78

But they are not aware that getting into an Oxbridge PhD typically requires that you get admitted to an MPhil first, and that it is some of the very best undergrads around the world who apply.

That's how most PhDs work. You start as an MPhil and get upgraded after an upgrade interview.

Moreover, one should not downplay that the competition is much tougher for getting into OXbridge postgraduate programmes, since far more people want to get an Oxbridge PhD and live the Oxbridge experience (quite understandably i believe).

[citation needed]

Reply 68

OMGWTFBBQ

PhD because undergrad is basically a personality test with your interviewers and has very little to do with your actual level ability, assuming you are above the minimum level of ability required.

Meeting the academic requirements for a PhD means an aweful lot more as it is much more objective - although there is obviously still corruption at that level, it is at least much more minor.

Reply 69

Chief Wiggum

Original post by OMGWTFBBQ

PhD because undergrad is basically a personality test with your interviewers and has very little to do with your actual level ability, assuming you are above the minimum level of ability required.
.

That isn't true.

Reply 70

OMGWTFBBQ

Original post by Chief Wiggum

That isn't true.

Yes it is

Reply 71

Chief Wiggum

Original post by OMGWTFBBQ

Yes it is

If you read their admissions policy, you will see that applicants get ranked based on their UMS averages (combined with GCSE results if that improves the model) to help decide with admissions.

It certainly isn't a case of "whose personality the interviews prefer" once you meet the "minimum requirements".

Reply 72

Nichrome

Original post by Freier._.lance

PhD projects probably do vary in difficulty, but since individual projects vary so much even within each supervision group, it doesn't make much sense to say a PhD at Oxbridge is harder than one elsewhere since each one is likely to be unique.

Your second paragraph doesn't make sense to me; if an employer is using a PhD in selecting candidates surely they're going to be judging you on your publication record and the actual research you produced rather than where you got it from. PhDs are a whole different kettle of fish compared to undergrad where it's easier to generalise differences between institutions.

Original post by james_78

This isn't the case for all subjects. I've known some areas of Physics/Chemistry/Materials Science at Oxbridge where they regularly take people on with 2:1s (even the odd 2:2).

Original post by OMGWTFBBQ

The interviews to get into undergrad (especially at Oxbridge) are much more than personality tests, not entirely sure where you get garbage like that from.

Reply 73

OMGWTFBBQ

Original post by Chief Wiggum

To help decide whether they meet the minimum requirements, of course. Not to determine solely on the basis of their ability whether to offer them a place.

If it was solely ability, there would be exams and no interviews. Thus they are clearly discriminating on the basis of something else - and the only thing I can think of (other than appearance and race) that an interview shows that your UMS doesn't is your personality.

Reply 74

Mike_123

undergraduate is harder to get into

Reply 75

Chief Wiggum

Original post by OMGWTFBBQ

Yes, interviews matter as well.

But UMS is not just used to determine whether people meet the minimum requirements - if it was just about meeting minimum requirements, then students wouldn't get ranked based on UMS, would they? It would all just be about meeting a "cutoff", after which higher scores would give no advantage - but this is not the case.

Reply 76

shawn_o1

Surely the only reason to get a PhD is to do research for a living? I know I can't do research so I'll graduate with just a BSc and look for a job.

Reply 77

ChemistBoy

Original post by shawn_o1

Surely the only reason to get a PhD is to do research for a living? I know I can't do research so I'll graduate with just a BSc and look for a job.

Very much depends on the subject. In science there are plenty of non-research positions (such as consultancy or IP law) where a PhD is a pretty big advantage or even required.

Reply 78

discomposure

First instinct was PHD, but then for PHDs isn't the reputation of your superviser in the particular area you're interested in the most important thing? well, if you're planning on going into research/academia anyway. So Oxbridge will not necassarily be the 'best' choice in many cases.
Plus with PHDs people are generally older and many will have more commitments, such as partners/families which can restrisct where they can study, not to mention what they can actually afford once you factor in the costs of moving/living/supporting others.

Eh I dunno.

Reply 79

NPI

Original post by username207685

That's how most PhDs work. You start as an MPhil and get upgraded after an upgrade interview.

At Cambridge, an MPhil is a separate research Master's. It is not uncommon for PhD applicants holding a Master's (with distinction) from other universities to be required to complete a separate MPhil (with a strong distinction) in their department/faculty before re-applying and being admitted as a PhD (Probationary) student. Whether this is needed is typically determined based upon your application and/or interview with your potential supervisors.

They can later upgrade to being a fully-fledged PhD candidate following a successful Registration Report and Viva.

I only have knowledge of a few humanities departments/faculties at Cambridge, so can't speak for all.