Oxbridge warning
Scroll to see replies
Original post by PythianLegume
http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/camdata/undergraduate.html
Only about 20% get a 2.2 or below at Cambridge. So unless about 80% get the same at Oxford, I think your stat is a bit out.
Only about 20% get a 2.2 or below at Cambridge. So unless about 80% get the same at Oxford, I think your stat is a bit out.
Just to muddy the waters a bit more.
I don't think you get an overall degree classification at Cambridge. It has the tripos system so you get a classification for each section of the tripos Part 1 A and B and Part 2 (usually).
Hence people who say they have double firsts ie they got a first in both Part 1 and Part 2.
Your actual degree certificate just says you're admitted to the Degree of Bachelor of Arts from the University of Cambridge no classification.
Original post by pickup
Just to muddy the waters a bit more.
I don't think you get an overall degree classification at Cambridge. It has the tripos system so you get a classification for each section of the tripos Part 1 A and B and Part 2 (usually).
Hence people who say they have double firsts ie they got a first in both Part 1 and Part 2.
Your actual degree certificate just says you're admitted to the Degree of Bachelor of Arts from the University of Cambridge no classification.
I don't think you get an overall degree classification at Cambridge. It has the tripos system so you get a classification for each section of the tripos Part 1 A and B and Part 2 (usually).
Hence people who say they have double firsts ie they got a first in both Part 1 and Part 2.
Your actual degree certificate just says you're admitted to the Degree of Bachelor of Arts from the University of Cambridge no classification.
The water looks crystal clear to me.
Original post by Arketec
The water looks crystal clear to me.
I think pickup's point is that it's difficult to say what someone at Cambridge achieved "overall" because there are no weightings and no final grades. However, by convention, you use your final year results as your classification when people ask how you did.
Original post by Tortious
I think pickup's point is that it's difficult to say what someone at Cambridge achieved "overall" because there are no weightings and no final grades. However, by convention, you use your final year results as your classification when people ask how you did.
He's right about the double first though.
Original post by Tortious
Did you quote me in here earlier? I can't seem to see your post... 
Original post by A_parent
My son, at a Scottish school, excelled. Everything he turned his hand to turned to gold. Straight A's in every exam he took, seemingly effortlessly. Dux of his school (ie highest academic achiever in his year). We were thrilled and proud when he was accepted to do Natural Sciences at Cambridge.
End of fairy tale.
Straight away he began to struggle. The short terms (8 weeks) did not suit his slow methodical work ethic. He just couldn't keep up with the pace. He had no time to enjoy the social aspects of university life. He got further and further behind, not fully understanding a topic before being forced onto the next. His 3rd year exams were a disaster. 'Talking' to a tutor would not have helped.
As parents, we had no inkling that this scenario was unfolding, as it happened so slowly. (And neither will you)
Only in retrospect can we say that going to Cambridge was the worst place for him to have studied.
Quite possibly, despite his early promise, he may not have excelled at any University. But I am certain he would have done a lot better, and enjoyed himself a lot more, had a less prestigious University been chosen, with less of a boiler-house culture and population of swat-heads.
If your son/daughter gets a 2.2 or worse at Oxbridge, as 50% do, when they could have won a 2.1 or better anywhere else, with improved job prospects (and had a more enjoyable time), they'll be kicking themselves for their vanity.
End of fairy tale.
Straight away he began to struggle. The short terms (8 weeks) did not suit his slow methodical work ethic. He just couldn't keep up with the pace. He had no time to enjoy the social aspects of university life. He got further and further behind, not fully understanding a topic before being forced onto the next. His 3rd year exams were a disaster. 'Talking' to a tutor would not have helped.
As parents, we had no inkling that this scenario was unfolding, as it happened so slowly. (And neither will you)
Only in retrospect can we say that going to Cambridge was the worst place for him to have studied.
Quite possibly, despite his early promise, he may not have excelled at any University. But I am certain he would have done a lot better, and enjoyed himself a lot more, had a less prestigious University been chosen, with less of a boiler-house culture and population of swat-heads.
If your son/daughter gets a 2.2 or worse at Oxbridge, as 50% do, when they could have won a 2.1 or better anywhere else, with improved job prospects (and had a more enjoyable time), they'll be kicking themselves for their vanity.
I can't speak for Oxford, but Cambridge is not consistently in the world's top three universities in the world for no reason. What did you expect? Please don't take this wrongly, I'm genuinely interested, I'm not being facetious. When I applied to Cambridge I knew what I was getting myself into. I'm starting in a few weeks knowing that its the best faculty in the country for my subject (and probably the world) and therefore its going to be intensely hard.
Cambridge isn't a normal university - it never has been. To walk in there with the illusion that you're going to have a normal university experience is very naive. Its definitely a 'work hard, play hard' ethic.
I know that sciences are generally an intensely hard subject at whichever university you go to, so you'd expect that at Cambridge it would be even harder. For me (I hate sciences) when I saw that Natural Science students had lectures on Saturdays I was appalled. If that isn't indicative of the pressure a Nat Sci is under then I don't know what is.
I don't think you should say this is a 'warning' - I think it would be a reiteration of what everyone already knows. Cambridge is hard. When people get rejected a lot of them are relieved, often understandably. Their ambition encouraged them to apply, and yet when they get rejected their desire to study a degree with less pressure comforts them in the process.
There are pros and cons to every university. Applying to Oxbridge shouldn't just be about 'getting an Oxbridge degree'. It should be a commitment to an often unparalleled level of education and some of the most intense academic environments in the world. From the sounds of it, your son didn't properly understand that commitment.
I'm so sorry he had such a bad time - perhaps he should have looked at a transfer?
From experience I've seen many people cruise through GCSEs and get to A-Levels and stumble. Or people cruise through A-Levels and get to degree level and stumble. Or people stumble through A-Levels and cruise through degree level. It varies for everyone, its not just an uphill journey. Degrees are nothing like school.
I agree that those that apply to Oxbridge due to wanting to have that 'Cantab' or whatever on the CV need to go past their vanity. But at the same time, most of the people that apply know what they're getting themselves into, and most people pass their degrees and have a wonderful time at Cambridge/Oxford.
Again, I'm so sorry for your sons trails and tribulations but it sounds to me that you had either been misinformed on the Oxbridge system, or didn't do a enough research.
I wish your son the best for the future.
Original post by Arketec
He's right about the double first though.
Erm...I'm not sure that either a) "right" is the word I'd use, or b) that you and I are "disagreeing" over anything.
The conditions that he's listed for a double first are accurate, and the term's widely used amongst students, but the University doesn't recognise "double first" as an official classification. It also doesn't tell you a great deal about an individual's performance.
For instance, if I got a first in Part IA, a third in Part IB and a first in Part II, I could claim to have a double first. However, overall, someone who achieves high 2.1s every year (therefore getting no firsts) might have "higher UMS" than me, and arguably a better understanding of their course. It's like the thing about how it's possible for someone with 89% across two years of A Level to have greater UMS than someone who scraped an A at AS and got 90% (an A*) at A2.
Original post by annakid
Said it was being moderated! Was only linking to some more stats on Natsci grade classification percentages
Ah, no problem - it'll show up shortly. As an FYI, it's because you're a "new" member with very few posts; they're automatically queued for moderator approval so we can weed out the spammers.
You should be free of pre-moderation by the time you reach about 20 posts. 
Original post by Tortious
Erm...I'm not sure that either a) "right" is the word I'd use, or b) that you and I are "disagreeing" over anything.
The conditions that he's listed for a double first are accurate, and the term's widely used amongst students, but the University doesn't recognise "double first" as an official classification. It also doesn't tell you a great deal about an individual's performance.
For instance, if I got a first in Part IA, a third in Part IB and a first in Part II, I could claim to have a double first. However, overall, someone who achieves high 2.1s every year (therefore getting no firsts) might have "higher UMS" than me, and arguably a better understanding of their course. It's like the thing about how it's possible for someone with 89% across two years of A Level to have greater UMS than someone who scraped an A at AS and got 90% (an A*) at A2.
The conditions that he's listed for a double first are accurate, and the term's widely used amongst students, but the University doesn't recognise "double first" as an official classification. It also doesn't tell you a great deal about an individual's performance.
For instance, if I got a first in Part IA, a third in Part IB and a first in Part II, I could claim to have a double first. However, overall, someone who achieves high 2.1s every year (therefore getting no firsts) might have "higher UMS" than me, and arguably a better understanding of their course. It's like the thing about how it's possible for someone with 89% across two years of A Level to have greater UMS than someone who scraped an A at AS and got 90% (an A*) at A2.
I'm confused. how does the cambridge system work? When you leave how is your degree classified? Is what you said earlier that you use your overall mark official?
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Arketec
I'm confused. how does the cambridge system work? When you leave how is your degree classified? Is what you said earlier that you use your overall mark official?
Your degree isn't classified. You receive a class for each year of Tripos (typically Part IA, Part IB, and Part II OR Part I, Part IIA and Part IIB) and it is the convention that you declare your final year result as your overall class, although that is not strictly what your 'class' is.
Your son's situation is not uncommon at all. Brilliant success at A-level/IB is no guarantee of even moderate success at Cambridge because the sheer pace of learning is so much higher in the latter. Many students never learn to adjust to this huge transition and become crippled by the unrelenting pressure of the course.
This is the primary danger of Cambridge. The enhanced career prospects that they talk about only really apply if you don't fall into this trap. A 2.2/3rd superficially looks bad even from Oxbridge and most employers will judge you on a level playing field with graduates from less prestigious universities. This is not to mention the crisis of confidence that can result from thee years of disappointing grades. Most students come to Cambridge realising that they can no longer expect to be top of the class, but what most don't come prepared for is the complete reversal of fortunes in which their old school peers begin to surpass them academically (at least superficially) at lesser institutes. It's no wonder that some students come in bright-eyed and bushy tailed but come out completely disillusioned with themselves and academia in general.
Edit: I should note about 70-80% of students cope well and prosper. There is a sizable minority that does fall into the OP's category, though
This is the primary danger of Cambridge. The enhanced career prospects that they talk about only really apply if you don't fall into this trap. A 2.2/3rd superficially looks bad even from Oxbridge and most employers will judge you on a level playing field with graduates from less prestigious universities. This is not to mention the crisis of confidence that can result from thee years of disappointing grades. Most students come to Cambridge realising that they can no longer expect to be top of the class, but what most don't come prepared for is the complete reversal of fortunes in which their old school peers begin to surpass them academically (at least superficially) at lesser institutes. It's no wonder that some students come in bright-eyed and bushy tailed but come out completely disillusioned with themselves and academia in general.
Edit: I should note about 70-80% of students cope well and prosper. There is a sizable minority that does fall into the OP's category, though
(edited 10 years ago)
That is your view, many excel at oxbridge and lead fulfilling lives with brilliant careers!
It's not like this problem is limited to even just Cambridge or Oxford.
A lot of students go to university unprepared for the demands and work loads. The media paints a picture of the partying side of university, but never the studious side that details the all nighters and crazy amount of work that puts in.
If you go to a university with the expectation of being able to cope purely because you got the required grades and they accepted you, then you'll be in for a shock.
Drop out rates are generally pretty high....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9946149/Warning-as-27000-university-students-drop-out-in-a-year.html
A lot of students go to university unprepared for the demands and work loads. The media paints a picture of the partying side of university, but never the studious side that details the all nighters and crazy amount of work that puts in.
If you go to a university with the expectation of being able to cope purely because you got the required grades and they accepted you, then you'll be in for a shock.
Drop out rates are generally pretty high....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9946149/Warning-as-27000-university-students-drop-out-in-a-year.html
Original post by Mihael Keehl
Where is the evidence for this? It sounds like a ridiculous system. How are you supposed to inform employers how you performed in your degree? Doesn't this make it possible for someone with a third in each year to lie and claim they have a 2.i or a first?
In my case (solicitors' training contracts), I was asked to put all of my module marks on my CV - but even if not explicitly requested, I'd probably have put my yearly classification on there. In practical terms, the "Cambridge system" rarely causes problems - the main system which generates confusion in my case is that my Cambridge law degree is technically a "BA Law". This has the same content as the LLB offered by other universities, but the "BA Law" at other universities isn't the same thing; only LLBs cover the right content for you to qualify as a lawyer. As such, I'm always wary of telling law firms that I've got a "Cambridge BA degree" for fear that they don't realise it's an LLB!
Original post by moritzplatz
you can see it that way if you want.
in my opinion the problem is that 200+ students is way too many (and I think Cambridge has even more)
in my opinion the problem is that 200+ students is way too many (and I think Cambridge has even more)
Original post by Diminutive
It's not like this problem is limited to even just Cambridge or Oxford.
A lot of students go to university unprepared for the demands and work loads. The media paints a picture of the partying side of university, but never the studious side that details the all nighters and crazy amount of work that puts in.
If you go to a university with the expectation of being able to cope purely because you got the required grades and they accepted you, then you'll be in for a shock.
Drop out rates are generally pretty high....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9946149/Warning-as-27000-university-students-drop-out-in-a-year.html
A lot of students go to university unprepared for the demands and work loads. The media paints a picture of the partying side of university, but never the studious side that details the all nighters and crazy amount of work that puts in.
If you go to a university with the expectation of being able to cope purely because you got the required grades and they accepted you, then you'll be in for a shock.
Drop out rates are generally pretty high....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9946149/Warning-as-27000-university-students-drop-out-in-a-year.html
Original post by Diminutive
It's not like this problem is limited to even just Cambridge or Oxford.
A lot of students go to university unprepared for the demands and work loads. The media paints a picture of the partying side of university, but never the studious side that details the all nighters and crazy amount of work that puts in.
If you go to a university with the expectation of being able to cope purely because you got the required grades and they accepted you, then you'll be in for a shock.
Drop out rates are generally pretty high....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9946149/Warning-as-27000-university-students-drop-out-in-a-year.html
A lot of students go to university unprepared for the demands and work loads. The media paints a picture of the partying side of university, but never the studious side that details the all nighters and crazy amount of work that puts in.
If you go to a university with the expectation of being able to cope purely because you got the required grades and they accepted you, then you'll be in for a shock.
Drop out rates are generally pretty high....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9946149/Warning-as-27000-university-students-drop-out-in-a-year.html
Many of these replies miss the point. It's not a sob story, it's a genuine observation/warning. It doesn't matter if 50%, 40%, 30% get 2.2's or worse.
Students arriving at Oxbridge on their first day, all with straight A's, have no way of knowing how they compare academically with their peers.
If you don't nit pick,
1) All universities award about the same proportion of 1st's, 2i, 2ii, 3rds, more-or-less
2) Oxbridge have a ?much higher proportion of academically talented and motivated students
3) Rightly or wrongly, employers use straight degree classification as a criteria for interview.
By choosing to go to Oxbridge students are increasing their chances of getting a poorer degree classification.
Even that maths student could come to the same conclusion.
OK, so that's obvious. You all knew that already. But I bet you don't know by how much your personal chances of getting a poorer degree classification is increased by choosing to go to Oxbridge.
Or if you do, please tell me!
Students arriving at Oxbridge on their first day, all with straight A's, have no way of knowing how they compare academically with their peers.
If you don't nit pick,
1) All universities award about the same proportion of 1st's, 2i, 2ii, 3rds, more-or-less
2) Oxbridge have a ?much higher proportion of academically talented and motivated students
3) Rightly or wrongly, employers use straight degree classification as a criteria for interview.
By choosing to go to Oxbridge students are increasing their chances of getting a poorer degree classification.
Even that maths student could come to the same conclusion.
OK, so that's obvious. You all knew that already. But I bet you don't know by how much your personal chances of getting a poorer degree classification is increased by choosing to go to Oxbridge.
Or if you do, please tell me!
Original post by A_parent
My son, at a Scottish school, excelled. Everything he turned his hand to turned to gold. Straight A's in every exam he took, seemingly effortlessly. Dux of his school (ie highest academic achiever in his year). We were thrilled and proud when he was accepted to do Natural Sciences at Cambridge.
End of fairy tale.
Straight away he began to struggle. The short terms (8 weeks) did not suit his slow methodical work ethic. He just couldn't keep up with the pace. He had no time to enjoy the social aspects of university life. He got further and further behind, not fully understanding a topic before being forced onto the next. His 3rd year exams were a disaster. 'Talking' to a tutor would not have helped.
As parents, we had no inkling that this scenario was unfolding, as it happened so slowly. (And neither will you)
Only in retrospect can we say that going to Cambridge was the worst place for him to have studied.
Quite possibly, despite his early promise, he may not have excelled at any University. But I am certain he would have done a lot better, and enjoyed himself a lot more, had a less prestigious University been chosen, with less of a boiler-house culture and population of swat-heads.
If your son/daughter gets a 2.2 or worse at Oxbridge, as 50% do, when they could have won a 2.1 or better anywhere else, with improved job prospects (and had a more enjoyable time), they'll be kicking themselves for their vanity.
End of fairy tale.
Straight away he began to struggle. The short terms (8 weeks) did not suit his slow methodical work ethic. He just couldn't keep up with the pace. He had no time to enjoy the social aspects of university life. He got further and further behind, not fully understanding a topic before being forced onto the next. His 3rd year exams were a disaster. 'Talking' to a tutor would not have helped.
As parents, we had no inkling that this scenario was unfolding, as it happened so slowly. (And neither will you)
Only in retrospect can we say that going to Cambridge was the worst place for him to have studied.
Quite possibly, despite his early promise, he may not have excelled at any University. But I am certain he would have done a lot better, and enjoyed himself a lot more, had a less prestigious University been chosen, with less of a boiler-house culture and population of swat-heads.
If your son/daughter gets a 2.2 or worse at Oxbridge, as 50% do, when they could have won a 2.1 or better anywhere else, with improved job prospects (and had a more enjoyable time), they'll be kicking themselves for their vanity.
50% is waaayyyyy out for people who get 2.2s or lower at Oxbridge. Its much lower. At least for the vast majority of subjects. Just look at the class lists. For my subject and many others I know, only 5% ish get 2.2 or lower.
The percentage of 2.1s and 1sts is higher at Oxbridge than at other Unis in general.
Original post by A_parent
1) All universities award about the same proportion of 1st's, 2i, 2ii, 3rds, more-or-less
1) All universities award about the same proportion of 1st's, 2i, 2ii, 3rds, more-or-less
That's just wrong.
Original post by legalreality
Again, I'm not convinced this is true. Are we really saying that there is tangible difference in quality between say an Oxbridge student and an LSE student? I'd say they are both likely to be academically talented and motivated to have got into such university.
Again, I'm not convinced this is true. Are we really saying that there is tangible difference in quality between say an Oxbridge student and an LSE student? I'd say they are both likely to be academically talented and motivated to have got into such university.
Well the average UMS points for admission is lower at LSE, and much lower for some subjects. For something like economics, or government/IR, which are really competitive, then there probably isn't much difference.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- a level choices
- Limited Options (A-Level)
- Oxford - Cambridge Renewable Energy
- A-Levels in 8 months
- Best universities for magic circle law firms
- 4 a levels + epq???
- Imperial college interview
- I'm not excited for my future anymore.
- Rant about subject choices!
- The struggles of convincing my Family to let me go to Uni
- Are interview prep day from companies like Oxbridge Applications worth the money?
- Prince Charles' entry into Cambridge
- Does it matter which university I go to become an Investment Banker
- Want to apply to comp sci
- Trigger Warning! Call for Participants - Dissertation Survey
- How did you find out about TSR?
- Engine light stays on
- oxbridge gsce grades
- For harrasment does someone get a warning first or no warning
- Is Law Work Experience Necessary for Oxbridge?
Latest
Last reply 5 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 minutes ago
OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 3 (Christianity) - 20th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 7 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 8 minutes ago
IBM Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 8 minutes ago
Weidenfeld Hoffmann Trust (WHT) Scholarship Notification (2024-2025)Last reply 18 minutes ago
LSE politics and Economics 2023/2024Last reply 19 minutes ago
Is it really such a bad thing to have an undefined relationshipTrending
Last reply 8 minutes ago
Weidenfeld Hoffmann Trust (WHT) Scholarship Notification (2024-2025)Last reply 5 days ago
Oxbridge applicants for modern languages - 2025 entry (applying in 2024)Last reply 1 week ago
Will I get into Oxford with my GCSE results? - EngineeringLast reply 2 weeks ago
will 5 a levels give me a better chance at getting into oxford?Trending
Last reply 8 minutes ago
Weidenfeld Hoffmann Trust (WHT) Scholarship Notification (2024-2025)Last reply 5 days ago
Oxbridge applicants for modern languages - 2025 entry (applying in 2024)Last reply 1 week ago
Will I get into Oxford with my GCSE results? - EngineeringLast reply 2 weeks ago
will 5 a levels give me a better chance at getting into oxford?
