Does a Masters from a top University carry the same 'prestige' as an Undergraduate...

...degree?

Allow me to elaborate...

Person X didn't do well in his A-levels because of fundamental reasons (i.e. he recently moved to the UK from another EU country; and suffered from anxiety and depression) and hence went to a lower ranked University (25-40 in the UK). He graduated with a high first class degree (86%) and went on to gain two highly respected professional qualifications (ACA and CFA). Afterwards he decided to apply for a Masters degree in Finance and was accepted by an elite University...let's say LSE. He went on to study there and left the institute of education with a Distinction.

Now there is Person Y. He did amazingly well in his GCSEs and A-levels and was accordingly accepted by LSE to study Economics. Person Y also received a high first class degree but didn't feel the need to do a Masters because it wasn't essential.

Here is my question, would you consider both to be equal or would you prefer Person Y?

I want your opinions...

I've asked the question before but didn't receive a reply.

Reply 1

Klix88

17

A Masters from LSE is a higher qualification than an undergrad degree from LSE, regardless of the route you took to get it. Person X is better qualified than Person Y.

As for which would be 'preferable', it depends what they're being considered for and in what field. For job applications in many industries, they'd both be trumped by someone with a mediocre undergrad degree who had good quality professional experience and references.

Reply 2

StretfordEnd

15

Surely this is a bit of a ridiculous for instance as person X not only has a postgraduate v undergraduate degree, but has 2 professional qualifications to boot?

Reply 3

HiMark

OP

2

Original post by Klix88

A Masters from LSE is a higher qualification than an undergrad degree from LSE, regardless of the route you took to get it. Person X is better qualified than Person Y.

As for which would be 'preferable', it depends what they're being considered for and in what field. For job applications in many industries, they'd both be trumped by someone with a mediocre undergrad degree who had good quality professional experience and references.

Thanks a lot for your reply. I am just wondering, would you have the equal amount of respect or would you consider the Undergraduate to be more intelligent?

Reply 4

scrotgrot

16

The first person is better as he has strung these qualifications together to ensure his career progression continues. He is on a clear upward trend. Whereas the other guy doesn't have the same sort of direction evidenced. It would be pointless him doing a masters at that stage though.

If the first guy thought whatever job he got his ACA and CFA in was selling himself short, the break to do a masters in finance at a place like LSE is a clear signal that he wants to relaunch his career and break through the prestige barrier.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 5

HiMark

OP

2

Original post by StretfordEnd

Surely this is a bit of a ridiculous for instance as person X not only has a postgraduate v undergraduate degree, but has 2 professional qualifications to boot?

Thanks for your reply. I am well aware that the first individual is better qualified but I wanted to know if his achievement of gaining entry to an elite University would be considered equally as impressive as the Undergraduate. Let's use Oxford...Undergraduate degree at Oxford or Postgraduate degree at Oxford having being at a lower ranked University (25-40)? Who would you from an academic point of view consider more 'impressive'? Or would you respect both equally?

Reply 6

The_Lonely_Goatherd

20

I think the LSE postgrad does generally trump the LSE undergrad but in this case:

Original post by HiMark

Let's use Oxford...Undergraduate degree at Oxford or Postgraduate degree at Oxford having being at a lower ranked University (25-40)? Who would you from an academic point of view consider more 'impressive'? Or would you respect both equally?

I'd personally have far more respect for the intelligence of the undergrad, but that's just me :biggrin:

Edit/disclaimer: I am basing this on my subject at undergrad v postgrad. Can't obviously speak for all subjects :nah:

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 7

HiMark

OP

2

Original post by scrotgrot

The first person is better as he has strung these qualifications together to ensure his career progression continues. He is on a clear upward trend. Whereas the other guy doesn't have the same sort of direction evidenced. It would be pointless him doing a masters at that stage though.

If the first guy thought whatever job he got his ACA and CFA in was selling himself short, the break to do a masters in finance at a place like LSE is a clear signal that he wants to relaunch his career and break through the prestige barrier.

Thanks a lot for your answer; I was looking for something like this. Well, I think it is obvious that I am talking about myself here :smile:

. At any rate, I would like to ask you a question and would appreciate it if you could give me an answer or better a personal opinion. Do you think 28 is too old for a Masters; and what are my chances of gaining entry into the finance industry if I should graduate with a Distinction from LSE (taking my age and Undergraduate background into consideration)?

Reply 8

HiMark

OP

2

Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd

I think the LSE postgrad does generally trump the LSE undergrad but in this case:

I'd personally have far more respect for the intelligence of the undergrad, but that's just me :biggrin:

Edit/disclaimer: I am basing this on my subject at undergrad v postgrad. Can't obviously speak for all subjects :nah:

I thought so, I share the same opinion :smile:

.

Reply 9

scrotgrot

16

Original post by HiMark

Thanks a lot for your answer; I was looking for something like this. Well, I think it is obvious that I am talking about myself here :smile:

. At any rate, I would like to ask you a question and would appreciate it if you could give me an answer or better a personal opinion. Do you think 28 is too old for a Masters; and what are my chances of gaining entry into the finance industry if I should graduate with a Distinction from LSE (taking my age and Undergraduate background into consideration)?

Certainly not, it's common in the finance industry to do a masters at that sort of age. As far as I've heard the accepted "elite business" curriculum is as follows:
- University
- Professional qualification while doing grunt work
- 1 or 2 years managerial/industry work
- MBA (or MSc Finance if that's your focus)
- ????
- Profit

Follow the years through and allow for plans going awry slightly and you'll get to the MBA stage around 30

Mind you I imagine it'll be tough getting a distinction at LSE

Did you get your ACA etc in a finance company or in industry?

Reply 10

sj27

14

Original post by HiMark

Thanks a lot for your reply. I am just wondering, would you have the equal amount of respect or would you consider the Undergraduate to be more intelligent?

Huh? A good number of undergrads at prestigious universities don't do well enough in undergrad to get accepted at postgrad level in the same uni. So how can they be "more intelligent"?

Reply 11

Klix88

17

Original post by HiMark

Thanks a lot for your reply. I am just wondering, would you have the equal amount of respect or would you consider the Undergraduate to be more intelligent?

Respect and intelligence aren't necessarily best measured by qualifications. I'd certainly question the common sense of someone with an undergrad degree who considered themselves better qualified than someone with a Masters and professional qualifications.

This is a bit of a superfluous discussion. Who is more respected and "preferred" will depend on the context and the significance of the various qualifications in that context.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 12

Nathanielle

15

Concerning difficulty: It totally depends on the degree. In case an undergrad is seen as especially hard and a Master is not (e.g. because you had all the hard Math teached at undergrad level and in the Master you have the more applied lessons, where you are not able to understand them in depth without the Math background, while it might be possible to get still good grades by just learning the formulas.). But even if that is the case, you might get your job because of other reasons.

Only thing what I would say: Don't just do a degree to be perceived as intelligent or having been to a prestigious school. (After some years of work, a lot of the advantages really good schools give you, might be of no importance to you.)

Reply 13

username1599987

12

Original post by HiMark

Here is my question, would you consider both to be equal or would you prefer Person Y?

I'd prefer the first person. However, he wouldn't be that much better than Y in my opinion. This is because of that depression thing. Objectively speaking, and from a business point of you, he isn't that much more special than Y since a change in his personal life, that isn't very big in my opinion, has affected him enough to do bad in his work. So what if there is something very important happening at work and something bad (like death) happened in his personal life. I know that seems insensitive, however people don't care about your personal life.

Reply 14

username738914

21

Original post by HiMark

Thanks a lot for your reply. I am just wondering, would you have the equal amount of respect or would you consider the Undergraduate to be more intelligent?

I'd say they were both intelligent. The only difference is that person X took a bit more time to bloom into an academic success than person Y.

I obviously have more respect for person X because he has managed to complete much more challenging qualifications.

Generally, prestige only really matters for MBAs (or MS Finance/MS in Management) courses - the effect on other Masters programs is negligible.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 15

MagicNMedicine

20

Lets be honest if person X has an ACA then I would have thought he was grown up past the stage of caring about whether people thought someone with an undergrad rather than a postgrad from LSE was 'more prestigious'.

Reply 16

Duncan2012

19

This seems a pointless discussion. In the real world people don't care about backgrounds or how an individual came to be where they are today - as long as they have the qualifications and work history to do a particular job they're in with a shout. If you're worried about prestige/intelligence/respect then you're wasting your time.

Reply 17

poohat

18

I would say an undergraduate degree is slightly more prestigious since everyone knows that masters admission standards tend to be lower in all but the most elite MSc courses, however your example is a bit ridiculous because person A has so much extra experience and such like.

Also the fact that person A got 86% during their non-elite undergraduate is very important since it suggests that they were misplaced and could have easily survived at a better university. If they had got a 2:1 or just scraped a first then there would be a question about whether they could have coped elsewhere.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 18

poohat

18

Original post by Duncan2012

This seems a pointless discussion. In the real world people don't care about backgrounds or how an individual came to be where they are today - as long as they have the qualifications and work history to do a particular job they're in with a shout. If you're worried about prestige/intelligence/respect then you're wasting your time.