[esingh3]

What do you think the likelihood of getting a first from oxford brookes and applying to oxford for post grad would be? Is it seen as a really bad uni?

[Ghost6]

(Original post by esingh3)
What do you think the likelihood of getting a first from oxford brookes and applying to oxford for post grad would be? Is it seen as a really bad uni?

With a first it is worth applying but I suppose someone with a first from Oxford or the like will be preferred. He also is more likely to have famous referees which can also additionally help provided they write something positive.

[Ghost6]

(Original post by vigo)
For most MScs at Cam you are called for an interview.

No, it's an exception rather than the norm. My research indicates that for taught PS courses, they expect stellar grades, excellent recommendations, and, particularly for overseas students, a big bank account. They don't seem to give a rat's ass about your "extracurriculars" or reasons for wanting to do the course.

[Duona]

(Original post by Paroma)
I'm not a student at oxbridge (yet) so my opinion might not be what you're seeking, but I have gone through enough pages of their websites and read through enough forum discussions to say confidently that you stand a good chance and please go for it. Your age doesn't matter - that's why they have the whole 'mature' student thing, only they mean people in their thirties or forties! - and you seem to have a background steeped in academics that can work very much to your advantage.
So best of luck, and again, please do try.

Thanks a lot for the encouragement, I hope you are right. I guess you're also applying this year, so best of luck to you as well!!

[Little Jules]

(Original post by esingh3)
What do you think the likelihood of getting a first from oxford brookes and applying to oxford for post grad would be? Is it seen as a really bad uni?

If you have a first, good references and a strong personal statement or research design, you should have a good chance.

[zziippoo]

(Original post by Little Jules)
If you have a first, good references and a strong personal statement or research design, you should have a good chance.

i think the universities must do something with this entry requirements. First from oxford brooks, westminster and salford is not the same with a 2.1 from lse, ucl,warwick.. it's unfair.

[sj27]

(Original post by zziippoo)
i think the universities must do something with this entry requirements. First from oxford brooks, westminster and salford is not the same with a 2.1 from lse, ucl,warwick.. it's unfair.

I think Oxbridge have been doing this long enough that if they realised firsts from low-ranked unis resulted in people unable to handle postgrad, they would have stopped accepting them by now. I cannot comment at all on the grading systems at these unis and how they compare to the top-ranked ones, as I just don't know, but presumably such graduates have generally been successful or Oxbridge would have changed their system. And I quite like the fact that Oxbridge are not elitist in their entry requirements the way many US top-ranked unis are, as it gives people a second chance if for whatever reason they could not get into a "decent" uni out of school but have since proved that they are prepared to work hard and have whatever it takes to get on with it.

[*Corinna*]

(Original post by zziippoo)
i think the universities must do something with this entry requirements. First from oxford brooks, westminster and salford is not the same with a 2.1 from lse, ucl,warwick.. it's unfair.

what about applicants from other countries where even the best uni cannot compare with a mediocre one here? Say I went to the best uni of my country, got a first, and you went to I don't know...insert name of top 30 uni....but had a two one. Your uni ranks higher in the world lists, but my uni is the best my country had to offer.

bottom line is people change, someone who didn't have amazing A levels can do amazingly in an academic environment, where the subject is closer related to his interests, than someone who got 4 A*s, went to Oxford, but then for whichever reason was not as brilliant as others. Also, another thing that admissions take in mind is that someone coming from a top uni had more opportunities to come out with a first. Had a better library, better professors, better labs or whatever scientists need, and in some cases (like Oxbridge) one to one tuition. If despite of that, this person's application is not that good (and it's not only marks that matter, written work plays an important part, as it shows what you can actually do), then in my opinion the fact that this person came from a top uni works to their disadvantage!

so yeah, stop being a baby and grow up. Welcome to the academic world, where people have more substantial ways of judging you than uni ranks.

[The Lyceum]

(Original post by zziippoo)
i think the universities must do something with this entry requirements. First from oxford brooks, westminster and salford is not the same with a 2.1 from lse, ucl,warwick.. it's unfair.

Yes, I'm sure you know much more than the various academics serving in admissions for each department. Do the right thing and contact that immediately so that they might correct the problem. Perhaps link them to some of the various TSR threads so that they might get a real understanding of how certain universities are ranked and perceived?

Oh wait...the world class academics might actually know better than you. What a shock. If people do well enough in their degree, have an interesting and viable research proposal, submit work of a good enough quality and have good references they have a chance. Not because Oxon are doing some sort of misguided charitable deed as you seem to think but because the departments feel said people are able to handle it.

Just concentrate on your own application.

[zziippoo]

I believe that this is unfair because I have friends who studied at Salford university accountIng and finance and they did half of the things and the topics than people who studied at Warwick ! And I have right for that because people who study at warwick have higher level. They have three -4 A levels . A friend got an offer with 5 o levels for Salford . The level is different. It is easier to get a degree with first from Salford than warwick !! This is the true and we have to face it. My flatmate studies at London metr business management. First year he had one exam and 2 cw. Second year 4 exams 4 cw and third year now he is not necessary to do a dissertation. He got two extra modules. He will do 5 modules this year. He is always out, enjoy london but he will get a first. I don't think so that people who study at lse and imperial have the same program.

[zziippoo]

(Original post by The Lyceum)
Yes, I'm sure you know much more than the various academics serving in admissions for each department. Do the right thing and contact that immediately so that they might correct the problem. Perhaps link them to some of the various TSR threads so that they might get a real understanding of how certain universities are ranked and perceived?

Oh wait...the world class academics might actually know better than you. What a shock. If people do well enough in their degree, have an interesting and viable research proposal, submit work of a good enough quality and have good references they have a chance. Not because Oxon are doing some sort of misguided charitable deed as you seem to think but because the departments feel said people are able to handle it.

Just concentrate on your own application.

Ok! You are very nice and you are not rude ! It is my opinion and I think that universities know that. companies in London know that also. If you go for an interview for example in pwc, rbs, Goldman , jp Morgan, HSBC you will ten people from cam and Oxford , 3-4 lse, 2-3 imperial and ucl, 1-2 cass, nott, Bristol , Warwick .. I went to an open day to lse and I asked about that and they informed me that a student from universities which are not "good" must be very intelligent with extremely high marks for a place!

[zziippoo]

(Original post by Xristina)
what about applicants from other countries where even the best uni cannot compare with a mediocre one here? Say I went to the best uni of my country, got a first, and you went to I don't know...insert name of top 30 uni....but had a two one. Your uni ranks higher in the world lists, but my uni is the best my country had to offer.

bottom line is people change, someone who didn't have amazing A levels can do amazingly in an academic environment, where the subject is closer related to his interests, than someone who got 4 A*s, went to Oxford, but then for whichever reason was not as brilliant as others. Also, another thing that admissions take in mind is that someone coming from a top uni had more opportunities to come out with a first. Had a better library, better professors, better labs or whatever scientists need, and in some cases (like Oxbridge) one to one tuition. If despite of that, this person's application is not that good (and it's not only marks that matter, written work plays an important part, as it shows what you can actually do), then in my opinion the fact that this person came from a top uni works to their disadvantage!

so yeah, stop being a baby and grow up. Welcome to the academic world, where people have more substantial ways of judging you than uni ranks.

I dont believe the rankings and I think in UK there are decent unis which are always in the top. I do know what rankings say I know the level. This for the better opportunities is not correct. The program, the modules , the rules are different and much more difficult in those universities. Just make some friends and speak with people who study in other universities.

By the way you can accept my opinion and my thought without saying that I am a baby! This shows how baby you are!

[*Corinna*]

(Original post by zziippoo)
I dont believe the rankings and I think in UK there are decent unis which are always in the top. I do know what rankings say I know the level. This for the better opportunities is not correct. The program, the modules , the rules are different and much more difficult in those universities. Just make some friends and speak with people who study in other universities.

By the way you can accept my opinion and my thought without saying that I am a baby! This shows how baby you are!

Your grammar is hideous....apart from that, you said that unis know that what you say is true, then why are you complaining?? if they know then they will take that under consideration. Although my experience from my masters course shows the opposite. We have people from Harvard, Oxford, Princeton but also people from not as great unis from the UK (Not brookes etc but thats because these unis dont offer my course) and people like me from crap european unis.

And you didnt express an opinion. You wined about unis not taking into consideration an applicant's university. As for the better opportunities, it is correct!!! I come from a uni that offered no opportunities to me (just an example, the library was as big as my bedroom-honestly!) and where we weren't even allowed to write essays! I was begging my professors to let me write non compulsory essays just to acquire some extra knowledge and they wouldn't let me. We only had to write one essay for our entire 4 years! People from Oxford (where I am now, so I know how the system is) have the most amazing opportunities!! If they come out of it and they produce written work that's worse than mine, I have no sympathy for them! They had countless opportunities to improve, they had famous academics to guide them. I had nothing like that! Why should my first be valued less? I didnt have the opportunity to do more work, even if I wanted to. Oxford knows that, and they value applicants for their potentials, as well as their achievements. And that's something a professor has actually told a friend (not from Oxford, but from a top 10 UK uni).

[zziippoo]

(Original post by Xristina)
Your grammar is hideous....apart from that, you said that unis know that what you say is true, then why are you complaining?? if they know then they will take that under consideration. Although my experience from my masters course shows the opposite. We have people from Harvard, Oxford, Princeton but also people from not as great unis from the UK (Not brookes etc but thats because these unis dont offer my course) and people like me from crap european unis.

Thank you.

[*Corinna*]

(Original post by zziippoo)
Thank you.

for what? If you are implying that I agreed with you, I suggest you re read my post.

[hobnob]

(Original post by zziippoo)
I believe that this is unfair because I have friends who studied at Salford university accountIng and finance and they did half of the things and the topics than people who studied at Warwick ! And I have right for that because people who study at warwick have higher level. They have three -4 A levels . A friend got an offer with 5 o levels for Salford . The level is different. It is easier to get a degree with first from Salford than warwick !! This is the true and we have to face it. My flatmate studies at London metr business management. First year he had one exam and 2 cw. Second year 4 exams 4 cw and third year now he is not necessary to do a dissertation. He got two extra modules. He will do 5 modules this year. He is always out, enjoy london but he will get a first. I don't think so that people who study at lse and imperial have the same program.

To be honest, I don't really understand what the issue is. You're acting as though the mere fact of having a 2.1 or first from wherever is enough to guarantee someone a place, when quite clearly it isn't. It's just a necessary requirement in order to be able to apply. The departments' actual decisions are based on other factors (research proposals, references, work samples, interviews etc). So how is this unfair?

[zziippoo]

(Original post by Xristina)
Your grammar is hideous....apart from that, you said that unis know that what you say is true, then why are you complaining?? if they know then they will take that under consideration. Although my experience from my masters course shows the opposite. We have people from Harvard, Oxford, Princeton but also people from not as great unis from the UK (Not brookes etc but thats because these unis dont offer my course) and people like me from crap european unis.

And you didnt express an opinion. You wined about unis not taking into consideration an applicant's university. As for the better opportunities, it is correct!!! I come from a uni that offered no opportunities to me (just an example, the library was as big as my bedroom-honestly!) and where we weren't even allowed to write essays! I was begging my professors to let me write non compulsory essays just to acquire some extra knowledge and they wouldn't let me. We only had to write one essay for our entire 4 years! People from Oxford (where I am now, so I know how the system is) have the most amazing opportunities!! If they come out of it and they produce written work that's worse than mine, I have no sympathy for them! They had countless opportunities to improve, they had famous academics to guide them. I had nothing like that! Why should my first be valued less? I didnt have the opportunity to do more work, even if I wanted to. Oxford knows that, and they value applicants for their potentials, as well as their achievements. And that's something a professor has actually told a friend (not from Oxford, but from a top 10 UK uni).

I know how the universities in Greece work because I am from Greece too Xristina! K genika to sistima stin ellada den einai katholou Kalo k prepei na organothei. Gia ta agglika mou lege oti theleis! Auto einai ena forum k den grafw ston pritani! Apo tin stigmi pou grafw , ektithome, k dexome tin kritiki!

[zziippoo]

(Original post by hobnob)
To be honest, I don't really understand what the issue is. You're acting as though the mere fact of having a 2.1 or first from wherever is enough to guarantee someone a place, when quite clearly it isn't. It's just a necessary requirement in order to be able to apply. The departments' actual decisions are based on other factors (research proposals, references, work samples, interviews etc). So how is this unfair?

I just said that people from universities like Salford, Oxford brooks can obtain first easier than people who study at Warwick and LSE. And this is unfair but since this is the requirment, students can apply even if they study at London metr! I didn't say that Oxford university must stop accepting students from Oxford brooks.

[*Corinna*]

(Original post by zziippoo)
I know how the universities in Greece work because I am from Greece too Xristina! K genika to sistima stin ellada den einai katholou Kalo k prepei na organothei. Gia ta agglika mou lege oti theleis! Auto einai ena forum k den grafw ston pritani! Apo tin stigmi pou grafw , ektithome, k dexome tin kritiki!

kat arxas den hxera oti den eisai agglos, epomenws to comment gia ta agglika to pairnw pisw.

in english now cause it's actually not allowed to post in foreign languages.
If you agree with me that you know how the system is in Greece (I wonder if you have actually studied there?) then based on your views, my first should be considered lower than a 2.1 from an Oxford student? I agree that achieving a first from a Greek uni might be easier than getting one from Oxford but as Hobnob said, and as I have been trying to explain to you, that's not their only criterion. They mostly check written work, references, personal statement. Grades don't mean anything. An example for that is that a Greek student who applied last year with a 9,6 did not get an offer, and the same year, another one with 8,5 did. What does this prove to you?

[The Lyceum]

(Original post by zziippoo)
I know how the universities in Greece work because I am from Greece too Xristina! K genika to sistima stin ellada den einai katholou Kalo k prepei na organothei. Gia ta agglika mou lege oti theleis! Auto einai ena forum k den grafw ston pritani! Apo tin stigmi pou grafw , ektithome, k dexome tin kritiki!

isws den einai gia ton pritani alla prepei na grafeis swsta...

In English, if you don't mind. It usually helps ones argument to avoid sounding silly.

Let us put down some simple points:

a) Oxford knows more about what makes a good student than you do.
b) Someone from a lower ranked university might perfectly well be capable of doing a Masters here providing they meet all the requirements and the dept likes them. Conversely a few people from higher ranked unis may not.
c) Getting a first or a 2.i does not automatically give you entry.


There, problem solved. This has woefully derailed from the OP's original intentions.