Surely Oxbridge degrees should be LESS valued than others... ?

I know this isn't the 'normal' view, and it's probably quite a controversial thing to say, but don't immediately jump on for saying it...

If Oxbridge has such brilliant teaching standards and facilities, why is a good degree from there (i.e a first or a 2:1) considered better than an equivalent 'grade' from a 'lesser' uni?

Surely, if a student has been to a uni with worse teaching standards and still managed to equal the success of an Oxbridge graduate, that shows they are able to perform well regardless of their 'support' and therefore be either harder-working or just generally more academic.

I know getting into Oxbridge in the first place shows a student is very high academically, but isn't a first from Oxbridge just as 'easy' as a first from anywhere else?

Any views very much welcome, and please don't neg me for this, i'm just wondering. I'm not trying to p**s off any Oxbridgers! :smile:

Thanks!

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Enoch.

Good question. Subscribing for lurking purposes :biggrin:

Edit: lol I'm getting negged because....?

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 2

pick92

Universities award their own degrees though don't they? So a 2:1 degree from one is not necessarily the same as a 2:1 degree from another.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 3

username219321

No, as the courses there are much more difficult than at other unis even with the good teaching standards.

Reply 4

kerily

imsoacademic is going to murder you.

Firsts from universities which are very difficult to get into are not an equivalent achievement to firsts from universities which are very easy to get into.

Reply 5

username453132

im so academic will be coming to rape you at some point in the near future.

Reply 6

Retrodiction

Because you cover a ridiculous amount of material. PPE at Oxford, for example, essentially covers all the material from philosophy, politics and economics degree courses at lesser unis (ex-polytechnics, I'd say). Plus the workload is SO high... getting through a degree course like that and coming out of it with a good grade shows that you can cope under absurd amounts of pressure and are also very well-organised.

Reply 7

username549578

Original post by ussumane

Good question. Subscribing for lurking purposes :biggrin:

When did you get back?

OP: Oxbridge degrees are probably harder than those from other universities.

Reply 8

LadyRowena

The difference between a "good" university and a "bad" university is not like the difference between a good and bad school. Degrees are not standard qualifications like A Levels or GCSEs; every course at every university does things differently. I can see why one might think that higher standard of teaching = easier to get a first, but often a lot more work is required in order to get that first at Oxbridge.

Oxbridge students do a Hell of a lot of intensive work, hence their shorter terms. A first from Oxbridge and a first from a "lesser" university is not like looking at 3 As at A Level from a private school and 3 As from a student at an under-funded state school in a big city as the individual standards at every university are very different.

Reply 9

Glutamic Acid

Is the teaching at Oxbridge noticeably better?

Reply 10

Enoch.

Original post by Lewroll

When did you get back?

OP: Oxbridge degrees are probably harder than those from other universities.

I just got back 30 minutes ago :ahee:

I see that your reputation is increasing by the second :wink:

Reply 11

Good bloke

Original post by forrestgump19

If Oxbridge has such brilliant teaching standards and facilities, why is a good degree from there (i.e a first or a 2:1) considered better than an equivalent 'grade' from a 'lesser' uni?

Perhaps a better question would be:

If Oxbridge, with the cream of the crop as its students and with such high teaching standards and facilities, awards a lower proportion of firsts and upper seconds than a 'lesser' university, how can anyone believe that the lesser univeriity's standards are comparable - or even acceptable?

Reply 12

7he5haman

Original post by forrestgump19

Thanks!

I think what you're assuming here is that the grade marking criteria is the same across all universities... which it isn't. As far as I'm aware, each university has it's own unique marking criteria.

Hence it could be that getting a 2.1 in a specific subject at a non-Oxbridge uni is easier than at an Oxbridge uni as the former's marking criteria are easier to meet.

Then again, it could be that the opposite is true - it all depends on the two universities in question.

One thing I can say is that, having been to Cambridge, I was worked hard by the faculty (and I did one of the 'softer' subjects (in terms of work load) there!), whereas I know that some universities do not work their students very hard (in terms of e.g. number of essays to write per term, etc.) - however, what to draw from this I leave up to you.

Finally, it's worth bearing in mind that some examinations are normalised in both oxbridge and non-oxbridge universities.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 13

Good bloke

Original post by 7he5haman

Finally, it's worth bearing in mind that some examinations are normalised.

Quite! Such that the average student gets 60% in some subjects, which is a pretty tough standard.

Reply 14

callum9999

When I was researching universities I was under the impression that teaching at Oxbridge normally isn't the best? I'm sure in the teaching rankings, lots of other universities were rated similar or higher ranked.

And anecdotally I've heard that the world-leading researchers etc. are often too busy researching so don't do much of the teaching.

Reply 15

im so academic

Original post by forrestgump19

If Oxbridge has such brilliant teaching standards and facilities, why is a good degree from there (i.e a first or a 2:1) considered better than an equivalent 'grade' from a 'lesser' uni?

Because of the higher academic standards Oxbridge has compared to other universities.

Surely, if a student has been to a uni with worse teaching standards and still managed to equal the success of an Oxbridge graduate, that shows they are able to perform well regardless of their 'support' and therefore be either harder-working or just generally more academic.

No, because you're implying that academic standards are the same across all universities, which i snot true.

I know getting into Oxbridge in the first place shows a student is very high academically, but isn't a first from Oxbridge just as 'easy' as a first from anywhere else?

Oxbridge are known for their shorter, and more intense 8-week terms.

Any views very much welcome, and please don't neg me for this, i'm just wondering. I'm not trying to p**s off any Oxbridgers! :smile:

Thanks!

What possessed you to think Oxbridge degrees "should be less valued" than degrees from other universities? Seriously? :lolwut:

Yes, because London Met Maths > Cambridge Maths. :rolleyes:

Reply 16

Aristotle's' Disciple

I can clear this up pretty easily since my best friends brother has just graduated Cambridge.

Oxbridge works differently. Every other university ranks their degrees the same, i.e if you get 70%+ you have a 1:1 class. 70%-60% 2:1 etc.

Oxbridge rank their degrees internally. So only the top 30% get a 1st then next 10% get a 2:1 and so forth.

This is why Oxbridge degrees are ranked even higher than other university, even ones such as LSE, Imperial, Durham, Warwick.

Hope this helped :biggrin:

EDIT: Neg me, if it makes you feel better, you bunch of sore losers.

EDIT 2: WOW, Positive reps are catching up. GO TSR!

EDIT: Positives have overtaken. Justice has prevailed.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 17

7he5haman

Original post by Good bloke

Quite! Such that the average student gets 60% in some subjects, which is a pretty tough standard.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or otherwise, so I ammended my original post to say what I meant :smile:

Reply 18

Apagg

Original post by forrestgump19

Thanks!

Because the exams are harder.

Reply 19

didgeridoo12uk

Original post by Glutamic Acid

Is the teaching at Oxbridge noticeably better?

lectures wise. definitely not. loads of ours are absolute crap.

i'd say the supervisions are a great help though. although lots of other universities seem to have similarish things these days

also we only have lectures for the first two terms and exams in the third term (not sure what it's like at other universities). this means we have get taught everything for the year during just 16 weeks. pretty ridiculous time frame if you ask me.