Is a 2:1, 2:2 and even 3rd class oxbridge degree looked favorably upon then a 1st

I did IGCSEs too. You don't get any extra credit for them when you apply to university, they are counted as GCSEs. They are harder and prepare you better for A-levels though, shame I only carried on with Maths from the IGCSEs that I did.

If they're more difficult then surely they've got more value, otherwise what's the point? I just cant believe that a bogstandard comprehensive is at the same level as Eton by any means.

anyway this is off topic.

To pass onto the 4th year of materials science/physics Msci courses (MASt) cambridge students need a 2.i. Students from outside i.e other good British universities need :O :O :O :O ... horror.... A 2.i Bsc

So cambridge clearly doesn't think the courses are in a different league...

Have 2 friends at oxford doing sciences. I have higher A levels than both of them (just lower GCSE so i never applied) I'm currently scoring 2.1/some firsts non-oxford and so are they... what might be even more surprising for you is that we have been learning the same stuff.

To pass onto the 4th year of materials science/physics Msci courses (MASt) cambridge students need a 2.i. Students from outside i.e other good British universities need :O :O :O :O ... horror.... A 2.i Bsc

So cambridge clearly doesn't think the courses are in a different league...

You're all missing the mark, I'm afraid.

Any Oxbridge 2.1 would have achieved a 1st anywhere else (including Imperial/LSE), that's why they are chosen; a 2.2 might have done which is why an Oxbridge 2.2, with the exception of Law, gives you a decent chance in most graduate schemes - I could give you lists of Oxbridge 2.2s who have, in recent years, secured top graduate jobs in banks and other leading financial services firms. The truth of the matter is that we have seen a number of people leave Oxbridge after or during the first year, not being able to take it, and ending up with firsts at places like Imperial. The joker who thinks that a first from LSE is comparable needs to stop dreaming - it's nowhere near. The Cambridge Economics Faculty has found that those with 2.1s from Oxbridge are outscoring firsts from the next best universities in their MPhil courses - Oxbridge and Imperial/LSE aren't remotely similar, sorry.

Cambridge 2:2 = Oxford 2:1 = London 1st = Manchester MA = Oxford Brookes PhD

Hope that helps

Ironically, you'd still have an undergraduate degree just like anyone else. If you consider a 4th year MSci a PG, you're stoned really...

well it's a 9 month course completely made of masters level modules + a project

I think you will find many other MSc qualifications that are the same.

Says who? Uni of a.partridge?



Some uni won't accept MSci. Look it up.



And how do you form this conclusion? Based on what hypothesis and evidence since the above is basically fallacious?



It can function as an MSci in the UK but it won't fool countries like the US and other parts of the world that have a 4 year BSc and a full PG MSc that is made for MSc students that actually have a UG degree, NOT a Masters that is a part of a UG degree and is made for UG students that don't even have a degree yet; big difference.

So cambridge clearly doesn't think the courses are in a different league...

well it's a 9 month course completely made of masters level modules + a project

It's a fairly well known fact that Oxbridge is easier to get into for post graduate courses than undergraduate ones. I'm not bashing degrees from other universities in the slightest, but if they specified firsts from other applicants they wouldn't fill the course.

This is drastically different for different subjects - many postgraduate physics courses are *considerably* more difficult to get into than undergraduate ones.

Getting straight GCSE's and A levels is a lot easier than getting a high first with strong research projects in physics. The applicants per place is higher and the standard of competition is too.

I know what you're trying to say as this is what I expected too, however this is not the case in many things like physics and maths as it might be in humanities.

Cambridge part III maths is probably the best example - very difficult to get into even cambridge students are not allowed to continue without a 1st unless they get v good 2.i with references

I'm trying to part III physics when the time comes but i'm expecting it to be a long shot even with a 1st

Interestingly enough one of my original sources for that statement was my physics teacher at school! Evidently times have changed.

Re: Part III maths, I think the requirement is at least partly to do with the difficulty of the course instead of the competitivity of it. Maths here is obscene.

I wasn't actually aware that they let students from other universities join the Part III science courses, as they're considered undergraduate ones (maths is considered postgraduate). In chemistry at least there are only just enough potential project supervisors to accomadate Part II students who continue to Part III.