What's better - a 2.1 from Oxbridge or a first from Aston?

Perhaps not all, but I would wager most would go up at least a classification if they went to another RG uni.

I agree. By the same token, though, I'm sure a fair few non-Oxbridge firsts would get a first at Oxbridge.

I'm not saying I would have done, but some would.

In my subject, I'd take a 2:1 from Oxbridge over a 1st from Aston. I'm pretty sure I'd keep my first over that 2:1 though- especially considering what I have gone on to afterwards.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 121

username1042689

21

Consider the universities. Someone who got into Oxford is highly intelligent. You don't have to be nearly as intelligent to get into Aston. So Oxford 2.1 student > Aston 1st student, la plupart du temps.

Reply 122

User1014865

17

Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd

I haven't, due to being disabled :nopity:

Oh, I'm sure you'll still do well regardless :smile:

Reply 123

River85

17

Original post by paradoxicalme

Consider the universities. Someone who got into Oxford is highly intelligent. You don't have to be nearly as intelligent to get into Aston. So Oxford 2.1 student > Aston 1st student, la plupart du temps.

Even if we accept this as true, what makes you feel the Oxford 2:1 is greater than (and not equal to) the Aston first?

Reply 124

The_Lonely_Goatherd

20

Original post by Iamyourfather

Oh, I'm sure you'll still do well regardless :smile:

Thanks

Reply 125

River85

17

Original post by LexiswasmyNexis

I think any RG uni would stick you on a 'par'.

Posted from TSR Mobile

What makes you think Aston is worse than a RG, then?

Reply 126

username1042689

21

Original post by River85

Even if we accept this as true, what makes you feel the Oxford 2:1 is greater than (and not equal to) the Aston first?

Standard at Oxford > Standard at Aston.
So difficulty of Oxford degree > difficulty of Aston degree, and harshness of marking, by a large amount.
So Oxford 1st > Aston 1st (by large margin) and Oxford 2.1 > Aston 1st (by smaller margin).

Reply 127

ByronicHero

20

I think it is a silly question.

Reply 128

16dan2life

16

Original post by River85

What makes you think Aston is worse than a RG, then?

With all fairness, Aston is fairly equal to most Russell Uni's, such as B'ham, Southampton, L'pool etc. Aston isn't a RG, due to not having a medical school (I think that's the reason). Other Uni's such as, Leicester, loughborough and Bath aren't RG, but are equally great Uni's.

In terms of prestige, Oxbridge beats Aston. Although, Aston is a great small campus uni with top employment stats. Quite a few apprentice candidates studied at Aston uni. Aston is only frowned up, because it is fairly unheard off, in certain places.

Aston is my insurance, so I've wrote this without sounding too biased.

Reply 129

LexiswasmyNexis

11

Original post by River85

What makes you think Aston is worse than a RG, then?

The variability of its expertise, mostly. Also it never seems to be mentioned in professional services as a key source of recruitment (and these are where my experiences and opinions have been formed).

I have nothing against it per se- my mum used to teach there! Although, she said it was pretty dire and the students were apparently a bit dense.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 130

scrotgrot

16

I would go further and say that a 2:1 from Oxbridge is better than a first from almost anywhere else - certainly in terms of getting a job. However by comparison I'd say a 2:2 is a junk result, it would seem like you only got in because of rich parents.

(This is for a general academic subject)

Reply 131

a10

19

Original post by River85

Even if we accept this as true, what makes you feel the Oxford 2:1 is greater than (and not equal to) the Aston first?

it depends what subject you are doing to be honest, for some subjects; VERY few jobs will look @ what university you went to (ie law firms etc), the majority wont care at all and are only concerned about your uni grade and relevant experience in your field. A 2:1 from Oxbridge is good yes, but it's not as good as people hype it up to be. There are many grads from Cambridge/Oxford who come out and find it difficult to get a job so as you can see its a tough world out there and one has to be prepared to face it.

Usually the people who always argue and say "cambridge/oxford are the best and anything else is not as good" are usually people who are just butthurt that they don't go to either institution. If you're good you're good it doesn't necessarily mean one who went to either institution (oxford/cam) is "more intelligent" in every way. There are so many examples of genius's who never went to oxford/cam but are possibly the most intelligent people on this earth.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 132

Tarquin9

I don't think it is hard to get onto a course at Leicester University as I know of two females who are not so clever and they are at Leicester. A lot of it is snobbery. A degree from Bolton is as good as Oxford.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 133

RightSaidJames

16

Original post by Iamyourfather

Oh I'm sorry, I wasn't aware. This thread should not be on this sub-forum.

But it was posted here deliberately...

Reply 134

KD35

15

Original post by scrotgrot

I would go further and say that a 2:1 from Oxbridge is better than a first from almost anywhere else - certainly in terms of getting a job. However by comparison I'd say a 2:2 is a junk result, it would seem like you only got in because of rich parents.

(This is for a general academic subject)

Really? Why are Oxfords graduate salaries and employment numbers falling behind LSE,UCL and Imperial then?

The reign of Oxbridge is coming to an end IMO. Other universities are catching up

Reply 135

Ultimate1

Not even comparable. A more apt comparison would be 2:2 or even a third from oxbridge or a first from Aston.

Reply 136

LoseSmallWinBig

Original post by KD35

Really? Why are Oxfords graduate salaries and employment numbers falling behind LSE,UCL and Imperial then?

The reign of Oxbridge is coming to an end IMO. Other universities are catching up

LSE and Imperial are specialist institutions. Oxbridge offer Classics, History of Art and all full of students who don't seek commercial careers in the city. You can't compare the two.

Oxford and Cambridge are ahead of UCL for graduate salary/numbers arguably their closest multi faculty competitor.

Argument successfully debunked.

Reply 137

scrotgrot

16

Original post by KD35

Really? Why are Oxfords graduate salaries and employment numbers falling behind LSE,UCL and Imperial then?

The reign of Oxbridge is coming to an end IMO. Other universities are catching up

Is that so? Oxbridge don't tend to offer technical courses but broad academic ones. It may be expected in a globalised world where specialisation is the thing to do.

The only way to earn money without specialisation is to get a job in a closed-shop sector like politics or journalism.

I think maybe for someone who has more of a generalist intelligence an academic degree from Oxford is their best shot at getting such a job.

Reply 138

KD35

15

Original post by LoseSmallWinBig

LSE and Imperial are specialist institutions. Oxbridge offer Classics, History of Art and all full of students who don't seek commercial careers in the city. You can't compare the two.

Oxford and Cambridge are ahead of UCL for graduate salary/numbers arguably their closest multi faculty competitor.

Argument successfully debunked.

Oxford isn't.

Reply 139

Llamageddon

18

Original post by noobynoo

Depends on the prejudices of your employer I expect. [snip]

I don't see why you have so many negs for this comment. Strictly speaking you are correct regardless of whether a 2:i from Oxbridge is harder to get than a first from Aston.

What's better - a 2.1 from Oxbridge or a first from Aston?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you