The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

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

Scroll to see replies

2:1 id say, whilst a first is arguably better the fact its coming from oxbridge is always going to count for more. There was a nice thread on here last year i believe where someone posted a link to a job at a hedge fund where it stated the degree grades theyd accept with oxbridge requiring but a 2:1 and the like of LSE, UCL, Imperial etc. etc. a 1st so think where Aston will come on this.
Original post by cl_steele
2:1 id say, whilst a first is arguably better the fact its coming from oxbridge is always going to count for more. There was a nice thread on here last year i believe where someone posted a link to a job at a hedge fund where it stated the degree grades theyd accept with oxbridge requiring but a 2:1 and the like of LSE, UCL, Imperial etc. etc. a 1st so think where Aston will come on this.


On that scale, presumably if you flunk Oxford or Cambridge after the first few months for hitting a lecturer or throwing up on the Provost's car, you still come out better than a First from Aston. :rolleyes:

Seriously, there must be something slightly bonkers going on at that hedge fund for them to push places like LSE, UCL and Imperial down in their esteem to that extent - I find that a bit ridiculous. It sounds like the personal prejudice of some hedge fund owner more than anything based on sound research or knowledge.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
On that scale, presumably if you flunk Oxford or Cambridge after the first few months for hitting a lecturer or throwing up on the Provost's car, you still come out better than a First from Aston. :rolleyes:

Seriously, there must be something slightly bonkers going on at that hedge fund for them to push places like LSE, UCL and Imperial down in their esteem to that extent - I find that a bit ridiculous. It sounds like the personal prejudice of some hedge fund owner more than anything based on sound research or knowledge.


Twisting of ones words isnt very nice -_-

Well the restof their requirements were even more amusing they asked for everything bar a kidney, it was somewhat mind boggling..
2:1 from oxbridge .

Thats like asking whats better , coming 2nd in the Champions Leauge or winning Leauge 2 LOL .
A 2:1 from OxBridge will be in most cases accompanied by AAA at A Level and 6A*s+ at GCSE. This demonstrates continued academic excellence and being able to work in a difficult and challenging environment. Whilst I'm not familiar with Aston's entry requirements I'd presume they're much lower and thus do not demonstrate continued excellence. On the other hand, it does likely demonstrate improvement from A Level which could go in a candidates favour, but of course they're more likely to take an OxBridge 2:1.
Reply 185
Avatar for dbkey
dbkey
5
Original post by Fullofsurprises
On that scale, presumably if you flunk Oxford or Cambridge after the first few months for hitting a lecturer or throwing up on the Provost's car, you still come out better than a First from Aston. :rolleyes:

Seriously, there must be something slightly bonkers going on at that hedge fund for them to push places like LSE, UCL and Imperial down in their esteem to that extent - I find that a bit ridiculous. It sounds like the personal prejudice of some hedge fund owner more than anything based on sound research or knowledge.


There are lots of Oxbridge die-hards littered around the workplace.

There used to be a nutter on TSR called Bubblyjubbly who insisted someone who made it into Oxbridge, ie got the offer and got in (regardless whether they met the offer) but subsequently failed to get a degree, is still better than graduates from other universities.
Original post by ajh1990
A 2:1 from OxBridge will be in most cases accompanied by AAA at A Level and 6A*s+ at GCSE. This demonstrates continued academic excellence and being able to work in a difficult and challenging environment. Whilst I'm not familiar with Aston's entry requirements I'd presume they're much lower and thus do not demonstrate continued excellence. On the other hand, it does likely demonstrate improvement from A Level which could go in a candidates favour, but of course they're more likely to take an OxBridge 2:1.


Most of the politicians are public school educated, supplemented by Oxbridge degrees but how many of them can you say are actually doing a good job running the country?

So are they naturally bright or have they been spoon fed?
Reply 187
Avatar for kka25
kka25
18
Original post by dbkey

There used to be a nutter on TSR called Bubblyjubbly who insisted someone who made it into Oxbridge, ie got the offer and got in (regardless whether they met the offer) but subsequently failed to get a degree, is still better than graduates from other universities.


:eek:


Only on TSR :facepalm:
Original post by RichE
Given your next post, what edge do you think Cambridge has?


The quality of the students is, in my view the most mathematically able in the UK. Certainly they have the highest grades, though I'm not sure how it compares to the best in other countries.

Funding plays a large part too, in that Cambridge has a large if not the largest chunk of funding from the government which puts them at an (unfair) advantage.
Original post by speakerfone
Most of the politicians are public school educated, supplemented by Oxbridge degrees but how many of them can you say are actually doing a good job running the country?

So are they naturally bright or have they been spoon fed?


I see some cowards on TSR who are happy to neg but too afraid to challenge my view.
Reply 190
Avatar for Noble.
Noble.
17
Original post by caveman123
The quality of the students is, in my view the most mathematically able in the UK. Certainly they have the highest grades, though I'm not sure how it compares to the best in other countries.

Funding plays a large part too, in that Cambridge has a large if not the largest chunk of funding from the government which puts them at an (unfair) advantage.


When have you had the chance to compare the mathematics students of Oxford and Cambridge?
Original post by Noble.
When have you had the chance to compare the mathematics students of Oxford and Cambridge?


As a student and work colleague over the years.

The Cambridge lot had that little bit extra, possibly they seemed more keen.
Original post by speakerfone
I see some cowards on TSR who are happy to neg but too afraid to challenge my view.

Well what is your view? Shall we break it down:
a) Politicians are educated at Oxbridge.
b) Politicians are running the country badly.
c) Therefore people educated at Oxford are spoonfed / aren’t bright?
There are so many problems with that a+b=c logic that I barely know where to begin.
Original post by speakerfone
I see some cowards on TSR who are happy to neg but too afraid to challenge my view.


probably because they have better things to do than challenge your ludicrous points... like counting sheep, picking their noses etc. etc. you get the picture right?
Academically, the answer is Oxbridge, by a mile. I found that my first year papers for Cambridge maths were more difficult than masters level papers at KCL, for example.

Unfortunately, though, many employers use automated application systems and processes that don't distinguish between universities. The problem comes when they ask for a 2:1 and above in a subject, and you have a 2:2 from Oxbridge. You're immediately excluded, when people with less ability are immediately included.
Original post by Drederick Tatum
Academically, the answer is Oxbridge, by a mile. I found that my first year papers for Cambridge maths were more difficult than masters level papers at KCL, for example.

Unfortunately, though, many employers use automated application systems and processes that don't distinguish between universities. The problem comes when they ask for a 2:1 and above in a subject, and you have a 2:2 from Oxbridge. You're immediately excluded, when people with less ability are immediately included.


The latter is an important point, many of the big consultancies, banks, organisations, etc, seem to use these automated HR point scoring systems. Presumably they have algorithmically codified the relative weightings they give to different degree types and scores from the different educational institutions. One wonders if a 2:2 from anywhere is really worth squat though in the current jobs market.
Reply 196
Avatar for Noble.
Noble.
17
Original post by Fullofsurprises
The latter is an important point, many of the big consultancies, banks, organisations, etc, seem to use these automated HR point scoring systems. Presumably they have algorithmically codified the relative weightings they give to different degree types and scores from the different educational institutions. One wonders if a 2:2 from anywhere is really worth squat though in the current jobs market.


Which is a major downside of going to Oxbridge, the possibility of ending up with a 2:2 and not finding a job, when you could've got a 2:1 from somewhere else and been automatically much more employable - it's a very scary thought!
Original post by Noble.
Which is a major downside of going to Oxbridge, the possibility of ending up with a 2:2 and not finding a job, when you could've got a 2:1 from somewhere else and been automatically much more employable - it's a very scary thought!


It's a risk you factor in, but there are so many pluses to being at a top university generally that it's still really worthwhile I suspect. Also, not everyone tries to get their first job in one of the big graduate entry factories.
Original post by Noble.
Which is a major downside of going to Oxbridge, the possibility of ending up with a 2:2 and not finding a job, when you could've got a 2:1 from somewhere else and been automatically much more employable - it's a very scary thought!


The proportion of 2:2s achieved at Oxbridge is negligibly different compared to other RG uni's for English according to KIS, and I expect the same is true of most other courses. If you're good enough to get in the chances are you'll be good enough to get a 2:1+.
Reply 199
Avatar for RichE
RichE
15
Original post by caveman123
The quality of the students is, in my view the most mathematically able in the UK. Certainly they have the highest grades, though I'm not sure how it compares to the best in other countries.


I think this is certainly arguable, and you may well be right, though its hard to know how objective and scientific one can ever be about this. Pretty much any maths student at a COWI institution will have A*A* in maths and further maths (if they're from the A-level system). In any case, such grades are necessary but not sufficient guarantee of success at HE-level maths.


Funding plays a large part too, in that Cambridge has a large if not the largest chunk of funding from the government which puts them at an (unfair) advantage.


What tables I have seen over recent years of research money usually has Cambridge relatively low and below Warwick and Oxford, though again its hard to get a fair measure of this. In any case, I think its college endowments that subsidise the supervision/tutorial system most and which is probably the most distinctive feature of an undergraduate's Oxbridge experience.
(edited 11 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you