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

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.

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.

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.

Do you mean direct central government research funding? Cambridge ranked second after Oxford in 2012 for that. The situation is complicated as there are also many private awards, other award-giving bodies and specialist research centre-focused grants. I suspect Cambridge is highest overall once all of these are taken into account.

1st from aston clearly no doubt... a 1st is always a 1st...in this world!

otherwise..anywhere u go, books are the same, modules are the same... raw truth...

Of course, this is going to be biased (I did maths at Cambridge), but I think Cambridge is better for maths, for many reasons:

Of course, this is going to be biased (I did maths at Cambridge), but I think Cambridge is better for maths, for many reasons:

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.

Thanks for the neg rep - not sure what was so polemical about my post that it merited that, given that I just said such rankings were hard to objectively make.

This

Some thoughts on your points.

1. STEP is harder but relatively (as it's taken around the time of A-Levels) is it harder than MAT?

2. IMO = best? Maybe but similar threads citing the Chinese are the best since they win the IMO year after year was met with the usual "it's because they train harder / more".

3. History? Not sure what that's got to do with it. It is famous because people talk about all the time and people talk about it because that's all they ever hear!

4. Part III is insanely hard. Need it be?

5. Agreed

Overall I do think Cambridge is better.

How have you found the jobs market personally with that class from Oxford?

And certainly I know of people who have gotten firsts in maths in other universities (that will not be named) who certainly are not as good at maths as people in my college struggling to get 2:2s.

1. I thought STEP was relatively harder also; in fact, I did oxford past entrance papers as practice for my cambridge interview, and remember finding them quite easy.

2. I would agree; there are plenty of people who, given the training, might do just as well as the actual british competitors in the IMO. However, when choosing between people who are 100% likely to be IMO standard (because they did it) and those who are <100% likely (because they didn't do it), I would choose the former. These tend to go to Cambridge.

3. This just enriched my personal experience of studying there; I liked studying in the same place where many 'mathematical idols' had done so. Depends on what you think makes a university good for a particular subject, I suppose.

4. Part III is known for being tough, and this attracts even more talented people (wishing to test themselves against a world renowned course). This again improves the working atmosphere.

5. To add to what's already been said, I strongly believe (having now been to 4 different universities and seen what the syllabus is like at each) that although I think Cam has harder undergraduate level exam papers, there are maybe only 2 or 3 universities (Ox, Cam, Imperial) that feel it's important to have a real 'problem' component in exam questions, instead of simply bookwork.

The point is is that the other RG uni's course is generally easier, and also as the cohort is less strong, you're far more likely to get a higher classification going to another RG than going to Oxbridge by being one of the stronger candidates.

I think a huge deal of this is down to the subject. Subjects like Maths, Law, Economics, NatSci etc, Oxbridge's course are definitely more rigorous and less forgiving. However, 97% of students got a 2:1 or better at Oxford for History, I'm a little sceptical whether getting the 2:1 is that hard, and would almost be ready to suggest that the vast majority of History students at Warwick, UCL, Durham, LSE, Bristol etc would be getting a 2:1 at Oxford just like they do at their home institution. If you work hard at Oxford and are reasonably intelligent, I don't see why you wouldn't get a 2:1 in History, and to be quite honest this doesn't make you particularly special or mean that you'd get a first at Warwick.

The point is is that the other RG uni's course is generally easier, and also as the cohort is less strong, you're far more likely to get a higher classification going to another RG than going to Oxbridge by being one of the stronger candidates. This is generally true for science subjects, especially for Cambridge where they often give out less firsts the other RG universities. I'm aware the 2.1+ rate for arts at Oxbridge is very high.

A First from Bolton or a 2.1 from Oxford?

Books, modules, lectures, tutorials, are not the same. You're so wrong.

of course books are the same... just translated in many languages... I said books and modules... i didn't say tutorials or lectures or anything...

Theres a thing called RAE. Thats what rankings are for... because as higher as you are on that stupid list the more money u get as a uni. Simple.

Also, theres something called the credits system... all degrees are 360 credits... therefore an accountant is still considered an accountant from any uni he graduates.

ALSO, graduate from bolton as u say... with a 1st and all ur subject marks are 80-85... will lse say no to you if u apply? of course not... ALSO, if i have a 1st from any uni... i can go anywhere to study then... HOWEVER, if fees are 23000£ or 17000 or 25000 then that is something that keeps me from it and not the uni or my marks.

this is a stupid question cause there are a lot of factors to consider behind it... and as unemployment is rising these days... the least of our problems would be 2.1 or a 1st from anywhere... and a 69 is still a 2.1 and a 70 is a first! lol... LOL...

its harder these days to find someone to fix your water pipes at home than someone with a degree...