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

Tbh, regardless of where you go to uni I don't think it matters. I think my 2:1 from Hallam (currently studying for a PhD) would've looked just the same to prospective employers than a 2:1 from Oxford or Cambridge.

All exams are externally regulated, so they are all standardised. It's just as difficult to achieve a 2:1 at Oxbridge as it is at Hallam or anywhere else. Just because Oxbridge students happened to get better A level results says nothing - that was then and this is now.

LOL you've got to be trolling. As I already pointed out, the analysis covered in an Aston mathematics degree in the first 2 years doesn't even cover the first third of analysis in the first year of Oxford. So how exactly are they equivalent?

however, my neighboor in law did absolutely nothing all year long and was out partying day and night... cause he had all in all 4 essays per year and 4 exams where i had tutorials, laboratories, lectures, courseworks and classes...plus 8 ****ing exams in the end... see the difference now??

Tbh, regardless of where you go to uni I don't think it matters. I think my 2:1 from Hallam (currently studying for a PhD) would've looked just the same to prospective employers than a 2:1 from Oxford or Cambridge.

All exams are externally regulated, so they are all standardised. It's just as difficult to achieve a 2:1 at Oxbridge as it is at Hallam or anywhere else. Just because Oxbridge students happened to get better A level results says nothing - that was then and this is now.

No they are externally marked. They are absolutely not uniformly standardised.

The problem with your claim is that it just isn't borne out by reality. Oxbridge and RG graduates dominate in prestigious jobs and industries for a reason. We have a knowledge economy, they are the brightest in their generation, they demonstrate this with consistently excellent academic performance. The idea that the CCC students at Hallam catch up with their AAA counterparts, whilst doing easier work and less of it, is frankly ridiculous.

Show me a Hallam course and I guarantee you the Oxbridge equivalent is more academically demanding and carries a much higher workload.

But if we are to talk about Top 10ish Russell Group universities, such as Durham, Bristol, York, Nottingham etc, I'd rather a First from there than a 2:1 from Oxbridge as to go to one of them and get a First is really hard (although not quite as hard as Oxford) and I just feel you'd stand out more.

I'm sorry, but this is just crap. Look at the content of a Hallam maths degree. There is absolutely no pure maths to be seen and the rest of the content is tenuous at best (http://www.shu.ac.uk/prospectus/course/745/content/). There's less content in there than the Aston degree, which I didn't think possible. The Chemistry syllabus is similarly lightweight. It's utterly galling and insulting to students at Oxbridge (or most decent institutions) that your 2:1 was as difficult to achieve.

People with lower A level grades may go to lower universities and may be predicted lower grades. But A level performance doesn't necessarily correlate with degree performance as everyone knows!

Tbh, regardless of where you go to uni I don't think it matters. I think my 2:1 from Hallam (currently studying for a PhD) would've looked just the same to prospective employers than a 2:1 from Oxford or Cambridge.

All exams are externally regulated, so they are all standardised. It's just as difficult to achieve a 2:1 at Oxbridge as it is at Hallam or anywhere else. Just because Oxbridge students happened to get better A level results says nothing - that was then and this is now.

Dude, i believe u re not reading my posts... u re reading just a line that you want...

firstly, i am not trolling. I am just wasting my time with kids.

secondly, i will ask you a question. Who says, oxbridge is no1 uni? or if u like... who judges unis in order to know which is best? And what are the parameters in this ranking system???

Then, maybe in ur mind the degrees are not equivalent... HOWEVER, u cannot ignore the credit system! Right?? u can never say that someone from aston knows less than u!! right??? and u cannot prove it of course, after official papers say something else... it is ur opinion, I accept that... but just that! especially after he got a 1st and u got a 2:1!!

I 'll go a step forward if u like just for the sake of the conversation...in the uk degrees are 3 years... would you say that a degree from a european country that is 4 years worth more or someone from a 4-year uni knows more than u???

During my time at uni... in the uk... i had in total... 20-24 modules depending on my choices every year... and i was in science!! Law students at my uni had in total, 12!! we all had at graduation 360 credits right?? however, my neighboor in law did absolutely nothing all year long and was out partying day and night... cause he had all in all 4 essays per year and 4 exams where i had tutorials, laboratories, lectures, courseworks and classes...plus 8 ****ing exams in the end... see the difference now??

I also had friends at unis in greece...and imperial... my friend at imperial said after graduation that he expected uni to be more difficult and he didn't expect so high grades and such an easy 1st!! However at my uni, who desperately wanted to cllimb up some places in the rankings (remember, RAE-funding-money story i told u), wasn't even giving us past papers cause they said that we would do well in the exams!! and they were strict in marking as well....compared to my friend at imperial who's experiences were like "ohh they are giving us notes, past papers, hints etc"...

My friend in greece... do u know how many modules he had? he studied law. He had 53 modules in 4 years... would u say that he knows more law than my ****ing neighboor at uni that he did 12?? I'd say yes. However, their degrees say the same ****ing thing. 360 credits.

So, don't just quote a line of what i say and be a smart ass...

I remember someone posting on the Oxford forum here that their friend had failed the year at Oxford (got below a third), transferred to Nottingham and got a First.

So, I would find the notion that a First at Nottingham is harder to achieve than a 2.1 at Oxford to be highly highly questionable.

Elitist babble. No need to get insulting because I'm challenging your assumptions about the world

I've got a friend who went to Nottingham trent and then failed his first year there. He then dropped out of uni for about 3 years, decided to re-sit some of his A levels and then went onto Nottingham Uni (he was already based in Nottingham and had been living there for a few years so wanted to stay local with his gf).

People can try harder and improve. They can mess up the first time and then realise that they need to knuckle down and work hard, and suddenly they excel.

The story about your friend proves nothing

Not my friend, just a post I remember reading on here.

I can't imagine anyone could improve from a Fail to a First within Oxford or Cambridge. That gap is absolutely massive.

Elitist babble? That entire course is a joke to even the first year of undergrad. mathematics at a respectable institution.

I think the gap is absolutely massive anywhere you go though that's the thing. Oxbridge just have this legendary status that I think people should be more sceptical of instead of just lapping up their supposed superiority over the rest of British universities

Funny that you have this view, yet obviously have never been to Oxbridge. If you look at all the people who have posted on this thread who have attended Oxbridge and then attended another UK University, they've all been saying the opposite of what you've been saying - there is a big gap between Oxbridge and non-Oxbridge universities. Yet somehow... you know better?

I think the gap is absolutely massive anywhere you go though that's the thing. Oxbridge just have this legendary status that I think people should be more sceptical of instead of just lapping up their supposed superiority over the rest of British universities

Yeah but of courst they're going to say that aren't they! Everyone's proud of their institutions. And society has created this image of Oxbridge being the best and everyone believes it, so the people who go there also believe it. It's something known as confirmation bias - I studied it in my A level psychology. You only look for evidence that already support your own beliefs!

I'm not saying that I'm definitely right, I'm saying that it's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. All I'm saying is just to be a bit more sceptical of people who say that Oxbridge is the best, and use something known as 'anecdotal evidence' to support their opinions!

What about Harvard? Are students equally bright at Salem State?

Are the Nobel committee hoodwinked into mistaking Oxbridge science for brilliant science by a misplaced respect for the name?