What's better - a 2.1 from Oxbridge or a first from Aston?
Scroll to see replies
Please explain how this sort of language:
Is conducive to this:
If there's one way in which non-Oxbridge uni's trump Oxbridge (minus allowing students to leave with their souls intact at the end and, less jokingly, their lives) it's that they are much more hands-off in their students studies; it is both a weakness and a strength. The Oxbridge tutorial system is definitely a strenght for those that flourish in that sort of conversational, intimate environment (the fact that not everyone does is often overlooked) but it can also be seen as a weakness in that students are, as your language shows us, quite ferociously monitored academically. Of course this isn't a bad thing in and of itself if it ultimately gives them the qualities you claim it does, but when they ultimately graduate they can't altogether say they've done it as independently as students, who are often at the mercy of impersonal lectures and seminars and their own volition, at other universities can. Yes, an Oxford degree is universally going to be more challenging than an Aston one. But Oxford affords students far, far more academic nurture and supervision than Aston does.
Original post by DavidCrow
They made us
you really get it rammed down your throat
and they really get you to pick up the pace
threatening you with resits of the termly 3 hour collections (mocks) if you don't get at least a low 2.1, or extra holiday essays if you fail to get your tutorial essays in on time.
Is conducive to this:
[Oxbridge teaching] gives you that independence
If there's one way in which non-Oxbridge uni's trump Oxbridge (minus allowing students to leave with their souls intact at the end and, less jokingly, their lives) it's that they are much more hands-off in their students studies; it is both a weakness and a strength. The Oxbridge tutorial system is definitely a strenght for those that flourish in that sort of conversational, intimate environment (the fact that not everyone does is often overlooked) but it can also be seen as a weakness in that students are, as your language shows us, quite ferociously monitored academically. Of course this isn't a bad thing in and of itself if it ultimately gives them the qualities you claim it does, but when they ultimately graduate they can't altogether say they've done it as independently as students, who are often at the mercy of impersonal lectures and seminars and their own volition, at other universities can. Yes, an Oxford degree is universally going to be more challenging than an Aston one. But Oxford affords students far, far more academic nurture and supervision than Aston does.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by DEVVO
Getting a 2:1 from Oxbridge is like telling your friends you got a sun tan when you actually used fake bake.
Yes, that's the exact metaphor that springs to mind when discussing people with 2:1s from Oxbridge. Another metaphor that springs to mind, that you may use at your disposal in the future, is it's much like telling your friends you've had hemorrhoids removed, when in actual fact you've just had an anal bleaching.
Original post by DEVVO
Getting a 2:1 from Oxbridge is like telling your friends you got a sun tan when you actually used fake bake.
There's something oddly refreshing about your posts, although I don't really want to encourage you.
Original post by curiousquest
But Oxford and Cambridge have a 1-2-1 tutorial system and nowhere else does.
It is often said Imperial has low student satisafaction, owing to poor lectures but if you said of those Imperial students who've made it must be super, you'll often hear people denying it.
You can't have it both ways.
It is often said Imperial has low student satisafaction, owing to poor lectures but if you said of those Imperial students who've made it must be super, you'll often hear people denying it.
You can't have it both ways.
How does either factor you mention directly relate to causality re: 2.1 degrees form either place ???
Original post by Fullofsurprises
There's something oddly refreshing about your posts, although I don't really want to encourage you.
Haha oh god don't encourage me. I just like people to lighten up a bit... and maybe find a bit of humour in heated discussions... and to provide my opinion.
Original post by Zenomorph
Long live public schools and long live OXbridge and the London 3 !
Yes! Viva! Long Live the Big Five and their various research institutes and associated bodies! Hurrah!
Original post by Noble.
Yes, that's the exact metaphor that springs to mind when discussing people with 2:1s from Oxbridge. Another metaphor that springs to mind, that you may use at your disposal in the future, is it's much like telling your friends you've had hemorrhoids removed, when in actual fact you've just had an anal bleaching.
The differentiation is uncanny, i know. Ah i like it. Thank you my good man, i shall use that in the future. "Mum this meal is about as dry as the student room post about Oxbridge 2:1's and Aston First's." I dig it.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Yes! Viva! Long Live the Big Five and their various research institutes and associated bodies! Hurrah!
Ah ! she knows what the term ' public ' school really means - definitely one of us.
CLC by any chance ?
BTW, guess who I saw today in full regalia, I nearly collapsed with mirth.
My original post made no sense (sorry), so let me try again.
I don't think its this that gives Oxbridge its advantage on its own. Most Imperial people moan about this at some point, but what they forget is that the vast majority of the supervision/tutorial is based on solving problems (at least in Maths), which are much harder than non-Oxbridge sheets!
Does this really happen? I don't consider myself to be 'super' just because I did well at Imperial (if I may say so myself...)
Original post by curiousquest
But Oxford and Cambridge have a 1-2-1 tutorial system and nowhere else does.
I don't think its this that gives Oxbridge its advantage on its own. Most Imperial people moan about this at some point, but what they forget is that the vast majority of the supervision/tutorial is based on solving problems (at least in Maths), which are much harder than non-Oxbridge sheets!
It is often said Imperial has low student satisafaction, owing to poor lectures but if you said of those Imperial students who've made it must be super, you'll often hear people denying it.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't have it both ways.
Does this really happen? I don't consider myself to be 'super' just because I did well at Imperial (if I may say so myself...)
(edited 11 years ago)
If by 'better' we mean 'what provides the most efficient way to get a job after university' than I'd be inclined to agree with people who say a first from Aston is.
Many people are responding to posts by essentially just saying that 'your better might not be the same as my better'. So, simplifying the question so we may hope to get an answer, lets define the word 'better' as 'harder'.
Those who disagree with this definition may ignore the following, but I think this is at least part of what the word 'better' should mean. Let's also concentrate on undergraduate degrees in Maths. There are two reasons for this: I have first hand experience of such a degree, and it is perhaps the subject where we can get closest to judging an exam based on the performance of students taking it.
So now our reformulated question is 'What's harder - a 2:1 in Maths from Oxbridge or a first in Maths from x'. Here x denotes any non Oxbridge university.
Since a grade mostly (or completely) on the exam, let's focus on the exam only.
Now the rest of the comparison can be done in the following way. Choose a random sample of Oxbridge Maths students and get them to take a Maths paper from x and an (equivalent) Maths paper from Oxbridge. Then get a random sample of students from x and get them to do the same.
Clearly I can't perform this analysis, but I would take a guess that the students from Oxbridge would have a higher average. I'd invite anyone (who has done a Maths degree) to literally compare papers.
The point of all of this, anyway, is that many of the posters here have politically correct, polite, well written arguments for something which, when all the excuse factors are taken away, is patently false.
When we strip away all these complicating factors we are left with two papers, one of which is far easier than the other.
Now do the same experiment with old A Level papers compared to new ones...
Many people are responding to posts by essentially just saying that 'your better might not be the same as my better'. So, simplifying the question so we may hope to get an answer, lets define the word 'better' as 'harder'.
Those who disagree with this definition may ignore the following, but I think this is at least part of what the word 'better' should mean. Let's also concentrate on undergraduate degrees in Maths. There are two reasons for this: I have first hand experience of such a degree, and it is perhaps the subject where we can get closest to judging an exam based on the performance of students taking it.
So now our reformulated question is 'What's harder - a 2:1 in Maths from Oxbridge or a first in Maths from x'. Here x denotes any non Oxbridge university.
Since a grade mostly (or completely) on the exam, let's focus on the exam only.
Now the rest of the comparison can be done in the following way. Choose a random sample of Oxbridge Maths students and get them to take a Maths paper from x and an (equivalent) Maths paper from Oxbridge. Then get a random sample of students from x and get them to do the same.
Clearly I can't perform this analysis, but I would take a guess that the students from Oxbridge would have a higher average. I'd invite anyone (who has done a Maths degree) to literally compare papers.
The point of all of this, anyway, is that many of the posters here have politically correct, polite, well written arguments for something which, when all the excuse factors are taken away, is patently false.
When we strip away all these complicating factors we are left with two papers, one of which is far easier than the other.
Now do the same experiment with old A Level papers compared to new ones...
Original post by dbkey
In relation to what you've written, the paper in the paper I quoted is definately harder than the UK's. However we do not know the style of these papers and for all we know, it could tick all the boxes you mentioned.
Nevertheless, I feel not enough is known about exams in other countries for us to make an informed decision about what is classed as "best".
What we do know is an element of "he who shouts the loudest gets heard the most"!
On the note of standards across universities, you are probably one of the few who understands what I'm syaing re exam boards at A-Level.
Years ago (forgive me if I'm assuming you've done your degree a fe decades ago) there were quite a number of exam boards, eg LON, MEI, AEB, JMB, O, C, SMP, etc.
It is clear just from reading the papers that they are not of the same standards, yet an A in one is deemed the same as an A in another. (My own experience was that MEI contained topics not found in others, such as Engineering statics, lagrangian multipliers, group theory and difference methods).
To the present day, this still remains, though with fa fewer boards. I fail to see the need for there being different boards.
On the point of a 1st v 2:1, admittedly the course from Oxbridge should be more demanding, owing to the 1-2-1 tutorial system as well as the higher grades achieved by their students.
Note I say higher grades and not higher intellect as Oxbridge have more public school educated than others and if we are to believe public school educated have a distinct advantage, then this does not necessarily imply they are cleverer.
But the student who achieves a 1st from a non-Oxbridge uni CANNOT be deemed less bright than a 2:1 from Oxbridge, simply because the maximum one can achieve is a 1st!
What we can say is that a 2:1 from non-OB IS less bright than a 2:1 from OB.
Nevertheless, I feel not enough is known about exams in other countries for us to make an informed decision about what is classed as "best".
What we do know is an element of "he who shouts the loudest gets heard the most"!
On the note of standards across universities, you are probably one of the few who understands what I'm syaing re exam boards at A-Level.
Years ago (forgive me if I'm assuming you've done your degree a fe decades ago) there were quite a number of exam boards, eg LON, MEI, AEB, JMB, O, C, SMP, etc.
It is clear just from reading the papers that they are not of the same standards, yet an A in one is deemed the same as an A in another. (My own experience was that MEI contained topics not found in others, such as Engineering statics, lagrangian multipliers, group theory and difference methods).
To the present day, this still remains, though with fa fewer boards. I fail to see the need for there being different boards.
On the point of a 1st v 2:1, admittedly the course from Oxbridge should be more demanding, owing to the 1-2-1 tutorial system as well as the higher grades achieved by their students.
Note I say higher grades and not higher intellect as Oxbridge have more public school educated than others and if we are to believe public school educated have a distinct advantage, then this does not necessarily imply they are cleverer.
But the student who achieves a 1st from a non-Oxbridge uni CANNOT be deemed less bright than a 2:1 from Oxbridge, simply because the maximum one can achieve is a 1st!
What we can say is that a 2:1 from non-OB IS less bright than a 2:1 from OB.
With regards to your first point, it may be the case that exams in other countries are harder than the equivalent exams at Oxbridge. However, this is irrelevant as we are discussing whether an Oxbridge 2:1 is better than a first from Aston (or, more generally, another Russell Group member).
In response to your last couple of statements, I would say that I have never mentioned anything about the students attending the courses, but just the courses themselves. Clearly there are examples of weak students at Oxbridge and exceptional students not at Oxbridge.
Original post by Tuerin
Of course this isn't a bad thing in and of itself if it ultimately gives them the qualities you claim it does, but when they ultimately graduate they can't altogether say they've done it as independently as students, who are often at the mercy of impersonal lectures and seminars and their own volition, at other universities can.
You think that Oxbridge students end up LESS independent than other students? I think thats rubbish.
Here at Cambridge I have to do 12-14 long essays plus a few presentations in 8 weeks. You need to do SO much independent reading and thought to keep up with that amount of work. If you don't have the personal work ethic and motivation then you slip behind very quickly - there is no such thing as being 'force-fed' information - you can be threatened with degrading and warned by your college about your work, but it is the students themselves who have to put in all the long hours. Being set extraordinary amounts of academic work is not equivalent to being dependant upon teaching. Finally, plenty of people get 2.2s and do badly in Cambridge - just because you are made to do lots of work through the year doesn't mean you remember it all for exams. Exams are there to test what you can DO with information, not how much you have covered in the year.
Original post by Eboracum
I'd also disagree on the hardness. There is this snobbery from Oxbridge students (a very minor few - most are lovely) that people at all other unis are idiots and that they'd be guaranteed a First at say, a top 20 Russell. Not the case. To get a First at any Russell is really difficult. Many people at these Russell's have the same A Level grades as Oxbridgers and are just as smart. Acceptance to Oxbridge doesn't define ones existence and condemn those not chosen to a lifetime of being below.
I'd also disagree on the hardness. There is this snobbery from Oxbridge students (a very minor few - most are lovely) that people at all other unis are idiots and that they'd be guaranteed a First at say, a top 20 Russell. Not the case. To get a First at any Russell is really difficult. Many people at these Russell's have the same A Level grades as Oxbridgers and are just as smart. Acceptance to Oxbridge doesn't define ones existence and condemn those not chosen to a lifetime of being below.
Again, this is does not correspond to what I have said. Most of what you say here I agree with but I think it's unfair to criticise me for snobbery when I'm just trying to evaluate the relative merits of two courses and not the individuals doing them.
Original post by member591354
You trust the research from Sheffield Hallam more than Cambridge's research? 
This was clearly a joke.
Original post by Eboracum
More snobbery I'm afraid Derrick. I'm at an RG, and most of the lectures I've been taught by in First Year are Oxbridge/LSE educated. One lady has a very highly rated PHD from LSE. There not mugs and have been taught by the best.
Case of terminology. I would agree a Cambridge degree is more prestigious but I would disagree it is much more prestigious. Particularly when comparing a 2:1 from Cam against a First from a Top 10 Russell.
I'd also disagree on the hardness. There is this snobbery from Oxbridge students (a very minor few - most are lovely) that people at all other unis are idiots and that they'd be guaranteed a First at say, a top 20 Russell. Not the case. To get a First at any Russell is really difficult. Many people at these Russell's have the same A Level grades as Oxbridgers and are just as smart. Acceptance to Oxbridge doesn't define ones existence and condemn those not chosen to a lifetime of being below.
I think sole accounts in these debates aren't usually that helpful. Anyone can dig up a case of somebodies uncle, someone's friend, this person, or that person. I've known Firsts from Oxford unemployed since last Summer and various other cases.
Lot of snobbery in your post. A shame as you seem to really know your stuff.
Oxford/Cambridge are better universities than those you've mentioned. But I'm arguing a First from one of them is just as good if not better than a 2:1 from Oxbridge. As they are still very good universities, they are not 'lousy' in any way.
There is simply no such thing as 'RG2'. It is heightened snobbery.
There are at very least, 35 excellent universities in this country (24 Russell and 11 1994 Group). You will get a good education at any of them.
The reality is - 1) you haven't graduated from a London top 3 university. I am sure the London 3 do not teach their graduates to come on student forums slagging off other universities. 2) You are a member of the Oxford 2012 applicants page.
I'd get yourself into a Russell, work really hard, and re-evaluate if I was you. Anyone can come on here and say anything. I could say I have a First from Harvard and I was taught by Niall Ferguson and have a PHD from Yale. But what would be the point? You are only lying to yourself you know?
Who are you, the oracle?
One case, so many other factors to consider. We can all cite cases to prove our points.
Case of terminology. I would agree a Cambridge degree is more prestigious but I would disagree it is much more prestigious. Particularly when comparing a 2:1 from Cam against a First from a Top 10 Russell.
I'd also disagree on the hardness. There is this snobbery from Oxbridge students (a very minor few - most are lovely) that people at all other unis are idiots and that they'd be guaranteed a First at say, a top 20 Russell. Not the case. To get a First at any Russell is really difficult. Many people at these Russell's have the same A Level grades as Oxbridgers and are just as smart. Acceptance to Oxbridge doesn't define ones existence and condemn those not chosen to a lifetime of being below.
I think sole accounts in these debates aren't usually that helpful. Anyone can dig up a case of somebodies uncle, someone's friend, this person, or that person. I've known Firsts from Oxford unemployed since last Summer and various other cases.
Lot of snobbery in your post. A shame as you seem to really know your stuff.
Oxford/Cambridge are better universities than those you've mentioned. But I'm arguing a First from one of them is just as good if not better than a 2:1 from Oxbridge. As they are still very good universities, they are not 'lousy' in any way.
There is simply no such thing as 'RG2'. It is heightened snobbery.
There are at very least, 35 excellent universities in this country (24 Russell and 11 1994 Group). You will get a good education at any of them.
The reality is - 1) you haven't graduated from a London top 3 university. I am sure the London 3 do not teach their graduates to come on student forums slagging off other universities. 2) You are a member of the Oxford 2012 applicants page.
I'd get yourself into a Russell, work really hard, and re-evaluate if I was you. Anyone can come on here and say anything. I could say I have a First from Harvard and I was taught by Niall Ferguson and have a PHD from Yale. But what would be the point? You are only lying to yourself you know?
Who are you, the oracle?
One case, so many other factors to consider. We can all cite cases to prove our points.
Also, why am I suddenly called 'Derrick'? My name's clearly Drederick.
Or Mr Tatum.
Original post by Drederick Tatum
If by 'better' we mean 'what provides the most efficient way to get a job after university' than I'd be inclined to agree with people who say a first from Aston is.
Many people are responding to posts by essentially just saying that 'your better might not be the same as my better'. So, simplifying the question so we may hope to get an answer, lets define the word 'better' as 'harder'.
Those who disagree with this definition may ignore the following, but I think this is at least part of what the word 'better' should mean. Let's also concentrate on undergraduate degrees in Maths. There are two reasons for this: I have first hand experience of such a degree, and it is perhaps the subject where we can get closest to judging an exam based on the performance of students taking it.
So now our reformulated question is 'What's harder - a 2:1 in Maths from Oxbridge or a first in Maths from x'. Here x denotes any non Oxbridge university.
Since a grade mostly (or completely) on the exam, let's focus on the exam only.
Now the rest of the comparison can be done in the following way. Choose a random sample of Oxbridge Maths students and get them to take a Maths paper from x and an (equivalent) Maths paper from Oxbridge. Then get a random sample of students from x and get them to do the same.
Clearly I can't perform this analysis, but I would take a guess that the students from Oxbridge would have a higher average. I'd invite anyone (who has done a Maths degree) to literally compare papers.
The point of all of this, anyway, is that many of the posters here have politically correct, polite, well written arguments for something which, when all the excuse factors are taken away, is patently false.
When we strip away all these complicating factors we are left with two papers, one of which is far easier than the other.
Many people are responding to posts by essentially just saying that 'your better might not be the same as my better'. So, simplifying the question so we may hope to get an answer, lets define the word 'better' as 'harder'.
Those who disagree with this definition may ignore the following, but I think this is at least part of what the word 'better' should mean. Let's also concentrate on undergraduate degrees in Maths. There are two reasons for this: I have first hand experience of such a degree, and it is perhaps the subject where we can get closest to judging an exam based on the performance of students taking it.
So now our reformulated question is 'What's harder - a 2:1 in Maths from Oxbridge or a first in Maths from x'. Here x denotes any non Oxbridge university.
Since a grade mostly (or completely) on the exam, let's focus on the exam only.
Now the rest of the comparison can be done in the following way. Choose a random sample of Oxbridge Maths students and get them to take a Maths paper from x and an (equivalent) Maths paper from Oxbridge. Then get a random sample of students from x and get them to do the same.
Clearly I can't perform this analysis, but I would take a guess that the students from Oxbridge would have a higher average. I'd invite anyone (who has done a Maths degree) to literally compare papers.
The point of all of this, anyway, is that many of the posters here have politically correct, polite, well written arguments for something which, when all the excuse factors are taken away, is patently false.
When we strip away all these complicating factors we are left with two papers, one of which is far easier than the other.
Surely the best way of doing this is to get both cohorts sitting a paper from a third place / one specifically designed? There's all sorts of variables you'd have to take into account such as differing syllabuses and styles of prior exams they may have sat. Notwithstanding all of that, I absolutely agree that the Oxbridge cohort would perform significantly better than the non-Oxbridge cohort.
Spoiler
Now do the same experiment with old A Level papers compared to new ones...
I genuinely want to do this but I can't find many old papers online - and its even harder to find the syllabi!
Original post by Tuerin
Please explain how this sort of language:
Please explain how this sort of language:
(Originally Posted by DavidCrow)
They made us
you really get it rammed down your throat
and they really get you to pick up the pace
threatening you with resits of the termly 3 hour collections (mocks) if you don't get at least a low 2.1, or extra holiday essays if you fail to get your tutorial essays in on time.
Is conducive to this:
[Oxbridge teaching] gives you that independence
Please explain how this sort of language:
(Originally Posted by DavidCrow)
They made us
you really get it rammed down your throat
and they really get you to pick up the pace
threatening you with resits of the termly 3 hour collections (mocks) if you don't get at least a low 2.1, or extra holiday essays if you fail to get your tutorial essays in on time.
Is conducive to this:
[Oxbridge teaching] gives you that independence
If you look back at my post, I actually said it 'gives you that independence and clarity of thought', i.e. in terms of structuring arguments, say for an essay or speech. This is completely different to independence in terms of a structured or non-structured workload.
I do agree however that you are guided with your work at Oxbridge to a much greater extent than other universities. Nevertheless, being guided through the tutorial system is completely different to being taught - the teaching happens in lectures, which are common to every university. All degrees involve lots of independent study and reading on your part, but Oxbridge is unique because you also need huge amounts of motivation and work ethic to be able to adapt to the guided tutorial structure for your own personal benefit, on top of the unstructured lectures.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by shamika
Surely the best way of doing this is to get both cohorts sitting a paper from a third place / one specifically designed? There's all sorts of variables you'd have to take into account such as differing syllabuses and styles of prior exams they may have sat. Notwithstanding all of that, I absolutely agree that the Oxbridge cohort would perform significantly better than the non-Oxbridge cohort.
I genuinely want to do this but I can't find many old papers online - and its even harder to find the syllabi!
Spoiler
I genuinely want to do this but I can't find many old papers online - and its even harder to find the syllabi!
I might be able to help.
I recall during my days we had a green booklet of past exam papers, in particular 1981 to 1985 for MEI Maths 1, Maths 2 and Maths 0 (Special Paper). There might have been an equivalent for Further Maths but all I got were separate papers.
Now if only I knew where I had put them .....
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Firm Choice
- LLB first year tips
- Second Bachelors Degree at Oxbridge? (2.1 from mid/top RG uni)
- Help me pick: Swansea BEng vs Birmingham Aston MEng or Heriot-Watt BEng?
- Any questions about the Oxford BCL - ask away
- How can someone at Warwick look down on me?
- How necessary is a first in order to become a barrister?
- Law degree from a RG uni
- Honest reviews of Aston University?
- Bishop Vesey vs King edwards aston sixth form
- 1st vs 2:1 from "target uni" for consulting
- Getting into Oxbridge for Postgraduate Study
- Why is student satisfaction so low for some of these top unis?
- UCAT do i have a chance at medicine
- Guardian/Daily Mail Uni/Times Rankings 2024
- Graduate LLB or Conversion
- Which universities are targeted by employers?
- Will it get funded a PhD at Oxbridge
- Is Queen's University Belfast or Trinity College Dublin better?
- how difficult is it to get a job after LPC in London
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
