Which looks better on a CV?

Actually Oxford was "key" in four subjects, not seven.

English language and literature, philosophy, modern languages and geography. Are they all more"key" than Civil Engineering?

Actually Oxford was "key" in four subjects, not seven.

English language and literature, philosophy, modern languages and geography. Are they all more"key" than Civil Engineering?

Civil engineering is a proper subject whilst english language is a waste of time.

Bit harsh.


Posted from TSR Mobile

What good does a civil engineer do and what good does a person who has studies english do?

Yes I am a civil engineer...

You may be right, though I do find it surprising that employers would completely disregard the fact they managed to get into a top uni because they just missed out on a 2.1, but like has been pointed out, that's just the system.

I can follow your the conversation but clearly you speak rubbish. If you want to look up to people from Oxford and Cambridge who got 2.2 so be it not my problem. A man who has a 2.1 from a lower end university is better, by far. Have you ever been to Oxford or Cambridge? No. So you cannot say the course is harder. If a man is getting a 2.2 at Oxford or Cambridge he is clearly not pulling his weight of has some issues.

Civil engineering is a proper subject whilst english language is a waste of time.

Again with the misquoting. Stop trying to insinuate I'm making claims that I am most definitely not. It's see through and a pathetic way to debate something. I have CLEARLY stated that oxbridge was merely an example to represent top or the table, and stated CLEARLY that a 2.2 is far from ideal from anywhere. I certainly wouldn't aspire to a 2.2 anywhere. That doesn't mean I can't consider a few percentage points as less important than 100+ places in the league tables.

We're talking about a matter of a couple of percent. They wouldn't be "better by far" even if the results were from the same university, let alone opposite ends of the scale. Do you only think in 10s? Is a 63 "better by far" than a 61?

I don't have to go to any particular university to have an informed opinon on another. My friend group went to a wide array of universities, and I've worked with a diverse group of grads as well. This, alongside pretty common knowledge, is where I'm forming my opinion from.

As any scientist knows, the correct way to plot a line of best fit on a graph is first to plot the points, then draw a line of best fit, not the other way round.

It seems for this argument of "key" or not, the journalist has chosen those subjects which Oxbridge are top and then defined them to be "key"!

Given the need to get more students to do STEM subjects, I cannot see how any of the subjects Oxford came top in are key.

Even the Cambridge subjects, only maths should be defined "key".

I think the point is that those listed are the only subjects in which the UK has a number 1 institution. All but one of those are Oxbridge. Natural UK bias will label them all 'key'.


Posted from TSR Mobile

My question is if A levels are only relevant for vetting purposes, do many grad schemes actually take into account GCSEs? I havent got the best set of GCSEs with mainly C's but I then got A*A*A at A level and currently study at Cardiff University, so will I be disadvantaged?

My question is if A levels are only relevant for vetting purposes, do many grad schemes actually take into account GCSEs? I havent got the best set of GCSEs with mainly C's but I then got A*A*A at A level and currently study at Cardiff University, so will I be disadvantaged?

If the point is to emphasise UK unis coming top, then why not quote "Oxbridge / Imperial are top in 8 "key" subjects"?

I recall a year when UCL was the second ranked UK uni in the world (4th overall).

The headline in the papers was "Oxford drops from the top two."

It could have easily read "UCL is in the top two in the UK."

As usual, TSR looks down on people with 2:2.

Most people I know got 2:2 and not 2:1 (in my class 4 people got 2:2, 1 says he got 2:1 but actually got 2:2 and another got 2:1; in my COURSE (not the class) 1 got a 2:2, I know 3 that got a 2:1 and 1 got a 1st but I also know 2 people with 3rds [one from course,one from class], and two of my friends from another course got 2:2 while one got a 1st). So that's 7 2:2s, 4 2:1s, 2 1sts and 2 3rds.

Anyway, it's still better than a pass.

Something like 70% of graduate employers want a 2:1 but that still leaves 30% of graduate employers open to 2:2s and below.

2:2 is also better than HND merit/pass-HND merit and above will still land you a good job (not at this point in time but when the market picks up)