Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

Oxbridge 2:1 VS Top Russell Group 1st

Poll

Oxbridge 2:1 VS Top RG 1st

An Oxbridge 2:1 would give better career prospects and I would generally prefer to have one Top RG 1st would give better career prospects and I would generally prefer to have one

Delusory

TL;DR

1. Top Russell Group constitutes, for sake of argument, the 10 universities listed below. If you feel that only some of the listed uni's are good enough to make their 1sts better than Oxbridge's 2:1s, weigh up those that do against those that don't and then decide. The 1st will be the median mark for a 1st, the 2:1 likewise the exact median, for the sake of balance.

2. Different uni's, different strengths in different courses blah blah blah. Just try to envisage a 'General' course, equally as prestigious and well-taught etc at all the uni's and where all else is equal except the prestige of the uni's and the degree classes. On this basis, is a top RG 1st better than an Oxbridge 2:1 in your eyes?

3. 'Better' here = superior career prospects and just what you'd rather have under your belt.

---

Not a debate that hasn't been had before, but just thought I'd reignite it to see today's opinions with my own twists.

Firstly, 'Top Russell Group', (though not meaning to judge against those which, for argument's sake, are excluded - please don't let this deteriorate into that) will constitute the likes of:

- UCL
- LSE
- Imperial
- Durham
- Bristol
- KCL
- York
- Warwick
- Edinburgh
- St Andrews

There will be some who feel that while, say, an Imperial 1st would exceed
an Oxbridge 2:1, the same should not be said of KCL. I ask those people to weigh up those 1st's which they would consider superior to an Oxbridge 2:1 from the universities mentioned against those they wouldn't and come to a conclusion by majority rule.

Secondly, courses. Different uni's have different strengths, how can we possibly say for all courses whether a 1st is better than an Oxbridge 2:1 blah blah blah. Just try to imagine a kind of 'General Studies' course at these uni's, except without the ridicule. A kind of fit-all course which is equally as served by all the aforementioned uni's and whose degree class prestige is dependent entirely on the prestige of the uni. When all else is equal but the prestige of the universities, is a top RG 1:1 better than an Oxbridge 2:1?

Better. What is 'better'. Largely which has more weight generally-speaking with employers, though again of course there will be some variation here try to envisage the general impressions. Which will give superior career prospects generally. Also just which would you rather have under your belt.

Vote away!

(edited 10 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

roh

Before TSR launches into one of its all time most favourite debates once more, you probably need to specify the 'type of First/2.1.

There's quite a difference between 60 vs an 85 or a 69 vs 70.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 2

Observatory

A 1st at a top Russell Group university is usually a higher standard, but to your specific question, 1sts don't matter that much for career prospects.

Reply 3

Delusory

Original post by roh

Before TSR launches into one of its all time most favourite debates once more you probably need to specify the 'type of Fist/2.1.

There's quite a difference between 60 vs an 85 or a 69 vs 70.

Whatever the exact median is for the respective classes, for the sake of argument. Thanks for pointing this out!

Reply 4

Delusory

Original post by Observatory

A 1st at a top Russell Group university is usually a higher standard, but to your specific question, 1sts don't matter that much for career prospects.

I understand the interview, experience etc is usually just as / more important, but between an Oxbridge 2:1 and a Top RG 1:1 which do you think would be superior?

Reply 5

nicatre

I would hope that how you've applied yourself and transferred skills from the degree towards a particular career will greater affect your employability than the difference between those universities. An employer is always going to know the different between someone great on paper and someone less so but more competent regarding the role at hand.

Reply 6

Observatory

Original post by Delusory

I understand the interview, experience etc is usually just as / more important, but between an Oxbridge 2:1 and a Top RG 1:1 which do you think would be superior?

I'm not sure you do. If a 1st vs a 2.1 is a factor at all it's way down the list. By the time you get to the interview stage academic qualifications have usually been discounted entirely.

So you're asking is it better to go to an RG university or Oxbridge (regardless of class). I guess Oxbridge, but only if you take advantage of "networking opportunities"; if you study in your room all day you likely won't be better off. Then there are places like LSE with their own advantages for getting good jobs.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 7

Delusory

Original post by Observatory

You're missing the part before the interview stage, which is where paper stuff like degree class and university are probably the most important factor. In this climate, just getting an interview is commendable, so it seems silly to discout entirely the importance of one's degree class. In this light, I was hoping for opinions as to whether an OB 2.1 or a RG 1 would be more advantageous. I'm sceptical that universities have degree classes for little to no reason as you seem to be making out!

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 8

Bill_Gates

I'd rather have rich parents tbh.

Reply 9

Theflyingbarney

I don't think there'd really be much to call between them. Employers might slightly favour the 1st over the 2:1 but as Observatory says above, at the level of jobs you'd be looking to get into with that kind of degree, it's the relevant skills that are far more important (they'd just look for a decent 2:1 from a top uni and then not be insistent on any more than that).

If we're talking objective standard of work, rather than value to employers, I'd suggest it was again close. The Oxbridge 2:1 certainly isn't far behind if at all in terms of how much effort you have to put in to achieve it, I'd wager. Obviously it's difficult to judge this because virtually nobody will have experience of BOTH a RG 1st and Oxbridge 2:1; however I'd wager that an Oxbridge 2:1 is certainly better than a RG 2:1 in terms of effort put in and standard of work - I just scraped a 2:1 in my first year at Cambridge, after working my ass off literally every day and during the holidays as well, and then I know people who got 2:1s in their first year from RG unis who seem to be having a far more relaxed time. I wholeheartedly accept that this is almost certainly a biased analysis though and won't count for much!

Reply 10

Aramiss18

Original post by Delusory

I understand the interview, experience etc is usually just as / more important, but between an Oxbridge 2:1 and a Top RG 1:1 which do you think would be superior?

There is no such thing is a 1:1. How is this such a hard thing for people to comprehend?!

Original post by Observatory

That's not entirely accurate- I've known employers in the chemical industry to specify a 1st class requirement straight at the outset. But in general once you can tick the 'I have a 2:1' box on application forms it is then largely irrelevant and is much further down the list, as you say.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 11

Delusory

Original post by Aramiss18

There is no such thing is a 1:1. How is this such a hard thing for people to comprehend?!

How hard is it for people to comprehend that there is no point at all in kicking up a fuss over the most irrelevant things? You know what was meant! PEDANT, BEGONE!

Original post by Delusory

How hard is it for people to comprehend that there is no point at all in kicking up a fuss over the most irrelevant things? You know what was meant! PEDANT, BEGONE!

if you don't want to be corrected then don't be stupid. 1:1 doesn't even make sense.

Reply 14

Delusory

Original post by Aramiss18

if you don't want to be corrected then don't be stupid. 1:1 doesn't even make sense.

It's stupid of you to call someone stupid for such an idiotically trivial reason. It's also stupid to go out of your way in an affected huff to correct someone on something that you perfectly well understood as it was.

Reply 15

Eugenie Grandet

Top RG 1st any day of the week. Getting a First is super important in my line of work. No First= no scholarship, reduced chance of Studentship for PhD.

Reply 16

Delusory

Original post by Eugenie Grandet

Top RG 1st any day of the week. Getting a First is super important in my line of work. No First= no scholarship, reduced chance of Studentship

What is your line of work, out of interest?

Reply 17

Aramiss18

Original post by Delusory

Whether it is trivial or not is besides the point. And I'm not in a huff I just don't understand how people can't understand that 2.1 and 2.2 only exist as 2nd class degrees have been split in two for greater differentiation and this doesn't exist with 3rd or 1st class degrees. Why not admit you were wrong and change it rather than get all defensive? Why spread ignorance?

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 18

Delusory

Original post by Aramiss18

What is besides the point is the pedantry of correcting something which, as I said, you perfectly well understood as it was. I understand the different degree classifications, but since it really doesn't matter to people with other things going on in their lives besides making completely unnecessary corrections on internet forums, I thought I'd take the plunge and write 1:1 anyway, adventurous as I am. Let's try and get over it, shall we?