Does it matter where you get your undergraduate degree?

Common sense is common. My degree is not. There is still a little imbalance in value there I reckon. Supply and demand bro

You're mistaken

"While that doesn't mean every university will have precisely the same standard"

Good luck with your final year.

Huge disparities I'm afraid. I've seen problem sheets, I've seen exam papers- not listening to this nonsense. Stressing about uni applications, meeting varying A-Level offers- what the hell was it all for?- cos it was just all swings and roundabouts and it didn't matter in the end? Rubbish. Reputation and ranking are not something which appear ex nihilo and nor would they sustain if that were the case. They hold due to no small extent because of the difficulty of a course, the strength of cohort which is attracted and yes there is generally roughly the same numbers which obtain 2:2's 2:1's etc.
(Again apologies- I think I speak for the sciences mainly here)

Seeing problem sheets/exam papers means little if you haven't also looked into how marks are awarded and how raw marks are converted into degree classifications - which you clearly haven't done when you assume classification = class rank.

The fact that a dissertation or project is only optional in your maths degree may well make your qualification less appealing to employers looking for those skills than a graduate from a course where dissertation/project work is compulsory...regardless of your degree classification

Forget employment purposes- we are talking about calibre as a mathematics student. Exam papers and problem sheets are the best ways to gauge this.
The external examiner makes references about the way things are done for maths at their own university in all the reports I read. Tis also the same.
I do know I'm right, I promise- for this subject. It's really boring to debate this. I have confessed I don't know much about others- perhaps you are right for yours.

Forget employment purposes? Did you read the first post in the thread?

You might be talking about "calibre as a mathematics student" but you're in the minority. The rest of us are talking about the relevance of university for employment and further study purposes.

"The external examiner"? You know that there's more than one right? again - you're making it very clear that you don't understand how your own degree classification is calculated never mind how that compared to other universities.

I'm sure you THINK that you're right. And I agree that it is REALLY boring to debate this with someone who thinks that class rank is used to determine degree classification - but that doesn't mean you can get away with making outright incorrect statements about how the quality assurance of UK degrees works

1) No of course not - in most years there's two or three external examiners- and obviously it's not just one year I've looked at.
2) "The" examiner is just a saying- for example: It is common to say "The examiner marked me down". Of course everybody knows there isn't a single examiner who marks all the scripts- why are you letting petty semantics into this?
3) What? You're telling me I don't understand how my own degree is classified? Right. Ok.

I thought I was having a discussion with someone who had had some sort of idea but I can see you know nothing. Clueless. For some mad reason for employment you were right that it is worth less- I think I conceded that at the start that when I said "I find it so sad..." about 2:2's from Oxbridge.

I am arguing for the truth however. Not what blind, equally clueless employers believe which is worth more than what. Pound for pound anyone who's in the know is aware a 2:2 required more fighting for and is better achievement even though it sadly takes you less far.

You are mistaken.
Your degree class is where you rank in the year

If you understand how your own degree is classified then why did you enter the thread stating:

Arcane is spot on. Someone with a 2:2 from Oxbridge/Imperial/Warwick is a far better mathematician than someone with a 1st from Lancaster, no contest.

Employers know nothing.

You are highly likely an Oxbridge reject who achieved a first. Comiserations on the former. Congratulations on the latter. However you may stay in this fairytale you're living in to make yourself feel better. Naive is what you are. But I have some actual studying to do now so I'm not going to reply anymore after this post.
Employers know nothing. They know anything about the one maths course? They know anything about the other maths course they're comparing? They can understand the maths? They evaluate the workload pound for pound? Nope. And neither do you. Instead they just impose some garbage arbitrary 2:1 standard which may hold for other non-science disciplines when equal effort at the other university will quite casually lead to a much higher degree class- because it's way goddamn easier and the cohort is much weaker. It really baffles me why this is so hard for you to understand. If you have to FIGHT for a 2:1 at one place and can cruise to a first at another the conclusion is quite obvious. I've never found another maths student who was aware of the facts to disagree with this- you don't really have a say in this because I doubt you study it at uni.
One last time before you start flapping your mouth it is common knowledge there is a general 30-40-20-10 rule for mathematics degree those numbers getting 1: 2,1; 2,2: 3. They talk about this in their reports multiple times and also add comparisions with maths at their own university. If I can do the degree, I think I know how to read a bloody report- I'm not clicking on some waste of time general link you've put in when I know how it works- I have better things to do.

Edit: it's because they need some universal way for all subjects of reducing the poolsize which leads to this problem. It screws the lower achieving end of the sciences at high universities over. Case closed.

For someone who claims to be logical you make a lot of assumptions based on your own biases without doing even the smallest bit of research.

Good luck with your degree- your posts are doing nothing to enhance its reputation with employers.

Poorly researched assertions, attempting to insult or belittle anyone who disagrees followed by nonsensical rants with no logical train of thought. You're not looking like a great candidate for anything at the moment.

I do not understand what the fuss is. If Arcane says that this is true about his degree why you do not believe him? Unless you have some solid proof just go with what he says.

Also what you state is not true. I got the first year at my ex-poly a first with ease. When I switched to the reputable uni I struggled to get a low 2:1 with much more amount of work.

Did I get suddenly more stupid? I doubt it in fact I was more experienced and more motivated but my grades did not really reflect this because the degree was much harder although I was studying for the same subject namely economics.

Bottom line even in Economics which I studied (which is not even a hard core STEM subject) a 2.1 from Oxford or LSE is not the same with a 2.1 from a low ranked university or an ex-poly.

In softer subjects this might not be the case, but in hard core science subjects this is definitely the case. Also on a different note I have massive respect from STEM students.

Why? Well first of all these degrees are really hard and secondly if you get a good STEM degree you can do much more than someone with an Art degree. I mean a Physics major may be able to understand poetry but a literature major will never be able to understand higher order physics, since he is lucking the mathematical training required.

I had a lot of physics majors in my master and although economics is not exactly a soft science and at the MSc. level it can get quite mathematical the physics majors often did better than people who did economics in the undergraduate. This illustrates my above point.

Arcane's degree classification is based on the methodology used by his department listed here: https://www.maths.ox.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/UG%20Handbook%202014_web.pdf

They don't RANK students to award different degrees. Page 22 and 23 explain the methodology. I don't believe him because he's contradicting a public document.

We've discussed before how comparing the first year of 2 different degrees isn't a useful comparison given the nature of degrees. If a degree has entrants with lower levels of achievement then obviously the first year will be easier to bring everyone up to the required standard for second year (where marks start to count towards classifications). It's common at many universities to mark first year assignments and exams to lower requirements - while at others you'll be marked against the standard expected at the end of 3rd year from your first day. Claiming that your marks were different in two different first years doesn't prove one was easier than the other in terms of how you'd have done in terms of final degree classification.

So no - you didn't suddenly get more stupid - but you are drawing conclusions based on partial information.

Do not agree. Some of my friends remained at the ex-poly. I then compared their exams in the second and third year with my exams. Again even in their final years their exams were politely put a joke compared to my exams. This is for economics but I am sure this applies to most science degrees.