depends on the subject. If its competitive like finance at LSE or something then yea. If its East Asia Studies or Biology not really.
Looks like someone isn't aware of increasingly up and coming field
As biology with computer science for the development of AI, in terms of demand, is gone from being on fire to fuc*in' radioactive and that's not even exaggeration.
depends on the subject. If its competitive like finance at LSE or something then yea. If its East Asia Studies or Biology not really.
Otherwise its just a sign of your bank balance and in ability to get a job unless your going down the research path in which case its prestigious
Getting a 2:1 is much easier than getting A*AA
Just to jump in here. You're right that even Oxford and Cambridge ask for a 2.1 for many Masters courses. But they want a minimum of 67%+ with consistently good grades, so it's not as easy as just getting a 2.1
Looks like someone isn't aware of increasingly up and coming field
As biology with computer science for the development of AI, in terms of demand, is gone from being on fire to fuc*in' radioactive and that's not even exaggeration.
looks like someone isnt aware what competitive means
Im speaking in the present tense based on current statistics, not your prediction of the future
Is doing an MSc at a place like Oxford, Cambridge or Imperial just as prestigious as doing an undergraduate degree there?
What are your thoughts.
As long as it isn't something incredibly niche and obscure like North Eastern Celtic Philosophy, or gender studies, or sexuality, in most cases, I'd probably call it roughly equal. Bare in mind the master course is usually the 4th year of an MSci anyway.
competitiveness is a trait of a programme that is prestigious and highly in demand and desirable.
True competitiveness is correlated but let me put this in context so even you can understand - a university can be extremely competitive (more so than Cambridge) to get into but the degree is not as prestigious as Cambridge - you see what I mean.
thus, competitiveness ≠ How prestigious a degree is
True competitiveness is correlated but let me put this in context so even you can understand - a university can be extremely competitive (more so than Cambridge) to get into but the degree is not as prestigious as Cambridge - you see what I mean.
thus, competitiveness ≠ How prestigious a degree is
Is doing an MSc at a place like Oxford, Cambridge or Imperial just as prestigious as doing an undergraduate degree there?
What are your thoughts.
Depends on the programme..
A really competitive, sought after Masters-level course? Yeah.
A course that lets average people in and serves nothing more than to be a cash cow for the university (considering Masters degrees aren't subject to fee caps and international students are gullible)? Not really.