Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LoseSmallWinBig)
    I think a huge deal of this is down to the subject. Subjects like Maths, Law, Economics, NatSci etc, Oxbridge's course are definitely more rigorous and less forgiving. However, 97% of students got a 2:1 or better at Oxford for History, I'm a little sceptical whether getting the 2:1 is that hard, and would almost be ready to suggest that the vast majority of History students at Warwick, UCL, Durham, LSE, Bristol etc would be getting a 2:1 at Oxford just like they do at their home institution. If you work hard at Oxford and are reasonably intelligent, I don't see why you wouldn't get a 2:1 in History, and to be quite honest this doesn't make you particularly special or mean that you'd get a first at Warwick.
    Yes, you're absolutely correct, I should have amended my original post to say I was only speaking for science subjects. Many Oxbridge arts and humanities courses have near 100% 2.1+ rates. It's doubtful many of those at the bottom end of the 2.1 scale could have gotten first elsewhere.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nichrome)
    The point is is that the other RG uni's course is generally easier, and also as the cohort is less strong, you're far more likely to get a higher classification going to another RG than going to Oxbridge by being one of the stronger candidates. This is generally true for science subjects, especially for Cambridge where they often give out less firsts the other RG universities. I'm aware the 2.1+ rate for arts at Oxbridge is very high.
    And my point was that the standard of undergraduate at Oxbridge is going to be generally higher than those at RG unis since it is generally harder to get in, so that proportionally the courses will be of comparative difficulty relative to the intellects and capacity for hard work of the students. RG courses are easier, but the students are generally also of lower (though still high) quality, so the difference in course difficulty is offset. From what I've seen on comparing KIS stats degree classification doesn't seem to vary much between Oxbridge and RG for most courses.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by playingcards)
    A First from Bolton or a 2.1 from Oxford?

    Books, modules, lectures, tutorials, are not the same. You're so wrong.

    of course books are the same... just translated in many languages... I said books and modules... i didn't say tutorials or lectures or anything...

    Theres a thing called RAE. Thats what rankings are for... because as higher as you are on that stupid list the more money u get as a uni. Simple.

    Also, theres something called the credits system... all degrees are 360 credits... therefore an accountant is still considered an accountant from any uni he graduates.

    ALSO, graduate from bolton as u say... with a 1st and all ur subject marks are 80-85... will lse say no to you if u apply? of course not... ALSO, if i have a 1st from any uni... i can go anywhere to study then... HOWEVER, if fees are 23000£ or 17000 or 25000 then that is something that keeps me from it and not the uni or my marks.

    this is a stupid question cause there are a lot of factors to consider behind it... and as unemployment is rising these days... the least of our problems would be 2.1 or a 1st from anywhere... and a 69 is still a 2.1 and a 70 is a first! lol... LOL...

    its harder these days to find someone to fix your water pipes at home than someone with a degree...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mcr2288)
    of course books are the same... just translated in many languages... I said books and modules... i didn't say tutorials or lectures or anything...

    Theres a thing called RAE. Thats what rankings are for... because as higher as you are on that stupid list the more money u get as a uni. Simple.

    Also, theres something called the credits system... all degrees are 360 credits... therefore an accountant is still considered an accountant from any uni he graduates.

    ALSO, graduate from bolton as u say... with a 1st and all ur subject marks are 80-85... will lse say no to you if u apply? of course not... ALSO, if i have a 1st from any uni... i can go anywhere to study then... HOWEVER, if fees are 23000£ or 17000 or 25000 then that is something that keeps me from it and not the uni or my marks.

    this is a stupid question cause there are a lot of factors to consider behind it... and as unemployment is rising these days... the least of our problems would be 2.1 or a 1st from anywhere... and a 69 is still a 2.1 and a 70 is a first! lol... LOL...

    its harder these days to find someone to fix your water pipes at home than someone with a degree...
    LOL you've got to be trolling. As I already pointed out, the analysis covered in an Aston mathematics degree in the first 2 years doesn't even cover the first third of analysis in the first year of Oxford. So how exactly are they equivalent?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe_bromfield)
    It depends on the individual.

    When I graduated from Aston in 2010 I was the top student in the entire university. Not just in my subject, but across ALL subjects. I averaged well over 80%. I then went on to blitz MSc Economics at the University of Bristol and now I'm doing a PhD.

    Reasons I went to Aston: I had a rough time at college and didn't work very hard in my A levels at all (only got ABBB), and I also needed to stay in Birmingham for family reasons.

    Is someone who got a 2:1 from Oxford or Cambridge better than me?! Definitely not. But it completely depends on the individual, which is why employers conduct interviews instead of just hiring on the basis of the CV alone.
    I beg to differ.

    I think a 2.1 from Oxbridge is better
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eboracum)
    This is a difficult debate.

    Aston is a decent university. I'd say top 30 1994 group material, and a First Class degree from there will hold you in good stead. But I'd probably take a 2:1 from Oxbridge over it, just purely on a personal gut instinct.

    But if we are to talk about Top 10ish Russell Group universities, such as Durham, Bristol, York, Nottingham etc, I'd rather a First from there than a 2:1 from Oxbridge as to go to one of them and get a First is really hard (although not quite as hard as Oxford) and I just feel you'd stand out more.

    Tough one really, but that is my balanced answer.

    NO an Oxbridge 2.1 is still better than all of the above
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    I think any RG uni would stick you on a 'par'.


    Posted from TSR Mobile

    What? There are a lot of duffers in the RG you know, maybe you attend one of them ?

    a 1st from Bham, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Newcastle, Queen Mary, QUB, Cardiff, Glasgow, Nottingham, Southampton, York = a 2.1 from Oxbridge ?

    LOL I don't think so.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    What? There are a lot of duffers in the RG you know, maybe you attend one of them ?

    a 1st from Bham, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Newcastle, Queen Mary, QUB, Cardiff, Glasgow, Nottingham, Southampton, York = a 2.1 from Oxbridge ?

    LOL I don't think so.
    I'd still take a 1st from UCL, LSE, King's or Durham over a 2.1 at Oxbridge though.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eboracum)
    Some of the candidates rejected from Oxbridge have that though. Candidates at the universities you talked about have those grades. My brother has all the A's and A*s and was rejected from Oxford. That's the key for me. There will be people dotted around the top 20/30 universities in the UK that have the same grades as Oxbridge candidates.

    A First at Manchester is a very good degree. I'd argue that is better than a 2:1 from Oxford, and demonstrates a stronger academic standard. Manchester is just as good as Bristol or Warwick.
    Err.. NO
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    What? There are a lot of duffers in the RG you know, maybe you attend one of them ?

    a 1st from Bham, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Newcastle, Queen Mary, QUB, Cardiff, Glasgow, Nottingham, Southampton, York = a 2.1 from Oxbridge ?

    LOL I don't think so.
    There isn't though is there. You are talking roughly the same standard of teaching, and a university slightly more prestigious. So you can't hardly say there is a lot of difference? For example many of my lectures at one of those universities you listed are Oxbridge/London educated themselves so they are pretty much teaching you what they were taught themselves.

    I sense a hint of snobbery in your tone. Either you are at Oxbridge/London and you are horribly misguided as to believing your degree guarantees you a job, or you failed to get in and are upset at the other universities because you feel you are too good for them.

    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    NO an Oxbridge 2.1 is still better than all of the above
    No it isn't. A First from a top university is better than a 2:1 from Oxbridge. It is probably a tad harder to get, and a First Class honours degree really makes you stand out.

    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    Err.. NO
    Yes actually. Which university do you attend?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slumpy)
    Not really tbh. But it's not hugely relevant - my main point is asking for grounds to believe imperial maths when, from personal experience, it isn't all that.

    And FWIW, I would be surprised if most imperial lecturers didn't think the Cam course was good. Because it is. Almost objectively.



    Yeah, I was actually talking about people who do know about their subject matter. But only essentially to back up my own opinion from experience, to someone who doesn't seem to have any. I'd happily chat about the actual merits, but the problem with that is that it's self evident to anybody who's seen enough.

    Unrelated to this, but the fact that a lot of Warwick and Imperial academics are ex-Oxbridge tells its own story.

    And if you've still missed it, my point is that imperial maths isn't that good. I've seen a lot of their past papers, and Oxbridge is definitely harder, and I have fair reason to believe Warwick is too. That's about it.

    Edit; if you're not being facetious, and do know people who think 1+1=3, I suggest you meet new people.



    Highly pretentious? No. If untrue, it might be arrogant. As it is, it's essentially true. Theoretical physics grads from Cam have ended up on the hardest maths courses going, relatively regularly for my mind. Also, from what I recall, the only UK physics grads considered worth anything in Europe are oxbridge, imperial, and maybe a couple others (as someone not interested in doing physics past school, I didn't check). So clearly Cam is considered up there.



    Cracking. Immediately deciding you're the final word on 'real uni experiences', feeling you know what's needed for banking (how many bankers do you know personally, by the way?), and comparing the social lives of two universities when you've only been to one of them. Fantastic.


    (Original post by Drederick Tatum)
    Academically, the answer is Oxbridge, by a mile. I found that my first year papers for Cambridge maths were more difficult than masters level papers at KCL, for example.

    Unfortunately, though, many employers use automated application systems and processes that don't distinguish between universities. The problem comes when they ask for a 2:1 and above in a subject, and you have a 2:2 from Oxbridge. You're immediately excluded, when people with less ability are immediately included.
    How do you define good? If hard = good then, despite some readers will have a go at me for constantly bringing this up, this HK maths paper should mean HK's students are among the world's best, thought still some way behind mainland China, wth the impossibly hard Gaokao, where even Oxbridge undergrads struggle with it:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/52489790/al-pure-2011

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/pe...ake_you_quail/
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eboracum)
    There isn't though is there. You are talking roughly the same standard of teaching, and a university slightly more prestigious. So you can't hardly say there is a lot of difference? For example many of my lectures at one of those universities you listed are Oxbridge/London educated themselves so they are pretty much teaching you what they were taught themselves.

    I sense a hint of snobbery in your tone. Either you are at Oxbridge/London and you are horribly misguided as to believing your degree guarantees you a job, or you failed to get in and are upset at the other universities because you feel you are too good for them.

    No it isn't. A First from a top university is better than a 2:1 from Oxbridge. It is probably a tad harder to get, and a First Class honours degree really makes you stand out.

    Yes actually. Which university do you attend?
    Definitely not.

    I refer to my experience as an undergraduate maths student at Cambridge, and later as a class tutor at KCL, Bristol and Bath in the following (note that these are all considered strong universities and they are - but just not near the standard of the Cambridge undergraduate course).

    Firstly, Cambridge is much more prestigious than all other British universities apart from Oxford. This is evidenced by the public perception of these universities. In some cases, the reputation of the university combined with a particular subject (Cambridge Maths, Oxford PPE) skews this in Oxbridge's favour even more.

    Secondly, the standard of teaching is higher, much higher. This is for many reasons:

    1. Lecturers aren't as contrained to syllabuses as in other universities
    2. The best scholars in their subjects tend to teach at Oxbridge
    3. The exam system rewards depth of knowledge in a subject much more than breadth - for example, a lot of other universities have a core set of courses you need to pass in order to pass the whole year / course. Cambridge allows for the students to be very good at one area and very bad at another.
    4. Students at other universities (KCL particularly, in my experience) appear to complain about the difficulty of courses if it isn't uniform year to year. This forces the difficulty of the exams down.


    It's not snobbery when someone asserts this, and I'm sure that many Oxbridge graduates are as aware of the difficulties of getting a job as anyone else is.

    A first from most top universities is not better than a 2:1 from Oxbridge, under most reasonable interpretations of the word 'better'. In particular, it is definitely not 'a tad harder'. I'm not just saying this: compare 3rd year exam maths exam papers at Cambridge to 3rd year maths exam papers at Bristol, Bath and KCL, for example.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dbkey)
    How do you define good? If hard = good then, despite some readers will have a go at me for constantly bringing this up, this HK maths paper should mean HK's students are among the world's best, thought still some way behind mainland China, wth the impossibly hard Gaokao, where even Oxbridge undergrads struggle with it:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/52489790/al-pure-2011

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/pe...ake_you_quail/
    It's not just the difficulty of the papers that makes a difference, it's the style. Bath, Bristol, KCL maths papers have a very formulaic way of examining students (usually questions are of the form: recall a definition, do some bookwork, and then prove a trivial consequence of a lectured theorem).

    Final year Cambridge maths exams are, in contrast, great:

    1. Each paper contains questions from all subjects
    2. You have massive choice in the questions you can attempt - there are far too many to complete even half of them.
    3. There is no minimum standard to be achieved in any one subject - you could have attended a course diligently but not answer one question on it.
    4. The marking scheme rewards depth of answers - you can't pick up many marks by answering the trivial parts of lots of questions.
    5. The structure of the questions is a bookwork part followed by a 'problem' element, which requires real thought, and is rewarding, to complete.
    6. Time pressure is not such an issue in Cambridge exams. I've invigilated an exam at Bath where people struggle to regurgitate stuff onto the paper quickly enough. The exams allow you time to think.


    Although this is all my experience of one particular course / exam, I'm inclined to think it applies somewhat to other subjects at Oxbridge because of discussion with people that study those subjects.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drederick Tatum)

    Although this is all my experience of one particular course / exam, I'm inclined to think it applies somewhat to other subjects at Oxbridge because of discussion with people that study those subjects.
    I totally agree.
    I just looked up the final year course outline for Politics and IR at Aston. It's stuff that is covered within the first few terms at Oxford. The intensity of examination doesn't compare either.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eboracum)
    There isn't though is there. You are talking roughly the same standard of teaching, and a university slightly more prestigious. So you can't hardly say there is a lot of difference? For example many of my lectures at one of those universities you listed are Oxbridge/London educated themselves so they are pretty much teaching you what they were taught themselves.
    Nonsense and that's a very very big claim to make for 'those' universities, which I presume is the RG2, the onus is on you to prove that is the case. Otherwise it is very a given that Oxbridge is a league above the Bhams and the Sheffields of the world

    (Original post by Eboracum)
    I sense a hint of snobbery in your tone. Either you are at Oxbridge/London and you are horribly misguided as to believing your degree guarantees you a job, or you failed to get in and are upset at the other universities because you feel you are too good for them.
    Why would I be jealous of some lousy RG2 uni when I graduated from one of the London 3 ?


    (Original post by Eboracum)
    No it isn't. A First from a top university is better than a 2:1 from Oxbridge. It is probably a tad harder to get, and a First Class honours degree really makes you stand out.
    Yes actually. Which university do you attend?
    More nonsense a 1st from Bham is many times easier than a 2.1 from Oxbridge
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drederick Tatum)
    Definitely not.

    [LIST=1][*]Lecturers aren't as contrained to syllabuses as in other universities
    I agree wholeheartedly because though I have never studied at Oxbridge - one of my biggest criticisms as a mature student is precisely that most unis simply follow a cookie-cutter type syllabus that deprives the student of the benefit of true scholarship which involves in depth inquiry rather than a broad sweep of cursory factiods.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    I agree wholeheartedly because though I have never studied at Oxbridge - one of my biggest criticisms as a mature student is precisely that most unis simply follow a cookie-cutter type syllabus that deprives the student of the benefit of true scholarship which involves in depth inquiry rather than a broad sweep of cursory factiods.
    It's quite ironic that you're criticising some universities for 'cookie-cutter' courses when you have a very indistinguishing, 'cookie-cutter' view of non-Oxbridge universities and the content and assessment of their courses.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    It's quite ironic that you're criticising some universities for 'cookie-cutter' courses when you have a very indistinguishing, 'cookie-cutter' view of non-Oxbridge universities and the content and assessment of their courses.
    Call it what you like but a I'd take a 2.1 from OXb rather than a 1st from any RG2 rubbish.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    Call it what you like but a I'd take a 2.1 from OXb rather than a 1st from any RG2 rubbish.
    Obvious troll but what is RG2?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    Obvious troll but what is RG2?
    You are a self professed intellectual - use your imagination or you name a non OXbridge RG uni and I'll tell you if it is RG1 or 2
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.