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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    I will let Forum User answer the assumptions you make here; I suspect you are very wrong though.
    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    .
    (Original post by shamika)
    What on earth are you talking about?
    I'm not quite sure how this thread suddenly became 'about me'. I don't think that my personal situation has anything to do with any of the points I made in the thread.

    I only mentioned that I went to Cambridge in response to Zeno's claim that I had a 'fearfully overinflated opinion of my university'. I am doing a part-time evening LL.B. at BPP, not a professional qualification. I'm not a 'trainee barrister', Zeno (they're called 'pupil barristers' technically). Prospective barristers first have to do a professional qualification called the BPTC (which is one of the courses that Shamika mentioned that BPP offer). I am intending to become a barrister, if you've been checking my post history for more info on my background then the 'mini-pupillages' that you can see me post about are the equivalent of work experience (think internship at IB but lasting only a few days). Happy to answer any other questions about myself via PM but I don't see that they have anything to do with the topic of the thread.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    I think FU is a trainee barrister, don't they get taught directly by the barrister's association ?
    No. It isn't my side of the profession, so I'm not as au fait with the process as others, but they still need a qualifying law degree or GDL followed by the BPTC (also at uni) and then pupillage.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    The thread shows the usual difficulty of broad-brush 'university grade comparison' - unless you have attended courses at more than one university at the same level, it is very difficult to gain reliable points with which to gauge the differences that are more than informed guesswork. Beyond that, we have to rely on things like ranking tables, which use criteria that don't always directly relate to the undergrad experience (academic citations by professors or research ratings for example) or are trivial (which college has more grass or better dining facilities). We can go on what employers say to some extent, but they have their own biases and prejudices and we haven't quantified what "better" (in the thread title) means exactly.

    To some extent, isn't course rep a semi-mystical concept? Some people assume Oxbridge is way, way above its rivals, others strongly assert that UCL, ICL, Warwick, etc, are close or on a par for particular courses. There are attempts at surveys to quantify these, but they all suffer from flaws. University course rep seems to build up slowly and is hard to shift. I think most members of the public would believe Oxbridge to be loads better than its rivals, but that view isn't necessarily shared in academia or by students at the rivals - or by students in Oxford and Cambridge. I don't know many people who genuinely believe UCL or Imperial or Warwick to be in the foothills and Oxford (and that other place in the Fens) to be at the top of the mountain. It's more like a range with lofty peaks, a few of which are a bit higher than the others.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Forum User)
    I'm not quite sure how this thread suddenly became 'about me'. I don't think that my personal situation has anything to do with any of the points I made in the thread.

    I only mentioned that I went to Cambridge in response to Zeno's claim that I had a 'fearfully overinflated opinion of my university'. I am doing a part-time evening LL.B. at BPP, not a professional qualification. I'm not a 'trainee barrister', Zeno (they're called 'pupil barristers' technically). Prospective barristers first have to do a professional qualification called the BPTC (which is one of the courses that Shamika mentioned that BPP offer). I am intending to become a barrister, if you've been checking my post history for more info on my background then the 'mini-pupillages' that you can see me post about are the equivalent of work experience (think internship at IB but lasting only a few days). Happy to answer any other questions about myself via PM but I don't see that they have anything to do with the topic of the thread.
    Agreed - my point was that going from Cambridge to BPP was a perfectly reasonable thing to do
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by -Liberty)
    What about people who got equal grades but didn't apply for Oxbridge? I'm one of them. Got the same grades as expected for the same degree at oxbridge but got no support or info about it. In fact during my work experience insight I met a girl doing the same course at Cambridge but with lower grades. I ended up going to an average Russell group uni.
    I mean't that generally. I mean there are people who look at other things other than prestige and rep. But on average those who do end up in Oxbridge generally do have better grades. If you look into Aston, you will get mixture of grades, from average to very high grades which I guess you have.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Future_Dr)
    I mean't that generally. I mean there are people who look at other things other than prestige and rep. But on average those who do end up in Oxbridge generally do have better grades. If you look into Aston, you will get mixture of grades, from average to very high grades which I guess you have.
    But do you not think this has a deteriorating effect on the learning process in that students with lower A level grades tend to be more the party kind and therefore the average course content / load tends to be dragged down at the expense of high achievers ?
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    But do you not think this has a deteriorating effect on the learning process in that students with lower A level grades tend to be more the party kind and therefore the average course content / load tends to be dragged down at the expense of high achievers ?
    I didn't fully understood what you meant there. But how is people with lower alevel grades tend to be 'more the party kind'? We're talking about their degrees in their repective unis not their personal attributes.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Future_Dr)
    I didn't fully understood what you meant there. But how is people with lower alevel grades tend to be 'more the party kind'? We're talking about their degrees in their repective unis not their personal attributes.
    Hmm, seems to be a lot misunderstanding of one kind or another here and grammatical / spelling errors too.

    To your question:

    ' How is people with lower alevel grades tend to be 'more the party kind'? '

    How about those who work harder and party less tend to achieve higher grades than those who do the opposite ?
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    Hmm, seems to be a lot misunderstanding of one kind or another here and grammatical / spelling errors too.

    To your question:

    ' How is people with lower alevel grades tend to be 'more the party kind'? '

    How about those who work harder and party less tend to achieve higher grades than those who do the opposite ?
    Ofcourse there is misunderstanding when I have explicitly stated that I do not fully understand your statement. So you could have just cleared things up a bit rather than seek grammatical and spelling mistakes don't you think?

    It really seems to me that you are confused about academia and social life. If someone has a better social life, it doesn't mean in the slightest that they are poor achiever and vice versa. So your statement, "How about those who work harder and party less tend to achieve higher grades than those who do the opposite ?" cannot be proven otherwise, however if we go back to the main point of my original post, that Oxbridge students generally have higher grades can be proven, you'd just have to look at the average grades of the uni for every course. This can be measured. Whereas you can't measure the extent of how much a person party.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Future_Dr)
    Ofcourse there is misunderstanding when I have explicitly stated that I do not fully understand your statement. So you could have just cleared things up a bit rather than seek grammatical and spelling mistakes don't you think?

    It really seems to me that you are confused about academia and social life. If someone has a better social life, it doesn't mean in the slightest that they are poor achiever and vice versa. So your statement, "How about those who work harder and party less tend to achieve higher grades than those who do the opposite ?" cannot be proven otherwise, however if we go back to the main point of my original post, that Oxbridge students generally have higher grades can be proven, you'd just have to look at the average grades of the uni for every course. This can be measured. Whereas you can't measure the extent of how much a person party.

    At least we can agree that Oxbridge students generally have higher grades than other students.

    So I suppose this is where we differ - I tend to think that it is almost impossible to achieve the highest grades without some sacrifice of your social life. If you disagree with this then we have to agree to disagree.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    1st from aston... a 2:1 from Oxford may be looked down upon (many might think "oh so he got to Oxford but he only got a 2:1?" It really depends on your employer and how prejudice they are
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ttreb)
    1st from aston... a 2:1 from Oxford may be looked down upon (many might think "oh so he got to Oxford but he only got a 2:1?" It really depends on your employer and how prejudice they are
    Since when did a 2:1 become a bad degree? In humanities subjects, it can be pretty difficult to get a 1st.

    Blanket statements just can't be made about degrees, they're definitely not comparable in the same way A-Levels from different boards are.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamika)
    Since when did a 2:1 become a bad degree? In humanities subjects, it can be pretty difficult to get a 1st.

    Blanket statements just can't be made about degrees, they're definitely not comparable in the same way A-Levels from different boards are.
    I completely agree, both of my parents received 2:1's and if i had one i would be ecstatic however it still doesn't take away the fact that certain employees can be prejudice.

    In my own personal opinion. a 2:1 is a 2:1 and a first is a first. No matter what university you attended. Simple as that.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Ah the student room. Where opinions are strictly forbidden.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ttreb)
    Ah the student room. Where opinions are strictly forbidden.
    Especially stupid ones.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ttreb)
    I completely agree, both of my parents received 2:1's and if i had one i would be ecstatic however it still doesn't take away the fact that certain employees can be prejudice.

    In my own personal opinion. a 2:1 is a 2:1 and a first is a first. No matter what university you attended. Simple as that.

    So, a 1st from Edge Hill or a 2:1 from Oxford. Which one is better?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    Especially stupid ones.
    Haven't you got a 50,000 essay to be writing? Chop chop Oxbridge.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    RG1:

    ICL
    UCL
    LSE
    KCL
    Edinburgh
    Bristol
    Durham
    Possibly Exeter
    Could I ask you specifically troll boy, what are these lists based on? Is it League positioning and if so which league tables, is it experience as an employer selecting people, experience as an academic selecting people for a Masters, I mean could I specifically pinpoint what you base this on?

    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    That doesn't mean they are any good, you don't really think the best Oxbridge academics aim for RG2 institutions o you ?

    And surely you are being a little hypocritical ? You dislike the snobbery from Oxbridge or RG1 yet you gladly push the term RG to differentiate your self from non-RG institutions.

    There's an RG2 in the sense that anyone might want it to be one ( just look at the tables and a clear demarcation is revealed between RG1 and 2 )

    O yeah right and you're a mind reader are you, in any case if I was starting over again with my AAA I'd be damned if I were to end up in an RG 2.
    Yes it does. Any university with a number of Oxbridge/London educated academics can happily think of itself as 'good', or 'very good'.

    Not at all, I'd happily say institutions such as St. Andrews or Bath or universities in the 1994 group are going to offer just as good an education as Russell Group universities.

    The league tables aren't really a helpful source though are they? I mean it's not like the Premier League table with one absolute unquestionable table is it? One could argue that:
    - There are many different league tables.
    - They vary each year.
    - There are subject specific league tables.
    - Universities that do better domestically don't do as well in international league tables.

    So it becomes very difficult to go by league tables. If a student is at a university ranked 7th, 12th, 16th and 18th across the four league tables they are likely to go around saying "I am at the 7th best university in the country". So I find league tables only as a very rough guide as to what the best universities are, rather than absolute positioning. To give you an example Lancaster and Bath are both above Imperial in the 2013 Guardian table. Which I've no problem with, but I assume you object to this?

    The reality is, a) You've not got a degree from a top London institution, and b) you are a student at Sussex...which good for you! It is a good university. I just don't think its helpful coming on here spouting your troll nonsense. It's based on no solid grounds.

    Students coming from the London universities aren't taught in their degrees once they graduate to come on student forums and tell others how rubbish their universities are. In fact, any LSE lecturer would be pretty ashamed if his students were doing this.

    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    FACT: no non RG1 university is a target for MS. end of, lexis or not whatever the hell that is.
    I'm at a non Oxbridge/London Russell Group and I've had Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan coming to the university personally recruiting. We've also had Big Four accountancy firms and magic circle law firms recruiting here. Another myth that a very small proportion of London students believe that it is only their universities that are targeted, it isn't.

    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    So did you graduate Cantab or not ? and if so, why are you arguing with me ? Surely we are in agreement
    Again another silly claim. Most Cambridge students don't take your snobbish view. It isn't a case of if you are at Cambridge you are smart and everyone else is dumb. If you are at a Top 20 UK University you are really really smart. If you are at Cambridge, maybe you are unbelievably smart. The key is that (thankfully) most Cambridge students don't share your views.

    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    Everyone knows law is an extremely prestige conscious profession, why would someone with Maths @ cantab do law @ BPP ? That'd be like shooting yourself after you win the lottery.
    Again, what a silly claim! And for someone up to his eyeballs in prestige worries I find it odd you think like this. Law is clearly one of the most prestigious career paths one can take (at least, this is the view a lot of students hold). If you haven't done law at undergraduate, you almost certainly will have to do a law conversion course at either The College of Law or BPP. They are both very prestigious and will both hold you in good stead.

    Or are you so snobbish you believe law firms only take Law Undergraduate degrees? They don't, they consider a different discipline plus a conversion course to be just as good, if not better.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ttreb)
    I completely agree, both of my parents received 2:1's and if i had one i would be ecstatic however it still doesn't take away the fact that certain employees can be prejudice.

    In my own personal opinion. a 2:1 is a 2:1 and a first is a first. No matter what university you attended. Simple as that.
    I work for an organisation that regularly takes people with distinctions from Oxbridge masters, including one person who is rumoured to have topped their year at Oxford doing maths. And we consistently take people with 2:1s, from all sorts of universities. When I interview, I care the person has a 2:1 in a vaguely relevant field from a vaguely good university and then actually try to find out what the person is like.

    Apart from a couple of (ridiculous) hedge funds, or for quant jobs in banking, I am not aware of any job where you have to have a first.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eboracum)

    The league tables aren't really a helpful source though are they? I mean it's not like the Premier League table with one absolute unquestionable table is it? One could argue that:
    - There are many different league tables.
    - They vary each year.
    - There are subject specific league tables.
    - Universities that do better domestically don't do as well in international league tables.

    So it becomes very difficult to go by league tables. If a student is at a university ranked 7th, 12th, 16th and 18th across the four league tables they are likely to go around saying "I am at the 7th best university in the country". So I find league tables only as a very rough guide as to what the best universities are, rather than absolute positioning. To give you an example Lancaster and Bath are both above Imperial in the 2013 Guardian table. Which I've no problem with, but I assume you object to this?

    The reality is, a) You've not got a degree from a top London institution, and b) you are a student at Sussex...which good for you! It is a good university. I just don't think its helpful coming on here spouting your troll nonsense. It's based on no solid grounds.


    Students coming from the London universities aren't taught in their degrees once they graduate to come on student forums and tell others how rubbish their universities are. In fact, any LSE lecturer would be pretty ashamed if his students were doing this.


    I'm at a non Oxbridge/London Russell Group and I've had Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan coming to the university personally recruiting. We've also had Big Four accountancy firms and magic circle law firms recruiting here. Another myth that a very small proportion of London students believe that it is only their universities that are targeted, it isn't.

    Again another silly claim. Most Cambridge students don't take your snobbish view. It isn't a case of if you are at Cambridge you are smart and everyone else is dumb. If you are at a Top 20 UK University you are really really smart. If you are at Cambridge, maybe you are unbelievably smart. The key is that (thankfully) most Cambridge students don't share your views.

    Again, what a silly claim! And for someone up to his eyeballs in prestige worries I find it odd you think like this. Law is clearly one of the most prestigious career paths one can take (at least, this is the view a lot of students hold). If you haven't done law at undergraduate, you almost certainly will have to do a law conversion course at either The College of Law or BPP. They are both very prestigious and will both hold you in good stead.

    Or are you so snobbish you believe law firms only take Law Undergraduate degrees? They don't, they consider a different discipline plus a conversion course to be just as good, if not better.

    Bottom line is that most if not all TSR readers use the tables regularly and so do you because otherwise you would not be so pissed off for it ranking your RG2 so lowly.

    The reality is that you wish and pray that I don't have a degree from an RG1 which I do - LSE , which goes to show how badly you really feel about your own university ( let me guess you're from either Manchester, Bham or Nottingham ? ).

    I graduated years ago and now am doing a PG certificate at Sussex and no it is not a good institution but don't let that comfort you too much because it is probably on the same level as the place you are at now.

    And yes, I have had the misfortune of sampling so called RG2 courses and I must say they are pretty dire.

    And yes also I will not put up with crap and will be doing something about Sussex. Exactly what that will be is none of yours and anybody else's business since that is no relevance to the topic at hand.

    You have no knowledge what Students coming from the London universities are or are not taught unless you are suddenly morphing into a London 3 student.

    On the other it is our duty to stop any institution from passing itself off as an Oxb or RG1 when they are not.

    Anyone with a 2.2 can get back office jobs from and bank including ex poly students as well, certainly no need to go to an RG2.

    What you can't do with an RG2 degree is be a target place for a top bank. Search and read TSR is choc full of threads on this but you should be notified that it will make painful reading for you.

    You don't really think the best Oxbridge academics aim for RG2 institutions do you ?

    You conveniently left out this bit which I suspect embarrasses you tremendously so I will reinstall it just for you:

    Try Oxbridge / Harvard/ Yale / Princeton - you forget that a good Oxbridge degree opens doors world wide.

    The same most definitely cannot be said of say a 1st from Leeds.

    As for the rest of it, I cannot tell what point you are making as it seems you are just regurgitating everything I said which is quite typical of the RG2.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    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.