I just find this funny! Watch

JustLau
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#21
Report 8 years ago
#21
(Original post by Medic1992)
I'm not comparing Demont with Oxford... I'm comparing the degrees..
From your first post:

Most courses in other uni's ( such as pharmacy, med and dent) are much better than most courses ( obvs barring med) at Oxford.
You're comparing Oxford to other unis. You then go on to use DMU as an example. Comparison.

Also, you should note that someone studying biology at an institution such as Oxford may go on to make huge breakthroughs in medical science. I would call that a success, not only for them, but for humanity.

(Please note, I am planning to be a nurse, which is not a course Oxford offers, and nor am I applying to Edinburgh or anywhere. I do not aspire to Oxbridge, nor am I bull****ting about my grades.)
0
reply
Medic1992
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#22
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#22
I'm just saying that so many people think they are smart on here getting into Oxford ( and most probably are).. but the people doing stuff like art got there by doing soft a-levels ( which are eassier to get high grades in).... and the fact is that to get into pharmacy you need min of BBB, and to do art at oxford you need something like AAA, and at the end of the day you are gonna be better of with a Pharmacy degree than an art one!!...
2
reply
Wilzyy
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#23
Report 8 years ago
#23
(Original post by Lewroll)
Why are you ignoring me??? I dont like being ignored
What are you talking about.
1
reply
Medic1992
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#24
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#24
(Original post by JustLau)
From your first post:



You're comparing Oxford to other unis. You then go on to use DMU as an example. Comparison.

Also, you should note that someone studying biology at an institution such as Oxford may go on to make huge breakthroughs in medical science. I would call that a success, not only for them, but for humanity.

(Please note, I am planning to be a nurse, which is not a course Oxford offers, and nor am I applying to Edinburgh or anywhere. I do not aspire to Oxbridge, nor am I bull****ting about my grades.)
TBH most people studying Biology go into teaching more than reserach... and I am comparing degrees from other uni's compared with degrees from oxford... If i was comparing uni's i would be talking about the night life, how the campus is ect... but i'm not..
0
reply
JustLau
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#25
Report 8 years ago
#25
(Original post by Medic1992)
TBH most people studying Biology go into teaching more than reserach... and I am comparing degrees from other uni's compared with degrees from oxford... If i was comparing uni's i would be talking about the night life, how the campus is ect... but i'm not..
If you'd read my first post you would see that I'm saying you can't have a double variable and call it a fair comparison. You can't compare pharmacy here with biology there. It doesn't work.

Also, just because 'most' people who study biology go into teaching, doesn't make the success of the few or the quality of the course any less. Also, Oxford has a significantly higher proportion of students who go onto further study and academia than the national average.
0
reply
Medic1992
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#26
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#26
(Original post by JustLau)
If you'd read my first post you would see that I'm saying you can't have a double variable and call it a fair comparison. You can't compare pharmacy here with biology there. It doesn't work.
The 'double variable' thing is a load of bullsh***** . You can compare degrees with each other (which one will be more respected, whats your chances of getting a job with that degree!, How much would you earn ect). Also tbh it is also about the fun factor aswell ( which degree you enjoy more), but like i said there have been more successful pharmacists/Meds/Dent than Biologists/artists ect...
0
reply
JustLau
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#27
Report 8 years ago
#27
(Original post by Medic1992)
The 'double variable' thing is a load of bullsh***** . You can compare degrees with each other (which one will be more respected, whats your chances of getting a job with that degree!, How much would you earn ect). Also tbh it is also about the fun factor aswell ( which degree you enjoy more), but like i said there have been more successful pharmacists/Meds/Dent than Biologists/artists ect...
Of course you can compare them in those terms. But you said 'better'. The bit that gets me the most is that you don't even understand what I mean, or where you went wrong. I'm not sure about your definition of successful though.
0
reply
Chrisl12345
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#28
Report 8 years ago
#28
Regardless, I'm sure that if given the opportunity 99% of people would choose Oxford. The remaining 1% are clearly stupid and perhaps would therefore suit De Montfort.
1
reply
diamonddust
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#29
Report 8 years ago
#29
(Original post by Medic1992)
I'm not comparing Demont with Oxford... I'm comparing the degrees..
Well, tbh you're NOT comparing the degrees. Considering DMU offers Pharmacy and Oxford doesn't, it's not really much of a comparison is it?
0
reply
diamonddust
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#30
Report 8 years ago
#30
(Original post by Medic1992)
I'm just saying that so many people think they are smart on here getting into Oxford ( and most probably are).. but the people doing stuff like art got there by doing soft a-levels ( which are eassier to get high grades in).... and the fact is that to get into pharmacy you need min of BBB, and to do art at oxford you need something like AAA, and at the end of the day you are gonna be better of with a Pharmacy degree than an art one!!...
:facepalm: And now you're randomly mentioning Art?
As far as I'm aware, Oxford doesn't offer art! :teehee: Art is by no means a soft subject, I did it at GCSE and even then the workload in relation to the grade I got didn't match up and I've been told I'm a pretty good artist. Oxford do offer Architecture which is art based *and* mathematical and is incredibly difficult. You have to be logical and artistic which may be more difficult than being purely scientific in thought. I have no comment for your 'comparison' between Pharmacy and Art which isn't even offered at Oxbridge. Your argument doesn't even make sense.

Attacking and assuming things about people on here isn't helping your argument. I have no aspirations for Oxbridge but I don't judge those who do.
Can I ask what the point of this thread was? Your logic is flawed, Imsoacadmic floored you and you're annoying me because I want to sleep but I keep responding and my responses are getting convoluted.

Yes, Pharmacy is useful. So is Biology, so are most subjects! As has been mentioned, Pharmacy is vocational and Oxbridge don't offer it. Doesn't mean subjects Oxbridge offer are less useful than Pharmacy just because they aren't as targeted. Without Biomed and Biology, you'd have no medicine to prescribe (I'm assuming you're a prospective Pharmacist). I'd say the people who developed the drugs would *feel* more successful than the person who prescribed them. But as you haven't even bothered to define success, I'm going to sleep..
1
reply
wanderlust.xx
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#31
Report 8 years ago
#31
(Original post by Medic1992)
I'm just saying that so many people think they are smart on here getting into Oxford ( and most probably are).. but the people doing stuff like art got there by doing soft a-levels ( which are eassier to get high grades in).... and the fact is that to get into pharmacy you need min of BBB, and to do art at oxford you need something like AAA, and at the end of the day you are gonna be better of with a Pharmacy degree than an art one!!...
There are also people on here that think they're clever by attempting to degrade other people by ripping apart their logic, as you are so badly attempting to do. What's your point?

There are plenty of people who do a lot of things in a lot of different ways.

The degree does not measure the person. You cannot 'sum up' a person by the way of their degree or where they are studying, but it seems that these university league tables have made people think otherwise.

A person from Oxford may actually not be 'equal' to a person studying the same subject at another university, since one person may have hobbies and interests and opinions.

Actually this is stupid, I've just read one sentence and then jumped to your next one and now you're comparing art and pharmacy degrees. I don't know why I bothered replying.
0
reply
arabcnesbit
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#32
Report 8 years ago
#32
(Original post by im so academic)
1. Pharmacy is an exception however as it is an accredited degree, so to a certain extent it does not matter where you get your degree from.
2. Define "success", because if you mean it in purely monetary terms, frankly, not everyone studies at universities for their prospective salaries, but for the pursuit of their subject.
3. People who do Biology at Oxford are not prospective pharmacists. Those courses cannot be compared as one is strictly academic (so to speak) and one takes a more vocational route.
4. To show how crap (for want of a better word) De Monfort is, you cannot even take Biology there.
5. Do not even dare suggest or imply that De Monfort University (as an institution) is better than the University of Oxford.
This, mostly.

All the clinical medical subjects are exceptions since they're all accredited and all have near 100% employment rates so it doesn't really matter where you go.

Where you go to University and what you study is merely the start of your adult life, not the end. The better the Uni/Course the more doors it opens, after that it is up to the individual.

For instance I didn't have a clue what I wanted to do with my life so never really bothered at school and ended up with the equivalent of ABB at A level, pretty mediocre. This closed of any chance I had of applying to elite universities. At the time this didn't really bother me but now I regret that I didn't push myself harder and do the best that my talents and abilities would allow.

The reason for me is this. I've now figured out what I want to do which is either fund management or trading. The fact that I don't go to Oxbridge, LSE, Imperial, UCL or Warwick is a MASSIVE disadvantage for me. I'm studying Actuarial Science (basically Maths, Stats & Finance) at the university of Kent and even though my course is probably one of the best for preparing you for a trading career I have to network like mad just to get a look in.

There's is always this awkward moment when I tell prospective contacts where I study and what my A levels were, so I have to overcompensate by lots of extra curriculars, work experience and gaining a first.

However the fact remains if anyone from one of the afore mention uni's coasts to a 2:1 and has decent work experience, my CV go's straight in the bin, harsh but true. (rant over)

Here's the lowdown.

If you want to go into a career in one of the professions, academia or anything remotely competitive, where you go to university matters MASSIVELY.

Even if you don't know what you want to do work as hard as you can and go to the best university you can. You will not close off any options either way by doing this.

On a lighter note I know someone who did Business studies at the University of Abertay. He is now a director of the company he went to work for and is making bucketloads. With hard work and talent anything can be overcome, or so I'm hoping

This became a bit long, sorry for that.
0
reply
im so academic
Badges: 13
#33
Report 8 years ago
#33
(Original post by Medic1992)
2) People doing pharmacy/Med/Dent are more respected in the community ( from any uni) than a person doing a Biology ( or even other degrees from oxford barring law and med) degree. More money - better life style. More chances of getting a job ect
:facepalm2:

So because you're more respected as a DMU pharmacist, it means that degree is better than Oxford Biology?

Also, salary =/= better degree. Not everyone goes to university to get the highest salary they can.

NB: You CANNOT compare DMU with Oxford (degree or university wise).
0
reply
Potiron
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#34
Report 8 years ago
#34
(Original post by diamonddust)
:facepalm: And now you're randomly mentioning Art?
As far as I'm aware, Oxford doesn't offer art! :teehee: Art is by no means a soft subject, I did it at GCSE and even then the workload in relation to the grade I got didn't match up and I've been told I'm a pretty good artist. Oxford do offer Architecture which is art based *and* mathematical and is incredibly difficult. You have to be logical and artistic which may be more difficult than being purely scientific in thought. I have no comment for your 'comparison' between Pharmacy and Art which isn't even offered at Oxbridge. Your argument doesn't even make sense.

Attacking and assuming things about people on here isn't helping your argument. I have no aspirations for Oxbridge but I don't judge those who do.
Can I ask what the point of this thread was? Your logic is flawed, Imsoacadmic floored you and you're annoying me because I want to sleep but I keep responding and my responses are getting convoluted.

Yes, Pharmacy is useful. So is Biology, so are most subjects! As has been mentioned, Pharmacy is vocational and Oxbridge don't offer it. Doesn't mean subjects Oxbridge offer are less useful than Pharmacy just because they aren't as targeted. Without Biomed and Biology, you'd have no medicine to prescribe (I'm assuming you're a prospective Pharmacist). I'd say the people who developed the drugs would *feel* more successful than the person who prescribed them. But as you haven't even bothered to define success, I'm going to sleep..
The bit in bold says it all really.
0
reply
Shelly_x
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#35
Report 8 years ago
#35
(Original post by diamonddust)
:facepalm: And now you're randomly mentioning Art?
As far as I'm aware, Oxford doesn't offer art! :teehee: Art is by no means a soft subject, I did it at GCSE and even then the workload in relation to the grade I got didn't match up and I've been told I'm a pretty good artist.
They do offer Fine Art, but imo its not a very good course at Oxford.

(Original post by Medic1992)
I'm just saying that so many people think they are smart on here getting into Oxford ( and most probably are).. but the people doing stuff like art got there by doing soft a-levels ( which are eassier to get high grades in).... and the fact is that to get into pharmacy you need min of BBB, and to do art at oxford you need something like AAA, and at the end of the day you are gonna be better of with a Pharmacy degree than an art one!!...
Why the random attack on Art? Quite frankly its up to a person what degree to take and your making a very generalised, ignorant comment about something obviously you know nothing about. Art A level is by no means soft or easy to get a good grade in. Contrary to popular belief you can't just do one amazing painting and get an A, its time consuming and pretty damn hard to balance with your other subjects too due to that. One painting can take anywhere between 5 hours and a week at A level. Whereas i've seen people not study for another subject that is seen as a 'hard' subject and get an A, nobody can do that with art. Would YOU be able to get an A in art? I doubt it judging by how ignorant you are. It also isn't just painting, theres a lot of art history involved too. Therefore, it may be seen as soft by some and by universities, but in my opinion, its damn hard.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (551)
37.84%
No - but I will (114)
7.83%
No - I don't want to (102)
7.01%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (689)
47.32%

Watched Threads

View All