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

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by member591354)
    You trust the research from Sheffield Hallam more than Cambridge's research? :teehee:
    This was clearly a joke.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eboracum)
    More snobbery I'm afraid Derrick. I'm at an RG, and most of the lectures I've been taught by in First Year are Oxbridge/LSE educated. One lady has a very highly rated PHD from LSE. There not mugs and have been taught by the best.

    Case of terminology. I would agree a Cambridge degree is more prestigious but I would disagree it is much more prestigious. Particularly when comparing a 2:1 from Cam against a First from a Top 10 Russell.

    I'd also disagree on the hardness. There is this snobbery from Oxbridge students (a very minor few - most are lovely) that people at all other unis are idiots and that they'd be guaranteed a First at say, a top 20 Russell. Not the case. To get a First at any Russell is really difficult. Many people at these Russell's have the same A Level grades as Oxbridgers and are just as smart. Acceptance to Oxbridge doesn't define ones existence and condemn those not chosen to a lifetime of being below.

    I think sole accounts in these debates aren't usually that helpful. Anyone can dig up a case of somebodies uncle, someone's friend, this person, or that person. I've known Firsts from Oxford unemployed since last Summer and various other cases.

    Lot of snobbery in your post. A shame as you seem to really know your stuff.



    Oxford/Cambridge are better universities than those you've mentioned. But I'm arguing a First from one of them is just as good if not better than a 2:1 from Oxbridge. As they are still very good universities, they are not 'lousy' in any way.

    There is simply no such thing as 'RG2'. It is heightened snobbery.

    There are at very least, 35 excellent universities in this country (24 Russell and 11 1994 Group). You will get a good education at any of them.

    The reality is - 1) you haven't graduated from a London top 3 university. I am sure the London 3 do not teach their graduates to come on student forums ****ging off other universities. 2) You are a member of the Oxford 2012 applicants page.

    I'd get yourself into a Russell, work really hard, and re-evaluate if I was you. Anyone can come on here and say anything. I could say I have a First from Harvard and I was taught by Niall Ferguson and have a PHD from Yale. But what would be the point? You are only lying to yourself you know?



    Who are you, the oracle?



    One case, so many other factors to consider. We can all cite cases to prove our points.
    Also, why am I suddenly called 'Derrick'? My name's clearly Drederick.

    Or Mr Tatum.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drederick Tatum)
    If by 'better' we mean 'what provides the most efficient way to get a job after university' than I'd be inclined to agree with people who say a first from Aston is.

    Many people are responding to posts by essentially just saying that 'your better might not be the same as my better'. So, simplifying the question so we may hope to get an answer, lets define the word 'better' as 'harder'.

    Those who disagree with this definition may ignore the following, but I think this is at least part of what the word 'better' should mean. Let's also concentrate on undergraduate degrees in Maths. There are two reasons for this: I have first hand experience of such a degree, and it is perhaps the subject where we can get closest to judging an exam based on the performance of students taking it.

    So now our reformulated question is 'What's harder - a 2:1 in Maths from Oxbridge or a first in Maths from x'. Here x denotes any non Oxbridge university.

    Since a grade mostly (or completely) on the exam, let's focus on the exam only.

    Now the rest of the comparison can be done in the following way. Choose a random sample of Oxbridge Maths students and get them to take a Maths paper from x and an (equivalent) Maths paper from Oxbridge. Then get a random sample of students from x and get them to do the same.

    Clearly I can't perform this analysis, but I would take a guess that the students from Oxbridge would have a higher average. I'd invite anyone (who has done a Maths degree) to literally compare papers.


    The point of all of this, anyway, is that many of the posters here have politically correct, polite, well written arguments for something which, when all the excuse factors are taken away, is patently false.

    When we strip away all these complicating factors we are left with two papers, one of which is far easier than the other.
    Surely the best way of doing this is to get both cohorts sitting a paper from a third place / one specifically designed? There's all sorts of variables you'd have to take into account such as differing syllabuses and styles of prior exams they may have sat. Notwithstanding all of that, I absolutely agree that the Oxbridge cohort would perform significantly better than the non-Oxbridge cohort.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    Somewhat controversially, I reckon comparing Oxford and Cambridge would also reveal a statistically significant difference...


    Now do the same experiment with old A Level papers compared to new ones...
    I genuinely want to do this but I can't find many old papers online - and its even harder to find the syllabi!
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    Please explain how this sort of language:

    Please explain how this sort of language:

    (Originally Posted by DavidCrow)
    They made us

    you really get it rammed down your throat

    and they really get you to pick up the pace

    threatening you with resits of the termly 3 hour collections (mocks) if you don't get at least a low 2.1, or extra holiday essays if you fail to get your tutorial essays in on time.

    Is conducive to this:

    [Oxbridge teaching] gives you that independence

    If you look back at my post, I actually said it 'gives you that independence and clarity of thought', i.e. in terms of structuring arguments, say for an essay or speech. This is completely different to independence in terms of a structured or non-structured workload.

    I do agree however that you are guided with your work at Oxbridge to a much greater extent than other universities. Nevertheless, being guided through the tutorial system is completely different to being taught - the teaching happens in lectures, which are common to every university. All degrees involve lots of independent study and reading on your part, but Oxbridge is unique because you also need huge amounts of motivation and work ethic to be able to adapt to the guided tutorial structure for your own personal benefit, on top of the unstructured lectures.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamika)
    Surely the best way of doing this is to get both cohorts sitting a paper from a third place / one specifically designed? There's all sorts of variables you'd have to take into account such as differing syllabuses and styles of prior exams they may have sat. Notwithstanding all of that, I absolutely agree that the Oxbridge cohort would perform significantly better than the non-Oxbridge cohort.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    Somewhat controversially, I reckon comparing Oxford and Cambridge would also reveal a statistically significant difference...




    I genuinely want to do this but I can't find many old papers online - and its even harder to find the syllabi!
    I might be able to help.

    I recall during my days we had a green booklet of past exam papers, in particular 1981 to 1985 for MEI Maths 1, Maths 2 and Maths 0 (Special Paper). There might have been an equivalent for Further Maths but all I got were separate papers.

    Now if only I knew where I had put them .....
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I would say that selection at many top companies is extremely cut throat now and they are really looking for genuine ability and fit to their roles, not just the alma mater of your degree, no matter how glossy.
    Indeed. This is the crux. You get the job for who you are, not what university you went to.

    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    Sussex is on the same level as the above which means it is not very good - and I have sampled lectures at Bham and Soton too - they are dire !

    The course is sponsored by my employers of which I got into because I got a 2.1 from LSE, it's really none of your business especially since you haven't the guts to say which university you attend if any.

    Go on .... confirm our prejudices and say Manchester
    The University of Sussex (which you are currently at doing an undergraduate degree) is a very good university. It has Study Abroad links with Ivy League institutions. That means, it's pretty good.

    So you graduated with a 2:1 from LSE in 2000, and now you are doing a 'short course' at Sussex. But you also applied to Oxford in 2012. I sense some serious trolling.

    I'd be interested to hear, what have you been doing since your LSE degree, working in McDonalds? Surely your banking career is underway by now?

    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    That there are only a limited number of teaching positions at Oxford in itself tells you that only the best get jobs there, same with the Harvards and Princetons of the world.

    Logic then dictates that Teaching at a Russell is a second rate choice. In fact some of them can't even speak English to the requisite standards.
    It doesn't mean though that those not accepted at Oxbridge/Ivy League are bad. It means they are really really good, just not as good.

    You put it into perspective don't you. UK - Second best in the world for higher education. 116 Universities in the UK. Therefore, any top 30 UK university is by world university standards, very very good.

    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    IB target universities are fact and the likes of Leeds are NOT a target - get over it.
    'get over it'. Not really something I'd expect an LSE graduate to try and win an argument with. Someone with a First or a 2:1 from Leeds has a good chance of a career in whatever this wish IF they are a good candidate.

    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    My opinion is just that; no one is forcing you to listen to me but since it bothers you so much, I guess the truth must hurt ?
    I see myself as Professor Snape, attending to Trolls in the Dungeon.

    (Original post by dbkey)
    But the student who achieves a 1st from a non-Oxbridge uni CANNOT be deemed less bright than a 2:1 from Oxbridge, simply because the maximum one can achieve is a 1st!
    You've just landed the golfball in the managers office with this one. This is the stone wall key point.

    (Original post by Drederick Tatum)
    Again, this is does not correspond to what I have said. Most of what you say here I agree with but I think it's unfair to criticise me for snobbery when I'm just trying to evaluate the relative merits of two courses and not the individuals doing them.
    (Original post by Drederick Tatum)
    Also, why am I suddenly called 'Derrick'? My name's clearly Drederick.

    Or Mr Tatum.
    You seem like a most reasonably poster. And I will get your name right this time Drederick (not Derrick).

    (Original post by DavidCrow)
    Degrees at Oxford and York are just imo not the same. The existence of the weekly (sometimes two-weekly) tutorial at Oxford with its strict essay deadline is the key discriminator between the two. It gives you that independence and clarity of thought that other universities just can't do, teaches you how to time manage to the extreme and makes you so much more employable.
    I'm at The University of York doing Politics. I know people with A*AA who got 2:2's (end of First Year). So it's far from easy. I accept the teaching standard is different, but it's certainly not much harder and I wouldn't agree it makes you 'so much more employable'
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eboracum)
    x
    By large I agree with what you say. However, your view is slightly starry eyed.. Here are five firms where I can say with confidence that a first from Leeds would not be as competitive as a 2:1 from Oxford ceteris paribus.

    Goldman Sachs, Mckinsey, Lazard, Oliver Wyman and Bain & Co.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LoseSmallWinBig)
    By large I agree with what you say. However, your view is slightly starry eyed.. Here are five firms where I can say with confidence that a first from Leeds would not be as competitive as a 2:1 from Oxford ceteris paribus.

    Goldman Sachs, Mckinsey, Lazard, Oliver Wyman and Bain & Co.
    Add to that the BBC, MI5, Civil Service, newspapers such as Torygraph, Guardian, Times, legal firms.

    The last is even worse whereby it semms you must fit at least one of these categories:

    Public school educated
    Oxbridge educated
    White
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by speakerfone)
    legal firms.

    The last is even worse whereby it semms you must fit at least one of these categories:

    Public school educated
    Oxbridge educated
    White
    Total rubbish.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by speakerfone)
    Add to that the BBC, MI5, Civil Service, newspapers such as Torygraph, Guardian, Times, legal firms.

    The last is even worse whereby it semms you must fit at least one of these categories:

    Public school educated
    Oxbridge educated
    White
    Errrrr. Add none of those... Particularly the legal one. I am none of those and it never held me back.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eboracum)
    You've just landed the golfball in the managers office with this one. This is the stone wall key point.
    Here is the point you refer to:

    But the student who achieves a 1st from a non-Oxbridge uni CANNOT be deemed less bright than a 2:1 from Oxbridge, simply because the maximum one can achieve is a 1st!

    This is, of course, true - but completely irrelevant. Stop talking about the people studying at the institutions and focus on the degrees.

    If some posters stopped taking criticisms of the university that they attend(ed) personally, we might actually be able to have a proper discussion.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eboracum)
    Indeed. This is the crux. You get the job for who you are, not what university you went to.
    The University of Sussex (which you are currently at doing an undergraduate degree) is a very good university.
    Wrong - University counts

    Also - I am not doing a degree at Sussex, it's too crap for me.

    (Original post by Eboracum)
    It has Study Abroad links with Ivy League institutions. That means, it's pretty good.
    Nonsense it has no such links

    (Original post by Eboracum)
    So you graduated with a 2:1 from LSE in 2000, and now you are doing a 'short course' at Sussex. But you also applied to Oxford in 2012. I sense some serious trolling.
    Wrong again - never applied to Oxbridge

    Tell you what you stick to your lousy RG2 uni and leave the factual conversations to the rest of us ok ?

    (Original post by Eboracum)

    I'd be interested to hear, what have you been doing since your LSE degree, working in McDonalds? Surely your banking career is underway by now?
    Yeah right as if I have any inclination to explain to you what I am doing - you on the other ask a lot but have yet to even reveal where they did their degree

    Is it Manchester ? Ashamed ? wouldn't surprise me one bit.

    (Original post by Eboracum)
    It doesn't mean though that those not accepted at Oxbridge/Ivy League are bad. It means they are really really good, just not as good.
    That's a silly statement; spurious and meaningless too since you could apply that to anything.

    (Original post by Eboracum)
    You put it into perspective don't you. UK - Second best in the world for higher education. 116 Universities in the UK. Therefore, any top 30 UK university is by world university standards, very very good.

    'get over it'. Not really something I'd expect an LSE graduate to try and win an argument with. Someone with a First or a 2:1 from Leeds has a good chance of a career in whatever this wish IF they are a good candidate.
    Not at all - very simple look at the THES (though not perfect by any means) and you will find where any uni lies relative to the world

    A degree from Leeds no matter what the class will stand little chance of getting into IB so no, a Leeds graduate will not have the same chance as an LSE/Imperial/UCL/ST Andrews and a host of other universities.

    (Original post by Eboracum)
    I see myself as Professor Snape, attending to Trolls in the Dungeon.
    Are You sure you are not Professor Troll
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    Wrong - University counts

    Also - I am not doing a degree at Sussex, it's too crap for me.



    Nonsense it has no such links



    Wrong again - never applied to Oxbridge

    Tell you what you stick to your lousy RG2 uni and leave the factual conversations to the rest of us ok ?



    Yeah right as if I have any inclination to explain to you what I am doing - you on the other ask a lot but have yet to even reveal where they did their degree

    Is it Manchester ? Ashamed ? wouldn't surprise me one bit.



    That's a silly statement; spurious and meaningless too since you could apply that to anything.



    Not at all - very simple look at the THES (though not perfect by any means) and you will find where any uni lies relative to the world

    A degree from Leeds no matter what the class will stand little chance of getting into IB so no, a Leeds graduate will not have the same chance as an LSE/Imperial/UCL/ST Andrews and a host of other universities.



    Are You sure you are not Professor Troll
    So what have you been doing since 2000? In the interest of full disclosure and so that we can judge the context from which you rant, I think you should give us an idea .


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    So what have you been doing since 2000? In the interest of full disclosure and so that we can judge the context from which you rant, I think you should give us an idea .


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So what have you been doing since 2000?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    So what have you been doing since 2000?
    In 2000 I was 12. So take a wild guess.... I've told you where I graduated from (your RG2), and you know what I am doing now and what I have been doing for the last couple of years.

    Answer the question.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    So what have you been doing since 2000?
    Quite frankly, if you only got a 2:1 from LSE you have no right to be talking down on anyone...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illusionz)
    Quite frankly, if you only got a 2:1 from LSE you have no right to be talking down on anyone...
    I wouldn't say talking down but I most definitely have a right to comment on the Leeds and Manchesters of this world.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    In 2000 I was 12. So take a wild guess.... I've told you where I graduated from (your RG2), and you know what I am doing now and what I have been doing for the last couple of years.

    Answer the question.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No you didn't you only said an RG2 , which one ?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LoseSmallWinBig)
    By large I agree with what you say. However, your view is slightly starry eyed.. Here are five firms where I can say with confidence that a first from Leeds would not be as competitive as a 2:1 from Oxford ceteris paribus.

    Goldman Sachs, Mckinsey, Lazard, Oliver Wyman and Bain & Co.
    But the individual candidate may be just as competitive.

    (Original post by speakerfone)
    Add to that the BBC, MI5, Civil Service, newspapers such as Torygraph, Guardian, Times, legal firms.

    The last is even worse whereby it semms you must fit at least one of these categories:

    Public school educated
    Oxbridge educated
    White
    This is factually incorrect. I know people who work for those organisations or in those professions who are none of the above.

    (Original post by Drederick Tatum)
    This is, of course, true - but completely irrelevant. Stop talking about the people studying at the institutions and focus on the degrees.

    If some posters stopped taking criticisms of the university that they attend(ed) personally, we might actually be able to have a proper discussion.
    But the debate should be about individuals shouldn't it Drederick?. Otherwise why have interviews? Just employ the people from Oxford and give no one else a shot? You're living in cuckoo land if you believe your Oxford degree will get you a job alone.

    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    Nonsense it has no such links
    Here is a link to The University of Sussex's North American Study Abroad partners. In which you will find Penn (and other really good universities). So that's one 'fact' you failed to mention.

    http://www.sussex.ac.uk/study/sabroa...s/northamerica

    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    Tell you what you stick to your lousy RG2 uni and leave the factual conversations to the rest of us ok ?
    We've got Penn, Columbia, and Berkeley. And Sydney, Singapore and others. Oh, and SciencesPo. World class universities sending their students to our uni, because, we're world class as well. Not so lousy now punk?

    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    Yeah right as if I have any inclination to explain to you what I am doing - you on the other ask a lot but have yet to even reveal where they did their degree
    If you've got a 2:1 from LSE I'd expect you to be pretty smart. Yet your comments could be attributed to a trained monkey. I would suggest that you haven't studied at LSE, or that you have and you have below 2:1 honours, or more likely you applied to Oxford in 2012, didn't get in and are now at Sussex (no shame in that son).

    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    Is it Manchester ? Ashamed ? wouldn't surprise me one bit.
    Seeing as you love league tables, Manchester is 49th in the World. So no one is ashamed to go there by any means.

    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    Not at all - very simple look at the THES (though not perfect by any means) and you will find where any uni lies relative to the world

    A degree from Leeds no matter what the class will stand little chance of getting into IB so no, a Leeds graduate will not have the same chance as an LSE/Imperial/UCL/ST Andrews and a host of other universities.
    Again what does and doesn't make a league table perfect? I've argued previously against them. But who decides, you? Sat in your uni room at Sussex? What gives you the legitimacy to decide and to rank these universities? But seeing as we are picking arbitrary rankings out of the sky I'd argue Leeds is just as good as St Andrews and Exeter. I'd argue Manchester is better than them both, although in reality they are all roughly the same.

    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    Are You sure you are not Professor Troll
    I congratulate you on your role in Harry Potter.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    No you didn't you only said an RG2 , which one ?
    Sheffield. Your turn.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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