Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by polscistudent88)
    The ex chairman of GS Asset Management and chief economist did his undergrad at Sheffield and a PhD at Surrey.
    You will find that people who joined the industry decades ago come from a greater variety of universities. In recent years, with vastly increased competition, they are far more selective.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    What about a 3rd from Oxford in history and a 2:2 in maths from Manchester Met ?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James222)
    What about a 3rd from Oxford in history and a 2:2 in maths from Manchester Met ?
    doesn't happen according to unistats...

    BA (Hons) History (V100), Oxford University (full time)

    1st 22%
    2.1nd 77%
    2.2nd 1%

    you might as well ask if unicorn urine tastes better than Carling.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    2:1 from Oxbridge.

    Anything below 2:1 is a different story.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joinedup)
    doesn't happen according to unistats...

    BA (Hons) History (V100), Oxford University (full time)

    1st 22%
    2.1nd 77%
    2.2nd 1%

    you might as well ask if unicorn urine tastes better than Carling.
    it was a hypothetical situation.

    What if
    Student A dropped out of oxford History degree after 1 year
    and Student B dropped out of Uni of Manchester History Degree after 2 years.

    They both apply for a job at Mcdonalds , who will get hired ?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Of course a First from any University is excellent but the more we go down the grades, the more Oxbridge counts.

    I read the External Examiners report for Cambridge a few years ago and they basically said re 2.1s that anywhere else these students would have been given a First. ( I'll try and find it again.) There may have been grade inflation elsewhere but Oxbridge certainly hasn't had any.

    To back this up I know someone from a Comp. with a 2.2 from Cambridge - well, 2.1 in Part 1, 2.2 year Part 2 of the Tripos who got a very prestigious job. I doubt if they would have got a look in with a 2.2 from anywhere else.

    It's true that many employers have 2.1 filters: it's also true that some will take out any Oxbridge candidates for scrutiny straightaway: presumably on the basis that if Oxbridge thought they were exceptional, they may well be.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by polscistudent88)
    The ex chairman of GS Asset Management and chief economist did his undergrad at Sheffield and a PhD at Surrey.
    Yeah token gesture
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Some observations, based on personal experience and interacting/working with people in some of these areas:

    1) The entrance procedure for getting into a top university is very noisy. It is hard to predict how good someone is just from their A-level grades and an interview (even private sector job interviews are notorious for being unreliable). Therefore there is no reason to believe the average student at Oxbridge is much better than the average student at any other top Russell Group. What you do find though is that the majority of _very_ good students do end up at Oxbridge (Im not talking about those that just get top A level grades since that isnt too difficult, I meant the superhuman ones that have IMO Gold medals and suchlike). So the top 5% of students at Oxbridge will be a lot better than the top 5% of students at (eg) Imperial, but that doesnt mean the average student is much/any better.

    2) Because of the above, its very silly to say that a 2:1 from Oxbridge is 'better' (in terms of ability) than a first from a top Russell Group. The 2:1 Oxbridge student is average by Oxbridge standards, while the guy with a first might have been good enough for Oxbridge but didnt get in due to the noisy entrance procedure, or another reason. Without any more information, who knows

    3) When it comes to private sector recruitment at most financial service 'elite' jobs (eg investment banking, management consultancy, etc), having a first rather than a 2:1 doesnt matter that much. The things that matter are a) institution quality, b) experience (internships, etc), c) extracurriculars, d) personal characteristics. Whether you have a first or a 2:1 comes quite far down the list. The point of getting a first is if you go to a lower tier university and need to show that you are better than your institution quality, it has less importance if you are already somewhere elite.

    4) Having a first rather than a 2:1 does matter for jobs that recruit mainly based on raw intelligence rather than extracurriculars and personal skills. Investment banking is not one of these jobs. Things like PhD programs, some tech startups etc are (although even for these the difference between a first and a 2:1 will be less important than other things like having a strong portfolio of research experience, extracurriculars, etc)

    5) For investment banking, whether you are at Oxbridge/Imperial/LSE makes very little difference, all of these are viewed as pretty much equal. When it comes to city jobs, you will find the majority of people come from those 4 places (although there are also lots of people from other universities)

    6) There are some super-elite jobs which recruit only from Oxbridge (sometimes only from specific Oxbridge colleges). These are often private equity firms, which don't have formal graduate programs and only recruit 1-2 people every year, so there is no point in them casting the net wide.

    7) There are also some other jobs where having an Oxbridge background helps a lot, because the jobs are mainly about schmoozing with clients who have also went to Oxbridge (and private school), so having the right personal background matters a lot. These jobs are typically things like big law and private equity.

    8) As someone said above, jobs which involve 'selling' their people to clients also favour institutional prestige. Being able to tell your client that you will get a team of Cambridge graduates working on their project sounds better than having a team of Nottingham grads. However, the difference in prestige in this context between Oxbridge and the next tier down (Imperial/LSE/UCL/etc) is probably less than people here think.

    9) There is a lot of comradery between Oxbridge alumni - graduates from those two universities tend to have a lot more pride in their institution than graduates from places like Imperial/LSE (mainly of whom actively resent their university). This means that you are possibly more likely to be favoured during networking/interviews if the other person is also an Oxbridge graduate.

    10) There are no jobs which have a £60k starting salary straight from undergraduate. However a £60k+ all-in compensation package is realistic at top tier investment banks/private equity/etc (this includes salary + sign on lump sum + bonus)


    In summary; having a 2:1 from Oxbridge isnt 'better' than having a 1st elsewhere nor does it show more intelligence, and noone really views it like that. However, there are some situations where the Oxbridge brand name may help you, particularly if your job mainly involves interacting with clients who themselves are largely Oxbridge alumni. Typically, the more technical (=scientific, mathematical, etc) your job is, the less likely anyone is to care about your university background. Oxbridge bias is more common in jobs like media, law, etc, whereas noone would care in engineering, compsci, etc. Also, the jobs which do have a strong Oxbridge bias are often looking for people from a certain upbringing (private school, nice accent, able to act comfortably in formal settings around those from elite backgrounds, etc) where the Oxbridge degree is just the cherry on top. If you arent from that background, then you probably arent going to land a private equity job out of undergrad just because you want to Cambridge.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poohat)
    Some observations, based on personal experience and interacting/working with people in some of these areas:

    1) The entrance procedure for getting into a top university is very noisy. It is hard to predict how good someone is just from their A-level grades and an interview (even private sector job interviews are notorious for being unreliable). Therefore there is no reason to believe the average student at Oxbridge is much better than the average student at any other top Russell Group. What you do find though is that the majority of _very_ good students do end up at Oxbridge (Im not talking about those that just get top A level grades since that isnt too difficult, I meant the superhuman ones that have IMO Gold medals and suchlike). So the top 5% of students at Oxbridge will be a lot better than the top 5% of students at (eg) Imperial, but that doesnt mean the average student is much/any better.
    The rest of your post is fairly on point, but this is a little illogical imo.

    A Levels and interviews may be a noisy process, but you must agree that they contain some information about academic competence/intelligence. You tacitly acknowledge this anyway by saying that the superhuman bunch almost always get through the process successfully.

    Now, it's not the case that the superhuman bunch are a homogeneous group distinct from another homogeneous group composed of average Russell Group students; there is a continuum in ability in both groups, and they merge into each other smoothly. If you accept this proposition, it follows that the ability of the average Oxbridge acceptee will indeed be higher than the ability of the average Oxbridge reject.

    I do not dispute that there will be considerable overlap in the ability distribution at Oxbridge and non-Oxbridge, however.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HPF)
    Nope, it doesn't. The gap between Oxford/Cambridge and Imperial/Warwick/Durham/LSE etc. as far as prestige goes is huge.
    Not LSE. LSE is actually pretty well known.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    2:1 from Oxford
    (Unless the RG is Cambridge or Imperial)
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TeeEm)
    2:1 from Oxford
    (Unless the RG is Cambridge or Imperial)
    What would you say to an Oxbridge first v Imperial first or Oxbridge first v first anywhere else?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacktc890)
    What would you say to an Oxbridge first v Imperial first or Oxbridge first v first anywhere else?
    Well then you asking me to rate UK Universities

    This is my top 4

    Cambridge
    Oxford
    Imperial
    UCL
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Rather pointless thread that appears to have been revived. Depends entirely on the candidate, what else they've done and who wants to know.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MountKimbie)
    Rather pointless thread that appears to have been revived. Depends entirely on the candidate, what else they've done and who wants to know.
    And whether they have a personality, common sense, show initiative, have a sense of humor, how well they are likely to fit into the corporate culture, and a whole raft of other considerations.

    It's not JUST about a straight comparison between grades and universities. No real world recruiter operates that way.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TeeEm)
    Well then you asking me to rate UK Universities

    This is my top 4

    Cambridge
    Oxford
    Imperial
    UCL
    What direct, non-anecdotal real world experience of these universities have you had that renders you qualified to generically rank them?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MountKimbie)
    What direct, non-anecdotal real world experience of these universities have you had that renders you qualified to generically rank them?
    Nothing "renders me".
    I am an adult, I have an opinion, somebody asked for it, and I happily gave it.
    All the best.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TeeEm)
    Nothing "renders me".
    I am an adult, I have an opinion, somebody asked for it, and I happily gave it.
    All the best.
    You revived a thread from 2014. You gave your opinion without any explanation. Okay, you don't owe an explanation to anybody. But what happened to proper discussion...
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TeeEm)
    Well then you asking me to rate UK Universities

    This is my top 4

    Cambridge
    Oxford
    Imperial
    UCL
    Personally I'd put an Oxbridge First a fair bit ahead of the other two in terms of recognition, difficulty and achievement. Clearly the top 4 in the UK along with LSE. The others don't have the H bomb that Oxbridge has though.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TeeEm)
    Well then you asking me to rate UK Universities

    This is my top 4

    Cambridge
    Oxford
    Imperial
    UCL
    UCL lol
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

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.