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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Oxford is definitely slipping both in terms of graduate earnings and research, clearly reflected in their drop in rankings (especially in the QS). I would say UCL over Oxford.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AsianPersuasian)
    Oxford is definitely slipping both in terms of graduate earnings and research, clearly reflected in their drop in rankings (especially in the QS). I would say UCL over Oxford.
    UCL over Oxford? Nah.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i_hate_teeth)
    Well as far as salaries are concerned, it's an established fact that Imperial graduates earn more than graduates from every other UK university excluding LSE. Mind you, the difference in average starting salaries between IC and LSE graduates is very small.

    I'm basing this on the time suniversity guide 2011
    Imperial also has a way more focused range of disciplines than most other universities, like LSE.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fallen)
    Just go with what you are happier with.
    Honestly, your career prospects will be fantastic at either, so you should just choose the place you like more (because if you like it, and like the course, then you are far more likely to excel)

    Edit:
    Why the neg rep?
    There is no point of going to, say, Oxford and getting a 3rd or not passing, when you could get a 1st or 2:1 at IC. Not that ICs course will be any easier.
    If you neg rep me for that, frankly you are an idiot.
    If you look at the portion of class honours, it's actually more 'difficult' to get a third from Oxford than a first! Hardly anybody from the entire university ends up with a bare pass (and Oxford also has a very low drop-out rate).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    It actually matters more what you have actually done, how you really are, and if you have connections, than your class honours, especially if both have been firsts.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    If you look at the portion of class honours, it's actually more 'difficult' to get a third from Oxford than a first! Hardly anybody from the entire university ends up with a bare pass (and Oxford also has a very low drop-out rate).
    At the same time it's more difficult getting a 2:1 at Oxford (and Cambridge) than pretty much everywhere else, and employers are interested in those getting a 2:1 and above, not a third. Also, a smaller proportion of people achieving something doesn't automatically make it harder, obviously.

    (Original post by AsianPersuasian)
    Oxford is definitely slipping both in terms of graduate earnings and research, clearly reflected in their drop in rankings (especially in the QS). I would say UCL over Oxford.
    As I pointed out in the equally ridiculous thread you made saying this. You can't conclude Oxford is 'slipping' in terms of graduate earnings and research based on their ranking dropping two places in five years on a league table where the highest weighted factor in the ranking is an opinion poll of academics :lol: Graduate earnings isn't even a factor in how QS formulate the league table, so god knows how you think the QS ranking clearly reflects a drop in graduate earnings. I also pointed out that on the QS league table both Yale and Cambridge are 'slipping' even more so than Oxford based on the change in position year on year. i.e. league tables are arbitrary nonsense.

    Also interesting that you seem to think Oxford is 'slipping' in research when, for mathematics at least, Oxford had the highest combined pure and applied research score out of all UK universities a couple of years ago.

    I'm guessing that given the fact that every single one of your posts so far on TSR has been this illogical statement arguing that Oxford/Ivies are crumbling to the ground and UCL are overtaking that you were rejected by Oxford/Ivies but have an offer from UCL? :lol:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    At the same time it's more difficult getting a 2:1 at Oxford (and Cambridge) than pretty much everywhere else, and employers are interested in those getting a 2:1 and above, not a third. Also, a smaller proportion of people achieving something doesn't automatically make it harder, obviously.
    It does mean once you get accepted into an Oxford programme, you are more likely to get a 2:1 than anything. My point anyway is that I don't see how someone could get a first at Imperial but a bare pass at Oxford doing the same programme.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    It does mean once you get accepted into an Oxford programme, you are more likely to get a 2:1 than anything. My point anyway is that I don't see how someone could get a first at Imperial but a bare pass at Oxford doing the same programme.
    Yeah, I agree it'd be pretty improbable that someone with a first from ICL not end up with at least a 2:1 at Oxford.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    Yeah, I agree it'd be pretty improbable that someone with a first from ICL not end up with at least a 2:1 at Oxford.
    Just to throw out more statistics:

    Universities with the highest proportion of first class graduates
    University of Oxford (30%) - 61% got a 2:1
    1. Imperial College (29%)
    2. University of Warwick (23%)
    3. University of Bath (23%)
    4. University of Cambridge (23%)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    If you look at the portion of class honours, it's actually more 'difficult' to get a third from Oxford than a first! Hardly anybody from the entire university ends up with a bare pass (and Oxford also has a very low drop-out rate).
    Entirely true, although Imperial's good honours rate is not much lower.

    However 10% of people do not graduate with good honours, and if you have good reason to think you might be one of them at Oxford but would get good honours at Imperial I could not possibly advise choosing Oxford.

    Of course the next question is how could someone make a judgement on how they will do at one institution versus another before they have attended either, but again I can conceive of scenarios where they could and we can't pretend to know better than them.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fallen)
    Entirely true, although Imperial's good honours rate is not much lower.

    However 10% of people do not graduate with good honours, and if you have good reason to think you might be one of them at Oxford but would get good honours at Imperial I could not possibly advise choosing Oxford.

    Of course the next question is how could someone make a judgement on how they will do at one institution versus another before they have attended either, but again I can conceive of scenarios where they could and we can't pretend to know better than them.
    If s/he likes the Natural History Museum though.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RupertTheBear)
    I heard Imperial is so hardcore that biology is seen as a soft subject.
    Indeed, the biologists are our "philosophy students" – sit around, read, seem to have nothing to do, etc.

    For what it's worth, in physics at least, we're doing a third year Oxford course in our second year; it's a pain in the arse, but that's another story altogether.

    Most departments are very well organised (apart from physics, ironically), though I've never studied at Oxford so couldn't really compare the two institutions.

    Imperial starting salaries are inflated somewhat because of the large quantity of people that go to work for investment banks (£45k starting salary + sign-on bonus). Having said that, about half of people stay in academia.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    At the same time it's more difficult getting a 2:1 at Oxford (and Cambridge) than pretty much everywhere else, and employers are interested in those getting a 2:1 and above, not a third. Also, a smaller proportion of people achieving something doesn't automatically make it harder, obviously.
    Blatantly untrue. Check the stats. These universities scale results such that a certain % get a certain class. People getting thirds looks bad on the institutions themselves, too.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i_hate_teeth)
    Imperial College is better than Oxford in pretty much every course that it offers, whether it's medicine, engineering, maths or pure sciences at both undergrad and postgrad. Imperial graudates also have higher starting salaries than oxford graduates.
    Actually not according to the league tables - or at least according to my tutor who did her undergrad at Imperial and now teaches at Oxford (physics). You can get through a course in physics at Imperial without doing general relativity at all.... which, in the eyes of the academics, brings down the quality of the course. Other than that omission, the physics course is fairly similar in what is covered to the Oxford course - though, and again according to my tutor, what is covered was often less in depth.

    And the starting salary discrepancy is due to the fact that a higher proportion of Imperial graduates work in London where salaries are higher to make up for far higher living costs.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Astronomical)
    Indeed, the biologists are our "philosophy students" – sit around, read, seem to have nothing to do, etc.

    For what it's worth, in physics at least, we're doing a third year Oxford course in our second year; it's a pain in the arse, but that's another story altogether.

    Most departments are very well organised (apart from physics, ironically), though I've never studied at Oxford so couldn't really compare the two institutions.

    Imperial starting salaries are inflated somewhat because of the large quantity of people that go to work for investment banks (£45k starting salary + sign-on bonus). Having said that, about half of people stay in academia.
    Which course incidentally? I was speaking to a 3rd year physicist at Imperial the other day and it seems that our second years are pretty much identical...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by natninja)
    Which course incidentally? I was speaking to a 3rd year physicist at Imperial the other day and it seems that our second years are pretty much identical...
    Well essentially my year has been very much a "guinea pig" year; they've changed the structure of the course such that all the material necessary for accreditation by the IoP is covered in years 1 and 2. To achieve this they ripped the solid state physics course out of third year and plonked it into second year.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Astronomical)
    Well essentially my year has been very much a "guinea pig" year; they've changed the structure of the course such that all the material necessary for accreditation by the IoP is covered in years 1 and 2. To achieve this they ripped the solid state physics course out of third year and plonked it into second year.
    Ouch yeah we don't do that until next year... But from what I gleaned, our stat mech course in second year covers most of your 3rd year stat mech and our classical mechanics course in first year covers more than all the classical mechanics in your degree - though you do a bit of quantum in first year.

    From what I gather is that your course does a bit of everything each year and builds it up each year whereas my course takes a topic and covers all the undergrad material in that topic in one go... with the exception of electromagnetism where there is a first year easy course which is basically everything that isn't relativistic and isn't in materials and then the second year course which is about EM in materials and a bit of relativistic EM.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Astronomical)
    Blatantly untrue. Check the stats. These universities scale results such that a certain % get a certain class. People getting thirds looks bad on the institutions themselves, too.
    Yes, but they're not proportionately higher. If you actually think they're scaled in such a way that a 2:1/first from other top universities is equivalent to a 2:1/first from Oxbridge then you'd be disagreeing with most academics, including external examiners for Oxford on public record. Note I'm not saying this is true for ALL non-Oxbridge universities, hence the "pretty much everywhere else" in my original comment.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    Yes, but they're not proportionately higher. If you actually think they're scaled in such a way that a 2:1/first from other top universities is equivalent to a 2:1/first from Oxbridge then you'd be disagreeing with most academics, including external examiners for Oxford on public record. Note I'm not saying this is true for ALL non-Oxbridge universities, hence the "pretty much everywhere else" in my original comment.
    I'm not disagreeing with you in that regard; of course I'd rather have a 1st/2.1 from Oxford or Cambridge (or Imperial or LSE) than other places.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by natninja)
    Ouch yeah we don't do that until next year... But from what I gleaned, our stat mech course in second year covers most of your 3rd year stat mech and our classical mechanics course in first year covers more than all the classical mechanics in your degree - though you do a bit of quantum in first year.

    From what I gather is that your course does a bit of everything each year and builds it up each year whereas my course takes a topic and covers all the undergrad material in that topic in one go... with the exception of electromagnetism where there is a first year easy course which is basically everything that isn't relativistic and isn't in materials and then the second year course which is about EM in materials and a bit of relativistic EM.
    Ah ok, so it sounds like our degrees have very different methodologies behind them; I'd probably prefer the way your course is set up, to be honest!

    How many hours of labs do you do? They're the least enjoyable part I find!
 
 
 
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • 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.