What's better - a 2.1 from Oxbridge or a first from Aston?

There is high recruitment at Aston because they encourage placement years. Many have substantial work experience which has just as much value if not more value than the degree itself. Students there are practical. Long are the days when a degree itself was enough to get a job.

Ergo they recruit the experience, not the degree. The question relates to the 'quality' of the degree, not the experience.

Again, not all of the degrees come attached with placements. If you read my posts properly, you will note I made the distinction.


Posted from TSR Mobile

The OP's question is very vague so the question is open to interpretation.

The question in regards to the quality of degree in my opinion with the assumption that the degree is in the same subject, is Oxbridge, but then again, this is entirely based on assumption, not actual fact.

I read your post properly, I never disagreed. However I'm merely stating what makes Aston graduates attractive.

You're right; I'm sorry. I misjudged the tone of your post.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Or A-levels aren't a reliable indication of academic performance at university?

Just to put a bit of perspective on the classification system at Oxbridge, for people who don't go there.

2nd year Cambridge Medical Sciences: The average person in the year has 9A* at GCSE and a 96% average in their AS Levels.

The class distribution of a recent year by proportion:

First: 17.4%
2.1: 48.5%
2.2: 29.7%
Third: 2.3%
Fail: 2.0%

So to get a First, you have to be in the top 17% of a group where the average person has 96% AS Level average. And if you're in the bottom ~30% of a year group where the average person has a 96% AS Level average, you get a 2.2 (and that's ignoring the Thirds due to low numbers).

In some papers, there are internal quotas. For example, 2nd year Pathology doesn't give out more than 65% 2.1/1st. Quote from the examiner's report: "target [of Class I and Class II.i] for MVST of 32.5%-65%". They scale the marks to make sure that 35% of the year group gets below a 2.1.

So to be perfectly honest, I'd say a 2.2 in a scientific subject from Cambridge requires more work than a First from most universities.

Why do Cambridge officals purposely ensure ~35% Cambridge students achieve below a 2.1 which is in turn undesirable to employers?

The privatisation of assignments and exams makes the whole system flawed and unfair in my opinion. It isn't right that a graduate who worked significantly harder than another student at another university whose course was more demanding be refused an interview due to their university classification being 'void' at human resources.

I can quite confidently and unbiasedly a science subject at Oxbridge does require a lot more work than a lot of universities.

Why do Cambridge officals purposely ensure ~35% Cambridge students achieve below a 2.1 which is in turn undesirable to employers?

The privatisation of assignments and exams makes the whole system flawed and unfair in my opinion. It isn't right that a graduate who worked significantly harder than another student at another university whose course was more demanding be refused an interview due to their university classification being 'void' at human resources.

I can quite confidently and unbiasedly a science subject at Oxbridge does require a lot more work than a lot of universities.

To be fair, those are second year exams I'm talking about. In third year, things aren't quite as bad, but it still quite obviously varies by subjects. Eg, Engineers and Mathematicians etc still have it incredibly tough, but the Biological Sciences stop giving out quite so many 2.2s. So even across subjects within one university, it isn't even fair (and I'm doing a Bio subject, so I'm acknowledging others have it worse).

Yes, I think a fairer system would be centralised exams, so you sit the same exams regardless of university, and they could then be classified centrally.

And yes, Cambridge does indeed say A Levels are a pretty good predictor of degree success - according to their research.

This maybe slightly off-topic, but to those who are siding with Oxbridge, what university, with a 1st, would be considered better?

I think any RG uni would stick you on a 'par'.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Probably for a lot of reasons. One thing they want to do is combat grade inflation, they don't want too many people getting 1sts and 2.1s. They want to differentiate between their cohort of students, and if everyone got a 2.1 or a first (which is actually what happens in quite a few arts subjects) then it's harder to separate out the best students, which is who Cambridge ultimately cater their courses to.

You're right, it is extremely unfair, but what can employers and postgrad admission staff do? If you have two candidates, one who did very well on an easier course and one who struggled on a much harder one, then they're probably going to go with the one who did well. I now advise people with Oxbridge offers to seriously consider courses at other universities where they'll most likely have a much easier ride, be under much less stress and leave with a good classification.

But they're ultimately toying with students' futures.

They don't really care, in my experience

Probably for a lot of reasons. One thing they want to do is combat grade inflation, they don't want too many people getting 1sts and 2.1s. They want to differentiate between their cohort of students, and if everyone got a 2.1 or a first (which is actually what happens in quite a few arts subjects) then it's harder to separate out the best students, which is who Cambridge ultimately cater their courses to.

You're right, it is extremely unfair, but what can employers and postgrad admission staff do? If you have two candidates, one who did very well on an easier course and one who struggled on a much harder one, then they're probably going to go with the one who did well. I now advise people with Oxbridge offers to seriously consider courses at other universities where they'll most likely have a much easier ride, be under much less stress and leave with a good classification.

Lol, I'd say essentially all Oxbridge students would have been better off just going to another Russell Group uni in that case.

I hope you've done really well though.

Maybe that's the case, but there is obviously more to Oxbridge than just future prospects.

I very much doubt all Oxbridge 2:1 people would get a 1st elsewhere.


Posted from TSR Mobile