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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KD35)
    Really? Why are Oxfords graduate salaries and employment numbers falling behind LSE,UCL and Imperial then?

    The reign of Oxbridge is coming to an end IMO. Other universities are catching up
    Is that so? Oxbridge don't tend to offer technical courses but broad academic ones. It may be expected in a globalised world where specialisation is the thing to do.

    The only way to earn money without specialisation is to get a job in a closed-shop sector like politics or journalism.

    I think maybe for someone who has more of a generalist intelligence an academic degree from Oxford is their best shot at getting such a job.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LoseSmallWinBig)
    LSE and Imperial are specialist institutions. Oxbridge offer Classics, History of Art and all full of students who don't seek commercial careers in the city. You can't compare the two.

    Oxford and Cambridge are ahead of UCL for graduate salary/numbers arguably their closest multi faculty competitor.

    Argument successfully debunked.
    Oxford isn't.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noobynoo)
    Depends on the prejudices of your employer I expect. [snip]
    I don't see why you have so many negs for this comment. Strictly speaking you are correct regardless of whether a 2:i from Oxbridge is harder to get than a first from Aston.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Intriguing Alias)
    x
    Would you say the same about other universities like Oxford and Warwick, or just Imperial? It feels hardly fair that a significant number of students at Imperial who narrowly missed out on Cambridge (eg. getting 1,2 in STEP where others with the same were accepted) are short-changed when it comes to the academic rigour of their education.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by und)
    .
    I haven't personally seen Oxford or Warwick's so I can't comment. My DoS also works at imperial so he's sent through some sheets, that's the only reason I've seen them. I'm certainly not saying it's fair, yet only a small percentage of imperial students get 1sts so seems like they've set things at the right difficulty for their students (as I think they don't do comparative grading).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by und)
    Would you say the same about other universities like Oxford and Warwick, or just Imperial? It feels hardly fair that a significant number of students at Imperial who narrowly missed out on Cambridge (eg. getting 1,2 in STEP where others with the same were accepted) are short-changed when it comes to the academic rigour of their education.
    Are you implying those at Imperial are not getting as rigorous education as others at Cambridge?

    If the low quality of teaching at Imperial is to be believed, then in fact the top students at Imperial are receiving at least, if not more, a rigorous education, given the need for extra self learning.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dbkey)
    Are you implying those at Imperial are not getting as rigorous education as others at Cambridge?

    If the low quality of teaching at Imperial is to be believed, then in fact the top students at Imperial are receiving at least, if not more, a rigorous education, given the need for extra self learning.
    The point is that the exams and problem sheets are apparently a 'joke' compared to Cambridge.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a10)
    If you're good you're good it doesn't necessarily mean one who went to either institution (oxford/cam) is "more intelligent" in every way. There are so many examples of genius's who never went to oxford/cam but are possibly the most intelligent people on this earth.
    Well done son.

    If Candidate A goes to Oxbridge, and Candidate B goes to Aston, it doesn't then condemn Candidate B to be forever a worse student academically. Candidate B might work harder, and overtake Candidate A during the three years of university. Getting into Oxbridge is based on one good application, and one good interview. You have to have put together a good application at that particular moment and have to have performed well at that particular moment (of interview) in that particular room in front of those particular people, it isn't like arriving at the gates of heaven where a decision on entry defines the entire rest of your existence.

    After that things are relative. I'd argue Russell Group (and other similar) universities aren't too far behind Oxbridge, a student going in to one of those who gets a First (which is really hard) is pretty elite. The question becomes at what point is the cut off. At what point does a First become lesser than a 2:1 from Oxbridge, I'd probably argue non-Russell (perhaps with the exception of St Andrews and Bath), although this purely plucking opinions out of the air, I've not studied at either of those so it does become hard to say.

    So the crux is, I'd take the 2:1 from Oxbridge, but not over any university. I'd take a First from Durham, Bristol, York, Nottingham etc over a 2:1 from Oxbridge.

    It's important to note Aston is still a very good university. And a 2:1 from Oxbridge is very good as well (the joker that said it wasn't, get your coat son).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by und)
    The point is that the exams and problem sheets are apparently a 'joke' compared to Cambridge.
    Great quote, "apparently"!

    So you've no idea but are basing it on hearsay?

    Nevertheless, you could be right but have you spared a moment's thought on the fact Cambridge has APPARENTLY "amazing" one to one tutorials?

    If so, how do their problem sheets and exams compare to other places where there is no such luxury?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by curiousquest)
    Great quote, "apparently"!

    So you've no idea but are basing it on hearsay?

    Nevertheless, you could be right but have you spared a moment's thought on the fact Cambridge has APPARENTLY "amazing" one to one tutorials?

    If so, how does that compare to other places where there is no such luxury?
    I was quoting Intriguing Alias who did indeed say they were a 'joke', and then someone asked me why I thought it might be less rigorous. Maybe you should go back and read the conversation from the start to understand why I said that, and in particular why it was in quotation marks.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eboracum)
    Well done son.

    If Candidate A goes to Oxbridge, and Candidate B goes to Aston, it doesn't then condemn Candidate B to be forever a worse student academically. Candidate B might work harder, and overtake Candidate A during the three years of university. Getting into Oxbridge is based on one good application, and one good interview. You have to have put together a good application at that particular moment and have to have performed well at that particular moment (of interview) in that particular room in front of those particular people, it isn't like arriving at the gates of heaven where a decision on entry defines the entire rest of your existence.

    After that things are relative. I'd argue Russell Group (and other similar) universities aren't too far behind Oxbridge, a student going in to one of those who gets a First (which is really hard) is pretty elite. The question becomes at what point is the cut off. At what point does a First become lesser than a 2:1 from Oxbridge, I'd probably argue non-Russell (perhaps with the exception of St Andrews and Bath), although this purely plucking opinions out of the air, I've not studied at either of those so it does become hard to say.

    So the crux is, I'd take the 2:1 from Oxbridge, but not over any university. I'd take a First from Durham, Bristol, York, Nottingham etc over a 2:1 from Oxbridge.

    It's important to note Aston is still a very good university. And a 2:1 from Oxbridge is very good as well (the joker that said it wasn't, get your coat son).
    I’m not entirely convinced by this. It’s certainly not about one-off performance at a particular moment. My friends at Oxford had near enough straight A* at GCSE and consistently top UMS marks at A-Level, which isn’t necessarily the case for really good but not elite universities such as Bath. This is about long-term, sustained academic ability proven at every level up to university, and just because they don’t go on to get a First doesn’t imply they slipped behind those who they were consistently outperforming at school.
    My brother is on track for a First at Manchester. Much as I’m proud of him for that, I know he’s not at the same academic standard as my friends who left Oxford with a strong 2.1. There are a few universities that are definitely closer (UCL, Bristol, Warwick), but Aston isn’t amongst them.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by playingcards)
    I’m not entirely convinced by this. It’s certainly not about one-off performance at a particular moment. My friends at Oxford had near enough straight A* at GCSE and consistently top UMS marks at A-Level, which isn’t necessarily the case for really good but not elite universities such as Bath. This is about long-term, sustained academic ability proven at every level up to university, and just because they don’t go on to get a First doesn’t imply they slipped behind those who they were consistently outperforming at school.
    My brother is on track for a First at Manchester. Much as I’m proud of him for that, I know he’s not at the same academic standard as my friends who left Oxford with a strong 2.1. There are a few universities that are definitely closer (UCL, Bristol, Warwick), but Aston isn’t amongst them.
    What people don't seem to realise that when you get to Oxford/Cambridge you're competing against some of the best students, so someone who gets straight A*s at A-Level/GCSE is no longer competing against the majority of students, but competing against some of the best - so I don't really know why people think getting straight A*s to then getting a 2:1 at Oxford/Cambridge suddenly means you've underachieved while at University...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    What people don't seem to realise that when you get to Oxford/Cambridge you're competing against some of the best students, so someone who gets straight A*s at A-Level/GCSE is no longer competing against the majority of students, but competing against some of the best - so I don't really know why people think getting straight A*s to then getting a 2:1 at Oxford/Cambridge suddenly means you've underachieved while at University...
    Exactly.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by playingcards)
    I’m not entirely convinced by this. It’s certainly not about one-off performance at a particular moment. My friends at Oxford had near enough straight A* at GCSE and consistently top UMS marks at A-Level, which isn’t necessarily the case for really good but not elite universities such as Bath. This is about long-term, sustained academic ability proven at every level up to university, and just because they don’t go on to get a First doesn’t imply they slipped behind those who they were consistently outperforming at school.
    My brother is on track for a First at Manchester. Much as I’m proud of him for that, I know he’s not at the same academic standard as my friends who left Oxford with a strong 2.1. There are a few universities that are definitely closer (UCL, Bristol, Warwick), but Aston isn’t amongst them.
    What course does your brother do?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    What people don't seem to realise that when you get to Oxford/Cambridge you're competing against some of the best students, so someone who gets straight A*s at A-Level/GCSE is no longer competing against the majority of students, but competing against some of the best - so I don't really know why people think getting straight A*s to then getting a 2:1 at Oxford/Cambridge suddenly means you've underachieved while at University...
    Are the marks adjusted against results to such an extent that it is actually a competition though - like do the professors say the best 5% of you are getting firsts etc; and no more? Or are there clear boundaries where if you get over them, irrespective of how anyone else does, you get a 2.1, 2.2 or a 1st?

    Because I would imagine for something like Maths or Physics, the academic community would feel some obligation to provide degrees over all universities that essentially resulted in the same grades to ability. e.g. one would expect more people to get 1sts and 2.1s at Oxford for Maths or Physics than at Sussex, rather than far fewer decent degree marks at Oxford than at Sussex, because Oxford would be harder and more competitive...

    (genuinely interested in the answer to this btw).
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bc001)
    Are the marks adjusted against results to such an extent that it is actually a competition though - like do the professors say the best 5% of you are getting firsts etc; and no more? Or are there clear boundaries where if you get over them, irrespective of how anyone else does, you get a 2.1, 2.2 or a 1st?
    Yes, they limit what percentage of students are allowed firsts, 2:1s etc.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    x


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Politics
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by playingcards)
    Politics
    Interesting.

    In my experience, politics is a subject where A-levels aren't indicative of university performance. Some people 'get' what is required to do good undergrad research and work in social sciences; some don't.

    It is possible your brother is just better at politics at uni than they are.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by playingcards)
    I’m not entirely convinced by this. It’s certainly not about one-off performance at a particular moment. My friends at Oxford had near enough straight A* at GCSE and consistently top UMS marks at A-Level, which isn’t necessarily the case for really good but not elite universities such as Bath. This is about long-term, sustained academic ability proven at every level up to university, and just because they don’t go on to get a First doesn’t imply they slipped behind those who they were consistently outperforming at school.
    My brother is on track for a First at Manchester. Much as I’m proud of him for that, I know he’s not at the same academic standard as my friends who left Oxford with a strong 2.1. There are a few universities that are definitely closer (UCL, Bristol, Warwick), but Aston isn’t amongst them.
    Some of the candidates rejected from Oxbridge have that though. Candidates at the universities you talked about have those grades. My brother has all the A's and A*s and was rejected from Oxford. That's the key for me. There will be people dotted around the top 20/30 universities in the UK that have the same grades as Oxbridge candidates.

    A First at Manchester is a very good degree. I'd argue that is better than a 2:1 from Oxford, and demonstrates a stronger academic standard. Manchester is just as good as Bristol or Warwick.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bc001)
    Are the marks adjusted against results to such an extent that it is actually a competition though - like do the professors say the best 5% of you are getting firsts etc; and no more? Or are there clear boundaries where if you get over them, irrespective of how anyone else does, you get a 2.1, 2.2 or a 1st?

    Because I would imagine for something like Maths or Physics, the academic community would feel some obligation to provide degrees over all universities that essentially resulted in the same grades to ability. e.g. one would expect more people to get 1sts and 2.1s at Oxford for Maths or Physics than at Sussex, rather than far fewer decent degree marks at Oxford than at Sussex, because Oxford would be harder and more competitive...

    (genuinely interested in the answer to this btw).
    At Cambridge (can't tell you about Oxford), class boundaries are decided by apportioning a certain percentage of students to each class. For example, it would be possible to get 73% and still get a 2.1 if overall that year did well in exams. It also means that if the overall spread is quite low, the class distinctions can be very small. E.g. 53-62% for a 2.2, 62-68% for a 2.1, 68%+ for a first, which (based on true exam boundaries one year) gives a 15% difference between a 2.2 and a first, which really isn't all that much for something that can make such a huge career differece.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.