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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eboracum)
    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.
    Sure. But that’s almost the point. Those high-achieving individuals are dotted throughout other universities, whilst at Oxford/Cambridge/Imperial/LSE, etc. they are concentrated. To be slightly facile, that’s why a college of 400 students can compete against universities of 30,000 on University Challenge.
    And I take the point: a First from other AAA-type universities would likely do fine in Oxford Finals.
    But Aston simply isn’t at that standard.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by und)
    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.
    So what is your own opinion on why it might be less rigorous?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eboracum)
    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.
    That's the point!

    Someone with a 1st from even the Uni of McDonalds could be classed as bright as someone else from Cambridge, the reason being it's impossible to get better than a 1st. For all we know, McGraduate might have got 100% in everything he / she took.

    Therefore it's impossible to say (with complete certainty) that someone with a 1st from Machester is any less bright than someone with a 1st from Cambridge.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by speakerfone)
    That's the point!

    Someone with a 1st from even the Uni of McDonalds could be classed as bright as someone else from Cambridge, the reason being it's impossible to get better than a 1st. For all we know, McGraduate might have got 100% in everything he / she took.

    Therefore it's impossible to say (with complete certainty) that someone with a 1st from Machester is any less bright than someone with a 1st from Cambridge.
    Until he or she is admitted to the same MA or graduate scheme as an Oxbridge/RG peer. And then, as a general trend, those pre-uni academic hierarchies start to reassert themselves. Which is surely part of the reason that Oxbridge has produced so many world-respected politicians and top scientists and industry leaders, etc.
    We’ll argue about the meritocracy/Old Boys Network elsewhere, but it’s surely not a coincidence that the bluechip careers are saturated with graduates from prestigious unis. There must be some reason for that correlation, which doesn’t fit with the idea that a First from University of McDonalds is better than a 2.1 from Oxford.
    FWIW, I do think that a First from Manchester looks a little better on the CV. Maybe not from Aston though. But at the same time, my experience is that my friends with a 2.1 from Oxford are generally better academically than those with a First from elsewhere, eg. Aberystwyth, Leicester.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by playingcards)
    Until he or she is admitted to the same MA or graduate scheme as an Oxbridge/RG peer. And then, as a general trend, those pre-uni academic hierarchies start to reassert themselves. Which is surely part of the reason that Oxbridge has produced so many world-respected politicians and top scientists and industry leaders, etc.
    We’ll argue about the meritocracy/Old Boys Network elsewhere, but it’s surely not a coincidence that the bluechip careers are saturated with graduates from prestigious unis. There must be some reason for that correlation, which doesn’t fit with the idea that a First from anywhere is better than a 2.1 from Oxford.
    Kind of self-perpetuating, the rich and famous tend to get to places not entirely on their own merit.

    Should we also add to this list the members of the cabinet and what good they've done over the last few decades? How can Osbourne, a St. Paul's public schoolboy and history grad become chancellor and how well has he done?

    Also, many employers mistakenly think MA (Oxon / Cantab) is a postgrad qualification.

    But I do think someone with a 1st from Mc would not be of the same calibre as someone with a 1st from BK!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Are you actually being serious?

    Many people on this thread are confusing higher employability rates with higher quality employability rates. Also, i fell off of my chair due to gut pain when i first saw how aston tries to propel itself ahead of oxbridge, I don't want to have murder on my conscience so please try not to die of laughter:

    Www.aston.ac.uk/attractive

    "Hey, im trying to save the economy from a recession here!!... brb" *swishes hair for the cameras*
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ilyas)
    Are you actually being serious?

    Many people on this thread are confusing higher employability rates with higher quality employability rates. Also, i fell off of my chair due to gut pain when i first saw how aston tries to propel itself ahead of oxbridge, I don't want to have murder on my conscience so please try not to die of laughter:

    Www.aston.ac.uk/attractive

    "Hey, im trying to save the economy from a recession here!!... brb" *swishes hair for the cameras*
    They're just using statistics in their favour to try winning people over, like the "a higher proportion of our students gain employment than those at Oxbridge"

    Obviously they can say this because a good chunk of Oxbridge graduates go onto post-grad whereas, I'm guessing, only a small minority of those at Aston do.

    But yes, looking at that link it is rather embarrassing for Aston.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ilyas)
    Are you actually being serious?

    Many people on this thread are confusing higher employability rates with higher quality employability rates. Also, i fell off of my chair due to gut pain when i first saw how aston tries to propel itself ahead of oxbridge, I don't want to have murder on my conscience so please try not to die of laughter:

    Www.aston.ac.uk/attractive

    "Hey, im trying to save the economy from a recession here!!... brb" *swishes hair for the cameras*
    Increase the happiness of the many rather than the few . That website has some impressive statistics and it makes people think.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    To highlight the typical difference in the amount of content between an Oxbridge an Aston degree, here is the Aston syllabus for maths: http://www1.aston.ac.uk/study/underg...atics/#modules.

    Pretty lightweight if you ask me. I probably covered more maths than the first two years of the Aston degree in one quarter of my first year studying Natural Sciences (not even maths) at Cambridge. I would have no qualms in saying 99% of Oxbridge students studying maths would be able to get a first in that Aston course with their eyes shut.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    They're just using statistics in their favour to try winning people over, like the "a higher proportion of our students gain employment than those at Oxbridge"

    Obviously they can say this because a good chunk of Oxbridge graduates go onto post-grad whereas, I'm guessing, only a small minority of those at Aston do.

    But yes, looking at that link it is rather embarrassing for Aston.
    I'm talking about the average attractiveness of an aston grad being higher.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nichrome)
    To highlight the typical difference in the amount of content between an Oxbridge an Aston degree, here is the Aston syllabus for maths: http://www1.aston.ac.uk/study/underg...atics/#modules.

    Pretty lightweight if you ask me. I probably covered more maths than the first two years of the Aston degree in one quarter of my first year studying Natural Sciences (not even maths) at Cambridge. I would have no qualms in saying 99% of Oxbridge students studying maths would be able to get a first in that Aston course with their eyes shut.
    That is indeed quite disturbing.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nichrome)
    To highlight the typical difference in the amount of content between an Oxbridge an Aston degree, here is the Aston syllabus for maths: http://www1.aston.ac.uk/study/underg...atics/#modules.

    Pretty lightweight if you ask me. I probably covered more maths than the first two years of the Aston degree in one quarter of my first year studying Natural Sciences (not even maths) at Cambridge. I would have no qualms in saying 99% of Oxbridge students studying maths would be able to get a first in that Aston course with their eyes shut.
    Put it this way, the first two years of analysis at Aston doesn't even cover the analysis you get taught in the 8 week first term of first year mathematics at Oxford, and to think you can even compare a degree in mathematics from Oxford/Cambridge to one from Aston...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    Put it this way, the first two years of analysis at Aston doesn't even cover the analysis you get taught in the 8 week first term of first year mathematics at Oxford, and to think you can even compare a degree in mathematics from Oxford/Cambridge to one from Aston...
    Funny how you mention comparing Aston to Oxford / Cambridge for maths and not COWI.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lotsofq)
    Funny how you mention comparing Aston to Oxford / Cambridge for maths and not COWI.
    Not really, I don't know enough about the Warwick/Imperial courses to compare.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nichrome)
    To highlight the typical difference in the amount of content between an Oxbridge an Aston degree, here is the Aston syllabus for maths: http://www1.aston.ac.uk/study/underg...atics/#modules.

    Pretty lightweight if you ask me. I probably covered more maths than the first two years of the Aston degree in one quarter of my first year studying Natural Sciences (not even maths) at Cambridge. I would have no qualms in saying 99% of Oxbridge students studying maths would be able to get a first in that Aston course with their eyes shut.
    Maths is one of our weakest degrees at aston. It use to be required CCC everyone knows this. However first year is deliberately "easy" so everyone is on the same par as we have international students and so on. So pretty weak excuse.

    Oh yeah, first year doesnt count towards your grade either.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If I had to choose right here right now, in all honestly I'd take the 2.1 from Oxford. I'm going on to study Law (not at Oxbridge ), and the minimum requirement for most jobs is a 2.1, so as long as you'd built your application up in other ways, I reckon I'd stand a better chance if I were going for the same jobs as the typical Oxford graduate would with an Aston degree.

    BUT if I was applying for a postgraduate Law degree (let's say, for instance, Oxford's BCL) I'd take the 1st from Aston. When it comes to applying for the most competitive Masters courses at prestigious universities, they'd take the Aston grad who got a first over the Oxford 2.1.

    At the end of the day, even though I'm sure that Aston is a good university and everything, it's harder to make a straight comparison with RG groups. For one, their entry requirements would be different. For UG Law, a First from universities that have similar admissions requirements as Oxford (LSE, UCL, Imperial, Warwick, Bristol, King's, Durham etc.) would probably stand you in better stead than a 2.1 from Oxford
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by speakerfone)
    So what is your own opinion on why it might be less rigorous?
    I'm not in a position to compare, so I'm trusting what Intriguing Alias has to say. I just want to make an informed decision about which university to choose, and what IA said about Imperial sort of put me off.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    Not really, I don't know enough about the Warwick/Imperial courses to compare.
    Despite your promoting Oxford for maths, it really isn't level with Cambridge I'm afraid, close but not quite equal.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by caveman123)
    Despite your promoting Oxford for maths, it really isn't level with Cambridge I'm afraid, close but not quite equal.
    I am aware of this. However, it's only really in fourth year that Cambridge pulls ahead, in the first 3 years the courses are both very similar.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    I am aware of this. However, it's only really in fourth year that Cambridge pulls ahead, in the first 3 years the courses are both very similar.
    I know you don't have experience of Part III (as you're still an undergrad if I'm not mistaken) but sometimes I do feel Part III is so difficult because the lecturers want to show off their specialist subject, rather than actually teach what's required and useful.

    Would you agree?
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    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.