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

Scroll to see replies

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.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 161

speakerfone

Original post by playingcards

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!

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 162

Venomilys

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*

Reply 163

Noble.

Original post by Ilyas

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.

Reply 164

Bill_Gates

Original post by Ilyas

Increase the happiness of the many rather than the few :smile:

. That website has some impressive statistics and it makes people think.

Reply 165

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/undergraduate/courses/school/eas/bsc-mathematics/#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.

Reply 166

Venomilys

Original post by Noble.

I'm talking about the average attractiveness of an aston grad being higher.

Reply 167

Venomilys

Original post by Nichrome

That is indeed quite disturbing.

Reply 168

Noble.

Original post by Nichrome

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...

Reply 169

lotsofq

Original post by Noble.

Funny how you mention comparing Aston to Oxford / Cambridge for maths and not COWI.

Reply 170

Noble.

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.

Reply 171

Bill_Gates

Original post by Nichrome

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.

Reply 172

DiyaM95

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 :wink:

), 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 :smile:

Reply 173

und

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.

Reply 174

caveman123

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.

Reply 175

Noble.

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.

Reply 176

caveman123

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?

Reply 177

RichE

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.

Given your next post, what edge do you think Cambridge has?

Reply 178

poiuy

Well if you have to pass the initial online screening process of graduate schemes, only the classification matters. A 2.1 is often the minimum for grad programmes, yet if you had a 2.2 from Oxbridge you wouldn't pass the screening (unless you lied and later explained why you lied in the interview) but someone with a 2.1 from Aston could pass the initial screening.

Reply 179

TooIntelligent

A 2.1 from Oxbridge OBVIOUSLY. Most people have never even heard of Aston before (myself included). What is the point in getting a 1st if it's from a crappy place??