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

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Playboy King)
    If a Warwick 1st was not equal to an Oxford 1st, then it'd mean an Oxford 2.1 = Warwick 1st - and this is definitely not the case.
    Not necessarily, you could have Oxford 1st > Warwick 1st > Oxford 2.1

    (Original post by dalianatkinson)
    (i.e. not Oxbridge and possibly not LSE).
    The workload at LSE is much closer to non-Oxbridge unis than to Oxbridge. Most people at LSE do next to nothing during the year (essay subjects in particular) and then cram for 4-8 weeks in summer term.

    Agree with all your other points though.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by dalianatkinson)
    Look, I don't want to start a war, but I will answer your points.

    1. Most UGs would consider 50 hours a week ridiculous. Even Law UGs. The fact real jobs are harder is neither here nor there.

    2. AAA etc isn't any sort of mark of academic ability. At private schools (whole other debate) very mediocre candidates come away with 3 As. These people are, by and large, not impressive.

    I have friends who do Law at a variety of unis. Yes, on average, they work harder, but not to the levels being suggested here, and they will all get 2.1s. There is no doubt as to that.

    3. Yes, I feel my 6 hours is something of an exception which is almost certainly linked to my subject. I am doing the GDL at present and it certainly requires more work for similar attainment.

    4. I don't think anyone actually expects to have to work 'full-time' hours on a degree. Some choose to.

    5. I know a lot of Oxbridge students. My brother is as good an example as any. He does science (fairly demanding in relative terms). He is inherently pretty lazy, although he does 'work smart'. He is working bloody hard at Oxford.

    I know 10s of others, they range from a 3rd wrangler at Cambridge who is a genuine genius to others of similar / lesser intellignece to me. They all work harder than their equivalents (in grade terms) at lesser unis.

    6. Most people would agree on your 'little difference' as regards applicants comment, for the simple reason that these applicants are largely the same people!

    The real difference is apparent in the quality of the students at the universities. There is a real difference here, perhaps not at the top end, but certainly on average. I say this taking into account those I know personally and those I've met at assessment centres, interviews etc.

    Here you could accuse me of wearing Oxbridge tinted glasses, but I doubt I'm guilty of this as an Oxbridge reject! (A tag which I guess (putting on my Freudian hat) fits you as well).

    Finally, you seem to classify a hard working applicant as a quality one. I wouldn't. Moreover, the point I tried to make earlier is that you are forced to work harder at Oxbridge, regardless of your natural work ethic. (JP made this point as well).

    Hope you can find the various strands of reason in this garbled mess.
    I'm not starting a war with you; I just don't agree with all of your comments. Oxbridge students are, indeed, forced to work harder than their counterparts but this doesn't mean that a first from Oxbridge is more valuable than a first from any other top school. The contrary is in fact true; if somebody at a university like Warwick has achieved a first because they've actually had to motivate themself and work off their own initiative, surely for all intent and purposes that's more impressive that somebody who's achieved a first because they've been forced to do the same amount of work.

    I take on board that you have friends who study law at undergraduate level and who don't work a 40 hour week; but as somebody who is actually a law undergraduate (at, ironically, the university of Warwick) I can assure that a 40 hour week isn't anything special. Not for me nor my course mates. It is literally 28 independent hours a week (4 a day) and 12 contact hours. Seminar preparation for one seminar (of which there are 5) takes a lot longer than 4 hours in itself.

    With regards to your remark on A-levels, it's fundamentally flawed in one major respect: Warwick has the lowest number of privately educated students amongst all other Russel Group universities. Since Oxbridge take on the most is this not an argument which, if you're going to advance seriously, actually favours a first from a university like Warwick where students come from less privileged backgrounds and don't, whilst studying for their degree, have the same privileges which Oxbridge students are given?

    Finally, and this is a point which I made earlier, a university derives no benefit at all in giving their students degree classifications below what they have actually achieved. The top law schools generally have and apply the same standards and the difference between first class honours degrees from the top law schools is, therefore, largely negligible.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr_Deeds)

    Finally, and this is a point which I made earlier, a university derives no benefit at all in giving their students degree classifications below what they have actually achieved. The top law schools generally have and apply the same standards and the difference between first class honours degrees from the top law schools is, therefore, largely negligible.
    You're ignoring grading curves though. I don't know whether Warwick or Oxbridge law is graded on a curve, but I do know that several subjects at Cambridge are. So even if your work is of a standard that might get you a 1st at one university, you might fall down the curve at the other.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by BigFudamental)
    You're ignoring grading curves though. I don't know whether Warwick or Oxbridge law is graded on a curve, but I do know that several subjects at Cambridge are. So even if your work is of a standard that might get you a 1st at one university, you might fall down the curve at the other.
    Warwick do not use grade curves. Neither do, to the best of my knowledge, Cambridge or Oxford (for law). Warwick use pre-determined criteria when deciding who (if anybody), has achieved a first class mark. That criteria is virtually identical to the one which is used at Oxbridge and indeed, at most other top law schools. It is, in theory, possible for 100% of students in one year to achieve a 1. Similarly, it's possible for nobody to achieve a 1. This, IIRC, happened at Warwick the year before last.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr_Deeds)
    Warwick do not use grade curves. Neither do, to the best of my knowledge, Cambridge or Oxford (for law). Warwick use pre-determined criteria when deciding who (if anybody), has achieved a first class mark. That criteria is virtually identical to the one which is used at Oxbridge and indeed, at most other top law schools. It is, in theory, possible for 100% of students in one year to achieve a 1. Similarly, it's possible for nobody to achieve a 1. This, IIRC, happened at Warwick the year before last.
    I guess that settles it then, wonder why different departments at the same uni use different grading mechanisms.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by dalianatkinson)
    You've responded coherently to some of my points at twisted others.

    You fail to appreciate that firsts at Oxford are awarded to a quota. Thus, it does make a huge difference if your classmates are forced to work harder, as they are your competition.

    I was merely pointing out that getting AAA is no mark of ability. Thus equalling these students is not the great achievement that you claim it is.

    It's harder to get a 1st at Oxbridge as:

    1. The exams are harder.
    2. The competition is more intelligent.
    3. The competition works harder.

    You have thus far totally failed to refute point 2.

    'I'm a ******* legend, and this is getting ugly', to quote Bubba Sparx. I agree with you that the differences are slight, but I maintain they do exist.
    Oxbridge do not use quotas; ask your brother, alternatively you could have a look at JP's post, above. A first, as I'm sure you know, requires that one achieves 70%. It's theoretically possible for everybody who graduates from Oxbridge next year to do so with a first class mark.

    Secondly, I would like some proof about the exams being harder before you state that they are. I'm assuming, for you to make such a bold remark, that you've compared a law exam from Oxford/Cambridge with one from another top-ranked school?

    Finally, I've already told you what I think about the difference in people's intelligence/ work ethos. It's pretty unnerving that you're so willing to easily stereotype people. Oxbridge students are, at most, marginally more intelligent than a student from a school ranked slightly behind it. Similarly, peoples' work ethos varies and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if there were more hard working people here than at Cambridge. Especially so given the reaction I've had to what is literally a normal working week for me.

    I've no idea why you think this is getting ugly btw. Apologies if that is the impression I've given you, but we merely have a difference of opinion; something which, in the legal profession, is more common than not.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by dalianatkinson)
    Oxbridge do apply quotas. Perhaps not in certain subjects, but they do.

    I've compared History papers, friends have compared other subjects. JP has done law. The Oxford one's are harder, in the same way Edinburgh ones are harder than Swansea's.

    Oh, and I see you were rejected by Oxford. This may explain the chip on your shoulder.

    It's not stereotyping. Big pool of applicants, clever folk pick who they think are the best ones. Likely to end up with cleverer acceptees than rejectees. Sorry.
    They don't in law and that's the subject which is in discussion. I have no idea why you guys have gone about comparing exam papers; it strikes me as somewhat bizarre and, if I'm honest - a little unlikely. I shall, in good faith however, take your word for it and conclude that LSE/UCL/Durham/Warwick/Nottingham/Bristol (etc.) graduates have a considerably easier ride. We're all evidently less intelligent than Oxbridge students; our exams are more easy and marked less harshly and, more importantly, because some of us didn't choose to apply to Oxbridge (and ironically, because some of us rejected Oxbridge, shock horror), we're much more lazy. FML.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dalianatkinson)
    Oxbridge do apply quotas. Perhaps not in certain subjects, but they do.
    No they don't. Not in any subject that I'm aware of and certainly not law.

    Also could you leave off the personal attacks on Mr Deeds, it's quite unnecessary.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I just came here to say that this is a surprisingly interesting thread, and some good arguments have been put forward by both sides. I don't have much to add at the moment other than to reinforce the point that assuming none of the top universities use quotas; discussing how much work students from various universities put in is irrelevant. I can't comment on the difference between the exams because I have no idea for example how difficult an Oxbridge law exam is. However I would say that in terms of prestige, Oxbridge is still a cut above the other top law schools.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well, Let me put this forward to any Warwick students out there, particularly those on course for Firsts, and 2:i's. On Churchill College Cambridge's website, they state on average you need to put in 40-60 hours of work a week, I assume this is the standard amount for a 2:i. Is the level of work intensity similar at Warwick, taking into account Cambridge's short terms the equivalent at Warwick would be less, but definitely not too much less
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    I decided to read this thread, do not know why. But, I just checked the Oxford statistics: 2014: BA Jurisprudence: 19% graduated with a 1st. Here we go, Oxford. Oh and by the way, I do not go to Oxbridge, but let me tell you something, my Equity paper was a little harder than theirs this year.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Boyfriend studied law at Oxford; I study law at Warwick. We compare content/exams etc Let me know if you want details.

    For what it's worth:
    - He thinks my exams are harder.
    - No one checks our work like they checked his. In fact, they refuse to give personal guidance.
    - We just don't get the same support he did eg he had master case lists, etc.
    - He hasn't heard of some my content.
    -It IS easier to 'hide' in seminars at Warwick (though I am in a Philosophy seminar with only one other person - a tutorial basically.)
    - It is true that having all your exams at the end, as at Oxford, is (imo, needlessly) stressful, difficult, taxing, etc.
    - But it is also true that being given an exam worth 100% of your grade 1 semester in, without the benefit of the wisdom, study/analytical/testtaking/writing skills, is also difficult - and can be stressful/frustrating.
    - Fewer people get firsts at Warwick than at Oxford, by far. Not all are dumber/lazier. Some turned down Oxford. Some didn't care to go.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
  • 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

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.