Surely Oxbridge degrees should be LESS valued than others... ?

You can say what you like on the net, going for the "daddy says" line does you no favours. The fact that your father is a loser by your own admission says much. Whether you like it or not, I was a director in a company of global repute (financial services) well before your father was (in my early 30s). You can try all the lame adjectives, but the fact remains that you are as chippy as your father appears to be and there is no substitute for a decent upbringing. I suggest you have a good look around ALL the major financial services institutions, management consultancies, leading accounting firms, the fast track of the civil service, magic circle law firms etc..and you will see for yourself who they tend to hire. You can, of course, stick your head in the sand, but insulting your own intelligence is not something I would advise. I suggest you do something about your communication skills, the hardcore competencies are well beyond you, it seems.

Grow up little boy.

P.S. If you want to prove how much I have irritated you, carry on as you are.

I think what you're assuming here is that the grade marking criteria is the same across all universities... which it isn't. As far as I'm aware, each university has it's own unique marking criteria.

Hence it could be that getting a 2.1 in a specific subject at a non-Oxbridge uni is easier than at an Oxbridge uni as the former's marking criteria are easier to meet.

Then again, it could be that the opposite is true - it all depends on the two universities in question.

One thing I can say is that, having been to Cambridge, I was worked hard by the faculty (and I did one of the 'softer' subjects (in terms of work load) there!), whereas I know that some universities do not work their students very hard (in terms of e.g. number of essays to write per term, etc.) - however, what to draw from this I leave up to you.

Finally, it's worth bearing in mind that some examinations are normalised in both oxbridge and non-oxbridge universities.

Did you enjoy your time at Cambridge?

Oxbridge works differently. Eevery other uni ranks their degrees the same. I.e if you get 80%+ you have a 1:1 class. 70%-80% 2:1 etc.

Are you saying that 80%+ = 1st at other unis, or at Oxbridge?

Either way, you're wrong. Might partly explain the negging.

I mean if you get 80%+ within oxbridge you get the 1st.

I mean if you get 80%+ within oxbridge you get the 1st.

As it so happens, that's true. But it's also true that you'd get a first with 70+. See below as an example of Oxford marking policy.

http://www.maths.ox.ac.uk/notices/undergrad/supplements/supplement4

Does companies consider University name while hiring an employee?

Good Lord! I am taking a break from my dissertation, and I stumbled across this post, and am aghast frankly at the level of debate, and the nastiness that surrounds the oxbridge is better than the so called next tier. Might I add the following. League tables should be read intillegently, and not slavishly! What matters is the subject and how well it is received in the work place, where ever that might be. By way of background my father read PPE, at Pembroke College , Oxford, and is on the UK board of a serious bulge bracket investment bank. He simply says that for most subjects it is an utter nonsense to suggest that oxbridge is "better" than the rest. How can it be? law is law and maths is maths etc! .

How can it be said that an Oxbride graduate has a better knowledge and understanding of Law, then any other graduate from a nother University? The Bar Council and The SRA, regulate and monitor very closely qualifying Law degrees at all universities, so as to ensure that the content and knowledge of the course is, a) Not only identical, save for the electives, but b) also that a first from say LSE, would be a first at Bristol or say UCL/Oxbridge. This is done to ensure consistent and the fair awarding of degree classifications, before people commit to subsequent professional exams.........

In reply to the post of Jonty, I was simply saying that the knowledge gained by someone studying law, economics, french or maths results in pound for pound the same person having the same knowledge, no matter (within reason) from which University they obtained it from. So a first in Maths from Oxbrige is not better than a first from UCL, Imperial, Kings, Bristol, LSE, etc. If it was then the big banks, law firms, chambers and accountants would by definition only recruit from Oxbridge. You are entitled to opine that the post is bizzare. It merely was meant as a reasoned reply to above posts in which certain people claimed that degrees other than those obtained from Oxbridge were "jokes"

The bulge bracket banks and law firms formally extended their recruitment spend, to top 20 universities , because they were aware that some of the degree subjects at those institutions were FAR more superior in every way, than some of the more generic degrees at the so called top Universities.

By way of example, The ICMA centre at Reading is a fertile and massive hunting ground for Investment Banks, widely held to have a better, finance / economics degree, than say a standard economics degree from Oxford or London. Equally Land Management, surveying, property finaance and investment, the banks, and surveyors recruit more from Reading than say, London or Oxford.

So in answer to your question my father and his colleagues take the view they look at the subject matter of the degree first , and then as to where the same was obtained in an attempt to identify where that applicant might sit within the organisation. For example the question they ask themselves, when recruiting is , is a 2.1 in Economics or similar from Oxford, better for our purposes than say a 2.1 from Reading or LSE, who has done say Finance and Economics. The answer is a resounding NO, hence they view subject matter crucial in deciding, as opposed to saying , oh he has a 2.1 from London or Oxford, so lets take him over the guy at Reading who got the same or better doing economics, and finance.

I hope this assists!

As far as I am aware, Lazard, Goldman Sachs, Accenture, top chambers, PWC, do not recruit people with "joke" degrees from joke universities. Nor are they in the habit of commiting huge time and financial resources to universities outside Oxbridge, unless they really thought that pound for pound they are going to get an equal yield/ return from those univiserties.

As i alluded to earlier I read Law at KCL, and whilst the banks and law firms spent significant sums in wooing us , whilst I was there, it pales in to insignificance, when I see how much the same organisations spend here at Bristol. The sums they spend at Bristol are HUGE, to the point of it being almost embarrassing! My house mate is a postgrad from Cantab and he confirms that the sponsoring of events and almost weekly spend by law firms and banks at Bristol is more than it was whilst he was at Cambridge!. All of this suggests, that these organisations view Bristol and London Universities at least as equal to Oxbridge, if they didnt they wouldnt spend the silly amount of money they do here at Bristol.

Last time I looked, Law firms and Investment Banks dont waste time nor money... EVER!