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

Scroll to see replies

Not if it can be covered in 16 weeks!

Seriously though, I find it difficult to accept that simply because the course at Oxbridge makes you do loads of essays, that automatically makes it a better course than one which doesn't.

Swotting up a load of guff from the internet or from books and then spouting it out in the form of an essay doesn't mean that the student has actually learnt anything. I know that I've done essays and by the time they were handed back to me after marking I'd forgotten virtually everything in them.

And if they all had the names removed from the covers then I suspect that I would have a job identifying my own work. So if students are simply doing essay after essay how do they know that that is an effective way of learning and retaining that knowledge?

And are maths courses at Oxbridge less academic because one assumes that they are not essay based given that the number of essays is the defining factor of whether a course is good or not?

The essays are issued to ensure you have learnt a subject, but they do not count towards your mark. You have to learn everything for an exam at the end of the year.

I personally have found I'm way ahead of economists from other unis since starting my MSc. What other universities do in a year we cover in a term, so yes, the course is more rigorous.

Reply 41

Aristotle's' Disciple

Original post by Apagg

Because these people consider themselves qualified sources on the subject by way of having a friend's brother attending the university rather than going themselves.

Was that supposed to make me laugh...

Reply 42

ilickbatteries

Original post by im so academic

Because of the higher academic standards Oxbridge has compared to other universities.

No, because you're implying that academic standards are the same across all universities, which i snot true.

Oxbridge are known for their shorter, and more intense 8-week terms.

What possessed you to think Oxbridge degrees "should be less valued" than degrees from other universities? Seriously? :lolwut:

Yes, because London Met Maths > Cambridge Maths. :rolleyes:

You really need to drop your silly obsession with London Met, Cambridge and Maths. We all know that Maths at Cambridge is harder than Maths at London Met but don't forget that it's still degree-level Maths so the course at LM will still be difficult...

Reply 43

Aristotle's' Disciple

Original post by TheSownRose

What!? Things on TSR aren't gospel!?

You have just changed my perception of the world...

LOL!

Reply 44

ByronicHero

Degrees at different universities are of various difficulty and the manner in which those universities award their degrees also differs considerably in many cases. There is a study you can find online, which is very boring to read, which outlines how it works for many of them.

No I won't link you to it because it took me ages to find it the first time.

This is all I can be bothered to add to this pretty tired debate.

Reply 45

marshmallowfudgecake

Original post by forrestgump19

I know this isn't the 'normal' view, and it's probably quite a controversial thing to say, but don't immediately jump on for saying it...

If Oxbridge has such brilliant teaching standards and facilities, why is a good degree from there (i.e a first or a 2:1) considered better than an equivalent 'grade' from a 'lesser' uni?

Surely, if a student has been to a uni with worse teaching standards and still managed to equal the success of an Oxbridge graduate, that shows they are able to perform well regardless of their 'support' and therefore be either harder-working or just generally more academic.

I know getting into Oxbridge in the first place shows a student is very high academically, but isn't a first from Oxbridge just as 'easy' as a first from anywhere else?

Any views very much welcome, and please don't neg me for this, i'm just wondering. I'm not trying to p**s off any Oxbridgers! :smile:

Thanks!

This argument assumes getting a 2.1 or 1 from any university apart from oxbridge has equal value to a 2.1 or 1 from an oxbridge graduate.

lol

Reply 46

beepbeeprichie

Not an oxbridge graduate but clearly oxford and cambridge are the best universities in the world.

Reply 47

Aristotle's' Disciple

Original post by beepbeeprichie

Not an oxbridge graduate but clearly oxford and cambridge are the best universities in the world.

You forget Yale and Harvard, universities which would crush Oxbridge like with their pinkie. Although Oxbridge do come in 3rd and 4th in the world. So all good I guess :biggrin:

Reply 48

Peel

Original post by TheSownRose

I'm rather enjoying this question.

One I've always wondered is this:

Why is someone getting grades good enough to get to Oxbridge and then doing very little for three years so that they barely scrape a 3rd considered better than someone who maybe wasn't great at A-levels but then went to university and put in the effort to get a 1st?

You've assumed it's possible to get a third with doing "very little" at a top university like Oxbridge.

Another way of looking at the question which probably will answer your question is: is the top 10% at say London Met better than the bottom 20% at Oxbridge?

Reply 49

milkytea

I dislike it when people take this view of things. Imo, it is reflective of our society's unfortunate tendency to inverse discrimination.

Look at it from the point of view of an employer. Yes, the Oxbridge graduate probably had better lecturers, resources and so on. And you're trying to argue that that makes the graduate's degree less valuable? No, it makes it more valuable. By extension, a degree from an extremely low-funded university with poor teaching would be the most valuable. It may reflect better on the graduate if they manage to get a good grade, but the degree isn't more valuable, because that university's graduate will be less well educated.

If courses in certain subjects all had the same exams at the end, then there would be some validity to your idea, but as others have pointed out, the variety is significant.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 50

Angela_Beth

I think it's generally harder to get a first in Oxford or Cambridge than it is elsewhere.

Reply 51

wer343lit

Well I can see why you would have that opinion, but it assumes all degrees are equally difficult and that it is equally hard to get a certain classification at every university.

I personally don't think those are very good assumptions. As others have mentioned, this isn't like A Levels where all schools teach the same course and the students sit central exams. Universities have much more flexibility in course content, they all have their own exams, and degree classification is institution-specific.

You have to remember that people at Oxbridge are competing against the most able people at that subject of their age. Whilst of course other universities will have a few people of comparable standard, they don't have a year full of them like Oxbridge does. To be honest, I'd say a significant proportion of the year at Oxbridge could get firsts elsewhere.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 52

whiplash

Original post by Aristotle's' Disciple

I can clear this up pretty easily since my best freinds brother has just completed Cambridge this year.

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.

Oxbridge rank their degrees internally. So only the top 10% get a 1:1 then next 20% get a 2:1 and so forth.

This is why Oxbridge degrees are ranked even higher than other unis, even ones such as LSE and Imperial.

Hope this helped :biggrin:

Please STFU when u clearly have NO idea what you're talking about.

Reply 53

wer343lit

Original post by Peel

You've assumed it's possible to get a third with doing "very little" at a top university like Oxbridge.

Surely if you do "little work", you would probably get a Third?

Peel

Another way of looking at the question which probably will answer your question is: is the top 10% at say London Met better than the bottom 20% at Oxbridge?

I'd say the bottom 20% of Oxbridge would be better.

I'm not sure what you mean? (I'm not trying to be rude lol, I'm genuinely curious.)

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 54

diamonddust

I haven't read this whole thread so I don't know if this has been mentioned but what about Law? As even 'lesser' universities (I loathe that term) are accredited, does that mean a first in Law at Oxnridge is equal to other universities? Or does the same 'Oxbridge work you harder/The exams are different' rule apply? Just interested... :smile:

Reply 55

beepbeeprichie

Original post by Aristotle's' Disciple

You forget Yale and Harvard, universities which would crush Oxbridge like with their pinkie. Although Oxbridge do come in 3rd and 4th in the world. So all good I guess :biggrin:

Yale and Harvard can **** off. They don't have the intellectual history and culture of oxbridge.

Reply 56

Vanny17

Original post by kerily

imsoacademic is going to murder you.

Firsts from universities which are very difficult to get into are not an equivalent achievement to firsts from universities which are very easy to get into.

And just like you said, she replied immediately. She should get an award for standing for Oxford at any given opportunity. That shows commitment and adoration I give her that. :lol:

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 57

Concept186

Original post by forrestgump19

Thanks!

Simply put, it's because you're not taught the same stuff. A first from Oxbridge and other top uni's (Imperial, Durham etc) requires you to be able to do far harder material than for a first other places.

Reply 58

manchild007

Original post by beepbeeprichie

Yale and Harvard can **** off. They don't have the intellectual history and culture of oxbridge.

Intellectual history and culture? :rolleyes:

Do you even know enough of Harvard and Yale (and Princeton etc) to make such a conclusion? I think not, b/c if you did, you would most certainly be saying the opposite, as these institutions dwarf Oxbridge frankly. And indeed, every global league table agrees, so I know who I'd rather trust (i.e. professionals who look at universities as a job, or some snotty little poster on TSR making fallacious statements/assumptions)...

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 59

beepbeeprichie

Original post by manchild007

Intellectual history and culture? Do you even know enough of Harvard and Yale (and Princeton etc) to make such a conclusion? I think not, b/c if you did, you would most certainly be saying the opposite, as these institutions dwarf Oxbridge frankly :rolleyes:

Oxford founded in 914 and Cambridge in 1209
Harvard founded in 1636 and Yale in 1701.

The massive difference in wealth between these institutions is a testament to the greatness of the academics at Oxford. America has to throw insane sums of money to perform marginally better.

And American universities know nothing of intellectual culture. They are profit making institutions.