crap uni, 2:1 in economics degree, no work experience

Reply 20

Tednol

2:1 from Bath Spa having been to a piss poor state school is a better achievement than a 2:1 from Warwick having had a silver spoon in your mouth all your life, IMHO.

Personally and morally, yes probably. To employers? They couldn't give a toss, they want the best people for their money.

Reply 21

coaster

2

LBC213

Their degrees are that much more easier, however, and require less time commitments. Oxbridge statutes stipulate that no students can work during term, its not to stop students earning money, its to stop them pissing away their time when they should be doing degree work.

I be there's not too many Oxbridge students scrimping their way through university. I know people who have to work 30+ hours a week just to eat.

Going to a good private school is probably down to luck of being in a rich family, however going to a top uni is 100% meritocratic, Oxbridge and London 3 don't ask for parents' bank balance on the application form.

If someone has recieved a better education, then most of the time they will get the better results. If someone recieves a poor education (like my school which was more like a children's home than a place of learning) then it is likely they will not get great grades. However, universities often compensate for this if they spot potential in a C student who would have got As had they had access to a top education and excellent facilities.

Again, easier course and easier exams. If you think your average university is the same difficulty and volume of work as Oxbridge then you're delusioned.

I think there are just as rigourous courses up and down the country. I think it's dillusional that Oxbridge students think this. Don't mistake shorter academic years for harder courses.

Rare, almost everyone I know at Cambridge (a lot of people by the way since I used to be there) have worked, probably not in bars or shops but something atleast. In fact, some degree courses actually REQUIRE you to have worked in order to even pass. Engineering at Cambridge requires 8 weeks of relevant work experience before you can even progress to year 3, for example.

Does Oxbridge actually forbid students working? Can anyone shed any light on this?

Reply 22

coaster

2

Sorry guys can't even quote properly!

You can kind of get the point though.

Reply 23

fuglyduckling

2

coaster

Does Oxbridge actually forbid students working? Can anyone shed any light on this?

Yeah, you're not meant to work in term time. Thing is, terms are so short anyway so you could work outside of that. You can obviously work and not tell them but time's a commodity; depends what degree you're doing. I don't see how a medic or vet - for example - would have time to work, socialise and study.

Reply 24

coaster

2

I live with 2 medicas and they seem to find the time, despite having timetables that mean they don't see daylight durind the winter months! I suppose some people are better at time management than others.

Reply 25

fuglyduckling

2

Fair enough ... their time management must be spot on!

Reply 26

CityMonkey

11

coaster

I be there's not too many Oxbridge students scrimping their way through university. I know people who have to work 30+ hours a week just to eat.

That's sad that someone needs to work that hard to just eat, I agree. However, we're comparing university students, not people who are full time employed. Oxbridge students get the same loans but they only spend 24weeks/year at university so their costs are lower compared to your average university student, so no they aren't scrimping, but how does that take away anything from how hard they work?

If someone has recieved a better education, then most of the time they will get the better results. If someone recieves a poor education (like my school which was more like a children's home than a place of learning) then it is likely they will not get great grades. However, universities often compensate for this if they spot potential in a C student who would have got As had they had access to a top education and excellent facilities.

Yes fair enough, but the most ambitious ones will always get through, regardless of how poor and usually end up matching or outperforming their richer counterparts when in university. A-levels aren't like degrees, the stuff can be learnt well purely from text books, which can be acquired from libraries/college.

I think there are just as rigourous courses up and down the country. I think it's dillusional that Oxbridge students think this. Don't mistake shorter academic years for harder courses.

I simply refuse to believe this, from personal experience. I agree there may be courses that are just as hard, Imperial Vs Camb for engineering and LSE Vs Camb for econ, but these are one off examples not examples from "up and down the country". If you've been a student at Cambridge you would know, it is not only the shorter (and hence more intense) terms, but content is harder and volume is greater than anywhere except for Oxford, or London 3.

Does Oxbridge actually forbid students working? Can anyone shed any light on this?

Yes they do. Did you think I was lying to prove a point? lol Noone would know if you did work unless your DoS or tutor comes into the place you're working, possible in Cambridge being a very small town.

Reply 27

AYE

10

"Going to a good private school is probably down to luck of being in a rich family, however going to a top uni is 100% meritocratic, Oxbridge and London 3 don't ask for parents' bank balance on the application form. "

Just wanted to say that even though this is true, poorer student are obviously at a disadvantage at school so i wouldnt say going to a top uni is 100% meritocratic as all students havn't had the same background (rich parents)

edit:already covered.

Reply 28

blissy

15

"I be there's not too many Oxbridge students scrimping their way through university. I know people who have to work 30+ hours a week just to eat."

Oxbridge offer very generous bursaries so people don't leave the course due to their financial situation. Without a recent bursary, I wouldn't have been able to eat! Not all "Oxbridge students" (said like we're one entity) have parents able to help them out.

Reply 29

Wrangler

2

Tednol

2:1 from Bath Spa having been to a piss poor state school is a better achievement than a 2:1 from Warwick having had a silver spoon in your mouth all your life, IMHO.

Easy soldier. There's a big old wedge of potato sitting on your shoulder. You have 3+ years at University to make up for whatever (minimal) disadvantages you had at school. And to get on a course, you need to meet the academic requirements, so if you get on, the University deems you in a position to undertake the course.

I went to a piss poor state school, and the last thing I want is for people to think my achievements at University are any different to other people's. If we were talking about A-Level results, I'd agree to an extent, but I just don't buy into it when it comes to degree classification.

Reply 30

Tednol

10

LBC213

Going to a good private school is probably down to luck of being in a rich family, however going to a top uni is 100% meritocratic, Oxbridge and London 3 don't ask for parents' bank balance on the application form.

Tripe. Less than 10% of all UK students go to private school. Yet privately educated students make up close to 50% of those people at Oxbridge. Are you suggesting those people at private school are more intelligent than their state educated peers? If the application process is so entirely meritocratic and all...

If I come across as some bitter state educated person then I'm not, I was privately educated and am all to aware of the privilages my parents bought for me, and I am very grateful for them too. 3 years at uni has just opened my eyes somewhat.

Reply 31

Northern_Lights

11

squiffy the mule

what are my chances of getting a job in ib with these. i'm not gonna mention my uni, but lets just say its not exactly a top 5 :rolleyes:

.
what do u guys think? am i getting ideas above my station?

will a postgraduate at a top five help?...i am myself not sure !!!

Reply 32

TheAP

9

Tednol

Tripe. Less than 10% of all UK students go to private school. Yet privately educated students make up close to 50% of those people at Oxbridge. Are you suggesting those people at private school are more intelligent than their state educated peers? If the application process is so entirely meritocratic and all...

If I come across as some bitter state educated person then I'm not, I was privately educated and am all to aware of the privilages my parents bought for me, and I am very grateful for them too. 3 years at uni has just opened my eyes somewhat.

Some of the general difference I have noticed between state schoolars and private schools is:

- private schoolars are much more aware of careers (be that IB, medicine etc) at an earlier age than state schoolars. Hence they start researching them at an earlier age and are certainly at an advantage when intersnship interviews fast approach.
-private schools help prepare their students alot more for higher education(nothing bad about this) and especially higher education at top instituitions(like oxbridge mock interview). This helps explain the higher proportion of private schoolars in the top institutions.

Reply 33

samba

6

A few quick points.

1. Not all oxford colleges prohibit work

2. Life at warwick aint all a bed of roses

3. A good investment portfolio will force you through the banks doors

4. Uni admission is not 100% meritocratic. Heres an example for you. Try writing an essay in the library, then try writing one in a nightclub. Get my point?

5. Good luck. With hard work and perseverence you can force your way in.

Reply 34

President_Ben

15

Bear in mind, most of that top flight of public schools (getting in say, 15% or more of their students into Oxbridge) do have entry requirements...

Reply 35

samba

6

Yes Ben, but I'd imagine its mostly negotiable :smile:

Reply 36

kahler_potential

11

Why?
A lot of the top public schools are oversubscribed many times over, they can pick and choose whoever they want, and those that get in through the back door are not the ones the school will manage to get into oxbridge.

Reply 37

CityMonkey

11

Tednol

Tripe. Less than 10% of all UK students go to private school. Yet privately educated students make up close to 50% of those people at Oxbridge. Are you suggesting those people at private school are more intelligent than their state educated peers? If the application process is so entirely meritocratic and all...

If I come across as some bitter state educated person then I'm not, I was privately educated and am all to aware of the privilages my parents bought for me, and I am very grateful for them too. 3 years at uni has just opened my eyes somewhat.

You're mistaking the meritocracy of the university admission system for the better education that is provided by private schools to their students. Of course students who receive a better education, early career guidance and are "groomed" to go into Oxbridge from an early age will do better, its a no brainer. My Cambridge interview help from the 6th form consisted of them telling me it would most likely be a waste of time and that I should do 5 A-levels to get me in, both of which are utter *******s. Intelligence is independent of social, cultural and schooling background, but at private schools pupils are given all the tools to utilise and maximise their potential, when at state schools in a lot of cases they aren't.

I do realise there are one off occasions when parents' contacts with college fellows at Oxbridge colleges and their previous donations help their children, but they aren't as regular as leftist rags would have you believe. Delusions of wealth, status and schooling that are required to get into Oxbridge or the London 3 are just dreamt up by people who are unsuccessful and need something else to point the blame at. The fact that private schools are overrepresented is down to more ambitious schooling, but the fact that the majority of the Oxbridge student population is state school highlights the fact that regardless of background, you can get in if you're good enough.

Reply 38

kahler_potential

11

I've friends working for the Oxford Access Scheme, who go and give talks at schools which have no history of sending people to Oxford. Most often they are told "No-one from here is going to apply, we don't want you coming here". When people in charge of state schools have that attitude to Oxford, that's the source of your problem.

Reply 39

CityMonkey

11

Olek

I've friends working for the Oxford Access Scheme, who go and give talks at schools which have no history of sending people to Oxford. Most often they are told "No-one from here is going to apply, we don't want you coming here". When people in charge of state schools have that attitude to Oxford, that's the source of your problem.

Exactly, I completely agree, its the ****ing idiots in charge who do the most damage, there can be a lot more state schoolers going to Oxbridge, but a lot of them are contrained and discouraged. From what I've heard from friends on the Cambridge Access Scheme, what you say is resonant with them too.

crap uni, 2:1 in economics degree, no work experience

Related discussions

Articles for you