Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

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

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    Funny that you have this view, yet obviously have never been to Oxbridge. If you look at all the people who have posted on this thread who have attended Oxbridge and then attended another UK University, they've all been saying the opposite of what you've been saying - there is a big gap between Oxbridge and non-Oxbridge universities. Yet somehow... you know better?
    Yeah but of courst they're going to say that aren't they! Everyone's proud of their institutions. And society has created this image of Oxbridge being the best and everyone believes it, so the people who go there also believe it. It's something known as confirmation bias - I studied it in my A level psychology. You only look for evidence that already support your own beliefs!

    I'm not saying that I'm definitely right, I'm saying that it's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. All I'm saying is just to be a bit more sceptical of people who say that Oxbridge is the best, and use something known as 'anecdotal evidence' to support their opinions!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hallamrulez)
    I think the gap is absolutely massive anywhere you go though that's the thing. Oxbridge just have this legendary status that I think people should be more sceptical of instead of just lapping up their supposed superiority over the rest of British universities
    What about Harvard? Are students equally bright at Salem State?

    Are the Nobel committee hoodwinked into mistaking Oxbridge science for brilliant science by a misplaced respect for the name?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hallamrulez)
    Yeah but of courst they're going to say that aren't they! Everyone's proud of their institutions. And society has created this image of Oxbridge being the best and everyone believes it, so the people who go there also believe it. It's something known as confirmation bias - I studied it in my A level psychology. You only look for evidence that already support your own beliefs!

    I'm not saying that I'm definitely right, I'm saying that it's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. All I'm saying is just to be a bit more sceptical of people who say that Oxbridge is the best, and use something known as 'anecdotal evidence' to support their opinions!
    Jeez man, all you have to do is compare one of Oxbridge's course to another University and you'll see how much more challenging and intense the course is. Why is it so complicated for you to work this out by yourself? A lot of people are skeptical that Oxbridge is more difficult, I even was myself back when I was applying - and then I spent a few hours comparing the courses of where I applied (including other top Universities) and realised it is much more intense and difficult at Oxford/Cambridge. As I said, it isn't difficult to come to this conclusion without assuming it's some big conspiracy while wearing a tin-hat.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by playingcards)
    What about Harvard? Are students equally bright at Salem State?

    Are the Nobel committee hoodwinked into mistaking Oxbridge science for brilliant science by a misplaced respect for the name?
    And that's something known as a 'straw-man' argument. I'm in no way shape or form denying that Oxbridge are better for research - but that's because they get more money than every other university in the UK put together for research. And the same with the Russell Group - they get to hog all the money for themselves. No wonder their better at research than the rest of us unis!

    So yes, their science and research is better. But I'm specifically talking about their courses.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    Jeez man, all you have to do is compare one of Oxbridge's course to another University and you'll see how much more challenging and intense the course is. Why is it so complicated for you to work this out by yourself? A lot of people are skeptical that Oxbridge is more difficult, I even was myself back when I was applying - and then I spent a few hours comparing the courses of where I applied (including other top Universities) and realised it is much more intense and difficult at Oxford/Cambridge. As I said, it isn't difficult to come to this conclusion without assuming it's some big conspiracy while wearing a tin-hat.
    Okay okay okay I get that there may be more contact hours i.e. more lectures at oxbridge than other universities which makes it harder and i wasn't denying that in the first place. But what I'm saying is that the qualification itself, i.e. the grade itself, is just the same wherever you go! Because it's standardised by external markers - if they go to Hallam and see somebody awarded a 2:1 that they don't think deserves a 2:1 they'll say so and that person is unlikely to get a 2:1. So the resulting qualification is exactly the same, whichever university you go to
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hallamrulez)
    Okay okay okay I get that there may be more contact hours i.e. more lectures at oxbridge than other universities which makes it harder and i wasn't denying that in the first place. But what I'm saying is that the qualification itself, i.e. the grade itself, is just the same wherever you go! Because it's standardised by external markers - if they go to Hallam and see somebody awarded a 2:1 that they don't think deserves a 2:1 they'll say so and that person is unlikely to get a 2:1. So the resulting qualification is exactly the same, whichever university you go to
    I take it you purposely skipped over fluteflute's response to when you said "they're externally moderated" where even the moderators themselves admitted the exams were much more difficult at Oxford.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hallamrulez)
    Yeah but of courst they're going to say that aren't they! Everyone's proud of their institutions. And society has created this image of Oxbridge being the best and everyone believes it, so the people who go there also believe it. It's something known as confirmation bias - I studied it in my A level psychology. You only look for evidence that already support your own beliefs!

    I'm not saying that I'm definitely right, I'm saying that it's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. All I'm saying is just to be a bit more sceptical of people who say that Oxbridge is the best, and use something known as 'anecdotal evidence' to support their opinions!
    No, Oxbridge has a reputation for being the best because it is the best. It has the resource to provide a unique and rigorous university education in the country through the tutorial system - 1-on-1 work with the best professors in the country. This means it attracts the best students in the country to apply. (Those with AAAA at A-Level and straight A*s at GCSE). They then do extremely challenging high-level work for 3 years, and end up with degrees that catapult them into the best graduate jobs, the best postgraduate degrees, and the best long-term achievements.

    I have just read through the 3-year course outline for History at Hallam. It's bloody ridiculous. I covered more in my first year.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    I take it you purposely skipped over fluteflute's response to when you said "they're externally moderated" where even the moderators themselves admitted the exams were much more difficult at Oxford.
    No I genuinely missed that. But the opinion of just 1 external examiner hardly proves anything does it? And besides, if they already believed that Oxbridge is harder and better than everywhere else, then they're hardly objective either!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hallamrulez)
    Okay okay okay I get that there may be more contact hours i.e. more lectures at oxbridge than other universities which makes it harder and i wasn't denying that in the first place. But what I'm saying is that the qualification itself, i.e. the grade itself, is just the same wherever you go! Because it's standardised by external markers - if they go to Hallam and see somebody awarded a 2:1 that they don't think deserves a 2:1 they'll say so and that person is unlikely to get a 2:1. So the resulting qualification is exactly the same, whichever university you go to
    Rochdale 2 - 0 Macclesfield
    Man Utd 2 - 0 Chelsea

    Therefore Rochdale are equally good as Man Utd, because the score is the same.

    (Also, not standardised).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hallamrulez)
    No I genuinely missed that. But the opinion of just 1 external examiner hardly proves anything does it? And besides, if they already believed that Oxbridge is harder and better than everywhere else, then they're hardly objective either!
    Who says it was one examiner? It was comments made in official documentation from what I gather.

    More to the point though, if you think the opinion of the external examiner proves nothing, what exactly does your uninformed opinion stand for? :lol:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    Who says it was one examiner? It was comments made in official documentation from what I gather.

    More to the point though, if you think the opinion of the external examiner proves nothing, what exactly does your uninformed opinion stand for? :lol:
    I just think we need to be careful about unquestioningly giving Oxbridge all the money that's all, and letting universities like mine (Hallam) lose out on funding. If their courses aren't as rigorous as elsewhere, then that's only because we receive far less funding and can't afford to have loads and loads and loads of lectures it's inequality and isn't fair.

    Surely the fairest option would be to pay all universities equally?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hallamrulez)
    I just think we need to be careful about unquestioningly giving Oxbridge all the money that's all, and letting universities like mine (Hallam) lose out on funding. If their courses aren't as rigorous as elsewhere, then that's only because we receive far less funding and can't afford to have loads and loads and loads of lectures it's inequality and isn't fair.

    Surely the fairest option would be to pay all universities equally?
    You realise there aren't 'loads and loads' of lectures at Oxbridge? I only have 10 lectures a week, whereas most maths courses have twice as many.

    Again, you seem to have so many misconceptions about Oxbridge...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    You realise there aren't 'loads and loads' of lectures at Oxbridge? I only have 10 lectures a week, whereas most maths courses have twice as many.

    Again, you seem to have so many misconceptions about Oxbridge...
    Yeh. I had 3 scheduled lectures a week. Nobody at Oxford picks up their expertise through lectures.

    The rigorous learning is done through tutorials.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    You realise there aren't 'loads and loads' of lectures at Oxbridge? I only have 10 lectures a week, whereas most maths courses have twice as many.

    Again, you seem to have so many misconceptions about Oxbridge...
    But you were just arguing that maths courses at Hallam are crap and that you cover way more than maths students here do? How can that be true when you have less lectures than them?

    Also, don't you think that it's unfair that Oxbridge receives more money just because it's older and more established than other universities? Age seems to imply prestige, not just here in the UK but elsewhere. That's not right is it! I guess that there are exceptions but it's a general rule of thumb. It's hardly right that just because a university is older it gets more money to do these kind of things
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hallamrulez)
    Okay okay okay I get that there may be more contact hours i.e. more lectures at oxbridge than other universities which makes it harder and i wasn't denying that in the first place. But what I'm saying is that the qualification itself, i.e. the grade itself, is just the same wherever you go! Because it's standardised by external markers - if they go to Hallam and see somebody awarded a 2:1 that they don't think deserves a 2:1 they'll say so and that person is unlikely to get a 2:1. So the resulting qualification is exactly the same, whichever university you go to
    This isn't accurate.

    "An institution with degree awarding powers
    is solely responsible for the exercise of those
    powers and is therefore entitled to appeal to its
    autonomy. In particular, it is solely responsible
    for the rules it uses for classifying the honours
    degrees it awards. External examiners may
    comment on the reasonableness of these rules
    if they wish, and there may be an obligation
    on institutions to consider the comments and
    advice it receives, but there is no obligation to
    take action in accordance with the comments
    or advice received."

    http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/In.../QMApril07.pdf
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Be serious, Aston is a crappy university for idiots to attend. Don't even dare compare it to Cambridge or Oxford.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hallamrulez)
    But you were just arguing that maths courses at Hallam are crap and that you cover way more than maths students here do? How can that be true when you have less lectures than them?

    Also, don't you think that it's unfair that Oxbridge receives more money just because it's older and more established than other universities? Age seems to imply prestige, not just here in the UK but elsewhere. That's not right is it! I guess that there are exceptions but it's a general rule of thumb. It's hardly right that just because a university is older it gets more money to do these kind of things
    Erm, they cram considerably more into each lecture, and you're also expected to catch up on what you don't understand by yourself or in tutorial.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hallamrulez)
    But you were just arguing that maths courses at Hallam are crap and that you cover way more than maths students here do? How can that be true when you have less lectures than them?

    Also, don't you think that it's unfair that Oxbridge receives more money just because it's older and more established than other universities? Age seems to imply prestige, not just here in the UK but elsewhere. That's not right is it! I guess that there are exceptions but it's a general rule of thumb. It's hardly right that just because a university is older it gets more money to do these kind of things
    No it's because it has the best practitioners, who apply with top grades throughout their schooling. Who are taught and develop through tutorials. And go on to achieve the big breakthroughs in their specialisms. So acquire more funding to further their research. It's a virtuous circle.

    You are assuming that Oxbridge operates exactly like Hallam but with disproportionate reputation and funding. It's very very different.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Meh you're probably all just saying that. I don't agree but hey. I'm going to bed because it's late and I've got an assignment to do tomorrow! Because Hallam students actually work as well you know. I know that you believe that you're better than all of us, and that we don't actually do any work, but I have a piece of coursework to do - a 1500 word essay that I've had to work on over all of Easter that's due in a week on Wednesday. So you can't complain that we don't actually do anything. It's about taxes and the amount each sector of the public contributes in society! It's quite interesting really.

    You people at the so-called 'elite' universities should really consider wealth inequality and realise that you get far far more funding than other places do, and undeservedly so. Take a moment to think about that, because it's quite unfair how you get all the extra money and take all the money away from so-called 'polytechnic' universities, and then laugh at how much poorer and worse the courses are at those universities than at your own. Take your insults and privilege and elitism with you

    Good night everyone!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hallamrulez)
    People with lower A level grades may go to lower universities and may be predicted lower grades. But A level performance doesn't necessarily correlate with degree performance as everyone knows!
    The reason that A level performance may not show much correlation with degree performance is precisely because the difficulty varies at universities...
 
 
 
Poll
Which web browser do you use?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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