Which looks better on a CV?

Wtf is the point of this post? There are also a lot of very dim people in the world. That doesn't make dimness 'good'.


Posted from TSR Mobile

You're assuming that the Oxbridge admission process is watertight, and that everyone who is there deserves to be there. I very much doubt that is the case. Even the interview (which is supposed to make the admissions process more accurate by sorting out those who are good on paper from those who would do well in a tutorial system) can quite easily be argued to merely favour confident candidates with good interpersonal skills. Many candidates who could do very well at the university cannot feel comfortable enough with strangers in a 20-minute interview to really demonstrate what they're capable of. Likewise, a less able but more confident student may present better answers. 20 minutes (possibly times 2) really isn't enough time to gauge the talent of someone at a transitioning time in their life (17-19).

Of course, most people who are there do deserve to be there! But if someone doesn't even manage to get a 2:1, then they are probably less intelligent than their interviewers thought.

Anyway in reality if we were recruiters faced with a LM 2.1 and a Oxford 2.2, we'd probably just move on down the massive pile of CVs and not bother looking at either. Bad times for graduates!

Probably because a lot of the general public have never heard of Imperial.


Posted from TSR Mobile