The Student Room Group

Oxbridge 2:1 VS Top Russell Group 1st

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Birkenhead
All that proves is that you can give off the impression that you do. It's a neat turn of phrase but doesn't contain any actual substance. You've said that a 1st will give very little advantage at the Bar, which is completely untrue.


No, I said law is an exception before saying a 1st doesn't matter too much. When I said that I meant this applied to most subjects apart from law.
Reply 41
Original post by Delusory
!


Getting 1st for PPE from York is better than 2.1 PPE from Oxford.
Because there is hardly any different for the department as York is famous for its PPE degree.


But I rather get a 2.1 from Oxford than a 1st from York, because I am a snob:colondollar:
Reply 42
Personally I'd take the 1st because I'm considering postgrad courses. But I think if I were doing any of most other degrees I'd have to say Oxbridge, so I have answered as such. This is partly because I think a 2:1 is a perfectly fine degree and a 1st really is over and above, and I think the Oxbridge name itself would carry enough sway to make up for any lost ground in that respect, but also partly because the Oxbridge universities are in my opinion the nicest aesthetically with the best education system and the best resources blah blah. This second factor is a result of your including "and I would generally prefer to have one" in the answers. I think I'd have a better time at Oxford or Cambridge.
Getting a first at Oxbridge is considerably more difficult than getting a first at a lesser university. Even getting a 2.1 at Oxbridge is much harder than getting a first at some universities.
Reply 44
Original post by Delusory
TL;DR

1. Top Russell Group constitutes, for sake of argument, the 10 universities listed below. If you feel that only some of the listed uni's are good enough to make their 1sts better than Oxbridge's 2:1s, weigh up those that do against those that don't and then decide. The 1st will be the median mark for a 1st, the 2:1 likewise the exact median, for the sake of balance.

2. Different uni's, different strengths in different courses blah blah blah. Just try to envisage a 'General' course, equally as prestigious and well-taught etc at all the uni's and where all else is equal except the prestige of the uni's and the degree classes. On this basis, is a top RG 1st better than an Oxbridge 2:1 in your eyes?

3. 'Better' here = superior career prospects and just what you'd rather have under your belt.

---

Not a debate that hasn't been had before, but just thought I'd reignite it to see today's opinions with my own twists.

Firstly, 'Top Russell Group', (though not meaning to judge against those which, for argument's sake, are excluded - please don't let this deteriorate into that) will constitute the likes of:

- UCL
- LSE
- Imperial
- Durham
- Bristol
- KCL
- York
- Warwick
- Edinburgh
- St Andrews

There will be some who feel that while, say, an Imperial 1st would exceed
an Oxbridge 2:1, the same should not be said of KCL. I ask those people to weigh up those 1st's which they would consider superior to an Oxbridge 2:1 from the universities mentioned against those they wouldn't and come to a conclusion by majority rule.

Secondly, courses. Different uni's have different strengths, how can we possibly say for all courses whether a 1st is better than an Oxbridge 2:1 blah blah blah. Just try to imagine a kind of 'General Studies' course at these uni's, except without the ridicule. A kind of fit-all course which is equally as served by all the aforementioned uni's and whose degree class prestige is dependent entirely on the prestige of the uni. When all else is equal but the prestige of the universities, is a top RG 1:1 better than an Oxbridge 2:1?

Better. What is 'better'. Largely which has more weight generally-speaking with employers, though again of course there will be some variation here try to envisage the general impressions. Which will give superior career prospects generally. Also just which would you rather have under your belt.

Vote away!


I would say a 1st from a top RG is of a higher standard than a 2:1 from Oxbridge overall, however I would prefer to have a 2:1 from Oxbridge because only your first employer really wants to see your degree classification, after that its not really that important.

The oxbridge name will go with you forever and the connections/friends you make will still be there.
I go to LSE but think that Oxbridge students have an egde over us :tongue: They dominate the top industries and their unis are more well-recognized abroad.
Original post by username941859
Just thought I'd point out St. Andrews isn't RG :P But I'd rather have a first from LSE than a 2.1 from Oxford.
I don’t believe a 2:1 from Oxbridge would outrank a 1st from a Russel group. I think most of what makes Oxbridge so prestigious is that they have excellent teaching but mostly it’s the name. Most of the Russel groups degrees would be interchangeable with an Oxbridge one; however if you get a degree from oxbridge it just shows how hard you worked before the degree
Reply 47
Original post by Delusory
TL;DR

1. Top Russell Group constitutes, for sake of argument, the 10 universities listed below. If you feel that only some of the listed uni's are good enough to make their 1sts better than Oxbridge's 2:1s, weigh up those that do against those that don't and then decide. The 1st will be the median mark for a 1st, the 2:1 likewise the exact median, for the sake of balance.

2. Different uni's, different strengths in different courses blah blah blah. Just try to envisage a 'General' course, equally as prestigious and well-taught etc at all the uni's and where all else is equal except the prestige of the uni's and the degree classes. On this basis, is a top RG 1st better than an Oxbridge 2:1 in your eyes?

3. 'Better' here = superior career prospects and just what you'd rather have under your belt.

---

Not a debate that hasn't been had before, but just thought I'd reignite it to see today's opinions with my own twists.

Firstly, 'Top Russell Group', (though not meaning to judge against those which, for argument's sake, are excluded - please don't let this deteriorate into that) will constitute the likes of:

- UCL
- LSE
- Imperial
- Durham
- Bristol
- KCL
- York
- Warwick
- Edinburgh
- St Andrews

There will be some who feel that while, say, an Imperial 1st would exceed
an Oxbridge 2:1, the same should not be said of KCL. I ask those people to weigh up those 1st's which they would consider superior to an Oxbridge 2:1 from the universities mentioned against those they wouldn't and come to a conclusion by majority rule.

Secondly, courses. Different uni's have different strengths, how can we possibly say for all courses whether a 1st is better than an Oxbridge 2:1 blah blah blah. Just try to imagine a kind of 'General Studies' course at these uni's, except without the ridicule. A kind of fit-all course which is equally as served by all the aforementioned uni's and whose degree class prestige is dependent entirely on the prestige of the uni. When all else is equal but the prestige of the universities, is a top RG 1:1 better than an Oxbridge 2:1?

Better. What is 'better'. Largely which has more weight generally-speaking with employers, though again of course there will be some variation here try to envisage the general impressions. Which will give superior career prospects generally. Also just which would you rather have under your belt.

Vote away!

Hiring managers when you Uni when less than 10% got firsts, only 25-30 or so got 2:1s.
Now Firsts are really devalued and only show you came in the top 40-45%.
Might be why so many people are doing masters.