Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shady lane)
    I disagree that Oxbridge grads don't want to be bankers. I think there are a good number who do and who apply, otherwise firms wouldn't bother recruiting there.
    That's why they come, we have to be severely persuaded. I've met very few people here who want to be bankers. Moreover, I've *never* met someone here who wants to be a banker and didn't get an internship at one. I think if you look at percentages, Oxbridge will do at least as well as LSE at getting into banks.

    As for that, I'd also disagree that LSE students don't want to go into research - many do. They just tend not to get Fulbright scholarships or other uberly-prestigious scholarships. Yes, this is slightly facetious, but I'm just pointing out the same can be said for academia as can be said for banking, just with the universities reversed.

    I mean, as an anecdote, I don't want to be a banker, but I still got an offer for an internship from a bank. Them wanting to recruit us isn't necessarily mutual.

    (Original post by shady lane)
    I had to go to London every weekend because Oxford was so boring. I didn't apply to Oxford for grad school despite my tutor encouraging me to do so. Seriously, it's not for everyone. I hated being the only black person around and I hated the "club" scene.
    Firstly, this is exactly the same as London - it's not for everyone. I'd hate to be a student in London, and am tryign to avoid applying for a PhD at LSE despite my tutors saying it's one of the best places to go. And secondly, there are black people at LSE? I know it's full of international students, but of all the LSE people I've met (a lot), I've only ever met one or two black people there. In the UK it's a big problem that black people just don't go to university - partly because very few apply and partly because their admissions ratios are slightly lower. That isn't an Oxbridge problem, that's a UK-wide problem.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    There are black people at LSE but not many.
    I live in South London so it doesn't really matter who's at LSE, that's why I chose London!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Point taken. Although I found a story I was told at Nottingham quite funny:
    Two students got a scholarship from their government (forget the country) to come to the UK. One choose Cambridge and the other LSE, both for economics. The LSE one soon asked his friend at Cambridge to talk to his tutors about transfering, not because of the quality of his education, but his comment was "I wanted to have an English education, and I've yet to meet an Englishman". While I love the diversity of London, I did find myself, after the summer, feeling quite glad to be back living in an area where the labels in the shops are in English (I was living in an almost entirely Bangladeshi/Indian area of East London).
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)

    (and to revert back to the arguement about the % of graduates pursuing further study...I'd be wary of using that as an arguement for the quality of a universities degrees - a SIGNIFICANT proportion of graduates choose to carry on studying simply because they find their degree isn't as attractive to employers as they expected - that's why universities with substantial numbers of post grad students watch the graduate employment stats closely - graduate employment drops and the demand for masters courses sky rockets)
    Yes, that argument is more than a little tenuous lol.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Completely, but so is the one that "we get more people into banking". That was all I was trying to highlight, it's all about the desires of students, not necessarily their ability.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    But equivilent to someone who's worked for 3-4 years. Also most PhDs have stipends, which could count as a salary. What I mean is that comparing someone 3 years after graduation, a recent PhD grad will earn a lot less, usually.
    I don't think it is equivalent to someone who has worked for 3-4 years - postgraduate study is not the same.

    If you consider a PhD to not count as a first job, really you should look at a qualified lawyer, ie. one who's finished their year long LPC and 1-2 year training contract. In which case you're looking at nearer the £60k mark. Not the highest 2-3 years after your bachelors, but not bad. And higher than any research position 2-3 years after finishing your bachelors.
    Well, training is different to study full-time, otherwise we could get into comparing accountants that have and do not have degrees respectively, which is a bit silly. I still think, therefore that comparing like for like is still comparing the first job gained after full-time study. Of course lawyering is much better paid than post-docing, but the salary of a trainee lawyer and a post-doc in London are not too dissimilar, which is suprising considering the vast disparity in earnings amongst the two professions.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    They just tend not to get Fulbright scholarships or other uberly-prestigious scholarships.
    Stepping away from the Oxbridge debate for a second, I just wanted to point out that while yes, Fulbright scholarships are, of course, very prestigious, their level of difficulty when it comes to their initial acquisition is at times a tad bit overrated, especially for US applicants - it really all depends on the country/programme you're after. A friend of mine from Boston College (it's a great school, but it's not Stanford or Yale) with a 3.7 GPA managed to glide through the process thanks to a really, erm, how should we put this... original research proposal - she's studying how Russian Homeowners' Associations are being transformed into "cells" of local government institutions in order to promote democracy. In my personal (perhaps biased) opinion, the initial hypothesis (that these associations do, indeed, contribute to the development of democracy in Russia; most of these people in reality only want state subsidies to cover cleaning their courtyard) is a bit out there, but since the US loves anything to do with "promoting democracy worldwide", it's topics like these that Fulbright's now looking for - try getting a Fulbright with something of that calibre to, say, France...
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silkweed)
    Absolutely, from what I've heard anyway - bearing in mind I am not a graduate student. My uncle (LSE graduate) works for Bank of Amerrica in London and he spoke to me about the absolutely ruthless competition when it comes to applying for jobs. When he hires (recently) new graduates, work experience is absolutely top priority, far more so than whether they went to Oxbridge or not. For example, UCL plus work experience > Oxbridge degree without it. Basically, where the degree comes from is fairly neglible, in his experience, within the top universities and it comes down to details regarding work experience and interview. An Oxbridge candidate may well get the job, but will just as easily not, in his case anyway.
    (1) Banking again...
    (2) The likelihood that someone with an oxbridge degree will not have a decent amount of work experience is pretty close to 0. People at oxbridge do not ignore this fact, and the short terms give them quite a lot of flexibility when it comes to getting work experience, even if they do have quite a lot of work to do. Not to mention good contacts etc etc etc. I sincerely doubt that on average oxbridge graduates are in a worse position on such matters.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silkweed)
    True, but I was just throwing it out there as a point of interest, not as a hard and fast reference point for the entire discussion.



    I doubt most oxbridge applicants are in a poor position when they apply for post-grad jobs too. I simply found it interesting that in his view the name of the university (which in most cases tends to be a question of Oxbridge v. everyone else) made absolutely no difference within the top set. 2 candidates of equal merit will be set apart by factors totally unrelated to where they did their degree.

    It's a good point that Oxbridge's short terms provide more time for work experience, however. I wonder how much difference this actually makes.

    How much contact time do you get for your degree?
    At the moment I get 7 hours a week of lectures, two and a half hours of seminars, (which have between 15-25 people in them), a 1.5 hour tute with 5 people, and a 1 hour tute with 3 people in. Obviously the tutors spend time marking the essays aswell, I usually get 1 essay a week and a couple of problem questions that take up the same time as an essay.

    Who the tutors and lecturers are also makes a difference, though,as they have usually written a textbook, or worked on some of the key cases or articles on the reading lists (often all of the above) and they have often spoken to a judge who made a controversial descent etc. Another advantage is the fact that if you want to do any extra reading and you get on with your tute partners you can read different cases/articles and swap notes with complete confidence in everyone's notes if you want to. The same goes to for people in other disciplines, so for example if you are working on a constitutional law essay you can ask an economist or a politician or a philosopher or a historian and they are likely to be able to answer background information questions or give you another perspective on a theorist. This doesnt work so well at unis where law is mega competitive but other disciplines aren't. And they often have really high-profile speakers.

    Obviously all top universities have a lot of those things and at any rate it would be impossible to take full advantage of them all, but they rarely have the same concentration of them across all subjects and they can certainly help.

    I don't think more holiday time gives people more time because they still have to do a lot of reading during the holidays. However, it gives more flexibility so small employers might be able to accommodate more oxbridge students for work experience than they would other unis which have a shorter space of time.

    Also the 'top set' isn't so far behind for career related things like law and economics, and politics, which are highly competitive courses in general, than it is for more obscure subjects and sciences where oxbridge might be the only one which demands AAA from its applicants.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lexy86)
    Stepping away from the Oxbridge debate for a second, I just wanted to point out that while yes, Fulbright scholarships are, of course, very prestigious, their level of difficulty when it comes to their initial acquisition is at times a tad bit overrated, especially for US applicants - it really all depends on the country/programme you're after. A friend of mine from Boston College (it's a great school, but it's not Stanford or Yale) with a 3.7 GPA managed to glide through the process thanks to a really, erm, how should we put this... original research proposal - she's studying how Russian Homeowners' Associations are being transformed into "cells" of local government institutions in order to promote democracy. In my personal (perhaps biased) opinion, the initial hypothesis (that these associations do, indeed, contribute to the development of democracy in Russia; most of these people in reality only want state subsidies to cover cleaning their courtyard) is a bit out there, but since the US loves anything to do with "promoting democracy worldwide", it's topics like these that Fulbright's now looking for - try getting a Fulbright with something of that calibre to, say, France...
    The other way around it's a bit different. From the UK, the Fulbright scholarships are almost entire for taught courses, and you don't submit a Fulbright research proposal, the most popular courses being Harvard's MPP and MBA. Only 1 of the 11 UK scholars is going to do a research course. However they do want to see evidence of leadership, and thus most of the people who get them have been President of the Oxford Union, founded an international NGO, have amazing work experience in healthcare or some other useful field, etc. Looking at last year's scholars, it's quite scary!

    However these people often only have 2:1s (around a 3.3-3.6 GPA), but get it due to their extra-curricular ability.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    The other way around it's a bit different. From the UK, the Fulbright scholarships are almost entire for taught courses, and you don't submit a Fulbright research proposal, the most popular courses being Harvard's MPP and MBA. Only 1 of the 11 UK scholars is going to do a research course. However they do want to see evidence of leadership, and thus most of the people who get them have been President of the Oxford Union, founded an international NGO, have amazing work experience in healthcare or some other useful field, etc. Looking at last year's scholars, it's quite scary!

    However these people often only have 2:1s (around a 3.3-3.6 GPA), but get it due to their extra-curricular ability.
    That I'm aware of, and it's actually a bit strange if you think about it - internationally, a Fulbrighter will be a Fulbrighter whichever way you look at it, but you'll have the President of the Oxford Union on the one hand and a Fulbrighter from the US who spent a year in Bulgaria (applications: 8; grants available: 7... ) on the other, and they'll have equal standing within the Fulbright league...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    This year on our side there's 200 applications, and usually ~10 grants. Not so good odds
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by allymcb2)
    Hardly anyone at Oxbridge wants to do investment banking, so that possibly accounts for a significant amount of the difference. It is a money-grabbing souless job that wouldn't have any prestige if it weren't for the large sums of money. Secondly, I accept that it is possible that investment banking is an exception, and it is certainly the case that computer science is. However, OVERALL, and in certain very competitive industries which people go for primarily because they enjoy like the bar, the BBC, top journalism jobs, Oxbridge has an awful lot more clout than LSE.
    Sorry to resurrect this but was looking at old thread of interest.
    Aren't you slightly confusing the issue here? Oxbridge 'has clout' because the best people tend to be there, not just in itself. The way you phrase it makes it seem like someone with lesser overall ability/credentials who got an Oxbridge degree could get a job over someone better from LSE. Sure many people will be recruited from Oxbridge because they generally are the best. But people who are exceptionally able and go to LSE or UCL, or lesser places at that, are hardly going to be starved of opportunities. Industry does not just judge on rank of degree or whatever, they judge on other stuff, like chutzpah, fitness for the job, innate ability, presence, resilience etc. Hence the number of, for example top politicians/journalists who don't have firsts or even degrees from top unis compared to academics of lesser personal force/skills.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

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

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