Will People Please Stop Saying, "There's Always Postgrad..."

Does Jonesy_Wonesy need a less weepy_sleepy?

Some people just want to go to oxbridge.

Those people are very naive; luckily most will grow out of it. Jonesy, of course you're right. Ourselves on the postgrad forum have a sticky on this subject now, as we were so tired of endless questions from kids who had missed their offers asking, 'If I go to University X, can I get into Oxbridge for postgrad as I really wanna go?'

Postgraduate study is on another level from undergraduate and cannot be judged in the same way. Only go to Oxford or Cambridge as a postgrad if they are research-intensive in your field, are home to some leading expert you want as your supervisor, and/or have specific resources (eg. a manuscript collection) that you wouldn't be able to access as easily if you went elsewhere. Don't go for the prestige - there's little of it around at postgrad stage, and it won't make you any more like to get an academic job.

if you intend to apply to a competitive area of work that doesn't specifically request a higher degree but for which a masters will look great nonetheless (banking, law, finance, management etc) after, Oxbridge branding will make all the difference regardless of the research the specific department has or hasn't produced.

Do you really think that an irrelevant masters would have a significant beneficial effect on employment chances? I've always thought that postgrad would only be helpful if it's in something relevant like economics/management/law. I suppose any masters degree is at a higher level and involves doing different things from undergrad, and hence you'd have a little more in the way of 'transferable skills', but would it be worth the time and money?

Do you really think that an irrelevant masters would have a significant beneficial effect on employment chances? I've always thought that postgrad would only be helpful if it's in something relevant like economics/management/law. I suppose any masters degree is at a higher level and involves doing different things from undergrad, and hence you'd have a little more in the way of 'transferable skills', but would it be worth the time and money?

It would not be worth the money if you were simply doing it to make yourself more employable; certainly, 15 grand is a lot to give you a bit of an edge. However, if you think you could pursue a certain subject at an even higher level and are genuinely interested in it, but want an a non academic career and are qualified to do a postgrad at Oxbridge/LSE, then I think it will look very, very impressive anyway; after all, it is a higher degree, pitched at a higher level, from an elite institution. In the same way that a History or Classics undergrad from one of these places is not vocational but impressive and employable anyway, so it is the case with a masters. is How can that be bad? But i agree, definitely not worth it if you are doing it SOLELY for enhanced emplpyability; this ought to be a handy side effect.

a masters in a random subject from Oxbridge won't add that much to employment prospects

I didn't even think that Cambridge, at least, do very many Master's courses? The only ones I know of result from a four-year undergraduate course, not a separate one-year Master's. I'm not sure about Oxford; quite probably they do offer them.

I think it also depends on where you want to work. Bachelor's degrees are next to non-existent in some parts of the world (continental Europe in particular) where you either go and do a min. 5 yr undergrad+masters (though usually at the same uni) or you don't go to university at all. If you want to work in an graduate position outside the english speaking world you will find yourself with next to no opportunities with a Bachelor's only. And since Oxford and Cambridge are the best known UK unis internationally it certainly would pay to get a masters from these universities if you plan to work abroad.