Turn on thread page Beta

What is a good upper second class? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Er, no. If they say they want a 2.1 then having a 2.2 from Oxbridge won't matter. Not unless you have work experience to make up for it. At least that is what I have taken from the university websites.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheOneWho)
    Er, no. If they say they want a 2.1 then having a 2.2 from Oxbridge won't matter. Not unless you have work experience to make up for it. At least that is what I have taken from the university websites.
    See what the admission criteria of MBA at U Berkeley are:

    "Your past academic performance provides us with an indication as to whether you will be able to handle the academic rigor of our program. With this in mind, we review all academic records closely. Candidates may apply to the program if they hold the equivalent of a four-year US bachelor's degree and have not obtained an MBA or comparable degree from another institution. In reviewing your transcripts, we take into account your choice of coursework, the rigor of your undergraduate major, the competitiveness of your academic institutions, and your grade point average (GPA). Although we do not have a minimum requirement, a GPA of B (3.0) or better is generally the standard for serious consideration."
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    Interesting. Though I would have thought that it plays some role. Maybe not if you go to a university which is reasonably well respected (i.e. a redbrick, Durham, St Andrews etc.) but I find it hard to believe that, considering the many debates we have had on TSR which have strongly concluded that a first from ex-poly X is in no way equal to a first from Oxbridge [...]
    There was a thread some months ago on here asking what advice uni students would impart to incoming freshers. My favourite response of them all was '49 out of 50 people are morons' (because it was both funny and true). Whenever I wander into those TSR debates on ex-polys vs red brick universities and those 'conclusions', that quote always comes to mind. :woo:

    (Original post by Fares)
    I think that the name of your college and the difficulty of your undergrad program can only help. Let's say one had a GPA slightly below the required or a B in an advanced math course, then the admission comittee would take the fact that one went to Oxbridge or took a difficult course into consideration. Of course if you have good grades,an above-average GPA, and a strong PS, you will be admitted even if you come out of a low-ranked college.
    I disagree, we have seen examples on here and elsewhere of people who are below the marks yet have something special getting in to even the best universities in the country while those who meet the requirement but lack either originality or clear purpose can be (and often are) turned down. Universities are looking for quality applicants, not alumni from quality institutions.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fares)
    See what the admission criteria of MBA at U Berkeley are:

    "Your past academic performance provides us with an indication as to whether you will be able to handle the academic rigor of our program. With this in mind, we review all academic records closely. Candidates may apply to the program if they hold the equivalent of a four-year US bachelor's degree and have not obtained an MBA or comparable degree from another institution. In reviewing your transcripts, we take into account your choice of coursework, the rigor of your undergraduate major, the competitiveness of your academic institutions, and your grade point average (GPA). Although we do not have a minimum requirement, a GPA of B (3.0) or better is generally the standard for serious consideration."
    Berkeley being an American university. I am unsure how it works over there, although a GPA of 3.0 seems a little low to me. In the UK I have never seen different requirements for different universities. I have heard that current Oxbridge students may get asked for slightly lower conditions if they are carrying on their study at their undergraduate institution but I am unsure as to how common that is.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fares)
    See what the admission criteria of MBA at U Berkeley are:

    "Your past academic performance provides us with an indication as to whether you will be able to handle the academic rigor of our program. With this in mind, we review all academic records closely. Candidates may apply to the program if they hold the equivalent of a four-year US bachelor's degree and have not obtained an MBA or comparable degree from another institution. In reviewing your transcripts, we take into account your choice of coursework, the rigor of your undergraduate major, the competitiveness of your academic institutions, and your grade point average (GPA). Although we do not have a minimum requirement, a GPA of B (3.0) or better is generally the standard for serious consideration."
    The MBA is a whole different kettle of fish though!

    I just looked at the entry requirements for an MA in my subject at Berkeley and there is no mention of the acedemic institution that you went to. US entry is completely different to UK postgrad entry.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Caspar David Friedrich)
    There was a thread some months ago on here asking what advice uni students would impart to incoming freshers. My favourite response of them all was '49 out of 50 people are morons' (because it was both funny and true). Whenever I wander into those TSR debates on ex-polys vs red brick universities and those 'conclusions', that quote always comes to mind. :woo:
    I to some extent agree. We should not just assume, because of its inherent grandiosity, that Oxbridge is the paradigm to be followed. However, I think it's hard to suggest (without in any way wanting to be denigratory) that the standards at ex-poly X are likely to be similar, in terms of qualification, to those at Oxbridge, or indeed perhaps a Redbrick. Would you argue otherwise?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    I to some extent agree. We should not just assume, because of its inherent grandiosity, that Oxbridge is the paradigm to be followed. However, I think it's hard to suggest (without in any way wanting to be denigratory) that the standards at ex-poly X are likely to be similar, in terms of qualification, to those at Oxbridge, or indeed perhaps a Redbrick. Would you argue otherwise?
    Yes, but by the same token, the standards at a redbrick are not the same as at Oxbridge.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Albiceleste)
    Yes, but by the same token, the standards at a redbrick are not the same as at Oxbridge.
    Of course. That's why I said perhaps also a Redbrick -- I didn't suggest that the standards are the same, just that a Redbrick may, by a lesser margin perhaps, have higher standards than ex-poly X also.

    Moreover, all of this minutiae is to some extent futile as one can indeed do more work than is required by the specification at a 'lesser' university, whilst another sticks to the specification at a 'better' university. And yet of course the specification is by what we are judged. Ultimately, 'the system' should judge students not universities -- but I accept that this is not wholly possible under the present system.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    I to some extent agree. We should not just assume, because of its inherent grandiosity, that Oxbridge is the paradigm to be followed. However, I think it's hard to suggest (without in any way wanting to be denigratory) that the standards at ex-poly X are likely to be similar, in terms of qualification, to those at Oxbridge, or indeed perhaps a Redbrick. Would you argue otherwise?
    2 of my friends are going to a "Russell Group" university and I'm going to one of the "1994 group". All our conditional offers were to get a 2:1 and we've all come from one of the newest universities around. (I've used "Russell group" instead of "Red-Brick" as the red-brick institutions come under the Russell group these days).

    If the quality was so different, either our offers would have been higher or we would not have received offers at all.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by apotoftea)
    2 of my friends are going to a "Russell Group" university and I'm going to one of the "1994 group". All our conditional offers were to get a 2:1 and we've all come from one of the newest universities around. (I've used "Russell group" instead of "Red-Brick" as the red-brick institutions come under the Russell group these days).

    If the quality was so different, either our offers would have been higher or we would not have received offers at all.
    Interesting. Though that does not prove that Oxbridge do not have different policies to the universities you mention. What subject are you studying?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    Interesting. Though that does not prove that Oxbridge do not have different policies to the universities you mention. What subject are you studying?
    Angelil would be the one to ask re the Oxbridge policies. Think her UG degree came from Exeter. Subject is History btw.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by apotoftea)
    Angelil would be the one to ask re the Oxbridge policies. Think her UG degree came from Exeter. Subject is History btw.
    Oh okay, that's interesting anyway. Thanks for the post!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Go with 65%. Thats what I'd call a good 2:1.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by apotoftea)
    Angelil would be the one to ask re the Oxbridge policies. Think her UG degree came from Exeter. Subject is History btw.
    Yeah - for politics I got a below-standard offer for postgrad and my undergrad was at a fairly unspectacular Russell Group university. I don't think it has a significant impact. I don't doubt that they consider your undergraduate university as an aspect of your entry profile, but I firmly believe that university is what you make of it - and you can demonstrate that you've really got the most out of your time there in every other facet of the application.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by IlexAquifolium)
    Yeah - for politics I got a below-standard offer for postgrad and my undergrad was at a fairly unspectacular Russell Group university. I don't think it has a significant impact. I don't doubt that they consider your undergraduate university as an aspect of your entry profile, but I firmly believe that university is what you make of it - and you can demonstrate that you've really got the most out of your time there in every other facet of the application.
    Ilex! :waggle:
    We are still one of the only British uni's to have a global ranking you know (although I have to admit I was rather horrified to see the 'advertising' in New Street a few weeks ago - we aren't BCU!)

    Anyway, I think Cambridge's offers tend to be 2.i's as standard, unless you're applying to one of the undergraduate colleges (I know for the course I'll be doing, the standard offer according to their websites would have been a first).
    To answer the question, a 'good' upper second is 65+ - anything above the half-way mark, but I'd also support the 67+ idea too.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'd say 65+ is a good 2:1 and 67+ is a high 2:1... ah the joys of arbitrary divisions
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Yep, over here :hello:

    Exeter's transcripts are monstrous so I don't actually know what MARK I received overall. However, I achieved a 2.1, and despite Oxford's requirement for a 'high' 2.1 (which I'm guessing means over 65 - they didn't really specify this), I'm guessing I would have only scraped a 65 overall, if that, owing to my appalling performance in Ancient Greek in my third year (should have carried on with Latin!).

    And yes, I did get my undergraduate degree from Exeter.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    67+ i would think
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Angelil)
    Yep, over here :hello:

    Exeter's transcripts are monstrous so I don't actually know what MARK I received overall. However, I achieved a 2.1, and despite Oxford's requirement for a 'high' 2.1 (which I'm guessing means over 65 - they didn't really specify this), I'm guessing I would have only scraped a 65 overall, if that, owing to my appalling performance in Ancient Greek in my third year (should have carried on with Latin!).

    And yes, I did get my undergraduate degree from Exeter.
    Similarly Warwick Transcripts "just" give a list of modules and marks and not an overall average or grade.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paulwhy)
    Similarly Warwick Transcripts "just" give a list of modules and marks and not an overall average or grade.
    Ours too - you can calculate them yourself knowing the weighting, but the overall average as they perceive it isn't listed - presumably because of the paper profiling that occurs (so someone with a numerical average of 66 can come out with a first).
 
 
 

University open days

  • Heriot-Watt University
    School of Textiles and Design Undergraduate
    Fri, 16 Nov '18
  • University of Roehampton
    All departments Undergraduate
    Sat, 17 Nov '18
  • Edge Hill University
    Faculty of Health and Social Care Undergraduate
    Sat, 17 Nov '18
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?

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.