This thread is closed

Oxbridge Master's

Quick query, I'm studying an undergrad degree in Manchester at the moment and beginning to think in a vague sort of way about what I want to do after I've finished it. I was wondering what my chances of getting onto a Master's program at Oxford or Cambridge were. Their websites suggest you need a 2.1 (by which I assume they actually mean a first) from a 'good' University. Does anyone have any idea what they mean by good? Perhaps someone here has done an undergrad at a redbrick before a masters at Oxbridge?

Reply 1

NDGAARONDI

16

Not meaning to come across the wrong way but have you asked them yourselves? I only say this because our conception of what a good university may differ from what they mean. Out of curiousity, to which subject is this for? Just I'm hoping to study at Oxford or Cambridge for masters but there's no mention of a 'good' university, rather a good 2:1.

Manchester will be fine. And even on the most competitive courses there will be people with 2.1s because the rest of their application (research proposal, references, any written work etc) was excellent.

Reply 3

Angelil

19

I got a 2.1 from Exeter and got onto the MSt in Linguistics at Oxford for the academic year just gone. Make of that what you will.

Reply 4

His Grace

Most certainly. However, the course makes a big difference. Nobody will sneer at Manchester being a Red Brick and so long as you end up getting something over 65 you should be fine. What stage are you at now? When I applied my grades really weren't that special but I pulled out all the stops to ensure they were solid on completion.

Reply 5

MancStudent098

OP

13

I'm just going into my second year so at this stage I just wanted to get a feel for whether it was a realistic possibility. Anyway from what you guys say it seems like it is, thanks for your help.

Reply 6

Ad-Alta

14

I have never seen anything about a 'good' university being needed to go on for Oxbridge postgrad :s-smilie:

A good 2.i or better yes, but nothing about where your undergrad was from.

Reply 7

rcar86

Indeed, I am in the same boat.

I'm looking at MPhils at oxbridge (economix, finance, or even MFE!) and I'm so perturbed by their ambiguous entry requirements. I myself have a first class degree from a redbrick and I just dont know if that would be sufficient.

For example; the entry to Cambridge Mphil in Finance more or less specifies a first class degree, but despite this they have a 13:1 application to place ratio.

Having spoken to one adcom, their response was that various things such as the strength of your references, your application essay and your submitted peices of undergrad coursework mean the world. Moreso, if you're doing a quant/management course, GMAT means everything (Oxbridge; look at 700+ I'm afraid).

So in summary if you meet the entry requirements for your course, then be sure to nail the other requirements.

I still cant help but feel that LSE/OXBRIDGE/WARWICK (1700 applicants for 70 places :eek:

!) is still a bit of a lucky dip.

Hope it helps, despite the rambling...

X

Reply 8

fumblewomble

2

Yes, you generally need a high 2.1. But the hard bit isn't really getting the grade. - it's getting the funding, for which you will need to be really excellent. Oxbridge would have more people on their masters courses if more people could get the funding.

Reply 9

roxy potter

13

Okay, so having just started my MPhil Econ at Cambridge I can tell you that the people here are from absolutely everywhere. Some are from oxford/lse, others are from places like manchester, warwick, queen mary, then others are from universities outside the uk that I've never heard of. The course is extremely international. So i think admissions care more about your potential, i don't think they discriminate based on undergraduate insitutions.

Reply 10

unknown demon

15

A close friend of mine got into Ox for Comparative Govt with a high 2.1 from QMUL. I really doubt your institution comes into things.

Reply 11

optiontrader

Ok as an American who is studying at a UK university (and who is still getting used to the UK grading methodology) I guess it's not always about a 2.1, but also about a "high" 2:1? At first I was under the impression that it was just about securing the 2:1 rather than the actual average mark itself. I'm just wondering if people perceive a lower 2:1 that much lesser than a high 2:1?

Any help would be appreciated! :smile:

Reply 12

Schott

11

optiontrader

Ok as an American who is studying at a UK university (and who is still getting used to the UK grading methodology) I guess it's not always about a 2.1, but also about a "high" 2:1? At first I was under the impression that it was just about securing the 2:1 rather than the actual average mark itself. I'm just wondering if people perceive a lower 2:1 that much lesser than a high 2:1?

Any help would be appreciated! :smile:

I think in the world of work and employment, the actual percentage mark for your 2.1 is not particularly important, apart from a few particularly competitive careers.

However, for Masters courses at top Universities, it probably matters much more.

Hope this helps.

Reply 13

Lord Fisher

Option trader; it is very important. If you want to do a Masters at Oxbridge, you will need a high 2.1. Should you get an offer, it is likely to be at very minimum a 65 in your undergrad degree, and may very likely be higher.

Its for careers that the 2.1 is the key to the lock, but for postgrad courses, at Oxbridge at least, they are not interested in broad classifications, but actually want you to exceed a certain level, stipulated by degree mark, rather than class. Lesser institution tend to only set degree class requirements.

Hope that clears things up. After all, you need to be very clear on that point if you are considering an Oxbridge masters. :smile:

Reply 14

the_alba

12

Lord Fisher

Option trader; it is very important. If you want to do a Masters at Oxbridge, you will need a high 2.1. Should you get an offer, it is likely to be at very minimum a 65 in your undergrad degree, and may very likely be higher.

Its for careers that the 2.1 is the key to the lock, but for postgrad courses, at Oxbridge at least, they are not interested in broad classifications, but actually want you to exceed a certain level, stipulated by degree mark, rather than class. Lesser institution tend to only set degree class requirements.

Hope that clears things up. After all, you need to be very clear on that point if you are considering an Oxbridge masters. :smile:

Where did you get this from? I've never seen that.

Reply 15

probably not

4

i think it depends on the course. my offer was "a 2.i" and i had friends who had offers like "67 or more".

Reply 16

roxy potter

13

I think it's more likely them looking at the mark you are attaining and then they give you an offer based on that. ie they might give a 2.1 offer to someone but in order to get the offer the person may have had to have a 67 average rather than say, 60.

I had a 2.1 offer from UCL (when i was averaging a first) but(i think anyways) I wouldnt have got the offer had my average been 60.

(sorry if I phrased that badly, i hope you get what i mean)

Reply 17

Angelil

19

Lord Fisher - this is not always true. My first year (at Exeter University) was by far my best year, and my marks declined from there on out. I did still get a 2.1, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't a very high one (though my transcript is nigh on impossible to read so it's difficult to be certain). And yet as you can see I graduated from an Oxford MSt this year. So these things are not set in stone at all - there's not much good in talking as if they are.

Reply 18

bron54

i would agree with Angelil...i am starting an mphil at cambridge this week and applied after i had graduated (last year). my final year marks were worse than my marks from my first and second years (i didn't have a particularly good final year, did not manage to 'peak', didn't like a few of the courses i took), yet somehow they still let me in. i would have no idea whether references and my sample essay played a role, but i suppose your marks are the only really 'solid' pieces of evidence of your academic potential they have (and therefore should have more of an influence)

Reply 19

Lord Fisher

Well its interesting that both individuals claiming to have got in with mere 2.1s have failed to stipulate their actual final degree average, just some vague idea that their 3rd year wasn't as good as their first two, which is neither here nor there without figures, and make no reference to their offers.

I know at Camb the BoGS interprets a 2.1 as 67.....

My feeling is offers are the same for everyone no matter what their current mark is, in recognition that you've not yet got that degree at that mark, and anything could happen- in exactly the fashion the above 2 posters have alluded to themselves in their final year. Departments are still likely to want their entrants to meet a basic standard.

Obviously none of this could be set in stone without a survey of all departments at Oxbridge, and none of us have that. But what I said remains true for very many courses- "it is likely to be at very minimum a 65".
Contrariwise, telling potential applicants they can make it with just a 2.1, when in reality, and the vast majority of cases, people will need significantly higher than that, is a little misleading. For example, anyone interested in the BCL needs to be aware that a 1st is a pre-requisite.

I do not believe, unless someone could show me their offer letter, that any applicant is given a mere '2.1' offer for any Oxbridge Masters, unless they are a current Oxbridge student....perhaps. 'Probably not'- were you already a current student at the respective Ox or Cam when made the offer?

By all means apply. But when there are 60 places and 400 applicants (as for some courses), I somehow doubt the basic 2.1 applicants are going to be frontrunners for offers.

Oxbridge Master's

Related discussions

Trending

Latest