This discussion is closed.
AT82
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#21
Report 14 years ago
#21
(Original post by trouttrout)
Of course they're different. Can't say a degree from Oxford is of same level as a degree at some poly!
Polys have not existed since 1992. Have you actually got any evidence for this or are you just guessing?
0
kingslaw
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#22
Report 14 years ago
#22
(Original post by BossLady)
no...the big 3 (ie lse, imperial and ucl) can complete well with oxbridge. Kings sadly has declined alot although there are some exceptions e.g Law(which is sposed to be very rigorous there) and medicine...
Saved yourself from a lecture there ! Further exceptions are Medicine, History and Philosophy - and though a slightly different case, War Studies.

I thought I'd refer people to a post I made in a previous thread which is relevant (though it did kill the thread!):

Hey.

After talking to one of my tutors today, I found out that some of the things I had said in this discussion were incorrect. Mainly, the bit where I said that it was just as difficult to get a first at any other university in the country as it is at Oxbridge. My tutor told me that actually different groups of universities (usually composed according to prestige) will have different external examiners to regulate the standards each university requires to achieve a first/2:1/2:2...

HOWEVER, part of my main point still stands. What I know only comes from what I know about the procedure in grading Law exams, but I assume a similar method applies to all subjects. She said that Oxbridge share the same external examiners for Law as, for certain the London universities of the 'Golden 5' (UCL, LSE, KCL) and some of the other Russell Group universities. I assume this is the same also for other subjects.

Just thought that was quite insightful.
0
granddad_bob
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#23
Report 14 years ago
#23
(Original post by amazingtrade)
I think the only people really qualified to say that is the employers though. I had a lecturer at college who went to Liverpool John Mores, he got a 3rd, he still ended up working for Marconi and earning £40k a year.
and we could probable all come out with these one-off cases; i'm sure there's several oxbridge graduates flipping burgers in burger king, for example. the fact of the matter is that when comparing oxford to liverpool john mores - and when all other aspects are near enough equal - the majority of employers would play it safe and go oxonian rather than taking a slight risk on the other guy.
0
granddad_bob
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#24
Report 14 years ago
#24
(Original post by PQ)
and there was me thinking that the majority of employers would interview people before giving anyone a job and pick the person who seemed best for the job in person
"when all other aspects are near enough equal"
0
AT82
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#25
Report 14 years ago
#25
(Original post by granddad_bob)
and we could probable all come out with these one-off cases; i'm sure there's several oxbridge graduates flipping burgers in burger king, for example. the fact of the matter is that when comparing oxford to liverpool john mores - and when all other aspects are near enough equal - the majority of employers would play it safe and go oxonian rather than taking a slight risk on the other guy.
Yes that is true, but the gap isn't quite as big is some people like to make out. It also depends on the job sector largely as well, for example of Law it probably makes a bigger difference than say electronics.

I have heared lots of stories of Oxbridge graduates not always being the best for a job because they don't understand the practical aspects of it, I heared a story of a quantitive survier from Oxbridge who was hopeless compared to other graduates. However I am not going to use that for this argument because it may well be an isolated case and indidividual factors also play a huge part in it.

All I am really trying to say is nothing is black and white, Oxbridge increases your chance of getting a good job, but like anything in life it is no guarentee.

There are some great oxbridge students on this site that I have huge respect for, and they deserve to do very well indeed. I also had just as much respect for this scally college lecturer bought up in a rough council estate that managed to get into LJM. He knew so much stuff when it came to computing he was like Pig.

Sorry to keep woffeling, I do agree in the general statement that Oxbridge and higher up universitie degrees are worth more but it is just a very general statement.
0
AT82
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#26
Report 14 years ago
#26
(Original post by PQ)
and there was me thinking that the majority of employers would interview people before giving anyone a job and pick the person who seemed best for the job in person
Well I had no trouble getting a job competing against 7 other undergraduates and there isn't exactly a shortage of universities in my local area I don't mean that to sound arrogant, just look forward to some very controversial threads from me this time next year, as I will then know the real value of an average degree.
0
granddad_bob
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#27
Report 14 years ago
#27
i would consider an interview one of the aspects.
0
trouttrout
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#28
Report 14 years ago
#28
Polys have not existed since 1992. Have you actually got any evidence for this or are you just guessing?
It's obvious. Why do you think Oxford has higher entry grads than say Leeds Met?

Higher quality of teaching, better research facilities at red brick unis. Red bricks have become established.

You don't seriously think someone leaving say Leeds Met with a first is as highly qualified as someone leaving say Oxford with a first do you???

Come off it!
0
AT82
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#29
Report 14 years ago
#29
(Original post by granddad_bob)
i would consider an interview one of the aspects.
ok you have two students (this is not supposed to be stereotyping in anyway btw)

From from Liverpool John Moore, he is funny down to earth and really seems to know his stuff, he has a 2:1.

From Oxbridge, seems quite clanny and quite, fails to spot the jokes, appears to serius, you have doubts about his ability to work in a team, he has a 2:1.

Which one do you hire?
0
AT82
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#30
Report 14 years ago
#30
(Original post by trouttrout)
It's obvious. Why do you think Oxford has higher entry grads than say Leeds Met?

Higher quality of teaching, better research facilities at red brick unis. Red bricks have become established.

You don't seriously think someone leaving say Leeds Met with a first is as highly qualified as someone leaving say Oxford with a first do you???

Come off it!
Again it comes down to personal qualities as well. A lot of entry requirements are down to demand, Leeds Met doesn't have anything like the demand of oxbridge due to percieved reputation. Of course teaching and research is probably better at Oxbridge but there are too many circumstances which make that statement a bit snobbish.
0
trouttrout
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#31
Report 14 years ago
#31
Agreed, my opinion does seem very snobbish. But I can asure you I am not. In reply to your two proposed candidates, I think it depends on the job also. If it was a job involving indvidual work, I'd take the better educated person, if a job involving lots of cooperation etc etc I'd probably take the more sociable candidate. But if the two interviewers came across as equally confident, funny, adaptable etc etc who would you then choose??? I'd go for teh better educated one.
0
ChemistBoy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#32
Report 14 years ago
#32
(Original post by trouttrout)
It's obvious. Why do you think Oxford has higher entry grads than say Leeds Met?

Higher quality of teaching, better research facilities at red brick unis. Red bricks have become established.

You don't seriously think someone leaving say Leeds Met with a first is as highly qualified as someone leaving say Oxford with a first do you???

Come off it!

Higher quality of teaching? Are you sure? That point is very debatable. I would expect someone with a first to be a highly intelligent and well read person - someone with a first from Leeds Met stands as much chance of getting onto a postgraduate course at oxford as an oxford graduate, all other things being equal.
0
AT82
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#33
Report 14 years ago
#33
(Original post by trouttrout)
Agreed, my opinion does seem very snobbish. But I can asure you I am not. In reply to your two proposed candidates, I think it depends on the job also. If it was a job involving indvidual work, I'd take the better educated person, if a job involving lots of cooperation etc etc I'd probably take the more sociable candidate. But if the two interviewers came across as equally confident, funny, adaptable etc etc who would you then choose??? I'd go for teh better educated one.
I would look into all the possibilies and look at the social backgrounds of my current work team. The last thing I would want to do is upset any other team members or make any other of my team feel threatrened. I wouldn't want an oxbridge boy coming in making other people worried that he/she may take over. The same applies to hiring graduates other none graduates for basic jobs.

However if my team were a mixed bag from different social backgrounds then I would have no problem hiring the Oxbridge graduate. Depending on the exact job if I had to weigh up who gets the job on a point score out of 100 I would probably add 5 for the oxbridge candidite. This largely depends on the job though. I would also do lots of research about how to hire people first to make sure the best candidate does get the job. I am not really qualified to make the above statement, Iam just saying what I would do if I was a boss.
0
trouttrout
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#34
Report 14 years ago
#34
Of course they don't. That's only the case upto and including A level, where exams are standardised... at degree level, it changes, that's the whole point in universities... Plus.. unis get accessed on teaching levels, research levels etc... obviously the higher rated unis are better. otherwise people would just think, lets go to the easiest uni to get into, why do people want to go to Oxford, when they could get into say leeds met a lot easier????
0
ChemistBoy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#35
Report 14 years ago
#35
(Original post by trouttrout)
Of course they don't. That's only the case upto and including A level, where exams are standardised... at degree level, it changes, that's the whole point in universities... Plus.. unis get accessed on teaching levels, research levels etc... obviously the higher rated unis are better. otherwise people would just think, lets go to the easiest uni to get into, why do people want to go to Oxford, when they could get into say leeds met a lot easier????
Look at the teaching quality index - you might be suprised by the results.
0
granddad_bob
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#36
Report 14 years ago
#36
(Original post by amazingtrade)
ok you have two students (this is not supposed to be stereotyping in anyway btw)

From from Liverpool John Moore, he is funny down to earth and really seems to know his stuff, he has a 2:1.

From Oxbridge, seems quite clanny and quite, fails to spot the jokes, appears to serius, you have doubts about his ability to work in a team, he has a 2:1.

Which one do you hire?
hang on, how can that be more stereotypical!? let's look at it this way:

LJM - chav you says "innit", wears a baseball cap to the job interview, writes in txt speak. somehow got a 2i.

ox - well spoken debater, very approachable and good in team situations. rugby blue, works for target schools and RAG. got a 2i because they were president of the union.

talk about making a scenario suit your arguement... :rolleyes:

(Original post by PQ)
have you *ever* known of two people to perform identically well at a job interview....I've known people perform just as badly as each other but when it comes to picking who performed best there is nearly* always a clear ranking
(*and where there isn't a clear ranking in interview performance the other factors (such as notice periods, previous experience, likely pay demands etc etc) allow a straight forward differentiation between applicants....something as arbitrary as where someone studied is as likely to be a consideration as their skin colour or gender)
well, it was a hypothetical situation, i can't say i thought through every possiblity... ok, after everything is done: interview, references ect ect, these people are ranked 7th and 8th, differentiated by a negligible amount. the company has room for seven new employees. the job position is that of a glorified office monkey in the operations department, maybe including some low-level number crunching; so it really isn't that important how well they fit in. they're fresh out of university so pay demands and work experience are similar. now most of the time, in my experience and that of the people i've spoken too, they'd take the oxbridge student over the ex-poly student more often than not - and like it or not, sheffield hallam, leeds met. ect, to most people are still just ex-polies.

as for your comparison of picking on university to that of race or gender, it is completely ridiculous. you don't have to be intelligent to be black, white, male or female, whereas you do've to be fairly talented to even be considering applying to oxbridge, let along obtaining an offer.
0
granddad_bob
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#37
Report 14 years ago
#37
what it means doesn't matter; what employers presume does. not all employer are in the financial position to carry out a mass investigation on the circumstances under which students enter higher education. along similar lines, most employers aren't in the position to read all the government reports on teaching and research quality. in fact, i imagine the most medium-level (eg. not FTSE 100 ect) firms know about the eduction system is what the see in league tables, both of which have oxford and cambridge at the top followed by LSE, imperial, manchester, UCL ect.

it a well know fact that certain companies have a list of 20 to 25 companies that they consider "desirable", including the place i temped for last summer.
0
ChemistBoy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#38
Report 14 years ago
#38
(Original post by granddad_bob)
it a well know fact that certain companies have a list of 20 to 25 companiesuniversities i presume that they consider "desirable", including the place i temped for last summer.
But, companies that operate this kind of policy tend to have done their homework on the graduates that these institutions produce.
0
The Messiah
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#39
Report 14 years ago
#39
theorethically they are equal degrees however from a pragmatic standpoint the disparity is significant
0
InterCity125
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#40
Report 14 years ago
#40
(Original post by amazingtrade)
I think the only people really qualified to say that is the employers though. I had a lecturer at college who went to Liverpool John Mores, he got a 3rd, he still ended up working for Marconi and earning £40k a year.
From what I have been told, they put Oxbridge before anything else, followed by Bristol/Notts/Durham - the usual suspects.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (150)
59.29%
No I haven't decided yet (58)
22.92%
Yes but I might change my mind (45)
17.79%

Watched Threads

View All