What's better: 2-1 from "top" uni or first from other unis?

Comparing university by university average salary differences IMHO is stupid. It is more worthwhile comparing subject by subject salary differences between universities. Back in 2007 an average Nottingham economics graduate earned nearly 30 k (though now obviously that will be lower) and I am guessing a UCL/Warwick economics graduate earned a few more thousand pounds on average at best?

In the context of picking a university to go to I think it's a reasonable metric to measure employability (though not the best one).

Rather than guessing based upon your opinion, why don't you look up the actual data?

Also there is that external examiners report on part II of the Economics Tripos that went on about how papers marked as a 2.ii would have easily been a 2.i elsewhere.

Actually I've seen the report and that isn't exactly what it says. It says that marking in the 2nd year of the Cambridge economics degree is very harsh, even compared to marking standards in other years on the course. Cambridge, it would appear use this tactic to scare their economics students into work. The fact is that well over 80% of the graduates from the economics course gain a 2:1 or above, above the national average for the subject.

As for the anecdotal evidence, I have been told by several cambridge academics that there is little difference in either the chemistry or physics courses at Cambridge (Natsci specialisms of course) than at other universities in terms of content or assessment in later years (after specialisation has occured). Who is right? The fact is that even people with a good knowledge of the system can't really form a consensus on standards - that suggest that the issues are a) marginal and b) difficult to assess.

It would be far better to look at modal values and even then there is still the inherent value judgement that cohorts that enter careers with higher earnings at the start of them mean that graduates are more employable than cohorts that enter lower earning careers.

plus the fact you can't resit years.

The fact is that even people with a good knowledge of the system can't really form a consensus on standards - that suggest that the issues are a) marginal and b) difficult to assess.

I can't speak for nat sci, but for Mathematics there is a very clear difference. For example compare the course structures at these two unis:


http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/ugprospectus/facultiesanddepartments/mathematics/undergraduatecourses/coursestructure

http://www.herts.ac.uk/courses/Mathematics_structure.cfm

Sorry, can't tell a lot from a one page summary of a 3 or 4 year course on a subject that I'm not an expert in. The Imperial College course page is more detailed and uses fancier words. Perhaps there is more pure mathematical options at Imperial and more focus on applied and financial mathematics at Herts but that's all I can really tell.

The first year at Herts is pretty much A-Level level work. The course as a whole misses out the theory underlying mathematics, but rather concentrates on "methods" (ala GCSE/A-Levels).

You can tell that from a list of course titles? Wow, you're better than me, then.

Which is a harder course?

Why reactions happen or fundamental classical thermodynamics

Fancy words like 'Rieman' appeal to potential Imperial students because they make the course sound intellectually challenging for the intellectually snobbish middle class sixth formers that apply. Herts uses titles like 'Financial Markets' to attract predominantly working class students who are worried sick about getting a 'graduate job' and are looking for 'real world' courses.

God you do come out with some crap!

Maybe, just maybe, the reason the Imperial course uses words like 'Rieman' is because it actually teaches the Rieman's theory, maybe- what do you reckon?

Likewise, Herts uses "Financial markets" because the students will get their colouring pencils out and colour the area beneath the curve and above the x axis......?

Doesnt take a genius to work out the difference, does it?

Sorry, can't tell a lot from a one page summary of a 3 or 4 year course on a subject that I'm not an expert in. The Imperial College course page is more detailed and uses fancier words. Perhaps there is more pure mathematical options at Imperial and more focus on applied and financial mathematics at Herts but that's all I can really tell.

Tbh I live by the old addage of never judging a book buy its cover. Remember that Herts and Imperial are appealing to very different target markets in terms of what may make a course attractive to potential applicants. Fancy words like 'Rieman' appeal to potential Imperial students because they make the course sound intellectually challenging for the intellectually snobbish middle class sixth formers that apply. Herts uses titles like 'Financial Markets' to attract predominantly working class students who are worried sick about getting a 'graduate job' and are looking for 'real world' courses.