This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Do gcse grades matter?
- How Difficult Is It To Get Into Oxford?
- Myth of Cambridge admissions being just merit based - Mainly international students
- Motorbike licence
- EEE offers
- Official Politics and/or International Relations Applicants Thread 2024
- Applying for Maths at Oxford, Imperial and Warwick
- Further maths for economics (E&M oxford)?
- 80/100 on HAT and still rejected from Oxford
- How manageable is 4 A-Levels and an EPQ?
- Has anyone ever rejected Oxbridge?
- Oxbridge Admissions
- Where to apply to?
- Can I get all 7s, 8s and 9s in 4 months for GCSEs
- Which universities are targeted by employers?
- Does Oxford care about GCSEs if you wanna do law there?
- how much do oxbridge care about gcses
- How to write a first class essay (history/politics)
- Durham Uni Law offer, should I accept?
- Correlation between UKMT Maths challenge and being able to do Maths at Uni
In theory, should those who got Firsts at other "top" unis have been in Oxbridge...
instead of those Oxbridge students who got 2:2s and Thirds? I don't know much about the university grading system right now, and I know there are discrepencies in the grading system between each institution. Indeed, no admissions system is perfect - tutors have no crystal ball - and, of course, there's also the point that there always needs to be people getting 2:2s and Thirds (I think 
). However, looking at things retrospectively, it's obvious that a First from a UCL, Durham, Imperial, down to probably the likes of Reading and Loughborough, would be better than a Third, even from Cambridge. One other important consideration, of course, are the differences in the method of teaching - and whether those who get Firsts from the other unis would be suited to the Oxbridge system. Hmm...is there really an answer to this question?
). However, looking at things retrospectively, it's obvious that a First from a UCL, Durham, Imperial, down to probably the likes of Reading and Loughborough, would be better than a Third, even from Cambridge. One other important consideration, of course, are the differences in the method of teaching - and whether those who get Firsts from the other unis would be suited to the Oxbridge system. Hmm...is there really an answer to this question?Scroll to see replies
LawBore
Probably the main factor is how hard they tried at school- I would be going to a better uni if I'd put some effort in, but I'm going to work my arse off for a 1st 
Hmm...I'm sort of assuming those going to other top tier unis did try as hard at school. And I said 'in theory'. So that, in hindsight, regardless of their other circumstances, SHOULD they be? Probably leave any realism out of it.
When you get a First from St Andrews we can safely say Oxford ballsed it up. 
I'm hoping to get a First from UCL, but I've made it a lot harder for myself by giving over a 3rd of my degree to a language I have no proven facility in. Also I have to pass a 5-discipline compulsory course
On the bright side I get to avoid what have to be some of the driest philosophy modules in the known world, and 3 essays a week or whatever.
Anyway, I don't think there's a "should" question here - I don't think the gulf between other top unis and Oxbridge is big enough to warrant that sort of question. But then I would say that, I declined Cambridge, I need validation.
I'm hoping to get a First from UCL, but I've made it a lot harder for myself by giving over a 3rd of my degree to a language I have no proven facility in. Also I have to pass a 5-discipline compulsory course
On the bright side I get to avoid what have to be some of the driest philosophy modules in the known world, and 3 essays a week or whatever.Anyway, I don't think there's a "should" question here - I don't think the gulf between other top unis and Oxbridge is big enough to warrant that sort of question. But then I would say that, I declined Cambridge, I need validation.
littleshambles
Well, that's nice to know...
Actually I would say it was the environment at St Andrews that helped me to do so well. I don't think anyone 'should' be anywhere. Universities have to make these decisions based on very little information and people's performance varies such a lot that it is impossible not to get it wrong in a significant number of cases.
In hindsight would I have preferred to go to Oxford? Not in the slightest, most of my friends who went there were really unhappy during their time there. I loved my time at St Andrews and wouldn't change it for anything.
ChemistBoy
Well, that's nice to know...
Actually I would say it was the environment at St Andrews that helped me to do so well. I don't think anyone 'should' be anywhere. Universities have to make these decisions based on very little information and people's performance varies such a lot that it is impossible not to get it wrong in a significant number of cases.
In hindsight would I have preferred to go to Oxford? Not in the slightest, most of my friends who went there were really unhappy during their time there. I loved my time at St Andrews and wouldn't change it for anything.
Actually I would say it was the environment at St Andrews that helped me to do so well. I don't think anyone 'should' be anywhere. Universities have to make these decisions based on very little information and people's performance varies such a lot that it is impossible not to get it wrong in a significant number of cases.
In hindsight would I have preferred to go to Oxford? Not in the slightest, most of my friends who went there were really unhappy during their time there. I loved my time at St Andrews and wouldn't change it for anything.
I agree.
To be honest I don't think there's really, beyond a certain extent, a "right" university to go to for anyone. Wherever you'll go you'll meet different people, learn different things about yourself and have different experiences, and you could be happy at any number of universities. There's no real way of quantifying one possible set of experiences over another.
my dad got a third (i think) from cambridge
he would probably have done better, but between accepting his offer and starting the course,some scaffolding fell off a lorry onto his head, screwing him up rather a lot
the moral of the story?
how well you do in the applications process can never be fully representative of how well you will do in the degree.
he would probably have done better, but between accepting his offer and starting the course,some scaffolding fell off a lorry onto his head, screwing him up rather a lot
the moral of the story?
how well you do in the applications process can never be fully representative of how well you will do in the degree.
necessarily benevolent
instead of those Oxbridge students who got 2:2s and Thirds? I don't know much about the university grading system right now, and I know there are discrepencies in the grading system between each institution. Indeed, no admissions system is perfect - tutors have no crystal ball - and, of course, there's also the point that there always needs to be people getting 2:2s and Thirds (I think ). However, looking at things retrospectively, it's obvious that a First from a UCL, Durham, Imperial, down to probably the likes of Reading and Loughborough, would be better than a Third, even from Cambridge. One other important consideration, of course, are the differences in the method of teaching - and whether those who get Firsts from the other unis would be suited to the Oxbridge system. Hmm...is there really an answer to this question?
). However, looking at things retrospectively, it's obvious that a First from a UCL, Durham, Imperial, down to probably the likes of Reading and Loughborough, would be better than a Third, even from Cambridge. One other important consideration, of course, are the differences in the method of teaching - and whether those who get Firsts from the other unis would be suited to the Oxbridge system. Hmm...is there really an answer to this question?I know someone who graduated from Reading last year with a 1st and they certainly ain't Oxbridge material
littleshambles
Anyway, I don't think there's a "should" question here - I don't think the gulf between other top unis and Oxbridge is big enough to warrant that sort of question.
Anyway, I don't think there's a "should" question here - I don't think the gulf between other top unis and Oxbridge is big enough to warrant that sort of question.
I'd have to completely agree with you there.
Ultimately, when a university has over 800 years of history (or how ever many years it is), it's bound to have a (dare I say) better reputation than it deserves.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to say London Metropolitan University is of equal quality to Oxbridge - that would be ludicrous - but Oxford and Cambridge definately have a 'brand' which lends them more prestige and respect that they should perhaps get. It's rather like designer sports clothing or something similar; Nike or Adidas trainers will always be seen as more superior in quality to other shoes just because they've got the brand image which other firms don't.
If I recall correctly, it was only a few years a go that Oxford Brookes university got a higher research rating for history than the big-dog Oxford
Natalie*
Maybe they wouldn't have wanted to to go to Oxbridge
This is working on the basis that they did. Or that the "intention" doesn't matter, but instead whether, in theory, they would've been better suited than those who got 2:2s and Thirds.
illy123
What about Imperial Engineering and LSE Econ? Are they oxbridge or other 'top' unis?
The latter category. Even though they're arguably more prestigious, it just adds weight to the point that if someone got a First in one of those courses then they may've deserved to go to Oxbridge if they didn't receive a place.
necessarily benevolent
This is working on the basis that they did. Or that the "intention" doesn't matter, but instead whether, in theory, they would've been better suited than those who got 2:2s and Thirds.
The latter category. Even though they're arguably more prestigious, it just adds weight to the point that if someone got a First in one of those courses then they may've deserved to go to Oxbridge if they didn't receive a place.
The latter category. Even though they're arguably more prestigious, it just adds weight to the point that if someone got a First in one of those courses then they may've deserved to go to Oxbridge if they didn't receive a place.
I agree if we define Oxbridge to be the epitome of academic excellence; though this is debateable. I think your title is a bit iffy though; 'had been given Oxbridge offers' is more apt I think as some people will reject Oxbridge for UCL, LSE, St. Andrews, Warwick, Imperial ...
illy123
I think your title is a bit iffy though; 'had been given Oxbridge offers' is more apt I think as some people will reject Oxbridge for UCL, LSE, St. Andrews, Warwick, Imperial ...
Wanted to fit in all the buzzwords.
nexttime
Depends what your objectives are, really. 'Achievement' is quite hard to define.
Well, looking at it another way, then, do you think it would've been better for the Oxbridge universities to have those who achieved Firsts at other "top" institutions instead of those who got 2:2s and Thirds at Oxbridge?
necessarily benevolent
Well, looking at it another way, then, do you think it would've been better for the Oxbridge universities to have those who achieved Firsts at other "top" institutions instead of those who got 2:2s and Thirds at Oxbridge?
Depends what the objective of Oxford and Cambridge Universities are - to produce the 'best' academics possible? Even if you could define 'best', there are too many things that could mean those students wouldn't fit in or do well here.
On the whole, if the admissions tutors could change it though i think they would tbh!
Er no, no, no, NO!
What a silly post!
First of all, what's with this silly 'should be at Oxbridge' crap? Cambridge and Oxford can only take so many people in this year. Therefore good people will be rejected. There's really nothing more to it than that! Its life. Which particular good people happen to get in or not get in can be quite arbitrary. And as people said before, how many people actually want to be at Oxbridge. I have countless friends who wouldn't go if they were made unconditional offers. Its not everybody's cup of tea!
As for people getting 2.2s at Oxbridge - you can't make sweeping blanket statements about them like that! First of all, in some subjects its not particularly unusual to get 2.2s. The grade breakdown in Architecture at Cambridge sees almost equal numbers of students getting 2.2s and 2.1s in each year. Getting a 2.1 in some subjects is objectively quite challenging. For instance I know several Natural Scienctists, Mathematicians and Engineers who have had 2.2s. I also know an extremely gifted and intelligent Philosopher who had a 2.2 for one year.
Secondly the Oxbridge student who got a 2.2 may have struggled to keep up with the speed and volume of work here. If you take a person who achieved a first on a course where they had 12 week terms with four assignments per term, and then you place them in a system with 8 week terms and 12 essays per term, you can't guarantee that they're necessarily going to achieve the first again under those conditions. Equally the person with a 2.2 might be in a better position to perform well in their examinations if they're given more time. The moral of the story is don't try and compare students/courses and so on from completely different systems and environments. The exercise is totally pointless and bound to be totally contingent.
Finally success in exams often give a poor representation of a person's capacity and even the amount of work they've put in. In Cambridge people spend hours churning out work for supervisions/tutorials (which don't count towards their grade) and this is often unreflected by the exams. Furthermore alot of people succeed in scraping by all year and suddenly throwing in a few weeks of hard work just before exams, and strategically choosing what to revise and their success is more a reflection of their ability to revise effectively and also perform well in exam conditions. The skills needed to write good exam essays are entirely unrelated from the skills needed to write good essays for supervisions, and good coursework, and many people excel at coursework but simply suck at exams.
This is also important if you want to compare Oxford and Cambridge to other Universities, because Oxbridge have very tight limits on the percentage of a person's grade that can be comprised of coursework rather than examinations. The amount of coursework we can take is less than is permitted at many other Universities in the country, which obviously disadvantages a person in the dilemma mentioned above.
What a silly post!
First of all, what's with this silly 'should be at Oxbridge' crap? Cambridge and Oxford can only take so many people in this year. Therefore good people will be rejected. There's really nothing more to it than that! Its life. Which particular good people happen to get in or not get in can be quite arbitrary. And as people said before, how many people actually want to be at Oxbridge. I have countless friends who wouldn't go if they were made unconditional offers. Its not everybody's cup of tea!
As for people getting 2.2s at Oxbridge - you can't make sweeping blanket statements about them like that! First of all, in some subjects its not particularly unusual to get 2.2s. The grade breakdown in Architecture at Cambridge sees almost equal numbers of students getting 2.2s and 2.1s in each year. Getting a 2.1 in some subjects is objectively quite challenging. For instance I know several Natural Scienctists, Mathematicians and Engineers who have had 2.2s. I also know an extremely gifted and intelligent Philosopher who had a 2.2 for one year.
Secondly the Oxbridge student who got a 2.2 may have struggled to keep up with the speed and volume of work here. If you take a person who achieved a first on a course where they had 12 week terms with four assignments per term, and then you place them in a system with 8 week terms and 12 essays per term, you can't guarantee that they're necessarily going to achieve the first again under those conditions. Equally the person with a 2.2 might be in a better position to perform well in their examinations if they're given more time. The moral of the story is don't try and compare students/courses and so on from completely different systems and environments. The exercise is totally pointless and bound to be totally contingent.
Finally success in exams often give a poor representation of a person's capacity and even the amount of work they've put in. In Cambridge people spend hours churning out work for supervisions/tutorials (which don't count towards their grade) and this is often unreflected by the exams. Furthermore alot of people succeed in scraping by all year and suddenly throwing in a few weeks of hard work just before exams, and strategically choosing what to revise and their success is more a reflection of their ability to revise effectively and also perform well in exam conditions. The skills needed to write good exam essays are entirely unrelated from the skills needed to write good essays for supervisions, and good coursework, and many people excel at coursework but simply suck at exams.
This is also important if you want to compare Oxford and Cambridge to other Universities, because Oxbridge have very tight limits on the percentage of a person's grade that can be comprised of coursework rather than examinations. The amount of coursework we can take is less than is permitted at many other Universities in the country, which obviously disadvantages a person in the dilemma mentioned above.
necessarily benevolent
instead of those Oxbridge students who got 2:2s and Thirds?
No, coz then I wouldn't be here!
Admittedly, I should get a 2.1 overall. I think
God knows.
I have a high First from Aberystwyth, a high Distinction from UCL, AHRC awards, publications, and I still don't feel like I'm Oxbridge material. As much as I love the architecture and history, I reckon Oxford/Cambridge would have crushed my confidence somewhere down the road.
I have a high First from Aberystwyth, a high Distinction from UCL, AHRC awards, publications, and I still don't feel like I'm Oxbridge material. As much as I love the architecture and history, I reckon Oxford/Cambridge would have crushed my confidence somewhere down the road.
Related discussions
- Do gcse grades matter?
- How Difficult Is It To Get Into Oxford?
- Myth of Cambridge admissions being just merit based - Mainly international students
- Motorbike licence
- EEE offers
- Official Politics and/or International Relations Applicants Thread 2024
- Applying for Maths at Oxford, Imperial and Warwick
- Further maths for economics (E&M oxford)?
- 80/100 on HAT and still rejected from Oxford
- How manageable is 4 A-Levels and an EPQ?
- Has anyone ever rejected Oxbridge?
- Oxbridge Admissions
- Where to apply to?
- Can I get all 7s, 8s and 9s in 4 months for GCSEs
- Which universities are targeted by employers?
- Does Oxford care about GCSEs if you wanna do law there?
- how much do oxbridge care about gcses
- How to write a first class essay (history/politics)
- Durham Uni Law offer, should I accept?
- Correlation between UKMT Maths challenge and being able to do Maths at Uni
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
