2:1 From Oxford

[Andy R]

Just been reading this: http://www.madisonmaclean.com/?section=jobdescription&jobid=80

The line "First degree must be minimum class 2:1 from Oxbridge; class 1 from elsewhere" caught my eye.

Is this a standard attitude among headhunters? I'm not saying it's wrong, I did my BA at Bristol and then the MFoCS at Oxford and based on what I saw, it's clear that the 2.i standard at Oxford is much higher than my old institution but I'd have thought that a 2.i would poison an application for a quant position, regardless of where it's from or even if it was a near miss. Does BA/Masters matter once you've got a decent PhD?

Just curious.

 

[Oxer]

some opinions on oxbridge: https://www.quantnet.com/forum/threads/does-it-matter-where-i-do-my-phd.9361/#post-88245

 

[bigbadwolf]

Just been reading this: http://www.madisonmaclean.com/?section=jobdescription&jobid=80

The line "First degree must be minimum class 2:1 from Oxbridge; class 1 from elsewhere" caught my eye.

Is this a standard attitude among headhunters? I'm not saying it's wrong, I did my BA at Bristol and then the MFoCS at Oxford and based on what I saw, it's clear that the 2.i standard at Oxford is much higher than my old institution but I'd have thought that a 2.i would poison an application for a quant position, regardless of where it's from or even if it was a near miss. Does BA/Masters matter once you've got a decent PhD?

If you rephrase the original question as "In the job market in general is an Oxbridge 2:1 considered at par with a First from anywhere else?", I can answer that as "Yes, it is considered at least at par."

 

[martingaletrader]

Okay so let's take two identical AAA grades A'level student. One went to Warwick and another Oxford. Is the 2.1 from Oxford superior to Warwick? Why don't you ask Warwick math people - how many top students from Oxbridge go to Warwick to do their PhDs. Fact is that Warwick or Oxford or Imperial or Cambridge - are all around the same level - academically speaking.

Now let's take another scenario. Someone from Caltech or Harvard. Which student is smarter? If you say Harvard well then you do injustice to Caltech. I know personally many top scientists who went to liberal arts schools then did their PhDs at good schools. It seems this article and in posts here people are fixated on whether a student makes it or doesn't for the rest of his life based on what he or she did at 18.

Out there in the job market - then again- people from Oxbridge are superior beings according to recruiters and top banks and the hype just never goes away and people are deluding themselves. So there you have it. It is true cause recruiters say so - contrary to evidence; or for that matter common sense; recruiters can write all sorts of nonsense. The other day I read that Moscow State university people are the best and they only recruit their own kind - cause they are better than Cambridge, Oxford or any other top school. And some recruiters believe this and will say so in their job ads.

Ask sensibly. Once in top 5 it shouldn't matter. Fact of matter is it does matter cause people perpetuate the myth that one is better. Do all famous mathematicians in UK come from cambridge? Then what hope is there for rising stars elsewhere.

Moreover UK degrees are supposed to be similar and standardised with external examiners. Put a 2.1 from Oxford and 2.1 from Imperial and judge for yourself. Then ask an Oxford 2.1 at a top bank whether he only hires Oxford 2.1 and see what reaction he get.

Do it over randomized trials taking 2.1s from various schools plot their career trajectories and see what you get. This is a problem. Delusion is kinda nice don't you think.