NationStates Jolt Archive

For those of you that are not British i suggest leaving the thread as this will confuse you quite a bit.

Ox-Bridge or for those that know, Oxford and Cambridge.

WHY is it thought of as the best university(ies) around?
Why does it have more applicants than anywhere else?
Is Durham going to create a D-Ox-Bridge as has been suggested by many students.
And why is it the Secret Service of Britain always recruits from Cambridge.
(PS it actually HELPS TO BE A COMMUNIST WHEN APPLYING!!!!)

Is Durham going to create a D-Ox-Bridge as has been suggested by many students.
Are you, by any chance, a student at Durham?

Durham is not the 'number three' university at all; there are about 10 that all have a legitimate claim to that position and tend to swap places in the league tables year on year, including Bristol, Warwick, UCL and the LSE among others.

Are you, by any chance, a student at Durham?

Durham is not the 'number three' university at all; there are about 10 that all have a legitimate claim to that position and tend to swap places in the league tables year on year, including Bristol, Warwick, UCL and the LSE among others.

Nope.
Its nothing to do with grades either ;)
ITS RICH therefore its the best university.
Say it isnt so ;)

its a class thing.

its a class thing.

Yep. It's 'cos they're class :p

Nope.
Its nothing to do with grades either ;)
ITS RICH therefore its the best university.
Say it isnt so ;)

OH, BOLLOCKS!

The other week, Auntie beeb had this wonderful program with 2 university teams compteting on general questions. 2 different teams were top of the league, 1 of 'em Oxbridge, the other polytec-somethingorother.
Really, Oxbrigde trounced the polytec - as expected.

I voted for the 2nd option purely because I was rejected by Oxford University. Fucking written test.

OH, BOLLOCKS!

The other week, Auntie beeb had this wonderful program with 2 university teams compteting on general questions. 2 different teams were top of the league, 1 of 'em Oxbridge, the other polytec-somethingorother.
Really, Oxbrigde trounced the polytec - as expected.

...
They were probobly the Communist students. (blocks ears.)

WHY is it thought of as the best university(ies) around?

They always seem to do well in the independent league tables. They also seem to have a lot of money, and the prestige/gravitas/history to draw big names in various fields in.

Why does it have more applicants than anywhere else?

Because they're highly thought of. Duh.

Is Durham going to create a D-Ox-Bridge as has been suggested by many students.

Probably not, no.

And why is it the Secret Service of Britain always recruits from Cambridge.

Because they have a lot of the best and brightest, the most able, people. Probably.

(PS it actually HELPS TO BE A COMMUNIST WHEN APPLYING!!!!)

Source? Proof?

Somewhat limited poll options.

It's the prestige that gives Oxbridge its allure. Standards, however, are slipping behind the top American universities; primarily as a consequence of limited funding.

Because they're highly thought of. Duh.
Actually, the original claim wasn't true. Bristol (hurrah!) has the most applicants, 12 applicants per place. The average at Oxbridge is, I believe, only 3 per place.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/universityguide2005/table/0,,-5163901,00.html?chosen=0&tariff=0&alpha=0

Source? Proof?


Hehe.
Well, in the days of the USSR, when communism was all the rage, it was bad to be a Communist Applicant, so lots lied about it.
They got in, and some stayed on as Don's.
Don's have a lot of influence in a University, and as such, if you have attended a Mayday march ect they tend to be more favourable.

My brother for instance, tied with a friend of his with grades.
(A.A.A.A.A) (WEIRD fuck doing 5 a levels.)
Only one went to the university and the other didnt.
reason?
HE WAS A COMMIE.
Tis obvious.
(hides from reality)

Durham? Pahaha. LSE would be much closer to forming a third university on that level, but even that's not close.

http://www.boreme.com/boreme/media-pictures/durham-showers.jpg

Durham? Pahaha. LSE would be much closer to forming a third university on that level, but even that's not close.

http://www.boreme.com/boreme/media-pictures/durham-showers.jpg
lol! :D

(WEIRD fuck doing 5 a levels.)


I did six [/pointlessness

http://education.guardian.co.uk/universityguide2005/table/0,,-5163901,00.html?chosen=0&tariff=0&alpha=0
The Sunday Times one is a much better guide.

Damnit, Manchester University was about 3rd best Bioscience uni when I applied. It's stupidly low now.

*mutter* bloody league tables...*mutter*

Bah! If it wasn't for Trinity, Cambridge would barely be better than Oxford. *spits at mention of Oxford* (Guess where I went...) Trinity is the second largest landowner in South-East, and has had more Nobel prize-winners than the rest of Cambridge combined (or alternatively, than the whole Oxford *spits*). (Or maybe that was just propaganda - I'll have to check.)

~~pic snip~~

Bwahahahahahaha!!!

Actually, the original claim wasn't true. Bristol (hurrah!) has the most applicants, 12 applicants per place. The average at Oxbridge is, I believe, only 3 per place.

Unless Oxbridge has four times as many places.

Trinity...has had more Nobel prize-winners than the rest of Cambridge combined (or alternatively, than the whole Oxford *spits*). (Or maybe that was just propaganda - I'll have to check.)
Nope, it's true. In fact, I think Trinity's had more than France.

Bah! If it wasn't for Trinity, Cambridge would barely be better than Oxford. *spits at mention of Oxford* (Guess where I went...) Trinity is the second largest landowner in South-East, and has had more Nobel prize-winners than the rest of Cambridge combined (or alternatively, than the whole Oxford *spits*). (Or maybe that was just propaganda - I'll have to check.)

Stephen Fry was a Cambridge Boy.

Damnit, Manchester University was about 3rd best Bioscience uni when I applied. It's stupidly low now.

*mutter* bloody league tables...*mutter*

Connection, anyone? ;)

Unless Oxbridge has four times as many places.
Perhaps true, but Bristol isn't exactly a small university.

I did six [/pointlessness
<boast>Me too. But three were in maths...</boast>

Actually, the original claim wasn't true. Bristol (hurrah!) has the most applicants, 12 applicants per place. The average at Oxbridge is, I believe, only 3 per place.


Ah Bristol, the university of choice for upper-middle-class tossers not quite clever enough for Oxbridge.

note - this isn't to say that everyone at Bristol University fits that description; just that a disproportionate number do.

Connection, anyone? ;)
Oi. I got my 4 A results.

Ah Bristol, the university of choice for upper-middle-class tossers not quite clever enough for Oxbridge.

note - this isn't to say that everyone at Bristol Universtiy fits that description; just that a disproportionate number do.

...
My mother was a Bristolian.
(sharpens pitchfork.)

My brother A.J applied to Cambridge (not oxford, cos if you apply to both they say no.)
Durham
Bristol
Cardiff
Edinburgh
And some uni in the middle of nowhere surrounded by fields.


Hes doing philosophy and everytime we meet i scare him by saying
"SO... what exactly can you DO with a philosophy degree?"
:eek: "That question is forbidden!"
ectect.
Generally my family (very good genes. Intelligent and just a dash insane.)
Go to the top uni's, get a degree, then work in mcdonalds for 40 years.

...
They were probobly the Communist students. (blocks ears.)

Dunno.
The polytec student most visible was some sikh character from India.
I felt he was arguably the best general knowledge man in both teams, but it wasn't enough to make up for the decided mediocre performance of his teammates.

It's been a good while since I've been a full-time student, but I can't ( for the life of me ) remember any link between general intelligence and political orientations of undergraduate students.

<boast>Me too. But three were in maths...</boast>

Three? That's just insane. Two of mine were in maths.

Oi. I got my 4 A results.

Sorry.

Durham? Pahaha. LSE would be much closer to forming a third university on that level, but even that's not close.

http://www.boreme.com/boreme/media-pictures/durham-showers.jpg

Thats a good 1 :D

Dunno.
The polytec student most visible was some sikh character from India.
I felt he was arguably the best general knowledge man in both teams, but it wasn't enough to make up for the decided mediocre performance of his teammates.

It's been a good while since I've been a full-time student, but I can't ( for the life of me ) remember any link between general intelligence and political orientations of undergraduate students.

Its not intelligence, there is actually a heavy correspondence for the type of Degree you go for and the political orientation.

Ah Bristol, the university of choice for upper-middle-class tossers not quite clever enough for Oxbridge.

note - this isn't to say that everyone at Bristol University fits that description; just that a disproportionate number do.
It is very true - but there are also a lot of people who are 'clever enough' for Oxbridge, but don't want to go there for various reasons. For me, it didn't offer the course I wanted to do (I got four A level A's, I'm not just saying that because I didn't go there).

Sorry.
Meh. I don't I actually mind, I'm just pissed because my uni's crappier than I thought. :(

Cardiff
woo!
i wouldn't recommend cardiff uni to anyone. but then i'm bitter about the whole experience.


a friend of mine, studying philosophy there, took up sanskrit as an optional module (4 core, 2 optional). i always imagined conversations going...
"so, mike, what did you do at uni?"
"i learned a dead language!"
"what does that get you?"
"nothing! maybe a piece of paper..."

seemed to sum up the whole of academia to me...

http://education.guardian.co.uk/universityguide2005/table/0,,-5163901,00.html?chosen=0&tariff=0&alpha=0
That's on the quality of teaching. There's a worldwide top 200 list of universities somewhere - I know it's on the THES (Times Higher Education Supplement) website, but you need to register to find it. It ranks universities on about 20 different criteria.

Oxford and Cambridge are the top two UK universities by some considerable way. Not sure what the next one is. Someone could find it...

The LSE is part of the University of London, as is UCL, Kings, Imperial, Queen Mary's. SOAS, School of Hygine and Tropical Medicine as well as another half dozen smaller colleges that I can't remeber off hand.None of them can operate indipendantly as none of them have degree awarding powers. The biggest University in Britain is the Open University (100 000 student world wide) and it is the embodyment of the socialist movement in Britain.

That's on the quality of teaching. There's a worldwide top 200 list of universities somewhere - I know it's on the THES (Times Higher Education Supplement) website, but you need to register to find it. It ranks universities on about 20 different criteria.

Oxford and Cambridge are the top two UK universities by some considerable way. Not sure what the next one is. Someone could find it...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,8403,00.html

I presume this is still the most up to date version.

The LSE is part of the University of London, as is UCL, Kings, Imperial, Queen Mary's. SOAS, School of Hygine and Tropical Medicine as well as another half dozen smaller colleges that I can't remeber off hand.None of them can operate indipendantly as none of them have degree awarding powers. The biggest University in Britain is the Open University (100 000 student world wide) and it is the embodyment of the socialist movement in Britain.
Actually, the LSE, ICL and UCL are independent. The rest are part of the University of London.

Its not intelligence, there is actually a heavy correspondence for the type of Degree you go for and the political orientation.


awright, I guess...

Though I have to argue that I do belong to a studying generation that, erm, somewhat defied traditional left/right notions on what subjcts were proper.
My graduationg class at the comprehensive had Conservatives going on to study History, and leftwingers applying for the military academy, so there...

( in many a case to the despair of the professors - we were all swapping stories of our teachers bemoaning their bad fate in having to impart their knowledge with students whose political prejudices were completely contrary to their own )

Oxford and Cambridge are the top two UK universities by some considerable way. Not sure what the next one is. Someone could find it...
Wikipedia has a decent summary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Higher_Education_Supplement), I think.

Actually, the LSE, ICL and UCL are independent. The rest are part of the University of London.
Not true. They're all part of the federation.

It is very true - but there are also a lot of people who are 'clever enough' for Oxbridge, but don't want to go there for various reasons. For me, it didn't offer the course I wanted to do (I got four A level A's, I'm not just saying that because I didn't go there).


I agree, it's just difficult to tell these days what with A-levels being so much easier than they used to be.

Bah. Manchester seems to like the high teens.

*mutters some more*

Not true. They're all part of the federation.
Are you sure? I was certain they were independent of the rest.

Well, you learn something new everyday I suppose.

I agree, it's just difficult to tell these days what with A-levels being so much easier than they used to be.
I choose to ignore that comment. :rolleyes:

Durham is not the 'number three' university at all; there are about 10 that all have a legitimate claim to that position and tend to swap places in the league tables year on year, including Bristol, Warwick, UCL and the LSE among others.

Wahoo. My alma mater. Of course, the fact that the year I was there the department I was studying in was a complete shambles due to certain staff leaving, other staff being on sabbaticals, other staff crossing the line from eccentric to clinically dysfunctional/insane and yet other staff hating all the other staff and all they stood for, need not be mentioned here.

Are you sure? I was certain they were independent of the rest.

Well, you learn something new everyday I suppose.
I'm pretty sure, although I'm not exactly certain of the formal arrangements. But we are 'part' of the University of London.

That's on the quality of teaching. There's a worldwide top 200 list of universities somewhere - I know it's on the THES (Times Higher Education Supplement) website, but you need to register to find it. It ranks universities on about 20 different criteria.

Oxford and Cambridge are the top two UK universities by some considerable way. Not sure what the next one is. Someone could find it...

I have worked at four Universities/University Colleges/Colleges since coming to Britain and let me tell you there is no acurate way of guaging the quality of Universities. Each University teaches different combinations of courses and while they are all reviewed periodically, there is no logistical way of assessing all of them at the same time except emplyability which is tested at the end of the first six months out of Uni. The old "red brick" unis do suprisingly badly - that said, Oxford does produce more MPs and senior civil sevants than any two other uni's together. and more PMs

I choose to ignore that comment. :rolleyes:


Well at least you're not trying to deny it :)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,8403,00.html

I presume this is still the most up to date version.
That's just UK universities.
Most of the list is on the wiki link that Gruenberg posted.

Actually, the LSE, ICL and UCL are independent. The rest are part of the University of London.

I worked at Imperial and Kings, and my flat mate was a LSE student, I can assure you they are technically part of the UL

I worked at Imperial and Kings, and my flat mate was a LSE student, I can assure you they are technically part of the UL
lol, we've just been through all that above. :p

I have worked at four Universities/University Colleges/Colleges since coming to Britain and let me tell you there is no acurate way of guaging the quality of Universities. Each University teaches different combinations of courses and while they are all reviewed periodically, there is no logistical way of assessing all of them at the same time except emplyability which is tested at the end of the first six months out of Uni. The old "red brick" unis do suprisingly badly - that said, Oxford does produce more MPs and senior civil sevants than any two other uni's together. and more PMs
There is a way of gauging quality - standard of teaching, standard of research, student satisfaction, employability, entry requirements, range of courses, etc.
It's not perfect, but it's the closest you'll get.

My university (Leicester) was ranked in the top 200 in 2004, but not in 2005. Personally I don't think it's that great, because my course is very poorly managed. The marking is arbitrary, organisation is next to non-existent, and there is little communication between staff and students. However, if I get a 2:1, it won't look that special as according to the tables, Leicester scores strongly on teaching and research.

I choose to ignore that comment. :rolleyes:

In my opinion A-levels are fundamentally unsound methods of assessing ability, and focus more upon learning a particular modus operandi of passing, rather than actually educating students... of course, my less than stellar A-level results may have biased my view here somewhat. However, certainly on the basis of my A-levels results my eventual university results would have been hard to predict (ie. going from an A, a C, an E and an N to a first and an eventual MA).

In my opinion A-levels are fundamentally unsound methods of assessing ability, and focus more upon learning a particular modus operandi of passing, rather than actually educating students... of course, my less than stellar A-level results may have biased my view here somewhat. However, certainly on the basis of my A-levels results my eventual university results would have been hard to predict (ie. going from an A, a C, an E and an N to a first and an eventual MA).
I should just say that I wasn't trying to show off by mentioning my A-Level results at all; it's just that as Bristol does have a bit of an 'Oxbridge reject' reputation, and as the comment was talking specifically about that, I felt the need to prove that wasn't why I'd gone there.

Please don't hate me, I promise not to mention it again... :(

Oxford and Cambridge are the best because of reputation and money. They can employ the best professors, who want the prestige of working there, and they get all teh best students, so the best results. And they have the money to do whatever they want. The same way succesful football teams stay succesful simply by virtue of their reputations. usually.

Money, professors, etc....all nice. But there is only one reason to go to Oxbridge: the fellow students. Rightly or wrongly, there is a reputation to those places that attracts a great many fine young minds. Studying, socialising and simply living in that atmoshpere seems to me far more important than whether one's professors have bigger academic penises or not.

There is a way of gauging quality - standard of teaching, standard of research, student satisfaction, employability, entry requirements, range of courses, etc.
It's not perfect, but it's the closest you'll get.

My university (Leicester) was ranked in the top 200 in 2004, but not in 2005. Personally I don't think it's that great, because my course is very poorly managed. The marking is arbitrary, organisation is next to non-existent, and there is little communication between staff and students. However, if I get a 2:1, it won't look that special as according to the tables, Leicester scores strongly on teaching and research.
The problems with guaging but teaching are these:
Too many courses throughout Britain to fairly assess each one of them every year, so they are reviewed in cycles, which means that any improvements or slides in quality are not detected between reviws.
The variations in what is taught between institutions is vast, e.g. law in Scotland and Law in England and Wales or the emphasis on particular academics as source material,
the differents in how quality is measured between Scotland and the rest of the UK
Different starting years and lengths of degrees, not just between UK and elsewhere, but within Britain.
The power of the brand over actual quality
The size of institutions

I should just say that I wasn't trying to show off by mentioning my A-Level results at all... :(

No, no, I wasn't trying to imply that or anything, just putting forward my (admittedly anecdotal) view and experience of the whole A-level malarky, and how little they indicated the possibility of my later successes in a more adult environment of academia.

No, no, I wasn't trying to imply that or anything, just putting forward my (admittedly anecdotal) view and experience of the whole A-level malarky, and how little they indicated the possibility of my later successes in a more adult environment of academia.
I don't believe that exam results are a good measure of 'intelligence.' It's only because we take intelligence to mean academic success that we think this way. I know that there are dozens of things I could simply never do (such as surgery or even sticking with a mind numbingly boring job for the family), and I would say that the people who can do those things have as much intellegence as anyone else, just in a different way.

Did that make sense?

I don't believe that exam results are a good measure of 'intelligence.' It's only because we take intelligence to mean academic success that we think this way.

Did that make sense?

Possibly, but I never even broached the matter of intelligence: I just noted that success in passing A-levels seems to have little correlation to success in tertiary level education.

Possibly, but I never even broached the matter of intelligence: I just noted that success in passing A-levels seems to have little correlation to success in tertiary level education.
Sorry, I quoted your comment and then went off on my own train of thought anyway.

I do think there is a very real problem with schools 'coaching' pupils to pass exams, rather than actually learn anything. Take my GCSEs - I am officially qualified in French and Chemistry, among others, but can barely remember anything about them at all. Yet they still go on my CV as skills.

Does/Did anyone here go to Oxford University? I was thinking of applying so I'd appreciate some opinions.

Also, has anyone here studied maths and/or philosophy at university?

Thanks. :)

Does/Did anyone here go to Oxford University? I was thinking of applying so I'd appreciate some opinions.

Also, has anyone here studied maths and/or philosophy at university?

Thanks.
I have friends who fit into both those categories, and two friends who fit into both, but I don't personally go to Oxfam or study maths or philosophy.

I have friends who fit into both those categories, and two friends who fit into both, but I don't personally go to Oxfam or study maths or philosophy.

Thanks for replying. Do you know if they enjoyed the course? It's a little esotoric so I'm having trouble finding people to talk to about it.

Thanks for replying. Do you know if they enjoyed the course? It's a little esotoric so I'm having trouble finding people to talk to about it.
I only know one Maths & Philosophy student - he did not enjoy it, and went over to straight Maths half-way through. However, I think it depends on several factors: how much time you're willing to put in, how good you are, and most of all, that you genuinely want to do both as full degrees. I know several people who've different joint degrees at Oxbridge, and all of them say the same: both sets of academics will treat you as a single honours student, so you really are worked twice as hard. In other words: don't treat one as a sort of fun extra - you have to be committed.

But if you are, I gather it's a great choice: my friend had people he studied with who got a lot out of it, and are still enjoying it.

I only know one Maths & Philosophy student - he did not enjoy it, and went over to straight Maths half-way through. However, I think it depends on several factors: how much time you're willing to put in, how good you are, and most of all, that you genuinely want to do both as full degrees. I know several people who've different joint degrees at Oxbridge, and all of them say the same: both sets of academics will treat you as a single honours student, so you really are worked twice as hard. In other words: don't treat one as a sort of fun extra - you have to be committed.

But if you are, I gather it's a great choice: my friend had people he studied with who got a lot out of it, and are still enjoying it.

Thanks.

Someone said that it takes about 300 years to form a "top university of the world". Attempts to create "top universities", if started now, the first graduates would be in the year 2300 or so.

cambridge trains the secret service right!

Because there is nothing to put up in your hice quite like an oxford diploma.

Why is Oxbridge so far in excess of any other universities? All round superiority in short, the class of students, education, architecture, grades and teaching. I should be admitted next year for English/History.

I do think there is a very real problem with schools 'coaching' pupils to pass exams, rather than actually learn anything. Take my GCSEs - I am officially qualified in French and Chemistry, among others, but can barely remember anything about them at all. Yet they still go on my CV as skills.

I guess the honest thing to do is not list a foreign language you hardly remember on your CV as a skill. Although, many employers ask for your GCSE subjects and grades.

Why is Oxbridge so far in excess of any other universities? All round superiority in short, the class of students, education, architecture, grades and teaching. I should be admitted next year for English/History.
By 'I should' do you mean 'I have a place'?

Why is Oxbridge so far in excess of any other universities? All round superiority in short, the class of students, education, architecture, grades and teaching. I should be admitted next year for English/History.
They are also close to losing this reputation. Both are seriously considering privatisation, and becoming the UK's Harvard (and so on). I am hoping to do my Masters in Economics at one of the two, or LSE.