Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

I have debated for some time now, which it is better to go to: Oxford, Cambridge, or the Ivies. Oxford is the world's most famous, but Cambridge is rated better and is more on the rise, and the Ivies are the best in the world's most powerful country? What is the world's best and most famous university? What are the top 5 universities in the world-rated, the top ten?

By Dschnapps (Dschnapps) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 02:46 pm: Edit

Prestige-wise, I still think Oxford and Cambridge have it over any Ivy League, but your determination should be made based on what's best for you

It's hard to go from a broad-based American high school curriculum to a very driven and specific Oxbridge (Oxford/Cambridge) major. I have heard it is hard again to get into graduate school back in the States after attending Oxbridge.

Whereas, if you have come from an English schooling background and you are accepted to Oxford or Cambridge, they are almost certainly the way to go. Anyway, in the US, Oxbridge and Oxford especially have almost cult status.

Basically, if you are considering Oxford or Cambridge, you have to be fairly secure in your major and ready to spend several years taking very specific and limited classes, but in great depth.

The Ivy League allows you to take a sampling of great classes and then hone your focus down as an upperclassman.

I really can't comment on the differences between Oxford and Cambridge, but they are ennumerated in different places on this site.

By Pds112 (Pds112) on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 02:52 pm: Edit

I want to study classics at one of them. I am only a sophomore and I have not taken the SAT yet. I think I need a 1350, not hard, to get in. Does anybody else know what I need. I have the grades and awards in classics and other subjects.

By Moshe (Moshe) on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 06:47 am: Edit

Classics is a very unpopular subject (only toffs apply) and so ridiculously easy to get into at Oxbridge (80% + are admitted).


Oxbridge is far more undergraduate oriented than American universities, and most of the colleges are beautifully set. As far as income and research go, my understanding is that H,Y,P are on another dimension. British being universities relatively underfunded.

Of the two, Cambridge has the higher reputation. The city is a lot smaller but elegant - Oxford's pretty ugly in my opinion. Oxford has a slightly higher income (the highest income in the UK: with Cambridge - the third or fourth highest) but the difference is probably insignificant. Oxbridge degrees in themselves aren't especially highly regarded (as much as a Harvard degree perhaps), they're very common here.

You really can't compare them with anything in America... And the choice would be between studying in Europe or America... rather than trivial differences in reputation.

By Pds112 (Pds112) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 03:39 pm: Edit

That is very interesting Moshe, why is Cambridge the premier school? Most people see Oxford as the world's premier university. I thought that Cambridge had more money and that Oxford is prettier. Which would you go to if you had the choice? Are you biased toward Cambridge? If so, why?

By Thescore (Thescore) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 04:25 pm: Edit

Oxford and Cambridge will cost about 5,000 to 10,000 American Dollars.

Ivies tend to cost about 25,000 -30,000

By Yaleeee (Yaleeee) on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 06:39 am: Edit

all the ivies except
for brown and dartmouth > oxbridge

still, it's pretty close

By Arealtexan (Arealtexan) on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 01:11 pm: Edit

Why do you say that, Yaleeee? Do you have any facts to support your assertion?

By Collegy (Collegy) on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 12:34 am: Edit

Brown and Dartmouth are the worst ivies. I wouldn't waste that much money for them.

By Yalie (Yalie) on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 02:57 am: Edit

I am not American, so I am a little less biased than most of you. First of all Cambridge is better than oxford. The thing is that Oxford is more well-known because of the Rhodes stuff, but Cambrdige has consistently (10 years now) ranked above Oxford, and in fact for three years even the LSE had. However, OXbridge prestige is like the Srobone or Stuttgart prestige, based upon old glories. Cambridge endowment is not even close to the 2bn mark, which is not so good if you compra it with Harvard's 14bn, Yale's 11bn, or Stanford's 7bn. Though they have still managed to preserve stellar faculty, overall the mecca of academia nowadays is America, just as Roman universities were displaced by Arab ones, and just as European Univs displaced Arab univs, now America has taken the lead. I mean you jsut have to look at the HDI rank to see how the US is a research academic powerhouse.

Also in the international spectrum, according to a survey carried out by UNESCO, the most known universities are, Harvard and Yale. The largest universities libraries are Harvard's and Yale's. Diversity, either if you agree or not with AA, is important because it gives you the possibility of learning DIFFERENT perspectives adn different approaches to the same situation. Ivies are much more diverse than Oxbridge. I am not even going to mention the acceptance rates, which are in the order of 25% at Oxbridge. Although the tutoring system at oxford is a legend, clases are much more dynamic at Ivis, and the Junior faculty at Ivis certainly excles the OXbridge Junior faculty. Senior faculty are quite the same at both places.

Nobody can live just by grabbing to odl glory. Lets face it, OXbridge/Ivies are perhaps the ebst universities in the world. However, overall Ivies excell OXbrdige

By Arealtexan (Arealtexan) on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 07:35 am: Edit

I can agree with Yalie on Oxford being more famous in the United States solely because of the Rhodes Scholarship program. I can also agree with the endowment figures. On just about everything else, I disagree.

European universities did not evolve out of Arab or Roman "universities." I suggest you read up on the history of universities a little more before you start bandying around bizarre statements about academic displacement.

You attack Oxbridge for not being diverse, stating that if there are more ethnic minorities in a university that the students will be exposed to different perspectives. Let's just scoot past the stupidity of attacking Oxbridge for not being 'diverse' when only 6% of the UK's population belong to ethnic minorities. Does it not strike anyone as extremely racist to suggest that because someone is of a different ethnicity they will somehow magically have a new and refreshing perspective that will enlighten all? The diversity that should exist in academia is intellectual diversity - and that does not exist in the Ivy League.

I've already argued about why the acceptance rates at Oxbridge are higher than at the Ivy Leagues in another thread - the self-selecting nature of the interview process, and the fact that people do not apply to Oxbridge as a "reach" school. They must be doing something right with the acceptance process because 99% of those admitted graduate from an arguably more rigorous academic programme.

Yes, it is "much more dynamic" being taught by a doctoral student at the Ivy League than in the tutorial system with a respected professor. That was sarcasm, and I'm sorry that I had to use it. Sometimes it is the only effective way of highlighting the absurdity of what you've said there.

By Unicorn (Unicorn) on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 07:40 am: Edit

"I am not even going to mention the acceptance rates, which are in the order of 25% at Oxbridge...overall Ivies excell OXbrdige "

going by acceptance rates, ucl, lse and nottingham seem leaps and bounds above the ivies, as only 6-8% are accepted. does that mean they are better? and oxbridge acceptance rates vary greatly, from close to 11% (economics, econs + mgmt) to nearly 80% (classics, archeology (if they even have it. i forget) and some other courses)

"the mecca of academia nowadays is America"
in terms of high level research, yes. undergrads don't go to school to do research; we go there to learn (and we may do some research, but nothing of the kind that requires 'billions of $$$,'). the oxbridge tutoring system is very likely the most intense, enriching and 'dynamic' teaching environment in the world. pls explain y u think
"clases are much more dynamic at Ivis." how do u believ "Junior faculty at Ivis certainly excles the OXbridge Junior faculty"? If being taught by TAs qualifies as excellent teaching, and being taught by distinguished professors who frequently appear on the BBC seems mediocre, than perhaps ur statement seems justified. At Oxbridge, the 'junior faculty' need not be stellar as they are hardly invloved with teaching.

Ivies r definitely not the best universities in the world. with the exception of princeton (and maybe yale college), i do not believe one Ivy would find its way into the 'top 20 colleges in the world.' MIT and uChicago appear much better.

that thing about cambridge being ranked higher: last year oxford beat cambridge in 'The Times' rankings.

By Arealtexan (Arealtexan) on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 07:50 am: Edit

Oxford did rank higher in the Times rankings this year. However, it is the first time that has ever happened. Cambridge ranked better than Oxford in every single one of the Times' 9 criteria except for library spending per student and faciltiies spending per student.

In other league tables in Britain Cambridge is top of all except the Times table. It is top of the Daily Telegraph table, the Financial Times table, the Guardian table, a survey of British employers, and the Sunday Times table.

By Pds112 (Pds112) on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 11:26 pm: Edit

I want an international perspective. I am American, and it is very hard for me to understand that Cambridge is more well-known than Oxford or that Cambridge looks better on the portfolio. I would like to hear differently. I don't know what Unicorn is saying, HYP is at least equal academically to Oxbridge, if it's not better. It is also very hard to imagine that Harvard and Yale could be more world famous than Oxbridge. I live in the U.S.!

By Arealtexan (Arealtexan) on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 02:33 am: Edit

You want an international perspective, Pds112, but I am giving you an international perspective (I am not, contrary to what my name suggests, a real Texan.) I think the problem is that you buy into the Rhodes Scholarship gloss a little bit too much. In the world outside of the US, Oxford is considered to be equal to Cambridge. Not better, not more prestigious, more famous, but equal. That is why they are referred to as 'Oxbridge'.

Not all universities have to have the same relationship as Harvard and Princeton, where one is (arguably) more prestigious than the other. Oxford and Cambridge are two of those universities. It really makes no difference as to where you study, especially for Classics.

By Yahni (Yahni) on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 02:44 am: Edit

I think both Oxford and Cambridge would take place in the top 10. However, other 8 universities will all be from US, such as Harvard, Stanford, Yale and Princeton etc... If we talk about top 20 there maybe one or more UK universities (Imperial and LSE) but that is it. I don' t think any other school (including Canadians) can take place in the top 30.

By Uncchlocalmayor (Uncchlocalmayor) on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 02:50 am: Edit

go back to Latin!

By Princess_Eab (Princess_Eab) on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 10:42 am: Edit

Pds112, I hate to be devil's advocate, but... you are a sophomore in high school and arguing the finer points of Oxford v. Cambridge? Work on your studies, get a good SAT, extracurriculars etc. and see what happens. You seem very smart. Perhaps talking to professors in these universities would set you on the right track as to which one is best for you. There are many factors involved in university life. you can get e-mail addresses off the website. Or request prospectuses from both, you can't go wrong.
If I were you I would begin finding out what each expects and working towards that goal with class choices. Good to think about it early.
But don't obsess until you are a little closer to academia. You have years enough.

By Princess_Eab (Princess_Eab) on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 01:55 pm: Edit

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/universityguide/story/0,9889,959336,00.html

the UK Universities Guide 2003

informative!

By Fender1 (Fender1) on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 02:09 pm: Edit

IIT would rank in the top 10.

By Heartfang (Heartfang) on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 09:03 am: Edit

From a REAL international here, I am a Malaysian. Oxbridge is on par with Harvard. I have a SAT score of 1510, and getting into Harvard is hard as getting into Oxbridge - that's means NIL chances.

However since you are a US citizen, getting into Harvard is probably easier than getting into Oxbridge

By Yaleeee (Yaleeee) on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 10:07 am: Edit

fender1-
is that supposed to be a joke?

heartfang-
"However since you are a US citizen, getting into Harvard is probably easier than getting into Oxbridge"

yeah right...

By Pds112 (Pds112) on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 10:46 am: Edit

I have to thank you, Heartfang, for giving a real intl. perspective. I am glad to hear that some people out there still respect Oxbridge that much. I think you are right that it is hard to get into, but remember the subject matters a lot; I am a real Classics wiz and Oxbridge Classics is excellent but not as competitive for admission. From an international POV, what would be your first thoughts about an Oxford Classics grad. Do you respect it like a Harvard degree? I think that you said that Oxbridge and Harvard are on par; which is more on par with Harvard: 0xford or Cambridge? This decision should include intl. opinion, the univ.'s fame, its academics, and its alumni. After all, Princeton is rated better than Harvard, but Harvard's fame makes it seem the better school for those who chose between them.

By Arealtexan (Arealtexan) on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 10:53 am: Edit

Pds112 - people have told you repeatedly that there is no difference. You have had international perspectives from a number of people. When are you going to accept their opinions rather than repeatedly asking the same question in the vain hope that someone will agree with your bizarre assertion that Oxford is more famous/prestigious than Cambridge?

By Jollyapplepie (Jollyapplepie) on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 03:06 pm: Edit

Oxford and Cambridge are in Europe. And, who wouldn't want to go to Europe (even if it means studying). But, I think the teachers are Harvard are better.

By Heartfang (Heartfang) on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 04:18 am: Edit

Well, Oxford is like, 'the place' to study classics. But this is just my opinion. I am sure there is not much difference between them, slight difference in rankings probably doesn't mean anything, unless you are really petty about it.

I never thought much about Harvard classics. Maybe it is because of its good Business and Econs programs.

By Arealtexan (Arealtexan) on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 06:08 am: Edit

But, I think the teachers are Harvard are better.

How can teaching assistants (or graduate students) be better teachers than respected professors in a one-on-one situation with their students? I wish someone would explain this one to me.

By Shelinda (Shelinda) on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 10:17 am: Edit

"Oxford has the largest classics department in the world, with unparalleled teaching, library and museum resources and a range of extracurricular activities, including performances of Greek plays and various societies."

http://www.admissions.ox.ac.uk/courses/clas.shtml

Pds112, have you actually looked at any websites/prospectuses about these universities? Instead of asking for an "international viewpoint" (which you probably won't agree with, judging from previous comments), look them up yourself and make up your own mind.

By Pds112 (Pds112) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 12:36 am: Edit

I have, but that is only the univ.'s POV, not the world's. Arealtexan, if you ask people randomly on the street, 85% will say that Oxford is the better school, the more prestigious school, and the more famous school. I am at the Phillips Academy Andover Summer Session and I have talked to kids from all over the world, and they agree.

By Arealtexan (Arealtexan) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 03:54 am: Edit

Which street? The streets in the United States? We have gone over this a thousand times before Pds112. Oxford is not the 'better' or the more prestigious school. It has an inflated reputation in the US because of the Rhodes Scholarship program. That is the only reason.

The Phillips Academy Andover Summer Session? Wow! And all the sophomores there said Oxford is better! Then gee-whizz Mary Sue it must be true.

By Shelinda (Shelinda) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 06:27 am: Edit

Pds112,

I doubt you will be able to get a proper "international viewpoint" anywhere, since people have their own personal biases on this subject, as on everything else.

Seriously, don't stress about which university is "better" - research courses at both, research the various colleges, and if you can, try and visit each place. You may decide that although Cambridge is "better" for your course, you prefer the atmosphere or the tutors at Oxford. Or vice versa.

By Londoner (Londoner) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 06:30 am: Edit

Listen up Pds112,

I know you think that texan et al. are bashing Oxford when they say that it is not the better or more prestigious school, BUT speaking as a British girl immersed in the Brit education system I can honestly tell you that Cam=Ox=Cam=Ox! They have the same prestige!! Please believe me when I say that a first in Classics from Oxford is THE SAME as a first in Classics from Cambridge (Apart from Cam being a 4 year course) and they are BOTH first class tickets to success!

I know I am one person and therefore it is unwise to base your opinion solely on what I have just said but goddam it I'm sick of this farcical belief that Oxford is superior to Cambridge! (phew! i'll calm down now)

Anyway, have you decided where you're going to apply yet?

By Pds112 (Pds112) on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 01:27 pm: Edit

Arealtexan, when you are ever smart enough to enter any part of the Phillips Academy campus, tell me. I want to get out of here. The funny thing is, the new rankings, put Oxford as #1. Funny isn't it? Oxbridge is together as one, but each has a separate atmosphere and special areas of talent. There is a reason why royalty go to Oxford instead of Cambridge, why the scholarships at Oxford are more prestigious, and why Oxford is ranked #1.

By Arealtexan (Arealtexan) on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 03:00 pm: Edit

I was accepted to the University of Cambridge at the top of my college's history intake at the most prestigious college for history, on deferred entry (a different scheme to the US), on a scholarship from the British Army (Royal Irish Regiment) and with a bursary from my college and the university. I quite frankly couldn't care less what a spoiled brat at some private school thinks about my suitably to touch the hallowed ground of Phillips Academy. I got in, and just to reiterate what I have said in the past - you will not. Let me address your arguments once again.

Firstly, let's assume that everyone applying to Oxbridge is a prestige-obsessed dork like yourself. Applicants are only allowed to apply to Oxford OR Cambridge. Not both. So, naturally, if Oxford were more prestigious, more of these morons with delusions of grandeur would apply there. But they don't, do they? The ratio of applicants to every place at Oxford is 3.1 At Cambridge it is 3.3. It's not much of a difference but surely if Oxford were more prestigious it would attract more applicants, wouldn't it?

Now, onto the rankings. Oxford is first this year in the Times ranking due to a statistical fluke involving facilities spending. Both Oxford and Cambridge come very low down the facilities spending charts, because they are being measured against brand new universities who are just building things like student accomodation and laboratories. In the Times ranking, Cambridge beats Oxford in every single category other than the following: Library/IT Spending and Facilities Spending. The fact that Cambridge was placed 60th in facilities spending allowed Oxford to overtake it in the Times ranking for the first time since the rankings began 9 years ago.

Since you are so smug about the rankings, why don't I elucidate another handy fact about rankings. In every single university ranking system other than the Times, Cambridge is #1. In one of those, Oxford is #4. The Sunday Times, the Daily Telegraph, the Financial Times, the Guardian and a survey of major British employers all placed Cambridge #1.

You talk about the Royals going to Oxford rather than Cambridge. Let's examine the truth behind that statement, shall we? Of the living members of the House of Windsor, not one has gone to Oxford. William is at St Andrew's, Harry is going to Sandhurst, Charles went to Cambridge, Edward went to Cambridge, Andrew went to Dartmouth (the naval academy not the ivy league school) and Phil the Greek also went to Dartmouth. The others, like the Queen, did not go to university.

Now onto the question of the scholarships. The Rhodes Scholarship is undoubtedly more prestigious than the Gates Scholarship. However, this is because the Gates Scholarship is only a couple of years old. I would be interested to know if you could name a scholarship at either university without accessing their respective websites.

People have come up with explanations for why you have this idea, and I have a couple. The first is that you epitomise the 'ugly American' stereotype who knows nothing of lands beyond where he lives. You see the glossy Rhodes Scholarships, and Ivy League students wetting themselves when they get into Oxford and think "uh gee, that must be like, uh, real prestigious or something." Then you and your buddies from the Phillips Academy all gather around to talk about how much your mummy earns and whine about why girls don't like you. One of you is from Nebraska, another might be from Oregon and a third from New Jersey. Your tiny mind concludes that because all of these losers think Oxford is more prestigious, this must be the international consensus. Pds112, I'll let you in on a little secret, I've lived in Hong Kong, Bandar Seri Begawan, Cape Town and England. I have family in Lusaka, Bulawayo, Mbabane, Tripoli, Copenhagen and a few other places. The international consensus is most definitely not that Oxford is more prestigious.

The second explanation is that you are a moron. I favour a mix of the two myself. Mr and Mrs Pds112, if you can read this, you're wasting an awful lot of money on little Pds112's edu-ma-ca-shun.

By Shelinda (Shelinda) on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 03:30 pm: Edit

Harsh, but probably true.

By Arealtexan (Arealtexan) on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 04:00 pm: Edit

Make no mistake anybody, I'm not bashing Oxford. I'm just bashing Pds112's insistence that it is more prestigious than Cambridge.

By Pds112 (Pds112) on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 11:45 pm: Edit

Your logic is stupid, you are only defending the university you went to. That's your motive. It's like those idiots on this site that say UNC or Cornell is the world's best. There is financial aid at Andover, and unlike your preconceived notions, to get into these boarding schools you have to be tops in sports, music, academics, etc. . These aren't just really smart kids. None of them are dorks. The basketball player that is smarter than you and beats you in b-ball is not a dork. What a stupid remark, you said that because people are smart and talented and at premier boarding schools, that they can't be attractive. There are stupid arguments, but that is really stupid, you're just trying to be rude.

I'm not bashing Cambridge, it's a great school. I just think that because the Humanities grads tend to be recognized more because they deal more in social aspects-giving the Oxford grads. more fame and prestige than Cambridge, because Oxford is older, because Oxford is more famous around the world- it may be the Rhodes, and for other reasons, that Oxford is the better school. I want a good ed., I know prestige doesn't matter that much, but when you're on a level of academics like Oxbridge, why not take the school with more prestige, if you like the campus and courses. Oxford and Cambridge are on the same level academically, many people have said it in this thread. What was that B.S. about the 3.1 and 3.3? I thought they were equal? Therefore, add prestige and fame and Oxford wins!

And, leave my opinion alone jerk, YOU can't change it with your rudeness. I am in the middle of taking International Relations, and we are learning about soft power and hard power, and I don't mind opposition, but a little persuasion might help, instead of such brashness. Shelinda, you believed Arealtexan's B.S., you are stupid too.

By Arealtexan (Arealtexan) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 04:24 am: Edit

Oh no! My logic is stupid. Well, doodyhead, if you think that quoting facts and coherently deconstructing your ridiculous arguments is stupid, then go ahead. But that's not the level of debate I'd expect from a fine young man of Andover. The accusation that my defense of Cambridge can be anyway linked to Cornellian and that Uncalcoholmajor (??) fellow is ridiculous. They rarely have facts to back up their arguments, and I detect a touch of tongue-in-cheek about their assertions. Besides, I don't think Cambridge is better. I simply think you are a moron who is so ignorant as to think that most people outside of 'England' have never heard of Imperial College, and that Oxford is more prestigious than Cambridge.

BS? Everything I stated there was a fact. From reputable sources not 'people the street'. I really don't care about your defense of a private school, but you have failed to present any facts to support your hypothesis.

If you can provide any facts that support your opinions, I will stop bashing you.

You say that Oxford is better in Humanities and that Humanities grads tend to be recognised more because "they deal more in social aspects". Do you even know what you're saying or are you just trying to sound intelligent? I have already listed a number of Humanities subjects in which Cambridge scores higher than Oxford (on the Times ranking). But because you obviously have a bit of trouble with remembering cogent arguments and facts, I'll repeat them here. East and South Asian languages, Economics, French, Geography, German, History, Iberian languages, Law, Philosophy, Russian and Eastern European languages. Oxford only rates higher in 3 humanities subjects than Cambridge. Surely that list I've just given you represents most of the subjects defined by the term 'Humanities'? Or haven't they taught you things like that at the Phillips Academy?

Oxford is more famous around the world

Why, after you have listened to the opinions of a large number of people who have considerably more experience of life and the real world than you, do you still regurgitate this unfounded statement? Why? Why, oh why, are you so ignorant?

I will repeat what I and many others have said before OXFORD IS ONLY MORE FAMOUS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS IS BECAUSE OF THE VISIBILITY OF THE RHODES SCHOLARSHIPS IN THOSE SELF-SAME UNITED STATES. The USA is also, I might add, a country where reviewers in major newspapers complain that a book written by a Brit for a British audience about the British employees of a British bank contains "too much confusing Britspeak". How inconsiderate. THE CONSENSUS IN THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF THE REST OF THE WORLD. That is not a criticism of the USA, it is just a statement of fact. You know, that thing that is absent from every one of the arguments you make.

You can look up the ratio of applicants to places at Oxford and Cambridge in the Times Good University Guide. That is not BS. Anyone with a copy of the guide care to support what I said? That Cambridge receives more applicants than Oxford?

And Shelinda (I hope she doesn't mind me saying this) has got into Oxford, Pds112. That's a lot more than you'll ever achieve.

And yes, the students at the Phillips Academy are dorks. Anyone who is snot-nosed and bratty enough to come up with "when you are ever smart enough to enter any part of the Phillips Academy campus, tell me." is a dork. Don't buy into the propaganda of the 'brilliantly gifted' students who are 'tops' in absolutely everything.

Before you reply, Pds112, I want you to do a little exercise. It might help you with your education as you obviously aren't getting your moneysworth in Andover as regards being able to support an argument with facts. Go and do some research. See if you have any facts with which to attack me, rather than your private school insults like "doodyhead" or "silly-billy" or whatever it is your types call each other. THEN respond. Can you do that, junior?

By Shelinda (Shelinda) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 10:02 am: Edit

Pds112,

Yes, I do believe Texan. I believe he is intelligent and knowledgeable. Does this make me "stupid" in your eyes? You have my deepest apologies. Living in the UK, I tend to forget that the views of Americans are the only ones that count.

I also believe it is moronic to start a thread asking for an "international viewpoint" and then refuse to acknowledge any opinion that does not strictly coincide with the biases of you and your friends.

By Yahni (Yahni) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 11:01 am: Edit

Areal,

I strongly agree with you. In my point of view, I think Cambridge is better than Oxford. Even Imperial and LSE are better than Oxford in lots of fields.

However, in one point Pds is right. To tell the truth, I strongly believe that Oxford is the most famous in the world. And I am not American, I have lots of friends all around the world. But of course this is what I think.

This might be probably because Cambridge is a little bit more science based school. For example, If you compare LSE and Imperial, LSE is better known in the world not because it is better than IC, just because IC is more science and technology based. Or for example Stanford and Caltech. For sure Stanford is better known not because Stanford is better, even in lots of fields Caltech is better than Stanford.

By Arealtexan (Arealtexan) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 02:30 pm: Edit

But I don't think Cambridge is better than Oxford, Yahni. ;) I am merely arguing with Pds112 about his notions of prestige. There is absolutely no way that the relationship between Oxford and Cambridge, in terms of prestige or cache or whatever you want to call it, is similar to Harvard and Princeton.

Also, LSE and IC being better than Oxford is subjective. They are two universities that are saddled with an unfortunate reputation for being havens for Oxbridge rejects (along with Bristol, Durham, Edinburgh and Nottingham). But let's not turn this into a fight between London and Oxbridge. ;)

I can assure you that in the UK and the Commonwealth, Oxford is not better known. Maybe in the USA, EU and non-Commonwealth Tigers it is -I don't think we'll ever really be able to tell.

Oh yeah, and thanks for the vote of confidence, Shelinda.

By Pds112 (Pds112) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 07:29 pm: Edit

I apologize for being rude and biased. I personally like fame better because the schools are about equal in academics. If you like Cambridge better, fine. Andover is a good school, and it's well-rounded. I am still mad at you because you tend to make very rude and hurtful statements just because people are younger and/or don't agree with you. It's okay to argue, but let's not get carried away like we did. I do present a very unbiased opinion from the US Point of View. I am now rethinking Oxford as the top for me because I hear that Harvard Classics are good. Do you think that Harvard is a better school than Oxford and Cambridge? Which would you attend for undergrad? I went to a site that said Oxbridge grads earn only 1/2 of the ivy grads' salaries. Is this true, does it hurt you more to go for more prestige at Oxbridge?

By Pds112 (Pds112) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 07:31 pm: Edit

Arealtexan and others. Please check out my new thread in College Admissions called "Oxford vs. Harvard". I need some responses!

By Unicorn (Unicorn) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 10:08 pm: Edit

and he scurries away with his tail between his legs...

By Pds112 (Pds112) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 11:13 pm: Edit

Shutup Unicorn, don't ruin the apology. I am just sick of arguing because Arealtexan will never ever give in to my opinions and I don't seem to be moving on mine either. We aren't getting anywhere by fighting in this thread.

By Arealtexan (Arealtexan) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 03:14 am: Edit

Harvard undergrad will not provide you with the same standard of education as Oxford for Classics, for a number of reasons. I think I elaborated this in a thread that is in the June or May archives? It was a thread about Yale versus Oxford, but almost everything I said in it would apply to Harvard as well. The site about Oxbridge grads versus Ivies grads salaries is most probably untrue. I have no doubt that they earn less than Ivy grads, but that is because most of them work in the UK, EU and Commonwealth - where salaries for top professionals are lower. If you look at Oxbridge grads working in the US they most likely have the same salaries.

Actually, you're right, I did get pretty nasty. Apology accepted Pds112, and I hope you can accept mine as well.

When I applied to Cambridge, I didn't really care about prestige. I cared about studying History at the best place I could possibly study it. If you really love Classics, then you'll want to do the same. If studying Classics is just a way of lowering the applicants-to-places ratio and increasing your odds of getting in, that's quite a cynical move - but very astute. I don't really care if I don't earn a six-figure salary as a management consultant when I graduate, money isn't everything.

By Arealtexan (Arealtexan) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 03:18 am: Edit

I found the thread with the Yale vs Oxford stuff in it:

http://www.collegeconfidential.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?4/9062

By Heartfang (Heartfang) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 04:26 am: Edit

THE ONLY ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE IS THAT OXFORD HAS 6 LETTERS AND CAMBRIDGE HAS 9 IN THEIR NAMES.

AND OTHER MINOR DIFFERENCES.

IN MALAYSIA AND SINGAPORE, CAMBRIDGE IS MORE REVERED. DON'T ASK ME WHY. APPARENTLY, CAMBRIDGE IS FOR ASIANS. ITS A STUPID PERCEPTION, BUT THERE IT IS.

By Pds112 (Pds112) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 06:52 am: Edit

I also accept your apology. I looked at the Yale vs. Oxford, and that helps a lot! I understand unfortunately that Oxford is on the downfall from its academics. I have an article on Oxford's downfall and what Clintons and Blairs intend to do about it. The site is: http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/comment/story/0,9828,561734,00.html. This article scared me, because the university is that vulnerable and losing its academic egde to the Ivies. Funding is needed!

By Arealtexan (Arealtexan) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 08:17 am: Edit

Ah yes, the Guardian. They despise Oxbridge, and during the Laura Spence affair in 2000 or 2001 were leading the criticisms. I wouldn't take most anything written in the Grauniad (as it is known to readers of Private Eye) too seriously. They even describe Stanford as being an Ivy League university in that article.

By Shelinda (Shelinda) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 09:43 am: Edit

"thanks for the vote of confidence, Shelinda."

Any time.

By Pds112 (Pds112) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 05:29 pm: Edit

You put down taking Classics, Arealtexan. That made me realize what I was looking at it for, I had a stressfull time earlier this year and I looked for easy ways out. Classics cannot get you to the top of law or business, can it? Hard hard is PPE to get into or any Politics, philosophy, or economics classes? What is the acceptance rate, SAT score expected, and grades for those subjects? They can certainly take you to the top from Oxford. I would rather do Classics because I have won many awards in the Classics and it is easy and fun for me. Which would you do? Do top business and law people ever come from the Classics?

By Arealtexan (Arealtexan) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 06:07 pm: Edit

I'm not in any way putting Classics down. No subject at Oxbridge is an easy way out (except for maybe History of Art, which is still very academically rigorous.) The workload is very tough whatever you do. I would never put down Classics, it is a good subject. The reality is just that it has less applicants per place than, say, PPE or Law.

For most top-rated graduate jobs in areas other than Law or Medicine, it does not matter a jot what you studied. Management consultants, civil servants and the like have their postings advertised without a specific degree in mind. Classics will take you to the top just as much as would PPE, make no mistake about that. Classics teaches a myriad of very useful skills for the workplace: how to collate and analyse evidence, language skills, ability to argue coherently and articulately, etc. Employers value Classicists very highly, and it is so open-ended that it can lead to careers in law, the media, commerce, accounting, the Civil Service (in Britain it is a permanent non-partisan body, unlike the US), industry and business. It is interesting to note that of the 976 directors of FTSE 100 companies whose educational background can be ascertained, very few have business degrees.

Many people take a Law degree after first getting a Classics degree. Loads of top people come from Classics - it may have higher acceptance rates but it is by no means an easy subject.

Here are the acceptance rates for PPE - 30% in 2001, 28.7% in 2000. But you must remember that these figures vary wildly depending on the college you go to for each subject. One college might have 10 applicants for every place in a subject, while another might have fewer applicants than places. It is helpful to think of the colleges making up Oxford rather than Oxford being made up of colleges.

In the end, if you get in, you'll be studying this subject intensively for 3 years. It is a big step up from a US high school. A-levels over here are the equivalent of the first year and a bit of undergrad study in the USA, and so it can be quite a culture shock. Choose a subject that you are extremely passionate about - admissions tutors will be looking for how likely you are to get stuck into the subject as they are for your general brains.

By Pds112 (Pds112) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 12:32 am: Edit

Thanks so much for the vote of confidence, Arealtexan! You made my day with this comment.

By Arealtexan (Arealtexan) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 02:59 am: Edit

No problem, a lot of people don't realise that you can get a good job with any degree. All through my lower sixth year, although I really loved History and spent almost all of my spare time reading history books, I thought I would do Economics at university because I didn't realise that it's not what you study that counts.

By Pds112 (Pds112) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 06:36 pm: Edit

I wonder, how good is Harvard Classics? How hard is it to get in? Do you consider it to be more prestigious worldwide and it does it open more doors for you than Oxford? I may have asked this before, but if you could give a more clear-cut answer, that would be great!

By Pds112 (Pds112) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 06:38 pm: Edit

It would also be helpful if someone would respond to my thread in College Admissions called "Oxford vs. Harvard" it is a ways down the page, but it is there.

By Happyisengland (Happyisengland) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 02:33 am: Edit

Acceptance rates for Oxford are just about right, in that the university admits the cream of the land; the future intelligentsia, captains of industry, professors and a few extroverts and layabouts.

I have a conditional offer to read PPE and I have to say that the interview procedure was a complete joke. Anyone with any vague grasp of philosophy, an interest in current affairs and an ability to think rationally will destroy the interview and have a good time doing it.

I would strongly recommend Oxbridge to any American students, its a chance to gain a highly respected degree whilst not placing impossible financial burdens on yourselves and your parents.

More importantly, the drinking age limit is 18 and the local cuisine of kebabs and chips will ensure that you return home with deficiencies in numerous vitamins and fibre, whilst having livers and kidneys that every 60 year old would count themselves unlucky to own.

By Moshe (Moshe) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 11:36 am: Edit

Don't lose sight of the fact that university is an enjoyable luxury here. It's about living off - but losing - your parents for a few years: drinking, illegal drugs, leftie politics, sleeping all day, avoiding work and avoiding the real world. Rarely do students talk, think or care, about reputations and employability statistics. But maybe it's different in America; maybe that's all you think about; maybe my application to do post-graduate there, to carry on the student life, isn't such a good idea. I hope not.

By Pds112 (Pds112) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 12:41 pm: Edit

Moshe, we are workaholics in America. That's why we have the world's largest economy. We work longer hours than Europe and life, especially in cities, is intense, no relaxing. We are high-strung by culture.

By Arealtexan (Arealtexan) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 04:00 pm: Edit

There is no comparison between classics at Harvard and Oxford.

And no, the fact that Americans are workaholics is not responsible for it having the world's largest economy.

By Pds112 (Pds112) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 11:20 am: Edit

I, believe it or not, think that I am coming around to see your pov with Cambridge. I read some articles about Oxford and the ivies and Cambridge. It talked about how Oxford's future is downhill. It said that Cambridge had planned for this by getting Gates' donation and the MIT institute. I didn't see it because I was so stuck up in prestige, but Cambridge is always recognized as a top 5 world univ. and it's not bashed for bad facilities and going downhill like Oxford. Also, classics is rated better at Cambridge. Arealtexan, you did real well to get to a top 5 univ. (no one can really judge them because they are different so it doesn't matter, Harvard or Cambridge or Oxford). Again, you were nasty, but I was very biased and not open to change. Sorry! Cambridge summer programs look good, I saw a poster for them in the Andover college counseling office yesterday. What college is the most prestigious-like Christ Church at Oxford? Is it Trinity or King's? Isn't Christ Church the most socially distinguished at Oxford? Also, how do you think that Cambridge compares with Harvard (remaining unbiased, unlike I was)?

By Arealtexan (Arealtexan) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 02:10 pm: Edit

King's is definitely not the most prestigious. It has beautiful architecture, but so do plenty of other colleges. Trinity is very prestigious, but it has a reputation among the other colleges for being full of self-important prats. A good rule of thumb is that the colleges founded in the late 19th and 20th centuries aren't really very prestigious. But with the others, there isn't much to choose.

Christ Church could be described as 'socially distinguished', I suppose. Magdalen, St John's and University are all also pretty highly thought of at Oxford.

In the end, the prestige of a certain college really isn't all that important. You still have an Oxbridge degree, and most people only recognise colleges by name rather than any facts about them. This is because people in the UK do not say they studied at Oxford or Cambridge but at X College, Ox/Cam. Check out: http://www.cusu.cam.ac.uk/publications/altpro/ for a better perspective on the Cambridge colleges.

By Ughstinkysocks (Ughstinkysocks) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 02:22 pm: Edit

does anyone know if they offer bio majors or the similar at oxf/cam....

By Arealtexan (Arealtexan) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 02:55 pm: Edit

They do not offer majors.

If you are wanting to take biology as a pre-medical course, you can start a degree in medicine at 18 at British universities.

By Pds112 (Pds112) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 04:05 pm: Edit

Arealtexan, thanks for the web site! I checked it out and it is very helpful. I gather you agree and approve of my changed decision with Oxbridge. This is a great discussion forum because people persuade and fight to get their point across-you did both. Well done. I still want to know how Cambridge compares with Harvard.

By Arealtexan (Arealtexan) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 04:10 pm: Edit

I don't really think that Cambridge is better, I just didn't think that it was worse.

In what way do you want to know how Cambridge compares to Harvard?

By Unicorn (Unicorn) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 03:38 am: Edit

hey arealtexan, wat do u know about new college at ox, particul concerning e+m

By Arealtexan (Arealtexan) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 03:54 am: Edit

You'd have to check the reputations of the college tutors in e+m at New College to get a real insight, but New College is quite tough to get into for e+m. It's main strengths are law, history and PPE (which is a better subject than e+m) but e+m is a very new subject so no college has really established an excellent reputation in it.

By Unicorn (Unicorn) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 11:35 pm: Edit

y do u feel PPE > e+m

By Unicorn (Unicorn) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 11:35 pm: Edit

y do u feel PPE > e+m

By Arealtexan (Arealtexan) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 02:04 am: Edit

PPE is more academically rigorous and it is a more established degree than e+m. If you specialise in economics for your 2nd and 3rd year you get much the same stuff as in an e+m degree, just without the management jargon. This is just a personal opinion, which stems mainly from the fact that I am skeptical of university courses that teach 'management'.

By Mrsanguine101 (Mrsanguine101) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 04:27 pm: Edit

"If you are wanting to take biology as a pre-medical course, you can start a degree in medicine at 18 at British universities."

Arealtexan, can you clarify this a bit more? Are you saying that you can start a medical degree at Oxbridge straight from high school? What is this degree equivalent to in the US, an MD? I'm asking because you usually need a B.S. here in the US to attend a graduate school in medicine. Does this mean that this is not true in the UK, and if so is it a feasible route for one looking to become a doctor and practicing in the US? Thanks.

By Arealtexan (Arealtexan) on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 08:11 am: Edit

It means that straight from secondary school (or 'high school' as people across the Atlantic call it) you can start a degree in medicine.

The Cambridge course (which I imagine is broadly similar to most other universities that teach medicine in the UK) is three years of undergraduate study leading to a BChir (bachelor of chirurergy), followed by two and a quarter years of clinical study. You typically sign up for the full five year course, leading to an MD. I am pretty sure that this is a feasible route to take for a student wanting to practice medicine in the USA, but I can't confirm it. I imagine it would - the MD degree is the same, is it not?

The reason the UK system does this is because of pretty fundamental differences in the education system, which all stem from British students starting school at 4 and cultural attitudes towards further study.

By Mrsanguine101 (Mrsanguine101) on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 02:00 pm: Edit

Thanks a bunch!!
(if this sounded sarcastic, it's not supposed to be )

By Pds112 (Pds112) on Sunday, July 13, 2003 - 01:47 pm: Edit

I thought that the grad. programs at Oxbridge were horrible!

By Arealtexan (Arealtexan) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 02:45 am: Edit

That's because you haven't really done any research into the subject. The education is centred on undergraduates, for sure, but that doesn't mean that the grad programs are terrible. They still have enormous amounts of research going on.

By Bitz (Bitz) on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 10:42 pm: Edit

PDS112 - In reading you posts I was horrified to notice that you used your participation in the Phillips Academy Summer Program to back-up your obvious ignorance on the subject of your discussion. I am currently a rising senior attending Phillips Andover and I find it very distressing that you would be snotty enough to believe that attending such a summer program would give you the right to treat others in such a rude and inconsiderate manner. Consider this, Andover is a school that some - note: not all - of the brightest and most interesting young students attend. That being said, we, as a whole, do not feel that the rest of the world is below us in any way. We are simply the recipients of a great gift that carries with it the lifetime responsibility of trying to pay society back for the benefits we have recieved. Attempting to parlay an Andover experience into a reason to look down upon or insult the knowledge of another person is an action for which you should be quite ashamed.

By Pds112 (Pds112) on Saturday, July 19, 2003 - 12:10 am: Edit

I did use it, as Arealtexan used his Cambridge degree. The same applies for Cambridge. I am sorry, I am not a snobby person, but PA kids are bright, no matter what program they attend. I was so mad, I wasn't thinking. I realize that the kids at these prep. schools are kids who are well-rounded, normally have the money, and the ambition. The world's brightest kid is somewhere in a public school in Nowhere, USA or some 3rd world country. They are very bright, but at a disadvantage because of what they were born into. There are a lot of bright kids at public schools.
That does not mean that the two of us shouldn't be proud of Andover, especially you because you're almost out!

By Gangeska (Gangeska) on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 09:53 pm: Edit

One thing you should remember for your interview at Oxford or Cambridge if you apply, is that they really aren't looking for your knowledge of the subject, but rather your interaction with the professor. How you attack a situation/article/problem, and when you realize that you simply do not know.

The one thing that is absolutely certain to get you rejected is if you act very confidently and ignore the interviewer (professor(s)), eaven though you know what you are talking about.

By Kaitain (Kaitain) on Sunday, August 24, 2003 - 11:00 pm: Edit

As an Oxford grad I can confirm that Cambridge is, if anything, viewed as the slightly more prestigious of the two rivals these days, but they're generally regarded as being on a par. Cambridge's heavier leanings towards science and technology (compared to Oxford) have undoubtedly given it a major financial advantage in the last fifty years or so as the importance of creating revenue from research has increased.

By the way, Christ Church is definitely not the most prestigious college at Oxford. The real heavyweights are Balliol, Merton and St.John's. Christ Church is the biggest college but not the best (unlike Trinity at Cambridge which could make a pretty decent claim to be both).

By Kafka (Kafka) on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 05:44 pm: Edit

Hi, I'm new to this forum, and stumbled across it accidentally, and felt I wanted to contribute to the discussion as a student at Oxford.

Firstly, I think in Britain, as well as throughout the world, Oxford and Cambridge are considered to be on par with one another - and are therefore collectively known as "Oxbridge". I know that Cambridge has performed marginally better in league tables - but let's put things into perspective - the two universities are in a league of their own (in terms of research, funding, entrance standards, history, presitge). It would be easy to attribute this to the prestige they have gained from centuries of intellectual toil; but I believe that my statement is better justified by the fact that they are both damn hard to get into - far more so than any other UK university.

Don't let entrance ratios misguide you - people who apply to Oxbridge are largely self-selecting: only those who believe they have a chance to get in bother applying. In fact, my school did not even allow certain people to apply, since writing references for those the school felt were unworthy, would devalue the school in the eyes of Oxbridge colleges.

A ratio of 4 applicants per place may sound like little, but remember that those four are probably the brightest in their schools, with lots of academic accolades accumulated throughout their scholastic careers. Also, the interview process really filters out the bright ones from the very bright ones. The tutors assess your knowledge, enthusiasm, and most importantly - your ability to think and to solve abstract problems. Admission tutors make no secret of it - the interview process is in place so they can filter out the top 1 to 2 per cent of the ability range.

Also remember that subjects like English and medicine are notoriously difficult to get into, (medicine at Oxford has a ratio of seven applicants per place), whereas, as mentioned, for classics, about 70% of those who apply will win a place. Also, there are large fluctuations in ratios from year to year, and from college to college.

By the way, DON'T take the Times Rankings (or that of any other paper) seriously. The Times publishes "the good university guide" every year - and who would buy the book if the rankings stayed the same every single year? Nobody. So they swap the rankings round at the top of the table. So I don't believe that Oxford suddenly became better than Cambridge in the year 2002, and nor do I believe that Oxford ever slipped below Imperial. What the league tables show, on the whole, is that Oxbridge are in a league of their own, followed by Imperial/LSE/UCL, slightly below. I seem to remember looking at the subject ranking for a subject like economics/business in a recent edition of the Times League table. I think both Oxford and Cambridge were ranked in the 40s, and you think "yeah right". Seriously, how can the two universities that take the brightest kids in the country, do the most research, have the most eminent professors, rank so low? I think we should all take the league tables with a pinch of salt. (The more pinches, the better).

As for prestige amongst the Oxford Colleges (and Cambridge for that matter) - it's necessary to define prestige. Generally, the older colleges are wealthier, have more impressive alumni (obviously), and perform better academically. Christ Church and Magdalen are prestigious insofar as they have traditionally been the favourite refuges of the aristocracy. (And they also perform well academically).

Acadically, Merton and St. John's are the powerhouses of Oxford, and every year, either one or the other (mostly Merton) tops the Oxford academic rankings (the Norrington table). They are both very wealthy, and posh colleges, and in combination, academically very successful - so can be regarded as the most 'prestigious'.

Then you also have "loud" colleges like Balliol and Trinity, which have a long list of very famous alumni (especially Balliol) - mostly very outspoken politicians. (These too are old, wealthy and posh). This gives them a prestige as well.

Other "prestigious" colleges (all-rounders) are New College and University College. This is just my opinion - and in no way a fact. At the end of the day, Oxford is Oxford. And whatever insecure Cantabs/leftist politicians have to say about it - it is one of the greatest and most prestigious universities in the world, and I am proud to be part of it. So please keep the gratuitous slandering down to a minimum.

By Africaccc (Africaccc) on Saturday, September 20, 2003 - 11:28 am: Edit

Do some research before paying top $ in the UK. Reputation not enough!
I for one am NOT applying to do Political Science or the Social Sciences in Cambridge after reading what the QAA says. This is the UK government's own quality watchdog for unversities - hardly biased!
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/revreps/subjre...01_textonly.htm

Several colleges got top marks... but not Cambridge because of bad management and bad coordination on the SPS Social and Political Sciences Courses course. Confirmed by Cambridge itself in its newspaper:
SPS Tripos about to "CRACK" http://www.varsity.cam.ac.uk/8025694E0073CFEB/Pages/2712000_Morechaosin.html
“SPSed off!”
http://www.varsity.cam.ac.uk/802569...RIPOSABOUT.html
And the QAA lists other Universities getting straight As (bottom of page, like Oxford, King's College London, Warwick, York, Nottingham. Anyone else got good recommendations, views????

This QAA report destroys my illusions. Just goes to show you, buyers beware! Reputations can change!
I read in my econ history that Technische Universität in Charlottenburg Berlin used to be considered the best University in the world (at the turn of the century). Not so any more!

By Arealtexan (Arealtexan) on Saturday, September 20, 2003 - 11:33 am: Edit

Why have you posted the same thing in a number of threads Africaccc?

By Quinn (Quinn) on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 07:49 am: Edit

I was reading the debate above about oxford vs cambridge and i thought i might as well add my opinion to the fray.

I guess im in the fairly unique position of having applied to and been accepted by both (god knows how). Before anyone gets a-going i did it over two years so it is allowed.

In the end i decided on Oxford to do PPE (politics philosophy adnd economics)after turning down my Philosophy place at Cambridge. This is however was nothing to do with the 'prestige' involved. Oxford and Cambridge are simply too well balenced to make such a call.

If you do try and make such a distingion you end up talking about vague 'reputations' that you can argue over again and again or tiny league table differences.

I made my decision based on the course (which isnt offered at a Cam) and the two towns. Oxford is larger and has better nightlife.

As to how Oxbridge compares to the ivy league im not really sure it makes any difference. The fact that there's so much argument shows that there is no real concensus view. In a job interview is a firm likely to pick a Harvard candidate over a Oxford lad because his uni was better than the other? Im not sure they would.

Where Oxford and Cambridge do have an slight advantage i think is the tutorial system which suits me down to the ground. If id been born a bit earlier i could have been tought one on one every week by Bertrand Russell or Wittgenstein!

By Krastev (Krastev) on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 06:44 pm: Edit

Dear Forum Members,

I was reading your comments because I am very curious about various opinions on Oxbridge, the Ivy League, and other of the top UK and US universities. I would just like to say that I have both lived and studies in the US, UK, and various other places. So, to a very good degree, I do know the educational systems both in England and the United States. Overall, I must say that the UK educational system, both secondary school and university level, is by far superior to the American!!! I graduated from High School in the US at 16, it was just a joke. Also, I started college in the US, but was disappointed and decided to switch to the UK. Subsequently, I found that the UK is by far better than the US for any kind of education no matter the institution. I was at a fine institution in the US and was admitted to many others of the same caliber. However, right now I am second level undergrad at a Russell Group university in the UK, and I am glad I made the right choice!

I am studying business and will go on to Politics and Law for graduate studies (post-graduate in the UK). For anyone interested, the best schools in the UK for these subjects are by far in any criteria the following: Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, UCL, King's College, Durham, Sheffield, Manchester, St. Andrews, and York.

In terms of knowing the educational systems, which is imperative when discussing the strengths and weaknesses of Oxbridge and the Ivy League, I believe I do know them from actual experience. And not to boast, I will tell you that I got only A grades in the US and I am now getting only First Class marks in the UK. What I want to stress out here is that getting all First Class marks in a UK leading university is at least twice as hard as getting all As in the US!

Furthermore, when discussing prestige, because there is such a thing and it is important, I believe that most of you are making fundamental mistakes. Prestige is based on actual achievements rather than on perceptions and opinions. Because let's face it, 99% of all people anywhere in the world simply do not possess the information and intellectual capacity to grasp what Oxbridge and the Ivy League are all about. So, to base the prestige of any one of these groups on perceptions and preferences is simply not serious!

I will just give you one piece of statistics. I do not believe that statistics for the most part are very acurate. Anyway, Cambridge has produced more Nobel Prize winners than any other university - 80! Chicago is second with 73, Columbia has 64, MIT 56, etc, etc. Actualy Oxford is 5th with 47! Harvard is 7th with 40! And if we accept that the Nobel Prizes recognize the ultimate achievements in all sciences, this means that Oxbridge has produce almost 130 Nobel Prizes, just two universities. And the Ivy League in total has fewer, 8 universities.

I would suggest that you examine a larger 'chunk' of data before drawing any conclusions!

And finally, I have a few questions of my own. What, according to anyone that may have any information, is an exceptional overal average for a Business undergraduate in the UK? Mine is around 75 and, from all the information that I have, I believe this is about as high as you can get. And also, what percentage of UK undergraduates get First Class BA degrees with such marks in every single module taken. I have achieved this and hope to maintain it my last year! Thanks in advance to anyone that may have such info!

I will keep an eye on this Forum in the future!

All the best,

M. Krastev