..
Scroll to see replies
Original post by 100umsgod
Having recently been awarded undergraduate degrees by both universities I feel I have perhaps more insight than any other person regarding this question. They both have different flavours - Oxford being a bit more druggy and Cambridge being closer to a vintage port - but, really, neither are up to scratch. My peers at both universities were under-read and poorly focused. I rarely met students who had come anywhere near to meeting my expectations for them in terms of A Level UMS and most did not have anymore than 10 A*s at GCSE. They are both institutions in need of serious reevaluations of academic standards.
I've now moved on to Harvard for a PhD. It is a little better here but still not fantastic.
I fear all universities these days are poor men's alternatives when compared with what ought to be the standards of such institutions.
I've now moved on to Harvard for a PhD. It is a little better here but still not fantastic.
I fear all universities these days are poor men's alternatives when compared with what ought to be the standards of such institutions.
Oxford and Cambridge aren't 'up to scratch'? Interesting...most of the rest of the world seems to disagree with you there!
Original post by Reality Check
Oxford and Cambridge aren't 'up to scratch'? Interesting...most of the rest of the world seems to disagree with you there!
Most of the world haven't had the privilege of studying at both and therefore don't have the same insights that I do. I wonder if the fact that "most of the rest of the world seems to disagree" means that they rest on their laurels.
They are fine for the average A*AA/A*A*A student but, regardless of admissions statistics, neither are anywhere near the powerhouses they could be. I could have easily covered all the topics that I did in my 3 years at Oxford in about a term if the University's resources and academics had been at a higher standard.
Original post by 100umsgod
Most of the world haven't had the privilege of studying at both and therefore don't have the same insights that I do. I wonder if the fact that "most of the rest of the world seems to disagree" means that they rest on their laurels.
They are fine for the average A*AA/A*A*A student but, regardless of admissions statistics, neither are anywhere near the powerhouses they could be. I could have easily covered all the topics that I did in my 3 years at Oxford in about a term if the University's resources and academics had been at a higher standard.
They are fine for the average A*AA/A*A*A student but, regardless of admissions statistics, neither are anywhere near the powerhouses they could be. I could have easily covered all the topics that I did in my 3 years at Oxford in about a term if the University's resources and academics had been at a higher standard.
Actually, a lot of my friends have studied at both Oxford and Cambridge so please don't labour under the delusion that you're the only one.
The notion that you could have done your entire Oxford (or Cambridge - you don't specify which one) degree in a term if the 'academics had been up to scratch' is, frankly, laughable.
Out of interest, what college did you study at. Both Oxford and Cambridge? Just interested in knowing where this awful education stemmed from, of course... I'm sure you did go to both, after all.
Original post by GradeA*UnderA
I did (got rejected 
)
In my defence, I said it was a more prestigious USC, as in similar nature. (USC is a rich kid school).
)In my defence, I said it was a more prestigious USC, as in similar nature. (USC is a rich kid school).
I went to UCL for a computer science thing (I am 16) and the feedback I got from them was that this was that UCL was no one's first choice xD
Original post by ssharma123
I went to UCL for a computer science thing (I am 16) and the feedback I got from them was that this was that UCL was no one's first choice xD
Harsh! I wonder if UCL suffers from a majority of applicants also having Oxbridge as one of their choices, and that would, in the vast majority of cases, be a 'first choice' if they offer. However, I'm sure there must be a good number of people who do have UCL as a first choice - it's not like it's a shabby choice, after all!
Original post by Reality Check
Harsh! I wonder if UCL suffers from a majority of applicants also having Oxbridge as one of their choices, and that would, in the vast majority of cases, be a 'first choice' if they offer. However, I'm sure there must be a good number of people who do have UCL as a first choice - it's not like it's a shabby choice, after all!
It is a good uni, just happens that the people I met were looking to get into Oxbridge or imperial.
Original post by Reality Check
Actually, a lot of my friends have studied at both Oxford and Cambridge so please don't labour under the delusion that you're the only one.
The notion that you could have done your entire Oxford (or Cambridge - you don't specify which one) degree in a term if the 'academics had been up to scratch' is, frankly, laughable.
Out of interest, what college did you study at. Both Oxford and Cambridge? Just interested in knowing where this awful education stemmed from, of course... I'm sure you did go to both, after all.
The notion that you could have done your entire Oxford (or Cambridge - you don't specify which one) degree in a term if the 'academics had been up to scratch' is, frankly, laughable.
Out of interest, what college did you study at. Both Oxford and Cambridge? Just interested in knowing where this awful education stemmed from, of course... I'm sure you did go to both, after all.
I am very taken aback by your attitude! I am merely trying to contribute to this discussion with my own perspective. This is not what I expect from the TSR Support Team.
I am more than aware that I am not the only person to have studied at both Oxford and Cambridge.
I was at Christ Church at Oxford and then went to St Edmund's at Cambridge.
Original post by 100umsgod
This is not what I expect from the TSR Support Team.
Just been reading your 'contributions' from June 2015 on the Cambridge Applicants thread, amongst others...
We'll leave it there thanks, and concentrate on answering the OP's thread.
Original post by Reality Check
Just been reading your 'contributions' from June 2015 on the Cambridge Applicants thread, amongst others...
We'll leave it there thanks, and concentrate on answering the OP's thread.
We'll leave it there thanks, and concentrate on answering the OP's thread.
Thank you for your apology. I wish you well.
Original post by 100umsgod
Having recently been awarded undergraduate degrees by both universities I feel I have perhaps more insight than any other person regarding this question. They both have different flavours - Oxford being a bit more druggy and Cambridge being closer to a vintage port - but, really, neither are up to scratch. My peers at both universities were under-read and poorly focused. I rarely met students who had come anywhere near to meeting my expectations for them in terms of A Level UMS and most did not have anymore than 10 A*s at GCSE. They are both institutions in need of serious reevaluations of academic standards.
I've now moved on to Harvard for a PhD. It is a little better here but still not fantastic.
I fear all universities these days are poor men's alternatives when compared with what ought to be the standards of such institutions.
I've now moved on to Harvard for a PhD. It is a little better here but still not fantastic.
I fear all universities these days are poor men's alternatives when compared with what ought to be the standards of such institutions.
I never knew there was a drug culture at Oxford?
Honestly, if you want to think about it objectively, people who get A*AA are in the top ~8% IIRC of A-Level results (excluding gen studies and CT). Now, that doesn't include everyone who took GCSEs, or AS-Levels; in my experience, a huge number drop out (half my sixth form went after AS). Many from GCSE go on to FE colleges, BTECS, apprenticeships, etc etc. So, A*AA is probably around top ~3% when factored for everyone that finished GCSEs. 9A* and A*AA at A2 is very rare, therefore and I think your expectations were bloated.
This diaspora of students is a good reason why U.K universities have much higher admission rates than US universities. UCL gives an offer to most people that apply. If I had to pick a prestige equivalent to UCL in the U.S, I'd say Cornell-NYU? Regardless, they offer much less frequently, mainly because the American system is poor at differentiating between students. Teachers at the school ACTUALLY GIVE the students their ACTUAL grades, there's so much room for bias, and rampant number of people with high GPAs. There's nothing like A Levels there in their high school system, APs aren't A-Levels, they're much smaller in content and their AP chemistry is a joke compared to A2 Chem. Considering this, that's why extracurricular are so important in the U.S, and that's why they're not really sought after as MUCH, in the U.K. They finish high school at 18 with GCSE knowledge. That's why their degree is 4 years long (along with it being more broad based with liberal arts crap).
TL;DR
People who have gotten A*AA have done a lot, and if your expectations of them are low, then the general population must make you suicidal.
I mean, come on, man; how can Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge all be underwhelming?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Ibz_cam
Is UCL where all Oxford rejectees go to?
Well, not everyone who goes to UCL applied there in the first place, but I suppose it does contain a good proportion. UCL, ICL, LSE, Warwick, Durham, Edinburgh, St Andrews is where the lion share of them are
Original post by ssharma123
I went to UCL for a computer science thing (I am 16) and the feedback I got from them was that this was that UCL was no one's first choice xD
For CompSci, I'd definitely pick Imperial. UCL was always my number one choice for medicine, generally due to a more diverse student body and arguably greater prestige in life sciences, IMO. Imperial is better than UCL at every other mutual subject.
Imperial CompSci graduates earn over £50,000 after 6 months according to UNISTATS
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Poooky
I'd call that over-compensating
But in seriousness, that makes Cambridge seem more up their own arse than Oxford, disagreeing with that you said earlier
I'd call that over-compensating
But in seriousness, that makes Cambridge seem more up their own arse than Oxford, disagreeing with that you said earlier Yes that was my first thought - like the asymmetry to be found in Scottish/English rivalries.
Original post by GradeA*UnderA
Imperial's research has been given higher quality than Oxford's in many areas, ...
Imperial's research has been given higher quality than Oxford's in many areas, ...
What are you basing this on? In the most recent REF in terms of top quality (4*) research the three institutions got the following percentages http://results.ref.ac.uk/Results/SelectUoa
Biology - C 52, I 51, O 47
Chemistry - C 57, O 49, I 34
Computer Science - I 56, O 53, C 48,
Earth Sciences - O 43, C 40
Engineering - O 55, C 53, I 44
Mathematics - O 59, C 45, I 44
Medicine - C 58, O 53, I 48
Physics - O 43, C 38, I 35
Psychology - O 67, C 58, I 50
These data don't seem to back your claim re Oxford and Imperial, nor rank Oxford and Cambridge in any particular order.
(edited 7 years ago)
Obviously I have no experience of either, but I've always seen Oxford and Cambridge as equals, sometimes Oxford being slightly more superior.
I'm no expert though, just personal opinion
I'm no expert though, just personal opinion
Original post by RichE
What are you basing this on? In the most recent REF in terms of top quality (4*) research the three institutions got the following percentages http://results.ref.ac.uk/Results/SelectUoa
Biology - C 52, I 51, O 47
Chemistry - C 57, O 49, I 34
Computer Science - I 56, O 53, C 48,
Earth Sciences - O 43, C 40
Engineering - O 55, C 53, I 44
Mathematics - O 59, C 45, I 44
Medicine - C 58, O 53, I 48
Physics - O 43, C 38, I 35
Psychology - O 67, C 58, I 50
These data don't seem to back your claim re Oxford and Imperial, nor rank Oxford and Cambridge in any particular order.
Biology - C 52, I 51, O 47
Chemistry - C 57, O 49, I 34
Computer Science - I 56, O 53, C 48,
Earth Sciences - O 43, C 40
Engineering - O 55, C 53, I 44
Mathematics - O 59, C 45, I 44
Medicine - C 58, O 53, I 48
Physics - O 43, C 38, I 35
Psychology - O 67, C 58, I 50
These data don't seem to back your claim re Oxford and Imperial, nor rank Oxford and Cambridge in any particular order.
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_17-12-2014-21-22-39
They may have more world leading research, but a higher proportion of Imperial's is internationally excellent/world-leading and and more impactful according to it. All-round consistency counts
Original post by GradeA*UnderA
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_17-12-2014-21-22-39
They may have more world leading research, but a higher proportion of Imperial's is internationally excellent/world-leading and and more impactful according to it. All-round consistency counts
They may have more world leading research, but a higher proportion of Imperial's is internationally excellent/world-leading and and more impactful according to it. All-round consistency counts
Hmm... I gave a spread of data and you've referenced the one datum Imperial chose to focus on. Fair enough all university press offices would do as much, but doesn't this particular datum make Cambridge a poor man's Imperial as well?
Your earlier comparisons of Imperial students' achieved A-level grades and those of Oxford are also statistically suspect as fewer A* grades are given out in the humanities than the sciences so some stratification of the data really needs to be done first to fairly compare like with like.
Original post by RichE
Hmm... I gave a spread of data and you've referenced the one datum Imperial chose to focus on. Fair enough all university press offices would do as much, but doesn't this particular datum make Cambridge a poor man's Imperial as well?
Your earlier comparisons of Imperial students' achieved A-level grades and those of Oxford are also statistically suspect as fewer A* grades are given out in the humanities than the sciences so some stratification of the data really needs to be done first to fairly compare like with like.
Your earlier comparisons of Imperial students' achieved A-level grades and those of Oxford are also statistically suspect as fewer A* grades are given out in the humanities than the sciences so some stratification of the data really needs to be done first to fairly compare like with like.
You factored 4* research, I factored 3* and 4*, both considered World-class with 4* being World-leading. My initial statement of Imperial having better research does qualify when it has more world class research, instead of world-leading; it's a difference of opinion over which one's more valued.
No, because research was just one aspect of the arguement, there was also alumni, awards, grades which Cambridge beats Imperial in.
I've already pointed out Oxford's humanities department being its pitfall in terms of A2 average. It doesn't change the fact about the grade comparison between Imperial and Oxford. You don't know whether the students would perform better at FM and physics at A2 for example. They generally pick their most enjoyable subject, and hence, the subject they're most probable to succeed in.
There isn't anything statistically suspect, you're referring to interpretation of the stats, rather than the stats themselves.
Original post by GradeA*UnderA
You factored 4* research, I factored 3* and 4*, both considered World-class with 4* being World-leading. My initial statement of Imperial having better research does qualify when it has more world class research, instead of world-leading; it's a difference of opinion over which one's more valued.
I've already pointed out Oxford's humanities department being its pitfall in terms of A2 average. It doesn't change the fact about the grade comparison between Imperial and Oxford.
Have you done this stratification of the data in the above thread? Apologies if you have and I can't find this.
You don't know whether the students would perform better at FM and physics at A2 for example. They generally pick their most enjoyable subject, and hence, the subject they're most probable to succeed in. There isn't anything statistically suspect, you're referring to interpretation of the stats, rather than the stats themselves.
Of course there is without doing the stratification. Why would someone applying for history take science subjects?Their choices would tend to correlate with humanities subjects where it's harder to get an A*.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
