Are Oxbridge the best Universities in the UK?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by fudgesundae
Except for the fact that in those league tables Oxford ranks above LSE in every single category except Prospects and Facilities Spend (which they admitted in a side note that they can't work it out properly for Oxford for some reason). It also ranks above Cambridge in many of the categories and the article stated that it has been ranked higher than Cambridge in the last 10 years more than Cambridge has been higher than Oxford. And this year it has Oxford ranked above Cambridge for Maths and Economics...
Good try.
Good try.
Wow no need to get so butthurt, Oxford. May have been #1 (by a small margin) more than Cambridge in domestic league tables, but it has also been outside the top two more too (as in multiple times, compared to Cambridge's zero times). Genuinely pathetic that Oxford is even mentioned in the same breath as Cambridge nowadays. We destroy you in international league tables, and the only reason you occassionally beat us in national tables is because they obsess over ridiculously subjective things like 'student satisfaction', which Oxford wins on because the student population is ignorant and complacent.
Original post by Harry S Truman
Wow no need to get so butthurt, Oxford. May have been #1 (by a small margin) more than Cambridge in domestic league tables, but it has also been outside the top two more too (as in multiple times, compared to Cambridge's zero times). Genuinely pathetic that Oxford is even mentioned in the same breath as Cambridge nowadays. We destroy you in international league tables, and the only reason you occassionally beat us in national tables is because they obsess over ridiculously subjective things like 'student satisfaction', which Oxford wins on because the student population is ignorant and complacent.
I was laughing for a minute, then I read your post....
Not even going to humour you with a response, as you are obviously a troll.
Original post by fudgesundae
I was laughing for a minute, then I read your post....
Not even going to humour you with a response, as you are obviously a troll.
Not even going to humour you with a response, as you are obviously a troll.
Classic Oxford. Can't respond to a point, so throw allegations of trolling like a petulant child. No wonder Oxford is slipping down the tables.
Original post by Harry S Truman
Wow no need to get so butthurt, Oxford. May have been #1 (by a small margin) more than Cambridge in domestic league tables, but it has also been outside the top two more too (as in multiple times, compared to Cambridge's zero times). Genuinely pathetic that Oxford is even mentioned in the same breath as Cambridge nowadays. We destroy you in international league tables, and the only reason you occassionally beat us in national tables is because they obsess over ridiculously subjective things like 'student satisfaction', which Oxford wins on because the student population is ignorant and complacent.
Stop embarrassing yourself. And as for destroying Oxford in international tables, I guess that's why Oxford came above Cambridge in the Times Higher Education university rankings, probably the most reputable international university ranking:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/top-400.html
Original post by SHELDON123
Stop embarrassing yourself. And as for destroying Oxford in international tables, I guess that's why Oxford came above Cambridge in the Times Higher Education university rankings, probably the most reputable international university ranking:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/top-400.html
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/top-400.html
QS is way more reputable, you partisan.
Original post by Harry S Truman
QS is way more reputable
Original post by Harry S Truman
you partisan.
Guys guys, why all the hate? This isn't what Oxbridge banter is meant to be like 
Original post by fluteflute
Says the 100% independent Cambridge offer holder...
Offer holder? It seems Oxford students can't even read properly either.
Original post by Harry S Truman
Offer holder? It seems Oxford students can't even read properly either.
Original post by KCosmo
However flawed the league tables are, they don't measure "reputation" Oxbridge are always very high because they have world leading research, and guys like Stephen Hawking teaching their students. The reputation may help them maintain their high standards by attracting the best lecturers (and being able to pay them high salaries.) I'm sure if the quality of either went down, the league tables would be over it in a flash
Fairly sure he doesn't.
Also, good academics does not equal good teachers. Half of them can't be bothered with their lecturing duties. The best lecturers/supervisors are usually not the most distinguished academics.
Original post by Maxm79
I'm not a big believer in Oxbridge being the top two all the time and never anything different... but there is some reason behind the madness.
Oxbridge have a unique tutorial/supervision system whereby, for an hour every week, you have a discussion about your work with a tutor (who is often a world leading expert)
At many other universities, teaching revolves mainly around seminars (10ish people discussing things) that may be regular or only used sparingly, and lectures (the main bit). At some unis there will be tutorials but never so regular and usually over essay-writing etc. Oxbridge have seminars, lectures and REGULAR tutorials.
In terms of league tables, they take into account other things than just 'providing a better education' - e.g. job prospects. So often places like the LSE rank better because they are so good at giving their graduates jobs! Of course, any top 10 uni will be good for giving you a job...
Finally, I think 'history' does have a profound impact on why Oxbridge are high up - but it's not for some superficial reason like "oh, they are the Ancient Universities, they deserve to be in the Top 10". Instead, their prestige naturally attracts very bright students.
Out of all the clever people I know likely to get AAA or higher at A-level, the vast majority (95%) applied to Oxbridge.
This isn't to say that everyone at Oxbridge is brighter, however - I like to think of it as 'All students at Oxbridge are bright... but the brightest aren't necessarily found in Oxbridge.' There's bound to be a sizeable number of better historians at Durham, or Economists at LSE than of some at Oxbridge - due to the nature of the admissions process, in my opinion. This explains why many of the tutors are Oxbridge aren't actually Oxbridge educated or why many rejectees apply the next year only to be accepted! etc... The brightest students are not solely found in Oxford and Cambridge.
But, that said, Oxbridge has some sort of entrenched position up there for logical reasons - bright pupils want what is supposed to be the best education system, and so naturally, they will apply to Oxbridge and Oxbridge will then receive these bright students. The tutorial system, in addition, ensures a top spot in terms of intensive, highly analytical and unique learning.
Oxbridge have a unique tutorial/supervision system whereby, for an hour every week, you have a discussion about your work with a tutor (who is often a world leading expert)
At many other universities, teaching revolves mainly around seminars (10ish people discussing things) that may be regular or only used sparingly, and lectures (the main bit). At some unis there will be tutorials but never so regular and usually over essay-writing etc. Oxbridge have seminars, lectures and REGULAR tutorials.
In terms of league tables, they take into account other things than just 'providing a better education' - e.g. job prospects. So often places like the LSE rank better because they are so good at giving their graduates jobs! Of course, any top 10 uni will be good for giving you a job...
Finally, I think 'history' does have a profound impact on why Oxbridge are high up - but it's not for some superficial reason like "oh, they are the Ancient Universities, they deserve to be in the Top 10". Instead, their prestige naturally attracts very bright students.
Out of all the clever people I know likely to get AAA or higher at A-level, the vast majority (95%) applied to Oxbridge.
This isn't to say that everyone at Oxbridge is brighter, however - I like to think of it as 'All students at Oxbridge are bright... but the brightest aren't necessarily found in Oxbridge.' There's bound to be a sizeable number of better historians at Durham, or Economists at LSE than of some at Oxbridge - due to the nature of the admissions process, in my opinion. This explains why many of the tutors are Oxbridge aren't actually Oxbridge educated or why many rejectees apply the next year only to be accepted! etc... The brightest students are not solely found in Oxford and Cambridge.
But, that said, Oxbridge has some sort of entrenched position up there for logical reasons - bright pupils want what is supposed to be the best education system, and so naturally, they will apply to Oxbridge and Oxbridge will then receive these bright students. The tutorial system, in addition, ensures a top spot in terms of intensive, highly analytical and unique learning.
Where do you get this information about tutorials?
I have a tutorial for every class I take apart from two which are labs instead, and I have labs for some of the subjects for which I also have tutorials.
I have 4 or 5 hours of tutorials and 8 hours of labs a week (and then lectures of course).
Original post by illusionz
Fairly sure he doesn't.
Also, good academics does not equal good teachers. Half of them can't be bothered with their lecturing duties. The best lecturers/supervisors are usually not the most distinguished academics.
Also, good academics does not equal good teachers. Half of them can't be bothered with their lecturing duties. The best lecturers/supervisors are usually not the most distinguished academics.
Indeed, fair point. Although I'm sure Hawking, if not at present, at some point taught at Cambridge, or at least gave lectures about the research he was working on.
Original post by Popppppy
Where do you get this information about tutorials?
I have a tutorial for every class I take apart from two which are labs instead, and I have labs for some of the subjects for which I also have tutorials.
I have 4 or 5 hours of tutorials and 8 hours of labs a week (and then lectures of course).
I have a tutorial for every class I take apart from two which are labs instead, and I have labs for some of the subjects for which I also have tutorials.
I have 4 or 5 hours of tutorials and 8 hours of labs a week (and then lectures of course).
The main difference (which he didn't get across very well) is the number of people in said tutorials. I would guess you have at least 8 people in each of yours?
This year I've had 4 supervisions a week for the first two terms, of which 3 a week were 1on1, and the 4th was 2 students to one supervisor. This is the crucial difference, because the amount of stuff you can cover in an hour of 1 to 1 tuition where you only do the stuff you personally need to do is much, much greater than that for a large group.
[bitter rant]Ok, I really need to vent my general feelings about this topic. Academically, Cambridge and Oxford are better than other universities in the UK. Personally, I'd rather not be at Cambridge, and there are many ways in which other universities are better. But trying to deny that they're superior in that aspect, and that they're superior by a significant margin, is incredibly unfair to those people who have to work so hard to get degrees from these f****** boot-camps.
I can't speak for science subjects, where I imagine the gap is less pronounced (Warwick is better than Oxford for maths, as far as I can tell), but in arts subjects the difference is insane. I have friends at KCL, Manchester, UCL, Leeds... and know people from Sussex, LSE, and various other top universities. They all do arts subjects and they all do 2 or 3 real essays a term. In a 12 week term. Yes, they have other bits of work, but so do I, and I do 8 essays in 8 weeks. My essays are based on primary material, they often read digests and secondary guides or summaries of the articles I read. I have to do essays which are more in depth than the majority I've seen my friends do and I do them in a matter of days when they're given months to doss about and write less researched essays for which they're awarded high grades. We don't get grades for weekly essays here, but judging by the people I know who've received firsts and 2:1s from other universities, our marking standards (in the exams) are considerably harsher. Think about it, this is a university full of people who wiped the floor with everyone else at A Level... it seems strange that people at Oxford Brookes etc. are getting higher grades than the majority of people here. Even those at Exeter, Nottingham etc... some may well be people who just didn't flourish as much at A Level, but in the main I think this is clearly indicative of the fact that it's way, way harder to get a first here than elsewhere.
I'm very bitter about this because I hate being pushed to the limit every week here and working my ass off to get what will probably by a 2:1 and hearing people from KCL who do less than half the work I do, in far less depth, tell me that their university isn't very different from mine. It f****** is. Every supervision I've ever had has been 1:1 with a world-leading academic, bar one or two with post-grads (who are still exceptional) on top of that there are classes, seminars, extra work, workshops... not to mention actually trying to have a life. I can never sit in a supervision and not be scrutinized, if I don't do work for a week I'll be seriously, possibly irreparably behind. We have long holidays but people are expected to work in them. I spent mine doing my dissertation or attempting to revise.
So yeah, Oxbridge is better, and we get to say that because we work insanely hard and do work at a much higher level than other universities. My friends who are doing masters at other unis are constantly surprised that they know more about subjects we studied for one week in second year than people who are supposed to be specializing in that subject for their masters. Be grateful that you're not being driven half mad in Oxbridge, that you get to rest, have reading weeks, doss around and have a life (people do do that here as well, but it's way harder), but don't tell me that we don't come out with a significantly better degree. [/bitter rant]
I can't speak for science subjects, where I imagine the gap is less pronounced (Warwick is better than Oxford for maths, as far as I can tell), but in arts subjects the difference is insane. I have friends at KCL, Manchester, UCL, Leeds... and know people from Sussex, LSE, and various other top universities. They all do arts subjects and they all do 2 or 3 real essays a term. In a 12 week term. Yes, they have other bits of work, but so do I, and I do 8 essays in 8 weeks. My essays are based on primary material, they often read digests and secondary guides or summaries of the articles I read. I have to do essays which are more in depth than the majority I've seen my friends do and I do them in a matter of days when they're given months to doss about and write less researched essays for which they're awarded high grades. We don't get grades for weekly essays here, but judging by the people I know who've received firsts and 2:1s from other universities, our marking standards (in the exams) are considerably harsher. Think about it, this is a university full of people who wiped the floor with everyone else at A Level... it seems strange that people at Oxford Brookes etc. are getting higher grades than the majority of people here. Even those at Exeter, Nottingham etc... some may well be people who just didn't flourish as much at A Level, but in the main I think this is clearly indicative of the fact that it's way, way harder to get a first here than elsewhere.
I'm very bitter about this because I hate being pushed to the limit every week here and working my ass off to get what will probably by a 2:1 and hearing people from KCL who do less than half the work I do, in far less depth, tell me that their university isn't very different from mine. It f****** is. Every supervision I've ever had has been 1:1 with a world-leading academic, bar one or two with post-grads (who are still exceptional) on top of that there are classes, seminars, extra work, workshops... not to mention actually trying to have a life. I can never sit in a supervision and not be scrutinized, if I don't do work for a week I'll be seriously, possibly irreparably behind. We have long holidays but people are expected to work in them. I spent mine doing my dissertation or attempting to revise.
So yeah, Oxbridge is better, and we get to say that because we work insanely hard and do work at a much higher level than other universities. My friends who are doing masters at other unis are constantly surprised that they know more about subjects we studied for one week in second year than people who are supposed to be specializing in that subject for their masters. Be grateful that you're not being driven half mad in Oxbridge, that you get to rest, have reading weeks, doss around and have a life (people do do that here as well, but it's way harder), but don't tell me that we don't come out with a significantly better degree. [/bitter rant]
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Popppppy
Where do you get this information about tutorials?
I have a tutorial for every class I take apart from two which are labs instead, and I have labs for some of the subjects for which I also have tutorials.
I have 4 or 5 hours of tutorials and 8 hours of labs a week (and then lectures of course).
I have a tutorial for every class I take apart from two which are labs instead, and I have labs for some of the subjects for which I also have tutorials.
I have 4 or 5 hours of tutorials and 8 hours of labs a week (and then lectures of course).
The point is that you are comparing names.
What a Brit calls a seminar would be unrecognisable to a student from a German university, which is the country where seminars were invented.
Who attends (ie how many) one of your tutorials and what do you do in one?
Then compare that with the experience of an Oxford tutorial or Cambridge supervision.
Original post by nulli tertius
The point is that you are comparing names.
What a Brit calls a seminar would be unrecognisable to a student from a German university, which is the country where seminars were invented.
Who attends (ie how many) one of your tutorials and what do you do in one?
Then compare that with the experience of an Oxford tutorial or Cambridge supervision.
What a Brit calls a seminar would be unrecognisable to a student from a German university, which is the country where seminars were invented.
Who attends (ie how many) one of your tutorials and what do you do in one?
Then compare that with the experience of an Oxford tutorial or Cambridge supervision.
About 20 to 30 people, with about 5 or 6 staff members.
We work through set problems and can ask for help if we get stuck.
Also at Strathclyde every single undergrad student gets their own "PDA" -basically we are paired with a staff member from our department, one staff member to one student, and they are there to answer any questions and help you whenever you want. It's a pretty good system.
Original post by Popppppy
About 20 to 30 people, with about 5 or 6 staff members.
We work through set problems and can ask for help if we get stuck.
Also at Strathclyde every single undergrad student gets their own "PDA" -basically we are paired with a staff member from our department, one staff member to one student, and they are there to answer any questions and help you whenever you want. It's a pretty good system.
We work through set problems and can ask for help if we get stuck.
Also at Strathclyde every single undergrad student gets their own "PDA" -basically we are paired with a staff member from our department, one staff member to one student, and they are there to answer any questions and help you whenever you want. It's a pretty good system.
See, that's what we'd call a big seminar meets a homework club
Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd
See, that's what we'd call a big seminar meets a homework club
No please, be more patronising.
You can find out where I studied if you look at my profile. At one university, workload was typically 6 essays (3x1500 and 3x3000) in a 12 week term, although usually condensed into the final nine weeks. Three presentations of 10-15 minutes, and seminars of 6-8 students, most often with a faculty member. Classes usually met in a 19th century sandstone building.
The other had class sizes of 12, two essays a term of 5,000 words, and one presentation although that could be shared. Classes met in an underground nuclear bomb bunker in the library.
Another was class sizes of between one and four, no presentations per-se, but a 2500 word essay a week. Almost always taught by a faculty member. Classes usually met in the faculty members' office.
I've also held a lecturing position at another university which was founded after 1992. Class sizes there were typically 20-25, met in a room that was falling apart, and had one essay of 2000 words and one joint presentation per term. This, I should say, was qualitatively a mile off of the above.
Having taught or mentored at all three, I can make some conclusions. What will probably surprise you is that by far the richest of those three universities, and arguably the one with the largest international reputation, had, in my opinion, the least knowledgeable students (of their subject at least), but perhaps the most impressive in general conversation- it was also (congratulations for reading this far) the one in the underground bunker of a room with the lowest workload. At the other two, things were much the same excepting I detected some more at the top end of one ability pool and some fewer at the other end, but on the whole 70% or so of the students would have matched up- it was probably the difference between a place with everyone with straight As against one with half at straight A and the other half with one B somewhere. Quality of staff, resources, exams were identical, and while one forced you to work harder and the other you could *probably* slack your way to a degree if you really wanted to, both expected the same standards to give out top grades. In a way, not having the safety net of a tutor asking for a weekly essay meant self-motivation was probably harder.
Ultimately, I think Oxford and Cambridge grads come out with the most detailed knowledge of their narrow subject. I think elsewhere, particularly under the broader four year system outside of England, the graduates can come out with lots of detail, but have breadth too. This is by no means a conclusive assessment, as non-English universities can still have a lot of the top students in their country and thus not be exactly comparable with say, Sussex, but on the whole, the gap isn't all that big: it's one thing to say entry is higher and one has a higher minimum workload, but it's quite another to suggest that those coming out with the best grades in one wouldn't still be good enough for the best grades in the other.
The other had class sizes of 12, two essays a term of 5,000 words, and one presentation although that could be shared. Classes met in an underground nuclear bomb bunker in the library.
Another was class sizes of between one and four, no presentations per-se, but a 2500 word essay a week. Almost always taught by a faculty member. Classes usually met in the faculty members' office.
I've also held a lecturing position at another university which was founded after 1992. Class sizes there were typically 20-25, met in a room that was falling apart, and had one essay of 2000 words and one joint presentation per term. This, I should say, was qualitatively a mile off of the above.
Having taught or mentored at all three, I can make some conclusions. What will probably surprise you is that by far the richest of those three universities, and arguably the one with the largest international reputation, had, in my opinion, the least knowledgeable students (of their subject at least), but perhaps the most impressive in general conversation- it was also (congratulations for reading this far) the one in the underground bunker of a room with the lowest workload. At the other two, things were much the same excepting I detected some more at the top end of one ability pool and some fewer at the other end, but on the whole 70% or so of the students would have matched up- it was probably the difference between a place with everyone with straight As against one with half at straight A and the other half with one B somewhere. Quality of staff, resources, exams were identical, and while one forced you to work harder and the other you could *probably* slack your way to a degree if you really wanted to, both expected the same standards to give out top grades. In a way, not having the safety net of a tutor asking for a weekly essay meant self-motivation was probably harder.
Ultimately, I think Oxford and Cambridge grads come out with the most detailed knowledge of their narrow subject. I think elsewhere, particularly under the broader four year system outside of England, the graduates can come out with lots of detail, but have breadth too. This is by no means a conclusive assessment, as non-English universities can still have a lot of the top students in their country and thus not be exactly comparable with say, Sussex, but on the whole, the gap isn't all that big: it's one thing to say entry is higher and one has a higher minimum workload, but it's quite another to suggest that those coming out with the best grades in one wouldn't still be good enough for the best grades in the other.
Original post by Popppppy
No please, be more patronising.
Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude
It's just a seminar didn't quite cover it. Nothing wrong with a homework club. All students could benefit from having a forum in which they could take work to the lecturer and have things they didn't understand explained to them Sorry if you thought I was being rude
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Is UCL the best after Oxbridge?
- UCL reputation in uk
- St Andy's vs. Oxbridge = more like Oxbad
- University rankings don’t apply to undergraduate so how to decide
- Best universities for undergrad electronic engineering?
- St Andrews vs Oxbridge
- Edinburgh vs KCL for English
- UK best medical schools
- Most overrated universities???
- My son says LSE is a top university....but it's ranked low?
- Durham University - Full of Rich Privately Educated people?
- How good/elite is the University of St. Andrews?
- Which universities are targeted by employers?
- What are the best medicine schools to go to?
- Firm Choice
- Best UK universities to study law
- Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
- Describe the Universities I'm interested in in one sentence
- Which uni is best for law in Uk?
- Best universities for history?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Weidenfeld Hoffmann Trust (WHT) Scholarship Notification (2024-2025)Last reply 1 day ago
Oxbridge applicants for modern languages - 2025 entry (applying in 2024)Last reply 1 week ago
Will I get into Oxford with my GCSE results? - EngineeringLast reply 3 weeks ago
will 5 a levels give me a better chance at getting into oxford?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Weidenfeld Hoffmann Trust (WHT) Scholarship Notification (2024-2025)Last reply 1 day ago
Oxbridge applicants for modern languages - 2025 entry (applying in 2024)Last reply 1 week ago
Will I get into Oxford with my GCSE results? - EngineeringLast reply 3 weeks ago
will 5 a levels give me a better chance at getting into oxford?
