Honestly though, I don't understand the whole Oxbridge madness. I have this policy which is : if you're good, you're good. It doesn't matter which university you go to, if you have the ability and determination, you can make everything work. Yeah, sure, they may have heaps of nobel laureates as professors and alumni, but bottomline, it's wrong to assume that they only did it because of their university.
Don't be fooled. Oxbridge is not the end, if you're good, they'll take you.
Also, I have a pretty bad opinion of Cambridge, since, I've come across a few students who were quite elitist and racist. I KNOW it's bad to presume everyone is, but first impressions matter. And even recently, I discover that Subramanyan Chandrashekhar (founder of the chandrashekhar limit for stars, nobel laureate) left Cambridge and went to Chicago, due to facing racism.
I know this sounds very generalised and like a personal vendetta against Oxbridge, but, I don't know.........I haven't heard, or experienced anything positive related to the university other than rankings and teaching.
I'm sorry if you're an oxbridge student and you're offended. I really am, I wish I had a few experiences that could change my mind, I really do, but can you blame me for feeling this way?
P.S: Also, coming from someone who's the daughter of a professor, I assure you, senior professors like nobel laureates or researchers, do not teach undergraduates. It's considered a waste of time, as teaching is considered counter-productive to research and publications. There's no real big difference in curricula and teaching, every university has a basic standard. Just make sure you like the course.