What advantages does going to Oxbridge actually bring?

I've heard there is some Creative Writing course at UEA which is supposedly world leading. I also heard you have to be invited to participate rather than apply though I'm not sure if that is still (or ever) true.

Also, my own department ranks highest in the country for research (which is a fairly major part of a typical undergrad degree, given that the fourth year project is essentially a shorter, slightly less abstract, version of what a phd student would do). As I stated in regards to specialised jobs, someone applying for particular jobs at CERN with a degree from Lancaster would be looked upon most favourably, as a large proportion of the department works in HEP. Though Lancaster physics dept is not necessarily better than Oxford physics dept overall, the research aspect the department certainly is.

Well, for a start, if you wanted to be a professional musician (instrumentalist), you'd be far better off going to RCM, RAM, etc than either Oxford or Cambridge Music courses (because they're far too focused on the structure and form of the music than on the actual instrumental part. My cello teacher went to Oxford, and he thought when he was there that the performance part of the course was simply there as an afterthought (this was a long time ago though)).

On the same tack, if you want to do science behind music, there's some place in Surrey that's far better than whatever Oxbridge will teach you about it (cant remember the name). A*AA requirements, lots of it's Maths and Physics (to the stage that you get asked about the behaviour of capacitors in your interview). If you graduate, you're basically guaranteed a job in the music industry -- which is far better than most similar courses.

Whilst I'm not denying your major point, a few things about the particular examples you have picked:

- Yes, performance is still an afterthought awho can be in what ensemble and for how long. It's very difficult to have a three year career in high-end performance activity unless you are literally the best person in the whole cohort and there are no restrictions about age. (Mancs part of the course at Oxford (moreso at Cambridge. Though they're revamping the course, so will be interesting to see what happens with regard to that). BUT there are actually advantages to doing your undergrad at one of these two institutions rather than a music college, or another top uni like, say, Manchester. Loads of other unis and music colleges have strict rules about hester, for example, had/poss still has some bizarre rule about first years not being allowed to join the big music ensembles until their second year ) Whereas at Oxford at least, there are no such rules and there are far more opportunities So there are some upsides to being a performer at an Oxbridge college rather than a music college

- There's little point talking about a course in Surrey that focuses on the science of music, unless it's a Masters course (and not an undergraduate/undergraduate Masters course) because Oxford doesn't offer an equivalent. See what I said earlier about the creative writing example. If you're gonna compare, you have to compare like to like

As for why a muso would want to be an investment banker - well if you can, why not? Oxbridge graduates are so favoured when it comes to banking and consultancy stuff that subject doesn't really matter. So why not study what you love and then chase the money?

I was under the impression that if you had considerable talent (as in, could make it as a soloist of reknown), what would be more important for you than the institution you attended would be your specific tutor. For other cases, I agree that Oxford might serve you better (I remember an explanation of how an issue with going to the music colleges would be that you'd be surrounded by people who were immensely talented, but potentially had no musical intelligence, no real way of making their own high quality interpretations of pieces).

That comparison doesn't exactly work though because Oxford doesn't offer creative writing at undergrad level

I'd say Oxford has given me various advantages that other unis (Cambridge aside) can't offer in the same way/at the same level. These include:
-the chance to study a far more advanced curriculum than other unis offer
- honing my writing skills
-the tutorial system (obviously)
- wider extra curricular opportunities whilst I was there and the benefits that has on my CV
- very close monitoring of work
- close relationships/interactions with world-leading/upcoming academics
- the prestige factor, of course
- very close, personal pastoral care that wouldn't be feasible at most other unis
- a bursary so huge and generous that it is kinda funding my MA

I got the distinct impression at my Masters application interviews (which were post-Finals results) that they could easily tell that I was not a 2.2 standard applicant, even though that's what I am on paper. There seemed to be a great deal of respect for and acknowledgment of the training I had undergone at Oxford.

On a more random note, applying to be a reader at the British Library became a piece of cake as soon as the man processing the form realised I was from Oxford

Of course, it makes for great stories to tell at parties and easy small talk

In short, there were a lot of advantages for me

Creative Writing ? I'm talking proper degrees.

Leave RAE rating out of it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2008/dec/18/rae-2008-history

Imperial top for history ?

I can assure you that an Oxford Physicist would trump one at Lancaster any day of the week - I know where I'd want my degree from. Your argument is like saying that an emplyer looking for supply chain managers would prefer a degree in SCM rather than an Oxbridge degree, which they would, but so what ?

I don't doubt that Oxford and Cambridge are both excellent and very well respected universities, however I was merely pointing out that they are not the best for literally everything!

I completely agree that there are departments out there that are as strong, or stronger, than the ones in Oxford and Cambridge. I was just pointing out that giving an example of a course that isn't run at either institution and then making out it's better at some other place isn't really an argument You're better off sticking with your Physics example (which I can't comment on. Allergic to science )

I was not aware that they didn't run CW - I cannot claim to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of university courses. I just assumed that they did it as it's not a massively obscure subject!

You clearly gave too much credit to both institutions when you thought they'd run a cool/more modern course

If you wanted a job in Banking, you'd be better off going to Oxford for Music than the other places you mention, the transferable skills are what employers are looking for.

The ability to post on TSR with an air of authority above everyone else.

You are making a fool of yourself. Yes, Oxford and Cambridge are considerably better than other universities and also have an edge on very good ones, but all this "a 2.2 degree in a random subject from Oxford beets everything from Singapur to California" talking is simply ridiculous. You want to tell me a music graduate from Oxford is more suitable for banking than an economics graduate from another university? Tell you what, without additional qualification and any specific financial knowledge your Oxford musician would not hold his ground against a London Met graduate who studied accounting or economics, because he JUST HASN'T THE RELEVANT KNOWLEDGE.

Perhaps
I like to think that I rejected them...they invited me to two or three day-long events where they try to sell themselves to the kind of people they expect to apply. But in the end I never actually applied. I have no regrets in doing so: I'm perfectly happy where I am, and that's really what matters to me.

That's great It's far from the be all and end all. We're lucky to have lots of excellent institutes in this country

Which departments might these be ? I don't know of any. Even Oxbridge economists are regarded above those at LSE.

I completely agree that there are departments out there that are as strong, or stronger, than the ones in Oxford and Cambridge. I was just pointing out that giving an example of a course that isn't run at either institution and then making out it's better at some other place isn't really an argument You're better off sticking with your Physics example (which I can't comment on. Allergic to science )

I was not aware that they didn't run CW - I cannot claim to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of university courses. I just assumed that they did it as it's not a massively obscure subject!

You clearly gave too much credit to both institutions when you thought they'd run a cool/more modern course

This is very true. I think this point needs to be stressed more often on TSR. There is a sizeable number of universities between Oxbridge and the bottom of the league tables!!

Of course, it makes for great stories to tell at parties and easy small talk