The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 580
Original post by Mc^3
That was MacDowell actually... :tongue:


I know.. but using Malcolm wouldn't have worked at all; the post required minimum gravitas in order to raise a smile. Besides, was fairly sure that someone mistaking Andie for John wouldn't be too meticulous about surname spelling either, thus enhancing rather than detracting from the whole maybe? :dontknow: :smile:
Reply 581



That's all very well. But I bet he can't look convincing while staring moon-faced at Hugh Grant and delivering the disjunctivist line "Is it raining? I hadn't noticed".

Oh.. true, neither can Andie. I'll get me coat :getmecoat:
Reply 582
Original post by Fat-Love
LOL OXFORD. megafail it is.


I completely agree with your signature. It's why I always make a second post.
Reply 583
I'll be a modern languages applicant for 2012 (French & Russian), and I'll be choosing Cambridge over Oxford because the Oxford modern languages courses is all about literature, whereas Cambridge is more flexible. I absolutely detest literature; therefore, I will choose Cambridge! :smile:
I chose Oxford over Cambridge because I preferred the Biochemistry course over the Natural Sciences one Cambridge offers.
And I think Oxford is prettier. :grin:
Original post by brendan.
I chose Oxford over Cambridge because I preferred the Biochemistry course over the Natural Sciences one Cambridge offers.
And I think Oxford is prettier. :grin:


Conversely, I chose Cambridge because I prefer the structure of the NatSci course, and I think it's prettier than Oxford :P
Original post by nibbler12
Conversely, I chose Cambridge because I prefer the structure of the NatSci course, and I think it's prettier than Oxford :P


I agree, Oxford has a bit of a faceless town thing going on, the parts which are of the university are lovely but otherwise it's like any other city. Cambridge, given that the university swallows the place up whole, seems so idyllic and other-worldly
Original post by nibbler12
Conversely, I chose Cambridge because I prefer the structure of the NatSci course, and I think it's prettier than Oxford :P


Hah! Different preferences I suppose. :biggrin:
Original post by comrade_jon
I agree, Oxford has a bit of a faceless town thing going on, the parts which are of the university are lovely but otherwise it's like any other city. Cambridge, given that the university swallows the place up whole, seems so idyllic and other-worldly



Original post by brendan.
Hah! Different preferences I suppose. :biggrin:


Each to his own. Oxford was still beautiful though :P
Original post by Lyam
Whether or not you're interested, Philosophy at Cambridge is definitely superior if your interest is precisely that, Philosophy.


It is definitely the superior choice for an undergraduate applicant wanting to do only philosophy for the three years there, and of these two is the only choice. That, though, doesn't provide warrant to make the broader-seeming claim that "Philosophy at Cambridge is superior", it is not.

Original post by Lyam
Cambridge also has a phenomenally strong reputation in Philosophy, the best in the world at present, due to recent past philosophers.... I'd hate to speculate on Harvard or other American universities but I can't see them being better.


I'm afraid this simply isn't true. Philosophy departments are ranked by a report called the Philosophical Gourmet and at present it is this report which pretty well entirely determines reputation in philosophy. You can perhaps question whether the report accurately captures which department is or isn't best, but that wasn't what you were claiming, which is that Cambridge has a reputation for being the best in the world at present. It doesn't have, nothing like it.

http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/overall.asp

Don't worry about Harvard, the philosophy department at NYU is presently unbelievable, and is possibly the strongest academic department in any subject anywhere in the world. Many of the philosophers you'll be studying while at Cambridge will be teaching your contemporaries at NYU*, while the reverse certainly won't be the case.

*Thomas Nagel, Ronald Dworkin, Paul Boghossian, Ned Block, Derek Parfit, Jeremy Waldron, Crsipin Wright, Hartry Field, David Chalmers.... It's the galacticos.




That said, you're about to begin what is by any measure a very good course, and in one of the best universities in the world, and can be glad enough of that.
Original post by cambio wechsel
.

That list is absurd. Cambridge is practically the home of twentieth-century Philosophy, and a departmental ranking which employs such a daft methodology doesn't change that.
Original post by Harry S Truman
That list is absurd. Cambridge is practically the home of twentieth-century Philosophy, and a departmental ranking which employs such a daft methodology doesn't change that.


It doesn't. But you won't be taught by Wittgenstein, sad to report.
I'll be applying to Cambridge this October. Don't really know why - I just have some kind of unnatural bias towards it. Whenever people have asked me 'have you ever thought about going to oxbridge?' - I just say 'yeah I'm thinking of Cambridge' and I guess it kind of stuck. This was before I'd even visited either city - just had some kind of bias - Cambridge just feels more 'right' to me. :smile:
Reply 593
Original post by hassi94
I'll be applying to Cambridge this October. Don't really know why - I just have some kind of unnatural bias towards it. Whenever people have asked me 'have you ever thought about going to oxbridge?' - I just say 'yeah I'm thinking of Cambridge' and I guess it kind of stuck. This was before I'd even visited either city - just had some kind of bias - Cambridge just feels more 'right' to me. :smile:


Hello again :colone:
Reply 594
Original post by Harry S Truman
That list is absurd. Cambridge is practically the home of twentieth-century Philosophy, and a departmental ranking which employs such a daft methodology doesn't change that.


Pos rep just to balance it out. I'm pretty inactive on here nowadays.


Original post by cambio wechsel
It is definitely the superior choice for an undergraduate applicant wanting to do only philosophy for the three years there, and of these two is the only choice. That, though, doesn't provide warrant to make the broader-seeming claim that "Philosophy at Cambridge is superior", it is not.



I'm afraid this simply isn't true. Philosophy departments are ranked by a report called the Philosophical Gourmet and at present it is this report which pretty well entirely determines reputation in philosophy. You can perhaps question whether the report accurately captures which department is or isn't best, but that wasn't what you were claiming, which is that Cambridge has a reputation for being the best in the world at present. It doesn't have, nothing like it.

http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/overall.asp

Don't worry about Harvard, the philosophy department at NYU is presently unbelievable, and is possibly the strongest academic department in any subject anywhere in the world. Many of the philosophers you'll be studying while at Cambridge will be teaching your contemporaries at NYU*, while the reverse certainly won't be the case.

*Thomas Nagel, Ronald Dworkin, Paul Boghossian, Ned Block, Derek Parfit, Jeremy Waldron, Crsipin Wright, Hartry Field, David Chalmers.... It's the galacticos.




That said, you're about to begin what is by any measure a very good course, and in one of the best universities in the world, and can be glad enough of that.


That list of philosophers for the present moment is fairly impressive, but you said that they will be the philosophers I'll be studying. Maybe, to some degree I might learn something about Thomas Nagel on objective knowledge or whatever, but having a series of philosophers who are 'all right' and alive is not quite the same as having a series of philosophers who are utterly ground-breaking like Russell, Moore, Wittgenstein, Paley and Whitehead (to name a very small number). Obviously they'll not be teaching me there, but it's the same idea as those who look to the New College of Humanities in London as being fantastic when it probably isn't. Those people may be philosophically popular and very clever, but their effect is very limited. If you ask a non-philosopher about any of those chaps, they won't have a clue.

I'm rambling a bit, I have exams very soon, but I really think that any list which places Cambridge's philosophy deparment's reputation as 25th or whatever it was ought to be discarded at once, sorry.
Reply 595
Cambridge because the Oxford geography building is a horrible, boxy little concrete building whilst the history department down the road got something that looked like a cathederal. So not fair.
Original post by Lyam

I'm rambling a bit, I have exams very soon, but I really think that any list which places Cambridge's philosophy deparment's reputation as 25th or whatever it was ought to be discarded at once, sorry.


Well, there is concern about the list in the philosophy community, but it's chiefly a concern about its influence and the extent to which it is self-perpetuating, rather than concern about the methodology. You might have seen as well that Cambridge itself takes part in the rankings system (is one of the departments which ranks other departments, with Nicholas Denyer, Jane Heal and a couple of others from Cambridge having submitted their assessments to the most recent round).

Anyway, and as I said before, you'll be following a terrific course at a terrific university. Good luck with those exams.
Reply 597
Original post by cambio wechsel
Well, there is concern about the list in the philosophy community, but it's chiefly a concern about its influence and the extent to which it is self-perpetuating, rather than concern about the methodology. You might have seen as well that Cambridge itself takes part in the rankings system (is one of the departments which ranks other departments, with Nicholas Denyer, Jane Heal and a couple of others from Cambridge having submitted their assessments to the most recent round).

Anyway, and as I said before, you'll be following a terrific course at a terrific university. Good luck with those exams.


You live up to your title of 'benevolent member', sir! If you have exams or anything, I wish you luck as well! :smile:
Reply 598
I chose Cambridge because in the end, the course definitely suited me better.
I was never quite sure what branch of Science/Engineering I wanted to go into, or if I wanted to go into Science at all!

After choosing to apply to Cambridge and having been offered a place for 2011, the more I hear about the Chem Eng via Natural Sciences course, the more certain I am that I made the right decision - the course is so flexible!

Also, Cambridge is a beautiful city :smile:
Reply 599
I'm going to be applying to Cambridge for MML and I chose Cambridge over Oxford because the Oxford course is too literature heavy, and I don't like literature much.

I prefer history, linguistics & philosophy, so I love how versatile the Cambridge modern languages course is.

Latest

Trending

Trending