The Student Room Group

Are Oxbridge the best Universities in the UK?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by 0404343m
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.


Glasgow, Yale, Oxford in that order?
Reply 61
Original post by fudgesundae
Glasgow, Yale, Oxford in that order?


That's the order of the three above. Not the order I taught/mentored/both at them, which is different again from the order I studied at them.

The Post-1992 that I only taught at was, narrowing things down significantly here, in the same area as the Russell Group university where I was at at the time. I don't want to comment more on that, lest someone rip my head off for suggesting that most of the students I taught weren't very good...
Original post by 0404343m
That's the order of the three above. Not the order I taught/mentored/both at them, which is different again from the order I studied at them.

The Post-1992 that I only taught at was, narrowing things down significantly here, in the same area as the Russell Group university where I was at at the time. I don't want to comment more on that, lest someone rip my head off for suggesting that most of the students I taught weren't very good...


haha fair enough.
Reply 63
depending on what subject broadley speaking yes, they are easily world leading institutions with some of the most advanced research conducted at them, that being said some would argue their brand image definitely doesnt do them any dis-favours..
Original post by the man from space
What i'm asking is that, Do Oxford and Cambridge provide a better education than every other university or is it the reputation which allows them to dominate the university league tables

Basically does the history and reputation of oxbridge allow them to be called the best universities in the UK or is it what they offer?

Is it people perception or not?

I want to know what people think, obviously Oxbridge deserve to be at the top as they are a great institute but in the top 2


The short answer is Yes

The long answer involves a cascade of internet rage, neg repping and people that claim UCL>oxford.
Reply 65
Original post by the man from space
What i'm asking is that, Do Oxford and Cambridge provide a better education than every other university or is it the reputation which allows them to dominate the university league tables

Basically does the history and reputation of oxbridge allow them to be called the best universities in the UK or is it what they offer?

Is it people perception or not?

I want to know what people think, obviously Oxbridge deserve to be at the top as they are a great institute but in the top 2


In a word, yes.
Reply 66
On the whole yes. Though it does vary from department to department and between undergrad and postgrad.
Reply 67
Is there such a thing as a "best" university?

I might be risking splinters in my bum from sitting on the fence, but it's subjective to so many factors, I don't think we can come to a valid conclusion...
Reply 68
Depends alot on the person studying and area of the study, however there reputation earns them lots of scholarships and lots of funding, i think cambridge gets around 3 billion a year and oxford around 2 billion, which is huge compared to most unis, like manchester gets 800 million a year and the amount of students is not dissimilar and manchester is in a much more expensive area. The extra funding allows them to have far superior facilities than others as well as a much higher staff to student ratio.
Reply 69
Original post by whiteing
Depends alot on the person studying and area of the study, however there reputation earns them lots of scholarships and lots of funding, i think cambridge gets around 3 billion a year and oxford around 2 billion, which is huge compared to most unis, like manchester gets 800 million a year and the amount of students is not dissimilar and manchester is in a much more expensive area. The extra funding allows them to have far superior facilities than others as well as a much higher staff to student ratio.


It's absolutely nowhere near that for total expenditure, let alone scholarships. Total expenditure for Oxford was around 900 million last year according to their financial statements, the highest in the UK, followed by Cambridge, Manchester and UCL. Endowment-wise, Oxford and Cambridge have around £4 billion, which is miles clear of the next highest at about a twentieth of that. Manchester is twice the size of the first two and 50% larger than the third, so expenditure per head isn't that high. The richest UK universities (Including Edinburgh, Glasgow, Kings, Imperial) had expenditures of 400-600 million, and endowment assets of 1-200 million. Most British universities have expenditures of a fraction of that level, around 100 million and endowments of just a few million. There's as big a financial gap between the bottom and the ones I've mentioned above as there is between third and the top two.

By comparison, Yale's budget is $2.7 billion (£1.8 billion) is only two thirds the size of Oxford or Cambridge, and has endowment assets of $20 billion. Michigan, Virginia, UNC and others are comparable financially to Oxford and Cambridge.

The one thing to note though about private endowments is that Harvard and Yale rely heavily on the money that comes back from that investment. If the $20 billion returns 10%, they have $2 billion to spend. If it's a bad year and they get nothing back, they have to find a lot of money from elsewhere. In the UK (and US state universities) there's a steady stream coming from the government meaning endowments don't have to be anything like as large.

This all being said, you'd struggle to notice most of it. It's the difference (in Science usually) of having ten expensive machines rather than three, or having super-luxury items like a massive supercomputer that other institutions have to share or having lots of library books no one uses while others have to borrow from the British library or Library of Congress. Beyond a certain level, increase in finances translates only to a very marginal increase in what one can do at the institution. At some very rich private universities, $10,000 is a birth-right to any student wanting to do a summer project in Nepal or elsewhere, whereas in the UK you have to beg several scholarship committees to get half of that. Again, it's a nice thing to have, but not necessary for good work for the most part. Once you get to a fairly well off British university you can do 90+% of what you could do at a very very rich American institution.
Original post by Nichrome
but from what I could see the exam questions seemed broadly the same...


Not in Music, they're not :nah: The course content is very different at Oxbridge.

Obviously I won't presume to speak for all the other subjects. Just thought I'd share the muso love there though :biggrin:
Reply 71
Original post by Nichrome
You're wrong there. The difference is more pronounced if anything, as you can more easily demonstrate the difference in difficulty of the exams in science subjects (akin to how there is a difficulty difference between A level maths and STEP), something which is not quite as easy to do in arts subjects. Yes you have a higher workload, but from what I could see the exam questions seemed broadly the same, not to mention about 99% of people doing Oxbirdge arts subjects get a 2.1+, not the case at other unis. Different from sciences in that regard where Cambridge gives out less 2.1+ degrees than other unis.

I applaud the rest of your rant though.


Interesting, and a very good point. The exam questions are often the same, but the level of answer expected is vastly different. There's a lot more 'laying out the arguments' in my friends' essays from other universities, whereas here the emphasis is on creating an original argument, and it's impossible to score high marks just setting out the debate (at least in philosophy). You're spot on about the 2:1 thing, though. It's I guess more accurate to say that whilst it's harder to get a high mark here, it's also harder to get a very low mark.

Also thanks :smile:
Reply 72
Original post by Bimbleby
Interesting, and a very good point. The exam questions are often the same, but the level of answer expected is vastly different. There's a lot more 'laying out the arguments' in my friends' essays from other universities, whereas here the emphasis is on creating an original argument, and it's impossible to score high marks just setting out the debate (at least in philosophy). You're spot on about the 2:1 thing, though. It's I guess more accurate to say that whilst it's harder to get a high mark here, it's also harder to get a very low mark.

Also thanks :smile:


Philosophy is a different kettle of fish to most subjects, even in the arts. The problem with the one-on-one Oxford system (in History, at least) sometimes is students come out being too opinionated and always seeking to defend their arguments from their tutor. In an 8 person group, it doesn't foster that sort of attitude. As a result, I try to get a mix from the students: I don't want to curb their originality, but I don't want to see wacky, left-field essays that don't build an argument on solid grounds either. I've seen some of the worst essays from students who should be capable of a lot better if they stopped trying to be provocative and different for five minutes and actually had a think about the problem. The problem at the other end of the scale though is that a large group (I think 4-10 is the perfect number) has the effect of everyone moderating the more extreme views down so they end up somewhere in the middle, and as a result, produce bland but technically very competent pieces of work.
Reply 73
Original post by 0404343m
Philosophy is a different kettle of fish to most subjects, even in the arts. The problem with the one-on-one Oxford system (in History, at least) sometimes is students come out being too opinionated and always seeking to defend their arguments from their tutor. In an 8 person group, it doesn't foster that sort of attitude. As a result, I try to get a mix from the students: I don't want to curb their originality, but I don't want to see wacky, left-field essays that don't build an argument on solid grounds either. I've seen some of the worst essays from students who should be capable of a lot better if they stopped trying to be provocative and different for five minutes and actually had a think about the problem. The problem at the other end of the scale though is that a large group (I think 4-10 is the perfect number) has the effect of everyone moderating the more extreme views down so they end up somewhere in the middle, and as a result, produce bland but technically very competent pieces of work.


Yes, definitely. I have a real problem with Cambridge's philosophy strategy in that they reward very assured argument over a more considered approach. I think there's a lot to be said for trying to defend left-field views, because it moves the debate along in an interesting way, but it's only useful if they're well-defended left-field views. The marking here awards high grades for those people who make up an argument, lay it out clearly, then defend it to the death (as far as I can tell, but I'm sadly not privy to the marking process). There isn't much room for pointing out ambiguities or conflicting points unless it's only to smash them up. Saying that, once you've realised that, it's quite a fun thing to do if you're someone that enjoys the process of argument as much as the result. As much as it's irritating to be penalised for having offered an inconclusive essay, I can see that philosophy as a whole subject wouldn't get as far if all academics sat on the fence. Defending a point as much as you possibly can allows you to really test out that view, so I can see it serves a purpose. It just means I tend to do better when I haven't revised and so have to make up a crazy out-there argument and create my own objections and anti-objections because I don't know any of the material... :K:
Reply 74
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).


Yeah sorry didn't make that clear. I'm guessing you have quite a lot of people in those tutorials?
At Oxbridge it's regular 1 to 1s, or 2/3. But rarely anything more.

Quick Reply

Latest