This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Changing degree before university
- Dual Degree at the University of Oxford
- Official Brunel University London 2021 applicant chat
- History and Politics or History?
- About GCSEs options
- On a scale of 1-10, how difficult is A-Level History?
- Help with admissions email
- Help with advanced higher history
- History and politics A-level
- MML at Cambridge
- A-LEVEL OCR ENGLISH LIT !! - resources help !
- MSc Political Science (Conflict Studies and Comparative Politics)
- Geo history math
- Should I do law? Would I be overwhelmed?
- Gsce grades - oxbridge
- No References
- a level economics
- A level sociology
- can't decide on uni course
- Can my Southampton uni course be changed slightly once I'm there?
What do you study within history?
Scroll to see replies
Consie
York has apparently got an awesome course, but its overall reputation isn’t as good as the top 5 unis. I think Oxford is the best by far for any period of British History. Oxford is probably better at any sort of history by far, but their particular strength is British History, so they're in the stratosphere while everyone else is on earth. Warwicks course looks crap, c'ept its a top university.
I would slightly disagree with you there... whilst not wishing to denigrate Oxford, the Cambridge faculty is generally acknowledged as being the best in the country, both for research (most historical journals such as Past and Present and TRHS include far more Cambridge dons) and for teaching. I think most league tables support this.
Either way, employers probably wouldn't care which of the two you went to, really.
Totally disagree with the whole Yorks course being great/Warwicks being crap thing. :P
I chose between the two partially due to the fact that Warwick allowed me to go primarily modern history & Warwick's modules on Ireland, China & various others really appeal to me. I didn't want to do the medieval stuff at York :P.
I chose between the two partially due to the fact that Warwick allowed me to go primarily modern history & Warwick's modules on Ireland, China & various others really appeal to me. I didn't want to do the medieval stuff at York :P.
i personally think the whole 'my uni is better than yours' is a tad pre-school really.
At the end of the day if you work hard, no matter where you are, then you will reap the benefits.
At the end of the day if you work hard, no matter where you are, then you will reap the benefits.
exmoorkatie
i personally think the whole 'my uni is better than yours' is a tad pre-school really.
At the end of the day if you work hard, no matter where you are, then you will reap the benefits.
At the end of the day if you work hard, no matter where you are, then you will reap the benefits.
But I LIKED pre-school, we played with Lego and did fingerpainting... no postmodernism or Richard Evans to read!
Originally posted by FadeToBlackout
But I LIKED pre-school, we played with Lego and did fingerpainting... no postmodernism or Richard Evans to read!
But I LIKED pre-school, we played with Lego and did fingerpainting... no postmodernism or Richard Evans to read!
And the milk and apple slices cut for you! And the midday naps! Once you entered primary school there was no more sleeping during the day anymore
even in sixth form sleeping in the common room was frowned upon got quite a few evils for that, mostly from the maths teachers who trespassed because they couldn't be bothered to walk up and down a few stairs....lazy so and so's.Consie
York has apparently got an awesome course, but its overall reputation isn’t as good as the top 5 unis. I think Oxford is the best by far for any period of British History. Oxford is probably better at any sort of history by far, but their particular strength is British History, so they're in the stratosphere while everyone else is on earth. Warwicks course looks crap, c'ept its a top university.
Where did you get this information from? I'd be curious to know as Cambridge is renowned as having the better history faculty. I have heard that Oxford has a better reputation for German History of the two (while Cambridge is meant to be better for French History) , but I have never heard it said that Oxford is miles ahead of other institutions.
Sorry, when I said oxford was I meant to just say Oxbridge was in the stratosphere, as they’re both pretty similar. I still think Oxford has the edge in history. Its faculty is the biggest in the world (though Cambridge’s is the second biggest lol). The teacher’s I’ve spoken about courses have said Oxford has a traditional strength in British History. I guess their other factor is that, though it may not be accurate, Oxford churns out more arts/humanities graduates and has a better reputation for producing them, just as the age old stereotype that Cambridge does more science. Though this obviously isn’t that accurate, looking at the ranks of alumni does suggest its true.
My knowledge is limited on who is technically better, and using the times league table isn’t a reliable discriminator. Though stereotypes aren’t true, they count, and though an employer isn’t going to care less whether your degree is from Oxford or Cambridge, the tradition that Oxford does the arts/humanities and Cambridge the science/maths kind of counts.
According to a history tutor at Balliol, Cambridge is more into the history of thought and historiography (Richard Evans is at Cambridge) than Oxford is.
My knowledge is limited on who is technically better, and using the times league table isn’t a reliable discriminator. Though stereotypes aren’t true, they count, and though an employer isn’t going to care less whether your degree is from Oxford or Cambridge, the tradition that Oxford does the arts/humanities and Cambridge the science/maths kind of counts.
According to a history tutor at Balliol, Cambridge is more into the history of thought and historiography (Richard Evans is at Cambridge) than Oxford is.
Consie
Sorry, when I said oxford was I meant to just say Oxbridge was in the stratosphere, as they’re both pretty similar. I still think Oxford has the edge in history. Its faculty is the biggest in the world (though Cambridge’s is the second biggest lol). The teacher’s I’ve spoken about courses have said Oxford has a traditional strength in British History. I guess their other factor is that, though it may not be accurate, Oxford churns out more arts/humanities graduates and has a better reputation for producing them, just as the age old stereotype that Cambridge does more science. Though this obviously isn’t that accurate, looking at the ranks of alumni does suggest its true.
My knowledge is limited on who is technically better, and using the times league table isn’t a reliable discriminator. Though stereotypes aren’t true, they count, and though an employer isn’t going to care less whether your degree is from Oxford or Cambridge, the tradition that Oxford does the arts/humanities and Cambridge the science/maths kind of counts.
According to a history tutor at Balliol, Cambridge is more into the history of thought and historiography (Richard Evans is at Cambridge) than Oxford is.
My knowledge is limited on who is technically better, and using the times league table isn’t a reliable discriminator. Though stereotypes aren’t true, they count, and though an employer isn’t going to care less whether your degree is from Oxford or Cambridge, the tradition that Oxford does the arts/humanities and Cambridge the science/maths kind of counts.
According to a history tutor at Balliol, Cambridge is more into the history of thought and historiography (Richard Evans is at Cambridge) than Oxford is.
At Cambridge you do one paper, spread over all three years, on HAP or Historical Argument and Practice. This includes historiography. However, it is a tiny fraction of the degree. There is also a paper available on teh history of political thought, but it has limited spaces and is allocated on a first-come, first-enrolled basis.
I agree that Oxford has a traditional reputation for the humanities, nevertheless I do believe Cambridge's faculty to be better in terms of who is there and in terms of contribution towards History; as I mentioned above, seemingly more Cambridge historians contribute towards the journals and research than Oxford. However, this difference isn't great.
The question is academic, really, as they're both in the stratosphere, as you put it.
honestly cambridge and oxford are both fantastic universities to study history at. No one is ever going to agree on which is better etc, the debate could continue forever. And of course if you actually attend or plan to attend one of them your going to be bias towards one!
Related discussions
- Changing degree before university
- Dual Degree at the University of Oxford
- Official Brunel University London 2021 applicant chat
- History and Politics or History?
- About GCSEs options
- On a scale of 1-10, how difficult is A-Level History?
- Help with admissions email
- Help with advanced higher history
- History and politics A-level
- MML at Cambridge
- A-LEVEL OCR ENGLISH LIT !! - resources help !
- MSc Political Science (Conflict Studies and Comparative Politics)
- Geo history math
- Should I do law? Would I be overwhelmed?
- Gsce grades - oxbridge
- No References
- a level economics
- A level sociology
- can't decide on uni course
- Can my Southampton uni course be changed slightly once I'm there?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
What path do I take - Looking for History undergraduate, Anthropology MasterLast reply 1 month ago
MA History of Art: The Courtauld, UCL, Edinburgh or St Andrews?Last reply 1 month ago
Any Courtauld MA History of Art students with Social Sciences undergraduate degreesTrending
Last reply 3 days ago
What path do I take - Looking for History undergraduate, Anthropology MasterLast reply 1 month ago
MA History of Art: The Courtauld, UCL, Edinburgh or St Andrews?Last reply 1 month ago
Any Courtauld MA History of Art students with Social Sciences undergraduate degrees
