The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Time to create a real alternative to Oxbridge?

Isn't it a shame the UK doesn't have another university that matches Oxbridge? All those Oxbridge rejects have to settle for far inferior universities generally speaking. Should we now move towards UCL/Imperial/LSE merging to create a super university?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Hollywood Hogan
Isn't it a shame the UK doesn't have another university that matches Oxbridge? All those Oxbridge rejects have to settle for far inferior universities generally speaking. Should we now move towards UCL/Imperial/LSE merging to create a super university?


Imperial is as good if not better than Oxford which is severely overrated while UCL isn't far behind. Cambridge is the only one which really stands out relative to the universities you listed.
Go to America where everyone isn't stuck up posh private school immature kiddies
Original post by Nuvertion
Imperial is as good if not better than Oxford which is severely overrated while UCL isn't far behind. Cambridge is the only one which really stands out relative to the universities you listed.


Imperial isn't a multi-faculty university, and is generally only seen as almost up there with Oxbridge. I would imagine David Cameron would give them all a miss, bar LSE perhaps.
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 4
Avatar for TajwarC
TajwarC
17
Don't we already have the University of London?
Many league tables place UCL and LSE higher than Oxford and Imperial the same as Cambridge anyway
Why?
There are plenty of excellent alternatives in every subject for students who don't want to go to Oxford or Cambridge or who are unsuccessful in their application.

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 7
Avatar for Harry!!!
Harry!!!
Original post by Hollywood Hogan
Isn't it a shame the UK doesn't have another university that matches Oxbridge? All those Oxbridge rejects have to settle for far inferior universities generally speaking. Should we now move towards UCL/Imperial/LSE merging to create a super university?


Are you suggesting we raise superkids?
Original post by TajwarC
Don't we already have the University of London?


Lol, not sure if srs.
No University can truly rival Oxbridge on the basis of prestige simply due to the fact that they are over 800 years old. 800 years of reputation can't be superseded by a couple of mergers. Not anytime soon at least.
Original post by SmaugTheTerrible
No University can truly rival Oxbridge on the basis of prestige simply due to the fact that they are over 800 years old. 800 years of reputation can't be superseded by a couple of mergers. Not anytime soon at least.


Stanford is pretty new, and I consider it to more prestigious than Oxbridge.
Even if you talk about Harvard and Yale, they are several hundred years younger than Oxbridge. So I don't think prestige is just based on the age of the institution.
Original post by 1drowssap
Stanford is pretty new, and I consider it to more prestigious than Oxbridge.
Even if you talk about Harvard and Yale, they are several hundred years younger than Oxbridge. So I don't think prestige is just based on the age of the institution.


I was referring to UK insitutions. American Universities get a huge amount of funding and thus can compete with Oxbridge. Also, despite being younger than Oxbridge, Harvard is very old by American standards.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by SmaugTheTerrible
I was referring to UK insitutions. American Universities get a huge amount of funding and tbf Stanford is one of the older Universities in the States.


Stanford was created in 1891, it's actually fairly new.

I think that's reason holds true for UK unis as well. For example, LSE was created in 1895, and KCL was created in 1829. I would say that LSE is slightly more prestigious than KCL.

Comparing European institutions, University of Bologna was created in 1088, the University of Cambridge was created in 1209. I would say that Cambridge is more prestigious than U of Bologna. So, age doesn't necessarily mean prestige, although there is a correlation.
Original post by 1drowssap
Stanford was created in 1891, it's actually fairly new.

I think that's reason holds true for UK unis as well. For example, LSE was created in 1895, and KCL was created in 1829. I would say that LSE is slightly more prestigious than KCL.

Comparing European institutions, University of Bologna was created in 1088, the University of Cambridge was created in 1209. I would say that Cambridge is more prestigious than U of Bologna. So, age doesn't necessarily mean prestige, although there is a correlation.


There is a correlation I agree, but I think you mentioned the exceptions rather than the rule. Americas top universities are primarily its oldest schools. Stanford may have only been founded in 1895 but if you look at its neighbours its one of the oldest schools in the region.

I don't think you can compare different countries because different countries have different histories, but there is definitely a correlation between universities within a country.
This fanciful and stupid idea would never happen because mergers usually mean job cuts, rivalries etc. that are going to only flare up. How will 2 prominent scientists that each are the pride of their departments deal with being merged into one? They would be fighting over positions, funding etc. Not to mention it would be a stupid idea, a large school just becomes unmanageable. ICL, UCL, LSE are all a good size separate.
Do we have to call it 'oxbridge'? If so why not 'camford'? Is it really so difficult to write 'Oxford' and 'Cambridge' -_-
it is like saying

"Why can't we have an alternative to Mount Everest for less talented climbers ?"
Original post by Okorange
There is a correlation I agree, but I think you mentioned the exceptions rather than the rule. Americas top universities are primarily its oldest schools. Stanford may have only been founded in 1895 but if you look at its neighbours its one of the oldest schools in the region.

I don't think you can compare different countries because different countries have different histories, but there is definitely a correlation between universities within a country.


Not really, Imperial is also newer than King's. LSE is newer than Queen Mary.

There is a correlation between age and prestige, but it is not as strong as you think it is. People associating with these universities give it its prestige. If the university didn't have famous/important alumni, or didn't have famous staff and important discoveries, then it wouldn't be prestigious.
Original post by 1drowssap
Not really, Imperial is also newer than King's. LSE is newer than Queen Mary.

There is a correlation between age and prestige, but it is not as strong as you think it is. People associating with these universities give it its prestige. If the university didn't have famous/important alumni, or didn't have famous staff and important discoveries, then it wouldn't be prestigious.


I was also going to mention that engineering/tech unis as a subject isn't that old either so its in its own category.
Original post by Hollywood Hogan
David Cameron would give them all a miss, bar LSE perhaps.


Even more reason to go to those universities. If you take age and funding into account UCL and Imperial are far better.
(edited 9 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you