Waoxbridge vs Duoxbridge

Scroll to see replies

But no universities bar Oxbridge/Imperial/UCL/LSE/Edinburgh is famous outside of the UK, and all of the uni's I just mentioned are too unalike to be grouped together with Oxbridge ( maybe Edinburgh ) Durham and Warwick are probably the best all round universities in the UK outside of Oxbridge, don't disregard that.

Posted from TSR Mobile

And I've considered everything and concluded that Edinburgh would be the only actual contender.

There is a reason why Oxbridge are still just the two of them despite everything.

Reply 61

Magnus Taylor

Solely Warwick will suffice

Reply 62

TurboCretin

Original post by clh_hilary

No because Oxbridge are already seen as one. If we Oxbridge open additional campuses all across the UK and have 20k more students than definitely.

Medicine at UCL is prestigious within has nothing to do with it when it's prestigious only because it is as a whole everywhere.

I'm sorry but your argument makes no sense whatsoever. The link between scarcity and prestige is tenuous at best, and there are myriad other factors to take into account. As you yourself pointed out, the quantity of medics at UCL has little to nothing to do with the prestige of UCL medicine. So why would the numbers of students at UCL have anything to do with its prestige as a whole?

Reply 63

El Salvador

Original post by TurboCretin

The thing is Oxbridge is that even the top students get rejected. With a high intake that's not the same case for UCL.

Your argument using medicine is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with UCL as a university. If there are more medical graduates than from any other disciplines, then you'll have a point. But they don't do you don't.

Reply 64

TurboCretin

Original post by clh_hilary

Alright, I think you're being obtuse but I don't have time to argue today unfortunately.

Reply 65

Gnomes&Knights

Durham now leading as expected.

Reply 66

Capricancer

Original post by Princepieman

No. It's reserved for Americans and other international students maybe, certainly not the Royal Family.

It's not on the Oxbridge level in terms of anything other than age. St. Andrews used to be much less selective (I'd argue it is definitely less selective for internationals) a decade ago and even more so further back. It's quite interesting how they have managed to latch on to this overblown idea of exclusivity and prestige - when most of it is just over-exaggeration.

Posted from TSR Mobile

???

People on TSR always say that St Andrews somehow miraculously jumped up in the league table because of the Prince's attendance but it's always been around top 10 and is in the Sutton13.

from this thread

Over exaggeration of what exactly though? Its students have about the same entry tariff as students from Durham and UCL so it's a pretty selective university.

People always also say that its virtually unknown, but it wouldn't attract such a large proportion of overseas students if it was unheard of. Also when I vacationed in the US and told people I was applying to St Andrews (I'm a student now so excuse my bias), most people I spoke with were familiar with the name somewhat (I'll admit that this is likely because of the royal romance). In fact, when I asked them what universities in the UK they knew of, most only knew Oxford (surprisingly, most haven't heard of Cambridge). The more educated would be aware of Cambridge, Imperial, LSE and universities named after their city (e.g. Edinburgh and Manchester).

Of course, it's not on the same level of Oxbridge but its not as bad as you're trying to make it out to be.

(edited 9 years ago)

98-13.png81.1KB

Reply 67

Gnomes&Knights

Original post by Capricancer

In fact, when I asked them what universities in the UK they knew of, most only knew Oxford (surprisingly, most haven't heard of Cambridge).

Were they Indian or any other South Asian?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 68

username738914

Original post by Capricancer

???

People on TSR always say that St Andrews somehow miraculously jumped up in the league table because of the Prince's attendance but it's always been around top 10 and is in the Sutton13.

I never said it was 'bad'. I'm just stating that it is quite overrated somewhat, it's no doubt a top uni. It is just my opinion that they are selling themselves as the 'Scottish Oxbridge' to bring in international money. Hell, they even have a soft quota of Scottish admits - not really fair at all.

Basically, St Andrews is good but some people make it out to be worth excessively more than it is worth - i.e. on the same level as Oxbridge.

Edit: Ignore my previous statement, didn't see the overall rankings.

Cool stats though, where did you get access to pre-2007 rankings?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 69

SiminaM

Original post by The Clockwork Apple

Being from the EU I'm telling you you'd be surprised to meet someone who knows any English uni but Oxbridge, Imperial, LSE and perhaps (if they know a bit about unis) UCL, KCL or Manchester.
The rest? Nope.

I second that + Edinburgh(but because it is a city)

Reply 70

Capricancer

Original post by Raymat

Were they Indian or any other South Asian?

I asked Americans so they were neither.

Original post by Princepieman

Overrated in what sense though...? As a student here, I can tell you that no one here thinks that we're on the same level of Oxbridge (in fact, a lot of us are rejects :tongue:

). If they're trying to sell itself as Oxbridge, it could just be because St Andrews has a range of traditions which might make it seem like it's trying to emulate Oxbridge. I'm not sure about your comment on Scottish quotas so I can't comment on that.

The left hand side is overall and right hand side is entry standards.

I didn't find the rankings, but I've linked the thread where I found it in my first comment.

Reply 71

Octohedral

Original post by Blutooth

lame, weren't you at Oxford? Or are you saying warwick and Cambridge are on the same level?

I'm saying 'Warbridge' sounds better, because it sounds like 'war' and 'bridge'.

i.e. I'm not taking the conversation seriously.

In truth, it's virtually impossible to know which is most rigorous in terms of undergraduate teaching (I suspect they are broadly similar). They are clearly all very good universities. At all of them you are graded relative to your peers, and so the difficulty of getting a first etc is closely related to how bright your fellow students are. Oxford and Cambridge attract the very brightest (and a long tail end of average people like myself), and I think it will be a long time before other universities can compete for those students. However, the people at the lower end of Oxbridge are probably quite similar to those at Warwick / Durham, due to the element of randomness in the admissions process, and the sheer volume of good students.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 72

Gnomes&Knights

Original post by Capricancer

I asked Americans so they were neither.

I mean ethnically Indian or Bangladeshi, like how in the UK we have British Indians or British Pakistanis.

I was asking as South Asians are perhaps obsessed with Oxford. They seem to only know and talk about Oxford all the time. Some say it's a stereotype.