[Nattatouille]

(Original post by janjanmmm)
This is probably because you are considered home/EU student. Not to worry, we (international students) are paying for you - I have to pay £17500

Compare that to £13000 for University of Edinburgh, or free tuition at German schools, and you will understand what I am talking about

Yipes; I always forget that! You pay for one of us straight off the bat.

So yeah, Oxbridge is expensive. I'm kind of glad I'm a home student. But I stand by it not being fair that others have to pay through the nose for it just because you're not local.

[Little Jules]

(Original post by janjanmmm)
And there are "tutorials/supervisions" for postgraduate study at Oxford, too
Here is a quote from my Guidance notes:



The truth is - you get exactly what you pay for, the best education in the world.

Yes, but all grad students have a supervisor for their thesis. And I wouldn't focus too much on the college supervisor...

Of course the Oxbridge tutorial system is great at all levels, but at graduate level, Oxford and Cambridge are not always the best. They can't specialise in everything!

[sj27]

(Original post by Nattatouille)
Yipes; I always forget that! You pay for one of us straight off the bat.

So yeah, Oxbridge is expensive. I'm kind of glad I'm a home student. But I stand by it not being fair that others have to pay through the nose for it just because you're not local.

Well yeah it's not "fair", but life isn't (I'm international btw...). And there are courses that charge the same for home and international, mainly the finance-related ones.

Re your other post, I agree that they can't specialize in everything, but the post being answered was not actually taking that line, but the poster saying they felt out of their depth and preferring to go somewhere less results-driven. I find myself in the unusual situation of agreeing with Ghost's response on that one.

[thatfineframe]

(Original post by Ombre_Rouge)
Thank you very much for your insight! I think I will go ahead and apply to these Oxbridge programmes, as I do not intend to obtain a PhD and agree that a year spent at either university would not be a year wasted.

As a side note, I suppose I could use the argument that British literature is widely studied in the States; most American English students don't flock to America for British lit degrees! The specific institution and, of course, academic staff, are what seem to count most.

You must be so relieved to be finished with the application process! Out of curiosity, were you required to interview for your place? If so, was it mainly about your research proposal? I am a bit nervous about the prospect of having an interview, but according to other students on here, Master's interviews are not very common. I'm hoping that's true...

Anyway, thanks again for your help

I didn't have interviews for admission, no. I've never heard of them being done for Oxford and Cambridge English programmes at masters level. I did have a funding interview with Cambridge - it was over the phone, I didn't have to go there in person, and it was extremely short. Oxford doesn't do funding interviews for 'normal' funding, only for special scholarships. So, don't worry about it!

[janjanmmm]

(Original post by Little Jules)
Yes, but all grad students have a supervisor for their thesis. And I wouldn't focus too much on the college supervisor...

Of course the Oxbridge tutorial system is great at all levels, but at graduate level, Oxford and Cambridge are not always the best. They can't specialise in everything!

Of course, but if you read my entire post you will see, that it is a lot more than just that. I was admitted to Edinburgh and Bristol, too, btw, - they did not promise anything like that. Neither anything like that is present at LSE, for example.

Here is a quote from an old thread here on the forum, this person is comparing Russian and East European Studies (REES) programme at Oxford with similar programme at LSE:

(Original post by WaltzvWendt)

Oxford: You can just make Oxford into a social event if you're not keen on the course. As difficult and as dry as people may have found REES (their preference, not a reflection on the course) they've never regretted the Oxford college experience. The experience one would find at LSE is not as socially leisurely (not as many balls and bops), and is quite utilitarian. You'd have coffee with people at London and be at pubs, but you can do the same in many cities. At least Oxford is a different experience. ...

LSE:
The Department can seem impersonal. The staff are excessively busy with their own research and are only able to meet personally with students 15 minutes each week during office hours. You will learn a lot in your lectures and seminars, but you will be largely independent and on your own. I know that in Oxford they get more pastoral support, more meetings and longer, etc and the meetings are scheduled so they make sure you don't fall through the cracks. At LSE it's more like survival of the fittest and if you fall no one will care to catch you. It's an intellectual pressure cooker. You won't be assigned to do as much work as Oxford, but you'll end up doing the same anyhow if you want that Merit/Distinction.

source:
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1369913

[Little Jules]

(Original post by janjanmmm)
Of course, but if you read my entire post you will see, that it is a lot more than just that. I was admitted to Edinburgh and Bristol, too, btw, - they did not promise anything like that. Neither anything like that is present at LSE, for example.

Here is a quote from an old thread here on the forum, this person is comparing Russian and East European Studies (REES) programme at Oxford with similar programme at LSE:



source:
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1369913

I'm not saying that Oxford's not a great place to be a grad student - it is, I'm pleased I did my MPhil there, and in terms of student life, it's great, because there is so much going on and the colleges are good for grads. You get a lot out of being a grad at Oxbridge that you wouldn't get elsewhere, you get great library facilities, the social life is wonderful, there is pastoral support etc. I'm just saying that Oxbridge isn't guaranteed to be better than other universities as a grad student. Oxbridge does not always have the top people in each discipline - they couldn't. Some people will find that there is a better fit with a supervisor elsewhere.

[Nattatouille]

(Original post by sj27)
Well yeah it's not "fair", but life isn't (I'm international btw...). And there are courses that charge the same for home and international, mainly the finance-related ones.

Re your other post, I agree that they can't specialize in everything, but the post being answered was not actually taking that line, but the poster saying they felt out of their depth and preferring to go somewhere less results-driven. I find myself in the unusual situation of agreeing with Ghost's response on that one.

No, I have to agree that life isn't fair. I've learnt that one the hard way. But you can't let it get you down.

Heh, the other post you are talking about was actually mine... So yeah, I was saying that when I went there for the interview I really didn't like it and so decided to decline the offer from Cambridge and instead go to Southampton.

I can imagine they give you more in certain fields and the idea of having a PhD from Cambridge really makes you more employable; you're probably more publishable too (which is a massive appeal to me). But as I said, going to a Russell Group uni to do a PhD is not to be sniffed at (it's not like they aren't good universities, or an achievement in themselves to be doing a fully sponsored PhD).

Wherever you go, it's about what you make it.

ETA: Although, I am in agreement that a taught programme is probably better from Oxbridge. Research, it's a personal thing and it's up to you to push. No matter where you go there will be great supervisors, good supervisors and the bad supervisors (no necessarily about their knowledge, but the way they communicate with you, encourage and support you).

[mazk]

Hi all,

I have gotten into the Department of Oriental Studies at Oxford for 2012. I wanted some advice about
a) college vs off campus accommodation
b) Wolfson college generally. What kinds of people are there? Is it just me or does the building look like a hotel... isn't the old buildings a lot of the Oxford charm?

Any thoughts would be very welcome!

[Ombre_Rouge]

(Original post by thatfineframe)
I didn't have interviews for admission, no. I've never heard of them being done for Oxford and Cambridge English programmes at masters level. I did have a funding interview with Cambridge - it was over the phone, I didn't have to go there in person, and it was extremely short. Oxford doesn't do funding interviews for 'normal' funding, only for special scholarships. So, don't worry about it!

Thanks again for your reply. I'm relieved to hear that!

[Ombre_Rouge]

(Original post by evantej)
What is the idea behind studying a masters degree if you do not intend to pursue doctoral research? That to me seems the more pressing issue rather than the legitimacy of studying American literature in Britain.

As far as I'm aware, many people study for Master's degrees who do not intend to obtain PhDs and eventually be employed by universities (e.g. secondary education, people who want to go into an employable area unrelated to English literature, etc.). I know several working people who have Master's but not PhDs. I'm not sure that the workability of my academic plan is a concern of mine, as I've thought carefully about my options and know the direction I wish to pursue. Thanks anyway, though.

[evantej]

(Original post by Ombre_Rouge)
As far as I'm aware, many people study for Master's degrees who do not intend to obtain PhDs and eventually be employed by universities (e.g. secondary education, people who want to go into an employable area unrelated to English literature, etc.). I know several working people who have Master's but not PhDs. I'm not sure that the workability of my academic plan is a concern of mine, as I've thought carefully about my options and know the direction I wish to pursue. Thanks anyway, though.

None of this makes any sense. In the UK, most people who study for a masters degree in the arts and humanities want to do a PhD, at least at the outset. The only people who study for its own sake are mature students who can afford to and often do so part-time (i.e. they have taken some time away and appreciate education for what it is), or recent graduates who do not know what they want to do or think a masters degree will make them more employable. As far as English graduates are concerned concerned, the only jobs in a university that an English graduate could get do not require a degree (e.g. administration, working in the library etc.); a postgraduate degree is completely irrelevant when working in secondary education; and English graduates are limited by their degree, in terms of switching to an unrelated discipline for employability reasons (advanced degree in librarianship and law are about the only two they can apply for).

If the workability of this is not a concern for you then you probably have money to waste and do not have to worry about finding a job... If you did then you would think twice about wasting a year and a lot of money doing something which will not benefit you at all.

[janjanmmm]

(Original post by evantej)
None of this makes any sense. In the UK, most people who study for a masters degree in the arts and humanities want to do a PhD, at least at the outset.

If the workability of this is not a concern for you then you probably have money to waste and do not have to worry about finding a job... If you did then you would think twice about wasting a year and a lot of money doing something which will not benefit you at all.

In the US you do not need Masters to do PhD. People who go into Masters usually do not want PhD, and vice versa.

On the other hand, in many areas you will be a lot more competitive to the employers if you have Masters. Your starting salary will also likely be higher, on average about 10-20 000 dollars per year on top of what people with Bachelors only get. You will recover the full cost of your masters degree in a couple of years.

Since Ombre_Rouge is from the USA, his logic will be different from that of a British student.

[evantej]

(Original post by janjanmmm)
In the US you do not need Masters to do PhD. People who go into Masters usually do not want PhD, and vice versa.

On the other hand, in many areas you will be a lot more competitive to the employers if you have Masters. Your starting salary will also likely be higher, on average about 10-20 000 dollars per year on top of what people with Bachelors only get. You will recover the full cost of your masters degree in a couple of years.

Since Ombre_Rouge is from the USA, his logic will be different from that of a British student.

The OP is an American student in a British university. She will have studied here for four years. She wants to study at a British university for her masters degree. Given this background, the point about the US is completely irrelevant to this thread, and actually misleading because of the way admissions work for doctoral programmes in the US. It is rather presumptuous of you to suggest that she is ignorant of how our education system works.

You talk in generalities ('in many areas') which have no relation to reality. The figure you propose is simply unbelievable. Normal graduates are struggling to get any kind of job at the moment so the idea that someone with masters degree in English is suddenly going to earn an extra £5000-£10,000 is simply...

I say this as an English graduate with a masters degree...

[janjanmmm]

(Original post by evantej)
The OP is an American student in a British university. She will have studied here for four years. She wants to study at a British university for her masters degree. Given this background, the point about the US is completely irrelevant to this thread, and actually misleading because of the way admissions work for doctoral programmes in the US. It is rather presumptuous of you to suggest that she is ignorant of how our education system works.

You talk in generalities ('in many areas') which have no relation to reality. The figure you propose is simply unbelievable. Normal graduates are struggling to get any kind of job at the moment so the idea that someone with masters degree in English is suddenly going to earn an extra £5000-£10,000 is simply...

I say this as an English graduate with a masters degree...

Given current immigration policy as well as job market it is not only feasible, but most likely that US students will have no other choice but to go back to the US.
Hence my post is not only relevant, but a lot more relevant compared to yours.

I have not presumed anything about her knowledge of "your"(UK) system, but rather can see your ignorance in regards to "our" (US) system, which is most relevant to US students, whether they spend 4 years, or any other number of years studying in the UK. Keep on tightening your immigration laws, and it will be the only relevant subject for us.

[kf289]

(Original post by evantej)
a postgraduate degree is completely irrelevant when working in secondary education;

As a secondary school teacher in the UK I'm not sure I would agree with this. OK, it's not required criteria for getting a job, as long as you have Qualified Teacher Status (either by PGCE, GTP, SCITT or any other pathway) that is all you need. However there were rumblings among the powers that be in government a while ago to make teaching a Masters-level profession and as a result there are now a wide range of courses aimed specifically at practitioners. I recently completed a part-time Masters in Eduction and from a personal point of view I feel it has certainly made me a more reflective teacher and I have gained a deeper understanding of the processes of learning in my subject area. On gaining this qualification I also got a pay-rise and I would imagine it certainly hasn't made me any less employable than I was before. So whereas a postgraduate degree is not essential to working in secondary education, it is far from completely irrelevant.

[evantej]

(Original post by janjanmmm)
Given current immigration policy as well as job market it is not only feasible, but most likely that US students will have no other choice but to go back to the US.
Hence my post is not only relevant, but a lot more relevant compared to yours.

I have not presumed anything about her knowledge of "your"(UK) system, but rather can see your ignorance in regards to "our" (US) system, which is most relevant to US students, whether they spend 4 years, or any other number of years studying in the UK. Keep on tightening your immigration laws, and it will be the only relevant subject for us.

You justified her decision to undertake a masters degree on the basis of financial reward. As an English graduate, I explained why this was nonsense for a number of reasons.

You have now backtracked completely and started a separate discussion on immigration policy which has nothing to do with what the OP originally asked. It was blatantly obvious to me that the OP wanted to doss about the UK for another year to avoid going home, but I went the indirect way of highlighting her 'logic' (as you call it) in undertaking a course that will not improve their employability whatsoever. If the UK's immigration rules mean one less American 'studies' here then boo hoo.

[evantej]

(Original post by kf289)
As a secondary school teacher in the UK I'm not sure I would agree with this. OK, it's not required criteria for getting a job, as long as you have Qualified Teacher Status (either by PGCE, GTP, SCITT or any other pathway) that is all you need. However there were rumblings among the powers that be in government a while ago to make teaching a Masters-level profession and as a result there are now a wide range of courses aimed specifically at practitioners. I recently completed a part-time Masters in Eduction and from a personal point of view I feel it has certainly made me a more reflective teacher and I have gained a deeper understanding of the processes of learning in my subject area. On gaining this qualification I also got a pay-rise and I would imagine it certainly hasn't made me any less employable than I was before. So whereas a postgraduate degree is not essential to working in secondary education, it is far from completely irrelevant.

Teaching is never going to be a masters-level profession (whatever that even means). It was a Labour idea that was never taken forward. The current government have abolished QTS so you can see that it is not going to get revived any time soon and we are moving backwards really.

I would like to think that everyone who was engaging in CPD would get pay rises but it is just not going to happen. Unless teachers are forced to do them then they are not going to do them. Even when local authorities offered to pay teachers tuition fees it still did not work.

[janjanmmm]

(Original post by evantej)
You justified her decision to undertake a masters degree on the basis of financial reward. As an English graduate, I explained why this was nonsense for a number of reasons.

You have now backtracked completely and started a separate discussion on immigration policy which has nothing to do with what the OP originally asked. It was blatantly obvious to me that the OP wanted to doss about the UK for another year to avoid going home, but I went the indirect way of highlighting her 'logic' (as you call it) in undertaking a course that will not improve their employability whatsoever. If the UK's immigration rules mean one less American 'studies' here then boo hoo.

Are you cranky for some particular reason, or is it your usual attitude?
Anyway, not going to argue with you any more.

[Ombre_Rouge]

(Original post by janjanmmm)
Are you cranky for some particular reason, or is it your usual attitude? [...]

I would venture to say this is his usual attitude.

Anyway, thanks for the interesting discussion everyone. I hadn't anticipated starting such a heated debate over the legitimacy of Master's degrees in English.

[Craghyrax]

(Original post by Ombre_Rouge)
I would venture to say this is his usual attitude.

Anyway, thanks for the interesting discussion everyone. I hadn't anticipated starting such a heated debate over the legitimacy of Master's degrees in English.

FWIW I think evantej is completely wrong in his generalisation of Masters students in the UK. In the last few years we've seen a huge spike in the number of applicants to Masters courses and the majority of those have been people who don't, in fact, want to go into PhDs but who are enrolling in Masters programmes partly to improve their employability and also because there aren't any jobs around and its a productive way to ride out the recession.

Even ignoring that trend I know loads of people who have chosen to do a Masters purely out of personal fulfilment, with no intention of progressing to a PhD. And if anything, that's especially true for Arts and Humanities.