This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Natsci vs. an Oxford Science

K'uin K'ra

Not really. I don't think it's fair to say tabland scientists have more work than Oxford scientists. Simply because it isn't true.

i beg to differ! At least when it comes to first year scientists here in cambridge!

And I only think this because my maths supervisor, who studied physics are oxford and then tutored in oxford for several years (i think), before coming to cambridge a little while ago...she said that she felt first year natscis are the hardest worked students of all first year students on any course anywhere!

Reply 21

KuinKra

1

Willa

Studying a given subject in relation to other scientific areas certainly is NOT redundant...that's like saying "I cant be bothered to study anything that isnt gonna come up in my exam".

Not really. There exist many interpretations on the physical universe, but I say it's better to be completely competent in one area rather than be a jack of all trades and master of none.

The most interesting areas of natsci I have found so far are the physics applications in other subjects...such as schrodinger equation for electron orbitals and interactions in chemistry - that was the most interesting for me so far!

I don't doubt it - I'm sure things can be interesting. I found A-level chemistry interesting. Hell, I find *art* interesting. But it doesn't mean I want to spend my time on it when I intend to be a physicist. And, as i said, if whatever research or theory I need requires something I haven't been taught... I will learn it. In my opinion (remember all I am stating here is my opinion) I find the teaching of several methods to the same problem just because 'they might come up' or 'might be interesting' is a bit futile. You learn to solve problems and if you find you need another tool to expand your toolbox, you can find it at a later date. For now, I'd rather expand my core knowledge in one subject field.

Studying these things in subjects other than physics just helps to reinforce understanding...i would say someone is a much better scientist if they can solve problems outside of their field using knowledge from within their field!

Reinforce understanding... in the context of other subjects. In terms of physics, I think they're teaching you toward a good understanding as it is. I suppose if you *know* you're gonna be a biochemist or a biophysicist and you need that multiple approach, then natsci is for you. But if you want a singular science-based career, I have to say Oxford is better.

I'm not saying oxford physicists arent taught how to do that, or are incapable of it...i just think that at cambridge it is encouraged far more, and the tripos system makes this far more effective!

And I never implied that you did. And I agree, cambridge encourages 'broader thinking' when it comes to multiple subjects. But I advocate that Oxford encourages 'concentrated thinking'.

OK sure some physicsist might be able to arrive at an answer to a question...but I would be far more satisfied with myself if I got the answer using a sneaky method from chemistry or something! You can play around with the laws of thermodynamics all you want, but having studied chemistry I already know some of the key results!

I can see your point there. But in my opinion, an answer is an answer and if you can find a quicker way to do it, have a cookie. But what's important is getting there in the end. And if you've managed to do it from first principles based on physical concepts, I think that's far more rigorous and satisfying than using some chemical 'trick'.

You can have the opinion that studying multiple sciences does not make someone a better physicist, but i wont have you calling it redundant learning! It's learning that helps to reinforce understanding! If you can understand something fully without that reinforcement, then good for you, but personally I dont feel totally confident!

Okay, I'd better rephrase that - there is no thing as redundant learning, but it's certainly a redundant education... for those who want to be physicists. Physicists would profit from a more direct route rather than faffing around with concepts that may notbe useful.

And I don't claim to be able to understand everything without compelte reinforcement. I'll often look in several books to find alternate derivations to problems I'm unsure of. But I feel it's far better to concentrate that diversity within the single subject field.

Reply 22

Squishy

11

The courses suit different people. Cambridge prefers to take a broader view on science, whereas Oxford likes you to concentrate on the traditional divisions of science (physics, chem, etc.) early on.

The converse goes for Philosophy, where Oxford only allows you to study it with another subject, but Cambridge lets you do it on its own.

Reply 23

MadNatSci

12

I'm not getting into the argument of which is harder to get into/do, because it's frankly a waste of time. They're both top universities so you have to work bloody hard at each of them. End of argument.

It really does depend on the applicant. NatSci was better for me, because even though I applied for chemistry I knew I wanted to carry on with some biology, and in fact having done a year of chemistry I found I preferred biology, so NatSci was a godsend for me - I could slip quite smoothly into full biology without having missed out on anything. Degree courses are often quite different from A level...

Why do people always feel the need to get into stupid petty arguments? I'm not less dedicated than the Oxford crew who were set on physics/chemistry/biology just because I wanted to study more areas of science. Perhaps I should suggest that NatScis are more open-minded?

Reply 24

Willa

11

i see what you're saying K'uin K'ra but i still disagree....i think that to master a subject such as thermodynamics...you must be able to apply it in chemistry as well as in physics - a bog standard physicsist will spend a long time getting answers out of chemistry related questions on thermodynamics.

Furthermore some things just can't be solved currently from your physical principles...despite us understanding those underlying principles. Take the problem of determinging how protein's fold up....surely that is based upon physical principles, yet it will take a physicist an eternity to figure that one out! Go even simpler and talk about general molecular interactions: the physicist would have to sit there for perhaps 5 years doing all his analytical analysis of shrodinger equations to work out what woould happen, whereas a physicist trained with complementary chemistry would be able to see an answer in a matter of minutes.

We arent a jack of all trades....for to be able to apply a concept in all areas of science is to truly master it!

Reply 25

Hoofbeat

14

Willa

You cover more physics material...but i guarentee we do some wierd maths as well....i ask any first year oxford physicist if they've been taught the leibniz formula or schwartz inequality!

I'm not going to get into the debate as quite frankly I can't be arsed and I'm going on holiday this afternoon so by the time I'm back the argument will have suspended....but just wanted to say that I do know what Leibnitz formula is! :biggrin:

Reply 26

Drogue

19

K'uin K'ra

Not really. I don't think it's fair to say tabland scientists have more work than Oxford scientists. Simply because it isn't true.

Yes they do. Look at what they cover and in what depth. Have a look at their exams. There's much more work in Nat Sci at Cam than sciences at Ox. Yes, the number of tutes is college dependant, but at Ox, 2 a week is the average for most sciences. Every nat sci I've spoken to at Cam, which is probably 4 or 5 different colleges, has 3 or 4. Plus the amount of work they do seems much more, talking to them and to physics and chem students here.

It's harder to get into not just because they have more apps per place, but because those apps have higher average grades. Yes, if you're not good enough, they won't give you a place. But to get in you have to be both good enough to go there, and good enough to beat the competition. The fact the first is even a consideration for Chemistry at Oxford (because it's so undersubscribed) shows a difference. If you're good enough to beat the competition for Nat Sci, you're good enough to get in.

However how hard it is to get in doesn't necessarily make it better. Having more work, more contact time and harder exams do make it a better undergrad course, IMHO.

Oxford Physics and Chemistry are very, very good, but natural sciences is Cambridge's forte. While it is a rule of thumb, Oxford does have more of a bias towards the arts and social sciences, whereas Cambridge the other way. That's why we get a brand new business school and the new Bod, while they get a brand new maths faculty building. The money is following the specialties. I'm not downplaying Oxford sciences, as they're impressive. However I was amazed when I saw how much Nat Sci's do and how hard it is. I complain about having 4 tutes a week here, but I don't do the level or quantity of work they do.

Reply 27

Willa

11

Hoofbeat

I'm not going to get into the debate as quite frankly I can't be arsed and I'm going on holiday this afternoon so by the time I'm back the argument will have suspended....but just wanted to say that I do know what Leibnitz formula is! :biggrin:

oh ok i take it all back then.....

....no wait, what's schwartz inequality then!!?? :biggrin:

Reply 28

Mop

Willa

oh ok i take it all back then.....

....no wait, what's schwartz inequality then!!?? :biggrin:

[pedant] Do you not mean the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality? [/pedant]

Reply 29

Willa

11

just like i never mean the maxwell-boltzmann distribution!

Reply 30

Taha

fishpaste

Obviously in certain situations it's obvious which is more appropriate. E.g. somebody attracted to the nature of the tripos. But is there a difference between the quality of study between oxford and cambridge in the sciences? I'm just curious and of course don't really know anything about either course. Though you usually hear people around Cambridge saying "I came to Cambridge for the labs," I don't know what they say in Oxford.

There is no difference in quality whatsoever. I urge everyone to read my post, http://thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1782997#post1782997, in response to a similar question in another recent thread with regards Oxford Physics and the Cambridge NatSci. It's a somewhat lengthy post, and gives some detail as to why the two are alike in quality. I don't want to repeat what I wrote there, so have given the URL. Everyone, please do read it, and if you have anything to say about it, post here and hopefully I'll reply.

Reply 31

Drogue

19

Firstly, size doesn't mean quality, especially since it includes all the research fellows, that have nothing to do with undergraduate teaching. Secondly, the reasearch assessment, while the same, shows they both have top class research, but does not show which is better (there can be a huge difference in the top band, as one can be very good and the other absolutely exceptional), and more importantly has nothing to do with undergraduate teaching.

Then we get to the QAA teaching assesment. Now these are great for judging between universities which fall into the general useful range of the criteria. However when both have excellent ratings, there can be a huge difference that is not shown in the ratings. It's like A levels, one candidate with AAAB may be better than another with AAAA, as right at the top end, A levels are not good measurements of quality. Similarly with the QAA, while it's good for most, choosing between two of the top departments isn't a good use of it. Furthermore, the QAA themselves state that the ratings are not to be used totalled up, but are a rating out of 4 for each criteria, and thus does not reflect excelling in a particular criteria. All a top mark says is that it is very good at each of the criteria.

Oxford physics *is* demanding. Comparing either of the two universities to the vast majority of universities will show they're both hideously more work. However that doesn't stop there being a vast difference in the workload between the two.

So no, you assertion cannot be proved by "facts", the evidence provided shows they are both very good courses, which no-one I'm aware of is doubting. However it doesn't show they are equal by any stretch. As for the idea of Cambridge being better at sciences being said by "very ill-informed laymen", I think as a student at Oxford, who's seen, met and chatted to tutors and students from multiple colleges at each, I wouldn't be classed as an ill-informed layman. I have seen the difference in workload, the way employers, especially universities looking at grad placements, think of the two, and seen some of the exam papers they are set to take, and in my opinion, they are very much not equal. Yes, Oxford sciences are great, but Cambridge's are quite exceptional.

I agree, which place you like better, which course seems more appropriate, etc. is the most important criteria to decide which to apply to, but I disagree strongly that both are equally difficult, both to get onto and while there, and that both have an equal reputation. I love Oxford, I'm very glad I'm here, but if I was thinking of applying for a science, I'd have applied straight to Cambridge.

Reply 32

Taha

Willa

just like i never mean the maxwell-boltzmann distribution!

The Cauchy-Schwartz inequality is also more simply called the Schwartz inequality, they are the same God-damn thing! It is also sometimes called the Buniakovsky inequality or the Kantorovich inequality. Actually, Shwartz is a very common misspelling of Schwarz, the person after whom the inquality is named i.e. Hermann Amandus Schwarz . This one is so common, that it's Shwartz that actually comes in the official name of the inequality. A similar case to the 'quark' in physics, which is actually pronounced 'quart'. Such occurrences wouldn't be uncommon in science, I guess.

Reply 33

phishfood

when i said oxford scientists are dedicated, i didn't mean that NatScis aren't! i applied to do Natsci for a start. what i meant to emphasise was that i don't think oxford science is easier to get into just because the numbers look friendlier

please let's not get into a which is better argument. someone started one with maths that really got nowhere and just wound people up

Reply 34

Taha

Drogue

Firstly, size doesn't mean quality, especially since it includes all the research fellows, that have nothing to do with undergraduate teaching. Secondly, the reasearch assessment, while the same, shows they both have top class research, but does not show which is better (there can be a huge difference in the top band, as one can be very good and the other absolutely exceptional), and more importantly has nothing to do with undergraduate teaching.

There can never be a huge difference between Oxford and Cambridge, whatever field you consider. If you intend to imply that Cambridge science is absolutely exceptional wherelse Oxford's is merely 'very good', then you're badly mistaken. They are both truly exceptional and pretty much neck-to-neck. Oxford has just as many 'absolutely' distinguished scientists as Cambridge. I can name them at 100 mph, that is, if you want me to.

Drogue

Oxford physics *is* demanding. Comparing either of the two universities to the vast majority of universities will show they're both hideously more work. However that doesn't stop there being a vast difference in the workload between the two.

Vast difference :confused:

Not a chance in hell! If so, why has the QAA described Oxford's curriculum as 'demanding' wherelse no such word has been used for Cambridge's, couldn't it have been the other way round? Though I am sure they both are demanding.

Drogue

So no, you assertion cannot be proved with "facts", the evidence provided shows they are both very good courses, which no-one I'm aware of is doubting. However it doesn't show they are equal by any stretch. As for the idea of Cambridge being better at sciences being said by "very ill-informed laymen", I think as a student at Oxford, who's seen, met and chatted to tutors and students from multiple colleges at each, I wouldn't be classed as an ill-informed layman. I have seen the difference in workload, the way employers, especially universities looking at grad placements, think of the two, and seen some of the exam papers they are set to take, and in my opinion, they are very much not equal. Yes, Oxford sciences are great, but Cambridge's are quite exceptional.

My assertion can be proved by facts, and I think I have already done so to some extent. Oxford and Cambridge can't be exactly (=) equal at everything they do, but they certainly are practically (~) equal, and one has to be obsessive-compulsive to be fussing over any trivial differences between the two. Such negligible difference, if any, makes them equal. Not only for the sciences, but also for the arts. As for employers, I know that they won't automatically perfer a Cambridge science graduate over an Oxford one. As for the exams, maybe you compared the wrong set of papers, you ought to have compared similar levels of papers. That way, you wouldn't have seen the slightest difference in quality. Remember, Oxford's course is a very progressive one, i.e. it's difficulty religiously increases as the course proceeds. Comparing final-year papers at both should be fair, and would reveal no diparity between the two. As for the rest of this part of your post, I have it answered in the previous paragraphs.

Drogue

I agree, which place you like better, which course seems more appropriate, etc. is the most important criteria to decide which to apply to, but I disagree strongly that both are equally difficult, both to get onto and while there, and that both have an equal reputation. I love Oxford, I'm very glad I'm here, but if I was thinking of applying for a science, I'd have applied straight to Cambridge.

I have answered most of this in the previous paragraphs. As for the last part, bear in mind that as many distinguished scientists studied at Oxford as they did in Cambridge, that way you'll be in a better position to judge.

Reply 35

Taha

phishfood

please let's not get into a which is better argument. someone started one with maths that really got nowhere and just wound people up

I wholly agree with you. I am really not wanting to trigger an argument. I just want my posts to be taken in the sprit of friendly advice in which they are meant.

Reply 36

fishpaste

OP

your evidence just seems a bit "proof by brute force." Like you say that there's "There can never be a huge difference between Oxford and Cambridge, whatever field you consider." I've shadowed at both unis in computer science and done alot of research into both courses as a few months before I applied I just assumed I'd be applying to compsci at Oxford, to say their courses are equal is just silly. No offense the oxford computing course seemed like complete and utter rubbish, the Cambridge one is quite simply considerably more demanding and considerably better.

Reply 37

Taha

fishpaste

your evidence just seems a bit "proof by brute force." Like you say that there's "There can never be a huge difference between Oxford and Cambridge, whatever field you consider." I've shadowed at both unis in computer science and done alot of research into both courses as a few months before I applied I just assumed I'd be applying to compsci at Oxford, to say their courses are equal is just silly. No offense the oxford computing course seemed like complete and utter rubbish, the Cambridge one is quite simply considerably more demanding and considerably better.

First of all, you seriously don't think there can be 'huge' difference between Cambrige and Oxford. Secondly, just because the CompSci course at Cambridge happened to suit you better, doesn't mean that it's any better than Oxford's in real terms. Oxford's is just as good in its own way, just like Imperial's is. For that reason, one might happen to prefer Imperial over Cambridge for CompSci, and I have seen people on the Imperial subforum doing it.

P.S. I *really* don't want to see an argument brew up here.

Reply 38

shiny

12

fishpaste

with regard to engineers and linear algebra, I'm sure they do, my comment really was I was just surprised to see engineers anywhere doing linear algebra in such a mathmo fashion, with the proofs and analysis etc.

You can thank Gilbert Strang (MIT) for that because the course is pretty much based on his book.

Reply 39

shiny

12

fishpaste

Obviously in certain situations it's obvious which is more appropriate. E.g. somebody attracted to the nature of the tripos. But is there a difference between the quality of study between oxford and cambridge in the sciences? I'm just curious and of course don't really know anything about either course. Though you usually hear people around Cambridge saying "I came to Cambridge for the labs," I don't know what they say in Oxford.

For a career in science, you'd have to do more training, whether it is out in industry or as part of a PhD/Postdoc. Except for the odd exceptional case, you won't find science students graduating from any university with the necessary skills to do anything remotely useful immediately. Hence, from a practical point of view, the answer is neither course is significantly better or worse. They serve a purpose by teaching core knowledge and giving you an opportunity to do some original project work in your final year. Beyond that, only time will tell whether you will develop into a good scientist or not.

Natsci vs. an Oxford Science

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you