PPE or PPS?

PPS has the word 'Sociology' in it. Ergo, PPE.

The programme is fully accredited by the British Psychological Society , so students who select this option graduate with the ‘graduate recognition’ needed to pursue a career in psychology (eg clinical, forensic, educational, or academic psychology), provided they complete independent research projects and obtain at least a 2.2 mark.

I'd love to do Philosophy and I'm good with numbers so I guess PPE would be an obvious choice from the two, but I'm really interested in Sociology, and if the Psychology part wasn't scientific I'd love to study that too...

I don't think it's overly scientific - I know plenty of people who didn't do great at science GCSE and coped fine with the course. Besides, it's only a quarter of your first year. If you don't like it you don't have to do any in second or third year. I'm not sure if PPE offers the same opportunity, but if you really like Politics you can study just Politics once you're done with first year. There's a lot of flexibility within the PPS course! I did only Sociology in my second year, and now I'm doing half Sociology, half Politics in my third.

So, I wouldn't be at a disadvantage for not doing any sciences at A Level... the subjects I've chosen are more Arts subjects
English Lit
Maths
Further Maths
History
Politics

You'd be perfectly fine. I'm the only PPSer at my college that did A-Level Maths! (If you want piece of mind, I took: Maths, FM, Economics, History and Law.)

PPS (SPS as it once was) is the biggest joke of a degree in Oxbridge history and many, including academics and past students, regard it as being populated by thick students from 'disadvantaged groups' in order to boost their numbers and should not be regarded as a tripos subject. The workload is a joke, the level of technical skill required is an insult to an Oxbridge degree and is below A Level standard - you barely get to a correlation coefficient let alone anything more. In my final year, I did one of the most popular SPS papers for Part II - being an economics undergraduate we did the SPS papers in one year (like medics who did it for Part II) as opposed to two and even then it was joke, even the academics (including one A. Giddens) were thick. The tragedy is that most PPS undergraduates fail to realise how far off the pace most of them are in relation to their peers and the trendy academics who prop them up are no better.

Sociology is a useless subject, employment rates for the subject are poor and deservedly so. In answer to the question, do PPE unless you want to have three years off and possibly the rest of your life off.

I'd love to do Philosophy and I'm good with numbers so I guess PPE would be an obvious choice from the two, but I'm really interested in Sociology, and if the Psychology part wasn't scientific I'd love to study that too...

...

PPS (SPS as it once was) is the biggest joke of a degree in Oxbridge history and many, including academics and past students, regard it as being populated by thick students from 'disadvantaged groups' in order to boost their numbers and should not be regarded as a tripos subject. The workload is a joke, the level of technical skill required is an insult to an Oxbridge degree and is below A Level standard - you barely get to a correlation coefficient let alone anything more. In my final year, I did one of the most popular SPS papers for Part II - being an economics undergraduate we did the SPS papers in one year (like medics who did it for Part II) as opposed to two and even then it was joke, even the academics (including one A. Giddens) were thick. The tragedy is that most PPS undergraduates fail to realise how far off the pace most of them are in relation to their peers and the trendy academics who prop them up are no better.

Sociology is a useless subject, employment rates for the subject are poor and deservedly so. In answer to the question, do PPE unless you want to have three years off and possibly the rest of your life off.

I'm afraid it doesn't apply to the other subjects you mention, science has nothing to do with it. There is nothing vaguely deep or abstract about SPS and having sat in supervisions for the subject, I can honestly say that the level of intellect on display is at the low end, the kind of questions asked by SPS students would shame a five year old and the essays I have seen written by many of the students, which I borrowed to see what was required before I decided to take the paper, gave no indication of any kind of sophistication and were stuffed with childish slogans and what might be termed "linear chains". The essays did not require any kind of expertise, could have been written by a layperson with no association with the subject and gave no indication of any sort of long-term consolidation of advanced concepts - an average GCSE student could do the job. Having seen the material produced by those doing other arts subjects, I can honestly say they are miles ahead.

SPS students are most often seen in the bar, have a workload that is well below that of other students at Cambridge and are notorious for being wasters - nobody takes them seriously. In fact, the course was so bad that in the 90s a load of SPS students slagged off the course in Varsity, saying how it was even less demanding than A Levels. No wonder they had to rebrand it as PPS.

Go into a lecture hall and look at the disproportionate numbers of inner-city oiks on special access schemes on the course, in fact just go and ask them what type of school they went to and they'll tell you, not that you should need to ask given their appearance.

It's a frigging joke and it's not just the opinion of economists, it's the opinion of virtually everybody at Cambridge whatever their subject.

I'm afraid it doesn't apply to the other subjects you mention, science has nothing to do with it. There is nothing vaguely deep or abstract about SPS and having sat in supervisions for the subject, I can honestly say that the level of intellect on display is at the low end, the kind of questions asked by SPS students would shame a five year old and the essays I have seen written by many of the students, which I borrowed to see what was required before I decided to take the paper, gave no indication of any kind of sophistication and were stuffed with childish slogans and what might be termed "linear chains". The essays did not require any kind of expertise, could have been written by a layperson with no association with the subject and gave no indication of any sort of long-term consolidation of advanced concepts - an average GCSE student could do the job. Having seen the material produced by those doing other arts subjects, I can honestly say they are miles ahead.

SPS students are most often seen in the bar, have a workload that is well below that of other students at Cambridge and are notorious for being wasters - nobody takes them seriously. In fact, the course was so bad that in the 90s a load of SPS students slagged off the course in Varsity, saying how it was even less demanding than A Levels. No wonder they had to rebrand it as PPS.

Go into a lecture hall and look at the disproportionate numbers of inner-city oiks on special access schemes on the course, in fact just go and ask them what type of school they went to and they'll tell you, not that you should need to ask given their appearance.

It's a frigging joke and it's not just the opinion of economists, it's the opinion of virtually everybody at Cambridge whatever their subject.