Cambridge or Durham for Archaeology?

They both claim to be the best, but which one is?
Also is it possible to get very high A levels and apply in adjustment for the course at Cambridge?

Reply 1

Howbeit

All I can say is Cambridge do not accept Adjustment or Clearing.

Reply 2

Clair

Original post by RobertWhite

All I can say is Cambridge do not accept Adjustment or Clearing.

Well that's answered one question thanks!

Reply 3

FinalMH

Original post by Clair

They both claim to be the best, but which one is?
Also is it possible to get very high A levels and apply in adjustment for the course at Cambridge?

Cambridge no questions asked

Durham claim to be ALOT of things

also whats going to look better as a degree one from "Durham" or one from "Cambridge"?

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 4

Clair

Original post by FinalMH

Cambridge no questions asked

Why do you say that?
Some league tables put Durham ahead for Archaeogoly, and Durham site points to how good it is http://www.dur.ac.uk/archaeology/undergraduate/ besides Durham ahs a better course as far as I am aware.

I am not exactly disagreeing with you. I just want more in depth answers.

Reply 5

Choppyy

Cambridge every single day of the week. Degree from there and your employability soars, I would imagine.

Reply 6

Aeschylus

I believe that Durham generally do not accept adjustment, though there may be certain subjects for which they do.

Isn't it right that in Cambridge you do archaeology WITH anthropology for at least the first year, whereas Durham that is not necessary? That might influence your choice. Both are brilliant unis

Reply 7

Clair

Original post by Aeschylus

Yes that's something I am a bit apprehensive about I rather do more Archaeology, but then as others have pointed out employability soars fro Cambridge. Yet there was this study carried out that Durham has a much higher employability than even Cambridge.

"Durham Archaeology graduates have an excellent employment record. According to the Good University Guide 2009, 73% of our graduates are either in ‘graduate level' employment or further study six months after graduating. This is equal fourth highest in the country and is significantly ahead of other top universities such as Oxford (64%), Cambridge (64%) and Bristol (67%). This reflects both the quality of our teaching and our commitment to producing well-rounded, employable graduates. "

Reply 8

FinalMH

Original post by Clair

http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/single.htm?ipg=8727

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2010/jun/04/university-guide-archaeology

Theirs two put it ahead, if i m honest having degree from Cambridge will give you more employment options compare to someone from Durham, BUT it does depend on what you want to study and the units they offer, if your happy with Cambridge then go their, BUT do not go just for the reason of going to Cambridge because if you dont like the course and not motivated then chances are you will drop out :/

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 9

Aeschylus

Original post by Clair

As I said both are good choices. It might be worth researching anthropology if you are apprehensive about as you say, and see if it is right for you.

Reply 10

Gaeilgeoir

You clearly like Durham. Go for it if it's what you want.
It'll be just as good as a degree from Cambridge as long as you work hard.

Reply 11

Jacke02

Durham's not a great city compared to cambridge...

Does durham have a similar supervision system?

Reply 12

Clair

I do like Durham the course is better and there's more options and more staff, but then Cambridge seems to be better regarded in the job world and the tutorials system is great!

I just don't know :frown:

But thanks for all your suggestions.

Reply 13

River85

Original post by Clair

Original post by Choppyy

Cambridge every single day of the week. Degree from there and your employability soars, I would imagine.

You would imagine. But what you imagine isn't necessarily the reality.

Employers typically don't sit there creaming over Oxford and Cambridge and it is unlikely they will employer a Cambridge grad over a Durham grad simply because he or she attended Cambridge. Particularly when it is claimed only a minority (albeit significant minority) place weight on university name. Even amongst those who do, they won't necessarily have a list of preferences as such, just use it as an initial filter (taking applications from Russell and 1994 Group universities, and some others).

Then you also need to take university classification into account. A 2:1 from Durham will usually be preferred over a 2:2 from Cambridge, particularly when a 2:1 is a minimum requirement.

Original post by Clair

"Durham Archaeology graduates have an excellent employment record. According to the Good University Guide 2009, 73% of our graduates are either in ‘graduate level' employment or further study six months after graduating. This is equal fourth highest in the country and is significantly ahead of other top universities such as Oxford (64%), Cambridge (64%) and Bristol (67%). This reflects both the quality of our teaching and our commitment to producing well-rounded, employable graduates. "

I'm possibly just confusing you even more here, but these are just statistics and don't tell the entire story. There can be a number of reasons why that 10% of Cambridge graduates aren't yet in employment or study. Some travel, for example.
Or perhaps Durham has a particularly high percentage of graduates in further study?

Just take these figures critically. Don't think Durham will give you better employment prospects as it won't (though rarely will Cambridge give a significant advantage). Ultimately you're the person who gets the job.

This isn't to say Cambridge can't give you advantages Durham cannot. But if you have a strong preference for Durham's course and are unsure about anthrolpolhy, and still like the location of Durham, then Durham is still worth serious consideration.

Research anthropology some more, don't get distracted by employments stats and league table positions, focus on the course content and what you want.

Original post by Jacke02

Durham's not a great city compared to cambridge...

Subjective. Depends on what you mean by "great city". Durham is far smaller, yes, and it can feel claustrophobic.

Does durham have a similar supervision system?

I'm not aware of any universities who do. Contact hours in the archaeology department, although possibly sufficient, are relatively modest. I'm not an archaeology student but I do know Introduction to Archaeology has a lecture per week and only four tutorials during the year. But this does vary by module, often depending on whether they are more theory or practical based. Another level one module, Archaeology Practicals, has a smaller number of lectures but more practicals, tutorials and supervised fieldwork. Tutorials will still consist of small groups and not supervisions of one or two people as far as I'm aware.

Aula

Can you help please? :puppyeyes:

Reply 14

Clair

Original post by River85

Universities will always "pimp" themselves and be selective in the league tables they use.

I really wouldn't pay too much attention to league tables as they are always liable to fluctuate year on year. In truth it is very rare for a department to be THE best and this is one of the problems with league tables, they give people a misleading view that there's some ladder in place. Both Durham and Cambridge offer amongst the strongest archaeology departments in the country, that much is true.

You would imagine. But what you imagine isn't necessarily the reality.

Employers typically don't sit there creaming over Oxford and Cambridge and it is unlikely they will employer a Cambridge grad over a Durham grad simply because he or she attended Cambridge. Particularly when it is claimed only a minority (albeit significant minority) place weight on university name. Even amongst those who do, they won't necessarily have a list of preferences as such, just use it as an initial filter (taking applications from Russell and 1994 Group universities, and some others).

Then you also need to take university classification into account. A 2:1 from Durham will usually be preferred over a 2:2 from Cambridge, particularly when a 2:1 is a minimum requirement.

I'm possibly just confusing you even more here, but these are just statistics and don't tell the entire story. There can be a number of reasons why that 10% of Cambridge graduates aren't yet in employment or study. Some travel, for example.
Or perhaps Durham has a particularly high percentage of graduates in further study?

Just take these figures critically. Don't think Durham will give you better employment prospects as it won't (though rarely will Cambridge give a significant advantage). Ultimately you're the person who gets the job.

This isn't to say Cambridge can't give you advantages Durham cannot. But if you have a strong preference for Durham's course and are unsure about anthrolpolhy, and still like the location of Durham, then Durham is still worth serious consideration.

Research anthropology some more, don't get distracted by employments stats and league table positions, focus on the course content and what you want.

Subjective. Depends on what you mean by "great city". Durham is far smaller, yes, and it can feel claustrophobic.

I'm not aware of any universities who do. Contact hours in the archaeology department, although possibly sufficient, are relatively modest. I'm not an archaeology student but I do know Introduction to Archaeology has a lecture per week and only four tutorials during the year. But this does vary by module, often depending on whether they are more theory or practical based. Another level one module, Archaeology Practicals, has a smaller number of lectures but more practicals, tutorials and supervised fieldwork. Tutorials will still consist of small groups and not supervisions of one or two people as far as I'm aware.

Can you help please? :puppyeyes:

River thank you that was very helpful! I wish I had more more rep to give you.
I am going to try for Durham as there course suits me a lot better as Durham has a much larger selection of modules and greater number of staff . Also as you said if the employability rate between them is so negligible it makes the course content the only thing that matters.

Reply 15

Aula

Original post by Clair

Yeah, as has been said before, you have to do Archaeology and Anthropology at Cambridge. So if you want to just do Archaeology, then I'd recommend Durham. (though tbh I'd recommend Durham, anyway, not that I'm biased or anything :ninjagirl:

)

My mind's not working great right this moment, so I can't think of things to tell you, but if you have questions feel free to get in touch and I'll try to answer them.

Reply 16

User188463

Original post by Clair

I would be skeptical - the complete uni guide 2011 says Cambridge archaeology students have higher graduate prospects than all other unis, and also that admitted students have an average 499 ucas points compared to durham's 411. The Time's 2011 uni guide say that 71% of Cambridge graduates have a job within months compared to Durham's 61 (it also puts Durham below Cam, Ox and UCL for Archaeology). The average spend-per-student at Cam is 10 compared to 4 at Durham - whatever that means.

Anthropology is also really really good, and in my opinion Archaeology is useless without ethnographic/anthropological approaches. The balance between the in the first year is perfect, with courses in Bio anth, Soc anth, Archaeology, and also an interdisciplinary paper. If you wanted to do more archaeology and miss out on soc anth/bio anth, then there are other options available (see the course website).

There are big differences in the courses and there are also big differences between the Unis - so ultimately its a personal choice (although, according to most recent subject tables, in most criteria, Cambridge is 'objectively' superior in both arch and anth).

edit: Just evening out the massive Durham bias here!

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 17

Aula

Original post by T-o dore

Anthropology is also really really good, and in my opinion Archaeology is useless without ethnographic/anthropological approaches

I'd say that possibly is the case if you're studying pre-history, but not otherwise.

(I'm glad someone's argued for Cambridge though, it is a biased here)