If you haven't studied it, you can't call it 'soft'

I just want to say that English Lit ISN'T considered a soft subject.

It is by everyone who has done a degree ... I shall refer again to Avenue Q.... lol....

I just find it strange that 'creative' subjects are seen as 'less worthy' for some reason... I know plenty of people who have done really well for themselves by avoiding uni, or having done 'soft subjects'

I also know people who were excellent at essays, exams but cannot survive in the real world - crap people skills, can't cook, no sense of the world, ignorant to anything outside their little bubble....

I just know that if they replaced exams with job interview style assessments the 'academics' would predominantly struggle - whereas the 'creatives' would flourish.

Just from my experience teaching and from studying, the amount of different ways people are skillful and the multiple intelligences that we have.

My sister could write you an award winning essay and academic journals in her sleep.

But ask her to change her car tyre.... hilarious...

For me, I thrive in emergency situations and on your feet thinking, but I find sitting and studying the most depressing thing ever.

I adapt, I pace around, use flashcards, colour coding, dictaphone and listen to my notes, even make up songs and dance routines and cartoon storyboard reminders etc.

And I can construct ANY Ikea furniture without instructions in less that 10 minutes... in your face Cambridge Graduates who foolishly try to follow instructions - because that's how they learn!!!! mwuhahaha!

And I rewired my speakers, and maintain my own car, and speak several languages some of which are self taught.... and I am unafraid of giving presentations to 5 or 50000000000000000 wouldn't bother me in the slightest! I am also ridiculously good at funfair games... I can win anything! Bring on the coconut shy! (literally the guy who owned it's face... looked like he wanted to cry when I won every hit... yes I assess trajectory, weight of the ball, estimate of the coconut, point of impact...)


So I think we should assess personal skills as well as your A Level class grades, rather than base everything on exams -

Are you serious? What you've just written exposes quite an inferiority complex. Oxbridge is par excellence in the academic world. That does not mean, however, that those associated with it are useless at everything other than following simple rules and writing essays. Many of the creative people in television, technology and music, if you'd care to notice, are Oxbridge graduates. School and university are chiefly measures of academic ability; personality, creativity, adaptability and amiability are all useful traits that come into play after education.

...

Well the reason a lot of them are Oxbridge graduates is because the prestige of the uni gives you a free pass into those opportunities.

That is utter tripe. It is because Oxbridge degrees are among the hardest, most rigorous and thus most valued in the world. If you are an Oxbridge graduate, you have proven yourself. Those who gain entry to Oxbridge don't just get given a degree, they have to work extremely hard to even come out with a 2:1. Oxbridge graduates get good jobs on their own academic merits, not because of some imagined conspiracy with the Old Boys and 'free passes'. Complete nonsense.

Well the reason a lot of them are Oxbridge graduates is because the prestige of the uni gives you a free pass into those opportunities.

That doesn't really contradict my statement lol. It's the same with all prestigious unis. e.g. in Hertforshire the animation students already start getting poached by companies halfway through the course

But by suggesting they are given free passes due to the PRESTIGE of the university, you are stating that their own skills are not merit enough to be chosen (which I would argue with). It suggests that all Oxbridge students are treated as a homogenized blob, with each and every one given a free pass simply by being Oxbridge students (or at least, the graduates), whereas I am stating their Oxbridge qualification is a by product of their own sheer brilliance, and not the opposite.

Not in the least true. Having a degree from Oxford, for instance, doesn't suddenly make you a better writer, musician, entrepreneur or actor. The only way to succeed in a creative industry is to actually possess talent, and it just so happens that Oxbridge is a hive of creative talent. There is no free pass.

I'm just being realistic. And I don't disagree that they have talent. I'm pointing out that they have more opportunities because of the prestige of the university as it attracts employers.


So you're denying the fact that Oxbridge will be one of the first places a company looks for graduates as the place has a reputation for being a 'hive of creative talent?'

A student of equal talent in a crappy uni will have no where near the opportunities a student of a prestigious university has, because of the mere fact that employers will be poaching all the talented students from the prestigious unis. In the crappy uni they won't be doing that because they don't have a reputation for talented students.

I studied a mixture of "soft" and "hard" subjects and I have to say, one of the "soft" subjects in particular really made me feel overwhelmed, the content and the things we had to revise was just never ending and I completely flopped a couple of its exams because of how difficult it was for me to keep up and prepare fully for them.
Having said that I found the exam questions in particular were a lot more difficult for the "hard" subjects.

Just curious, what was the soft subject you're referring to?

An authoritative list on the snobbery that is ever denied by Oxbridge... Apparently creativity is trumped by paying your way in, who daddy knows and Uncle Winston affectionately known as Lord Hoightitoight.

Glossing over the grossly inaccurate implication you seem to be making regarding Oxbridge admissions, that list has nothing to do with creativity of subjects. It has to do with how suitable they are as preparation for the courses offered at Cambridge as viewed by one of the undergraduate colleges. Nothing more, nothing less.

You go to Oxbridge if you want to use the name to get you everywhere in the future - aka politics and law... - no one chooses to go for 'the experience' or to 'make lifelong friends' it seems to be a place where you people please - speaking from experience - and you will only get in if your private school preps you for all the interviews, or you go on their summer courses, or again you know someone.... the politics begins before you even apply.

You are wrong, and deluded. Admissions is not determined by the school you went to, or whether you've been on summer courses, or who you know. I have just finished my first year at Cambridge and was a free school meals pupil at a bog standard state school, never went on any summer courses or knew anyone. My personal statement was, excluding many embellishments of how much I love doing my subject, blank. Finally, I do not understand why you claim people would only go for the name when you have explicitly mentioned going to other universities for their subject specialisms - is this logic not applicable to Oxbridge, who are top or near top in most subjects they offer? Moreover, you seem to have disregarded significant other things such as the collegiate system and one of the better financial support systems offered by any university, each of which are completely valid reasons to attend.

If you want to get a career in what you love then go for the uni you like, the lecturers you like, the course structure you like. It's so expensive to go nowadays, you need to be happy.... after my interview, I decided I didn't want to go to Cambridge as I would have either murdered my classmates or self within the first week, it reeked of pretension, snobbery and conformity.... no thanks... I'd rather be happy, have all my lovely friends and a good degree and be myself without trying to 'fit in' ....

The uni people like could quite easily be Cambridge. It sounds to me like one of two things happened to you - either you had a genuinely bad experience at the interview or (more likely, based on your post thus far) you were merely erecting social barriers out of your own expectation of prejudice where none existed.

I'm sure it's changed in 10 years, I like to hope it's less snobby and more diverse, but judging from their list... not so much. I went to Southampton University and loved every minute and don't regret it one tiny bit!


Really? Because I am not sure I have ever read such a bitter post. I sincerely hope noone actually listens to the drivel you are spouting out of animosity towards the universities. Many of the barriers Oxbridge faces towards widening and diversifying admissions are the sorts of myths that people like you are putting out as if they were fact.

Regarding all those people who label certain subjects as 'soft' - Do you think these people have even studied said subjects? In my opinion you can only label a subject as 'soft' if you have studied it yourself.

Psychology and Sociology certainly aren't 'soft' as far as I'm concerned. Michael Gove labelled these as 'soft'. As well as Astronomy???