Is Cambridge better than Oxford?
Objectively:
Complete university guide
1000 vs 993
The Guardian
100 vs 94.4
Subjectively:
Newton and Darwin - thats basically Maths and Biology right there.
vs ... Margaret Thatcher? A bunch of terrible politicians?
Also, Cambridge just seems to choose the academically brightest people while Oxford, some of these colleges such as Christ Church are full of very wealthy people's children.
Also, how our Mathmos need to do STEP and the Oxford ones don't.
And our NatSci courses, you actually need to be good at Maths to do them whereas at Oxford, everyone knows the Oxford sciences they're a little bit 'softer'.
And PPE...well read this - http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9322492/the-politics-of-ppe/
Complete university guide
1000 vs 993
The Guardian
100 vs 94.4
Subjectively:
Newton and Darwin - thats basically Maths and Biology right there.
vs ... Margaret Thatcher? A bunch of terrible politicians?
Also, Cambridge just seems to choose the academically brightest people while Oxford, some of these colleges such as Christ Church are full of very wealthy people's children.
Also, how our Mathmos need to do STEP and the Oxford ones don't.
And our NatSci courses, you actually need to be good at Maths to do them whereas at Oxford, everyone knows the Oxford sciences they're a little bit 'softer'.
And PPE...well read this - http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9322492/the-politics-of-ppe/
(edited 9 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Original post by SquareBrackets
Objectively:
Complete university guide
1000 vs 993
The Guardian
100 vs 94.4
Subjectively:
Newton and Darwin - thats basically Maths and Biology right there.
vs ... Margaret Thatcher? A bunch of terrible politicians?
Also, Cambridge just seems to choose the academically brightest people while Oxford, some of these colleges such as Christ Church are full of very wealthy people's children.
Complete university guide
1000 vs 993
The Guardian
100 vs 94.4
Subjectively:
Newton and Darwin - thats basically Maths and Biology right there.
vs ... Margaret Thatcher? A bunch of terrible politicians?
Also, Cambridge just seems to choose the academically brightest people while Oxford, some of these colleges such as Christ Church are full of very wealthy people's children.
Original post by SquareBrackets
Objectively:
Complete university guide
1000 vs 993
The Guardian
100 vs 94.4
Subjectively:
Newton and Darwin - thats basically Maths and Biology right there.
vs ... Margaret Thatcher? A bunch of terrible politicians?
Also, Cambridge just seems to choose the academically brightest people while Oxford, some of these colleges such as Christ Church are full of very wealthy people's children.
Also, how our Mathmos need to do STEP and the Oxford ones don't.
And our NatSci courses, you actually need to be good at Maths to do them whereas at Oxford, everyone knows the Oxford sciences they're a little bit 'softer'.
And PPE...well read this - http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9322492/the-politics-of-ppe/
Complete university guide
1000 vs 993
The Guardian
100 vs 94.4
Subjectively:
Newton and Darwin - thats basically Maths and Biology right there.
vs ... Margaret Thatcher? A bunch of terrible politicians?
Also, Cambridge just seems to choose the academically brightest people while Oxford, some of these colleges such as Christ Church are full of very wealthy people's children.
Also, how our Mathmos need to do STEP and the Oxford ones don't.
And our NatSci courses, you actually need to be good at Maths to do them whereas at Oxford, everyone knows the Oxford sciences they're a little bit 'softer'.
And PPE...well read this - http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9322492/the-politics-of-ppe/
The problem is that by looking just at the universities' relative scores you're not approaching comparison objectively. Each company uses their own methodology and scores are given according to staff to student ratio, for example, which doesn't impact undergraduate teaching. If you look at international and global tables, for example, Oxford ranks above Cambridge because factors such as international reputation are taken into account.
Alumni - again the achievements of various celebrities and politicians etc. is a pretty ineffective way to directly compare the institutions. Surely Margaret Thatcher's career tells us more about her than it does about Oxford?
Mathematicians have to do the MAT which although different to STEP fulfils a similar role.
I'm not entirely sure about your assertion that only wealthy students attend Oxford. There's too much variation to make any accurate judgements here. This isn't my experience of Oxford, but again, that's just my college so it's difficult to tell.
Original post by colourtheory
The problem is that by looking just at the universities' relative scores you're not approaching comparison objectively. Each company uses their own methodology and scores are given according to staff to student ratio, for example, which doesn't impact undergraduate teaching. If you look at international and global tables, for example, Oxford ranks above Cambridge because factors such as international reputation are taken into account.
Alumni - again the achievements of various celebrities and politicians etc. is a pretty ineffective way to directly compare the institutions. Surely Margaret Thatcher's career tells us more about her than it does about Oxford?
Mathematicians have to do the MAT which although different to STEP fulfils a similar role.
I'm not entirely sure about your assertion that only wealthy students attend Oxford. There's too much variation to make any accurate judgements here. This isn't my experience of Oxford, but again, that's just my college so it's difficult to tell.
Alumni - again the achievements of various celebrities and politicians etc. is a pretty ineffective way to directly compare the institutions. Surely Margaret Thatcher's career tells us more about her than it does about Oxford?
Mathematicians have to do the MAT which although different to STEP fulfils a similar role.
I'm not entirely sure about your assertion that only wealthy students attend Oxford. There's too much variation to make any accurate judgements here. This isn't my experience of Oxford, but again, that's just my college so it's difficult to tell.
Yeah you're probably right.
In almost every way, they are equals - academics, access, method, college system, etc. Your preference - and people have strong ones - will be personal and in the gut.
When we took our d as a prospective student, we stopped first at Oxford, which she had said she wanted attend since she was 12. We found the reps snooty and indifferent ("apply if you think you can get in") and the town grottily commercial. She was disappointed. We then headed directly to Cambridge and our experience was completely the opposite: the reps were encouraging ("please try, we want to filter people in, not out"), down to earth and genuinely interested in her as an individual; the town, of course, was lovely. She switched to Cam and absolutely loves it there. People say the same about Oxford.
When we took our d as a prospective student, we stopped first at Oxford, which she had said she wanted attend since she was 12. We found the reps snooty and indifferent ("apply if you think you can get in") and the town grottily commercial. She was disappointed. We then headed directly to Cambridge and our experience was completely the opposite: the reps were encouraging ("please try, we want to filter people in, not out"), down to earth and genuinely interested in her as an individual; the town, of course, was lovely. She switched to Cam and absolutely loves it there. People say the same about Oxford.
I was told that Cambridge was better for the sciences.
Original post by SSpringer20
I was told that Cambridge was better for the sciences.
There are advantages to each university's science offerings. Cambridge's Natural Sciences course is very good if you want to dip into multiple subjects, or if you're not sure where you want to specialize. If you're already sure your interests lie in a single field, the Oxford single-science courses will obviously allow you to go into greater depth because you're not going to spend however much of your four years studying areas you're not particularly interested in.
Original post by alcibiade
When we took our d as a prospective student, we stopped first at Oxford, which she had said she wanted attend since she was 12. We found the reps snooty and indifferent ("apply if you think you can get in")
When we took our d as a prospective student, we stopped first at Oxford, which she had said she wanted attend since she was 12. We found the reps snooty and indifferent ("apply if you think you can get in")
You found every single student at Oxford to be exactly the same? How many Colleges did you visit?
This completely goes against all I witnessed as a prospective applicant, undergraduate, postgraduate and later non-stipendiary lecturer at Oxford.
Original post by alcibiade
and the town grottily commercial.
Did you visit the right city? (Oxford is not a town) I have heard Oxford described as many things, but "grottily commercial" is a new one. I truly have no idea how you can even come to such a conclusion. Whereabouts in the city did you go?!
Original post by alcibiade
She was disappointed. We then headed directly to Cambridge and our experience was completely the opposite: the reps were encouraging ("please try, we want to filter people in, not out"), down to earth and genuinely interested in her as an individual; the town, of course, was lovely. She switched to Cam and absolutely loves it there. People say the same about Oxford.
She was disappointed. We then headed directly to Cambridge and our experience was completely the opposite: the reps were encouraging ("please try, we want to filter people in, not out"), down to earth and genuinely interested in her as an individual; the town, of course, was lovely. She switched to Cam and absolutely loves it there. People say the same about Oxford.
What drivel. I'm now at Cambridge myself and have never once heard a single person say anything of the sort. This Jekyll and Hyde image of Cambridge vs Oxford you paint is so false. There are positives and negatives to both, in reality they are terrifyingly similar to the point where I often feel like I'm just at Oxford still.
Most people criticise Cambridge as a city (it is also not a town) for being small and not particularly interesting, I'm surprised with a giant John Lewis and a tacky shopping centre that didn't seem "grottily commercial".
You are most probably a troll, but I still think it's important to correct the nonsense picture of Oxford vs Cambridge you've tried to paint.
Applicants: visit both, see how you feel, make sure you see a good range of Colleges on open days.
Original post by SquareBrackets
Objectively:
Newton and Darwin - thats basically Maths and Biology right there.
vs...
Newton and Darwin - thats basically Maths and Biology right there.
vs...
The Preraphaelite brotherhood, Tolkien, Adam Smith, Aldous Huxley, Lawrence of Arabia...
Original post by jenkinsear
Applicants: visit both, see how you feel, make sure you see a good range of Colleges on open days.
Applicants: visit both, see how you feel, make sure you see a good range of Colleges on open days.
This is exactly what I was saying. It is a personal gut feel, prospective students should visit both.
All I was talking about was our personal perception.
Oxford - has produced more politicians (MPs/PMs and some terrible ones as well) and specialises in the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences.
Cambridge - has produced more Nobel Prize winners and big names such as Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin and John Meynard Keynes. Specialises in Science, Maths, Engineering and Healthcare.
Cambridge wins this one
.
Cambridge - has produced more Nobel Prize winners and big names such as Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin and John Meynard Keynes. Specialises in Science, Maths, Engineering and Healthcare.
Cambridge wins this one
.
Original post by jenkinsear
x
I've almost never seen someone so completely misinterpret what was said in a post as here.
He said that objectively they are equals such that any preference formed on first impressions will necessarily be personal and partial. Specifically their one-day experience of Oxford wasn't positive, and of Cambridge was much more positive. But he's heard people tell it the other way as well.
[My daughter] switched to Cam and absolutely loves it there. [BUT] People say the same [as I'm saying about Cambridge] about Oxford [so, your mileage may vary].
Your Mum went to Oxford.
Original post by SquareBrackets
Objectively:
Complete university guide
1000 vs 993
The Guardian
100 vs 94.4
Subjectively:
Newton and Darwin - thats basically Maths and Biology right there.
vs ... Margaret Thatcher? A bunch of terrible politicians?
Also, Cambridge just seems to choose the academically brightest people while Oxford, some of these colleges such as Christ Church are full of very wealthy people's children.
Also, how our Mathmos need to do STEP and the Oxford ones don't.
And our NatSci courses, you actually need to be good at Maths to do them whereas at Oxford, everyone knows the Oxford sciences they're a little bit 'softer'.
And PPE...well read this - http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9322492/the-politics-of-ppe/
Complete university guide
1000 vs 993
The Guardian
100 vs 94.4
Subjectively:
Newton and Darwin - thats basically Maths and Biology right there.
vs ... Margaret Thatcher? A bunch of terrible politicians?
Also, Cambridge just seems to choose the academically brightest people while Oxford, some of these colleges such as Christ Church are full of very wealthy people's children.
Also, how our Mathmos need to do STEP and the Oxford ones don't.
And our NatSci courses, you actually need to be good at Maths to do them whereas at Oxford, everyone knows the Oxford sciences they're a little bit 'softer'.
And PPE...well read this - http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9322492/the-politics-of-ppe/
Neither Durham is a much nicer place to study... It's up north for a start!
Original post by Octohedral
Your Mum went to Oxford.
it's a fancypants primary where that is the playground taunt.
Original post by BJack
There are advantages to each university's science offerings. Cambridge's Natural Sciences course is very good if you want to dip into multiple subjects, or if you're not sure where you want to specialize. If you're already sure your interests lie in a single field, the Oxford single-science courses will obviously allow you to go into greater depth because you're not going to spend however much of your four years studying areas you're not particularly interested in.
Only the first year is like that. In the second year the nst course is just as in-depth as single science courses if you pick your subjects that way.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Raymat
Oxford - has produced more politicians (MPs/PMs and some terrible ones as well) and specialises in the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences.
Cambridge - has produced more Nobel Prize winners and big names such as Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin and John Meynard Keynes. Specialises in Science, Maths, Engineering and Healthcare.
Cambridge wins this one.
Cambridge - has produced more Nobel Prize winners and big names such as Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin and John Meynard Keynes. Specialises in Science, Maths, Engineering and Healthcare.
Cambridge wins this one
.This is so outdated. By about 130 years in fact. At the time of UCL's establishment, there was a drive to higher science lecturers from Cambridge and humanities / arts lecturers from Oxford. The fact that it's making the rounds is ridiculous - people will believe any rumour in order to distinguish between the two. And who are you to elevate the sciences above the arts? Novel prizes mean nothing for anyone who hasn't got one.
Original post by Gott
So was I, while I was being told how monks went from Oxford to Cambridge because they wanted science subjects to be read
couldn't move for the cowled ones when i was there
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Oxford Brookes vs. Anglia Ruskin Uni
- Wondering between Oxford and Cambridge for History and Politics
- The Official "Oxford or Cambridge?" Thread
- BA (Hons) - Law (Jurisprudence) at Oxford only allows choice of 2 optional papers?
- Oxford or Cambridge acceptance for Maths
- Is Cambridge easier to get into than oxford?
- Oxford or cambridge
- Suggested A levels for Cambridge cs?
- Oxford vs Cambridge Law
- Mom wants me to apply to Cambridge, I want to apply to Oxford
- Oxford or Cambridge?
- E&M at Oxford v.s. Economics at Cambridge
- Which university, Oxford or Cambridge cares more about GCSE grades?
- Oxford vs Cambridge Psychology
- Merton Oxford or St John's Cambridge
- Oxford vs Cambridge
- Has anyone ever rejected Oxbridge?
- Economics at either Oxford or Cambridge #university #oxford #cambridge
- should i still apply for oxbridge Maths
- GCSE
Latest
Trending
Last reply 19 hours ago
Weidenfeld Hoffmann Trust (WHT) Scholarship Notification (2024-2025)Last reply 22 hours ago
Oxbridge applicants for modern languages - 2025 entry (applying in 2024)Last reply 1 week ago
Will I get into Oxford with my GCSE results? - EngineeringLast reply 2 weeks ago
will 5 a levels give me a better chance at getting into oxford?Trending
Last reply 19 hours ago
Weidenfeld Hoffmann Trust (WHT) Scholarship Notification (2024-2025)Last reply 22 hours ago
Oxbridge applicants for modern languages - 2025 entry (applying in 2024)Last reply 1 week ago
Will I get into Oxford with my GCSE results? - EngineeringLast reply 2 weeks ago
will 5 a levels give me a better chance at getting into oxford?
