Oxford VS Cambridge (for science/engineering)

When I graduated, the top employment sector for Oxford Engineering Science graduates was accountancy . That could explain you seeing fewer Oxbridge graduates. Doing a degree at a top university makes it easier to study what you're interested in, but get a job job that only uses part of it. I know quite a few people in computing with unrelated degrees, e.g. PPE and Law.

Show me the data
(the £9bn includes 4500 companies, so support companies are definitely included)

Read some of the reports on the impact of losing the British GP - this is one of them:

http://www.tourisminsights.info/ONLINEPUB/SPORT%20AND%20EVENTS/SAET%20PDFS/SQW%20Consulting%20(2009),%20Economic%20Impact%20Assessment%20of%20the%20FIA%20Formula%201%20British%20Grand%20Prix,%20prepared%20for%20Northamptonshire%20Enterprise%20by%20SQW%20Consulting,%20Cambridge%20.pdf

You need to read local papers in the area around Silverstone as well - lots of recent material.

Thanks that's interesting.

Net impact of losing the Silverstone GP is under £10million...

The only mention of £billions was £6bn or £5bn for a Motorsport contribution. Both of which are lower, much lower, than the £9billion I already generously credited to F1....

Posted from TSR Mobile

Lots of graduate jobs do want Solidworks [up-to-date version] but some want CATIA - you can learn both at some unis.

Industry is about research too - new cars, new machines, new products ...

Who cares if they designed a "real engine". That is a solved problem. There are far more interesting issues to consider in engineering research.

In terms of facilities and research output, I'd frankly consider Cambridge to far outstrip Oxford in this regard. The west site is huge, and continuing to expand rapidly - which hugely benefits physical science and engineering researchers. Downing is pretty full, but they use the space well (read: it's buildings or car parking beyond the main archway entrance green space), and they have a large number of very specific bioscience departments there covering virtually every aspect of modern bioscience.

This is of marginal benefit for an undergraduate however (arguably it's slightly inconvenient for physical scientists, and some engineers, if you're not at Churchill as it's a longer walk/cycle in to labs/lectures later in the course ), and both would be suitable for building up a core foundation in the subject. I would argue Oxford's Engineering course is slightly "nicer" in terms of structure, while Cambridge's Natural Science course is better for scientists (except arguably physicists, although you could just do Maths with Physics or Computer Science with Physics Part IA then if you like the experimental side, continue to NatSci IB and do Physics A/B and Maths then on as usual).

However Oxford has the option to do Physics and Philosophy as a joint course which may be of interest. They also have Human Sciences, which offers a slightly more interdisciplinary approach to biosciences. Maths at Cambridge is the major exception - as it has an unusually strong history in the subject and in particular a focus on undergraduate mathematics education.

They're pretty much equal from an undergraduates point of view (excepting Maths), but for postgrad work I'd really put Cambridge several pegs ahead of Oxford.