Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Oxford vs Cambridge

Scroll to see replies

I'm not trying to get invovled, and frankly I don't want to, but let's just say that before we consider which of these Universities is better, I think it would be a more sensible decision to worry about GCSE results and A level predicted grades before debating which out of Oxford and Cambridge is better. Chances are you still have a while to apply, and I'd recommend that rather than debating, you spend the time either relaxing or prepping for studies or getting work experience or whatever other productive thing might help you. In regards to your question - you're asking the wrong one. The question is not which University is better; the question is, which University is better for an certain individual. When choosing a University, the sole most important thing to consider is the course. As Oxford and Cambridge offer different courses, this may lead to one being "better" for a particular person. It is also necessary to reflect upon what you believe is indicative of making a University "better" than another. Key areas to consider, dependant upon the individual, include graduate employability, financial costs and support, mental and health / wellbeing support, social and night life, structure of a course, accomodation, food and drink, accessibility and travel, and course content to name a few. It is also worth noting that many Nobel prize winners and/or famous alumni is not indicative of a better University; this could be down to the raw talent of students, graduates' career choices, raw academic talent and intake numbers for different courses. Even if you wish to use statistics and academic achievements as the basis for your conclusion, remember that the students' initial ability and passion for their subject may be responsible for their achievements, and not their University. This house believes on the whole that choosing which of Oxford or Cambridge is superior is a subjective matter, dependant upon your criteria for what makes a University "better" than another. Oxford might be better for some subjects; Cambridge may be better for other courses. Making sweeping generalizations based on a small part of the picture is not worth your time nor effort; the key thing to remember is that both Oxford and Cambridge are superb Universities, and at the end of the day, if you are able to get an offer from either then that is a wonderful achievement in itself. I would suggest firstly picking a course you are passionate and dedicated about, then look at league tables, then goto open days at both, and then use all of this information to draw to a conclusion which University will be "better" for your requirements. Personally, I would also consider first hand information (from open days and talking to current students) to be more valuable and accurate than any league tables / statistics found elsewhere. Hope this helps.

Reply 61

Doones

Original post by Maths&physics

ok, but if current students are winning noble prizes and fields medals, then how would you view the results from REF?

Which current student has won one?
And that's just the work of a small team or individual. REF is probably a better measure of the entire department.

Anyway I'll leave you to it. There's more useful differences for applicants to consider than Fields Medalists.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 62

Maths&physics

Original post by Doonesbury

if current students (or recent students) go on to win them.

https://www.ref.ac.uk/2014/panels/assessmentcriteriaandleveldefinitions/

surely Nobel prizes and fields medals are the best expression of REFs criteria manifesting itself? if you dont go on to do ground breaking things with your superior education (according to REF), then whats the point of REFs criteria and a world class education?

Reply 63

username3555092

I always thought that people who are at Oxbridge don't actually care about the petty discussions about which one's better, and just get on with what they're doing; it's always the outsiders who are very passionate to argue. Going by some reactions on here, I think I might be right.

Reply 64

Doones

Original post by Maths&physics

I think we've moved far from the OPs question. If you want to continue to discuss the use of Nobel Prizes as a university measure start your own thread :smile:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 65

Maths&physics

Original post by I hate maths

cambridge students generally claim its better, and Oxford students probably dont argue because they know its true. :tongue:

Reply 66

Doones

Original post by Maths&physics

cambridge students generally claim its better, and Oxford students probably dont argue because they know its true. :tongue:

Wut?! Evidence?
I think both sides would say theirs is "better".

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 67

Maths&physics

Original post by Doonesbury

Wut?! Evidence?
I think both sides would say theirs is "better".

Posted from TSR Mobile

“oxford is for the bourgeois and Cambridge is for the intellectual” (or words to that effect) was said by a famous ex Cambridge student, but I can’t remember who and the Cambridge’s students that I know say the same thing.

Reply 68

Doones

Original post by Maths&physics

It goes without saying that most Cambridge alumni prefer Cambridge... #GDBO

By the way, your "quote" doesn't even ring true. The bourgeois are the middle-class and are usually more associated with Cambridge rather than Oxford :wink:

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 69

Doones

Original post by Maths&physics

and Oxford students probably dont argue because they know its true. :tongue:

Tagging @The_Lonely_Goatherd, @Plagioclase et al...

:wink:

Reply 70

Maths&physics

Original post by Doonesbury

By the way, your "quote" doesn't even ring true. The bourgeois are the middle-class and are usually more associated with Cambridge rather than Oxford :wink:

Did you study at Cambridge - Christ’s college?

Maybe he didn’t say bourgeois, but it was some term for wealthy snob.

Reply 71

Doones

Original post by Maths&physics

Did you study at Cambridge - Christ’s college?

Maybe he didn’t say bourgeois, but it was some term for wealthy snob.

I have a son at Cambridge.

But a Cambridge alumnus's view of Oxford (or vice-versa) isn't exactly unbiased is it? That's my point. It tells you very little...

Reply 72

Maths&physics

Original post by Doonesbury

I have a son at Cambridge.

But a Cambridge alumnus's view of Oxford (or vice-versa) isn't exactly unbiased is it? That's my point. It tells you very little...

Of course, it is very bias but I think there is truth to the claim.

What do they study and I guess they’re at one of the colleges you award 5 points to?

Reply 73

Doones

Original post by Maths&physics

Of course, it is very bias but I think there is truth to the claim.

What do they study and I guess they’re at one of the colleges you award 5 points to?

So you accept bias as truth... hmm... not a very good example of the "scientific method'...

It's in my profile and posting history.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 74

xyz94

Original post by I'mComingOxford

I want to ask which University would be a better option for Law, I've been told Oxford hence my desire to go there, but been told Cambridge is better in terms of education and stuff.

Oxford's Masters degree in law, the BCL, is certainly more famous than Cambridge's equivalent, the LLM, which makes me inclined to say that Oxford is "better" (or, at least, slightly more respected) for law. I didn't study law, but I've heard from friends that Oxford's law degree is more focused on theory (i.e. critiquing the law and philosophy of how law is made/how the law should look) than Cambridge's. :smile:

We'll have to wait for a reply from a law student though!

Reply 75

Plagioclase

Original post by Doonesbury

Tagging @The_Lonely_Goatherd, @Plagioclase et al...

:wink:

I have never met anybody who unironically cares about this.

Reply 76

Maths&physics

Original post by Doonesbury

So you accept bias as truth... hmm... not a very good example of the "scientific method'...

It's in my profile and posting history.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I think it would be a lot easier if you told me, rather than me searching through your posts? :smile:

thats a fallacy: bias doesn't equate to nor nullify truth.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 77

nexttime

Original post by Maths&physics

also, academic intelligence is called: logical mathematical intelligence.

Hmm that's an incredibly short-sited view, almost like you're a maths/physics student or something!

Although we know that's definitely not the case as you've posted, what, 15 times in this thread so far and the only thing that comes close to "evidence" is nobel prize winners and "field" medal winners, something which you haven't even provided a citation for. So its obvious you haven't studied anything involving science in a very long time!

Reply 78

Maths&physics

Original post by nexttime

Hmm that's an incredibly short-sited view, almost like you're a maths/physics student or something!

you like personal attacks (ad hominem), dont you? :wink:

from the various types of intelligence, mathematical/logical intelligence is usually defined as academic intelligence.

Although we know that's definitely not the case as you've posted, what, 15 times in this thread so far and the only thing that comes close to "evidence" is nobel prize winners and "field" medal winners, something which you haven't even provided a citation for. So its obvious you haven't studied anything involving science in a very long time!