Turn on thread page Beta
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Maker)
    Cambridge received its royal charter in 1231, Oxford recieved its charter in 1248.
    And establishments that have existed longer than the charters don't really care when they got them.
    FACT: Cambridge pre-exists the charter
    FACT: Oxford pre-exists the charter
    FACT: oxford is the older of the two.

    Whenever you look at a listing for the oldest universities they always go by earliest known teaching date, not charter, as it is more relevant.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And establishments that have existed longer than the charters don't really care when they got them.
    FACT: Cambridge pre-exists the charter
    FACT: Oxford pre-exists the charter
    FACT: oxford is the older of the two.

    Whenever you look at a listing for the oldest universities they always go by earliest known teaching date, not charter, as it is more relevant.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The university I went to received its charter in 1956 but started teaching in 1824.

    Does that mean it was a university in 1824 because it would be by your definition?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Maker)
    The university I went to received its charter in 1956 but started teaching in 1824.

    Does that mean it was a university in 1824 because it would be by your definition?
    Last I checked the royal charters were around in 1824 so I guess you weren't paying close enough attention
    But one could argue that if before recieving the charter they fulfilled criteria for a university it could be considered older

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Last I checked the royal charters were around in 1824 so I guess you weren't paying close enough attention
    But one could argue that if before recieving the charter they fulfilled criteria for a university it could be considered older

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Nice but obvious back peddling.

    My local uni would be pleased to know they were actually a uni when they started as a teacher training college in 1851 but no one told them they were a uni until 1992.

    I suppose loads of colleges that aren't unis now should just start awarding degrees because the fact they aren't called unis is just an oversight.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L'Evil Fish)
    so you think the majority are?
    No. I think you think the majority are.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj_16)
    I think a summary of the top 10 from this forum is: (in no particular order)
    -Oxbridge
    -Imperial
    -LSE
    -UCL
    -Warwick
    -Durham
    -St Andrews
    -Bath
    -Bristol

    then other unis compete for the last two positions i.e. Nottingham
    Blah blah blah..he got 9 A*s at A level and went onto Oxbridge. ...who even cares?? UNI Of LIVERPOOL BEST RUSSELL GROUP! !!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Okorange)
    Oxford will always be better. It is the oldest in the UK, has produced the most prime ministers, all the potential future conservative party leaders and the current PM are Oxford graduates. It has a university press that prints books that children all over the world read. Often the dictionary they first use has the words Oxford written all over them. When you mention Oxford you will get wows and when you mention Imperial most people will nod in approval, but its not the same.

    In the long history of universities Imperial recent rankings aren't lasting and the unfortunate truth is that Imperial is a specialist school and engineering just doesn't get as much press attention as politics and other subjects do.
    So how exactly does any of that pay any relevance to someone picking an Undergraduate degere now? At this point, Imperial, LSE and UCL are ranked just as highly and have been for the last few years. Most employers know this, which is why they are considered just as highly as Oxbridge. Also, I don't get why Imperial should be ranked lower simply because it doesn't offer pointless humanity courses.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kedstar99)
    So how exactly does any of that pay any relevance to someone picking an Undergraduate degere now? At this point, Imperial, LSE and UCL are ranked just as highly and have been for the last few years. Most employers know this, which is why they are considered just as highly as Oxbridge. Also, I don't get why Imperial should be ranked lower simply because it doesn't offer pointless humanity courses.
    How many Imperial graduates will end up working in the media (probably none)!

    If you take a look at papers such as Daily Telegraph, Times, etc. they're littered with Oxbridge arts grads, who no doubt will do all they can to promote their alma mata.

    How many times have you read of a non-Oxbridge student / grad discovering something and yet the headline only reads: "Student / graduate ..... " as opposed to Oxbridge student / graduate ..... "

    All league tables are subjective. A better way to measure ability is to choose non-subjective metrics.

    If you look at the quality of candidates who top competitions like IMO and international math / physics competition for university students, you'll find they tend to be won by universities you'll unlikely to have heard of but I don't doubt the ability of those students.

    After all, those overseas students found at Oxbride have one thing in common - money! They must be able to finance their studies somehow, so if they can't, they study at domestic institutions but they aren't necessarily inferior, just unknown to the vast British and US public.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kedstar99)
    So how exactly does any of that pay any relevance to someone picking an Undergraduate degere now? At this point, Imperial, LSE and UCL are ranked just as highly and have been for the last few years. Most employers know this, which is why they are considered just as highly as Oxbridge. Also, I don't get why Imperial should be ranked lower simply because it doesn't offer pointless humanity courses.
    You don't have to get it, you just have to accept it. Politicians, Lawyers, the Media are all more high profile than Engineers.

    No matter how good MIT is, it will never beat Harvard for name recognition.

    LSE isn't actually ranked very well compared to Oxbridge. Imperial and UCL have been ranked highly but this is only a few years. Until UCL and Imperial can convince Oxbridge acceptees to turn down Oxbridge for them in sufficient enough numbers and until UCL and Imperial can graduate famous alumni and attempt to challenge Oxbridge with nobels they just won't get the same name recognition. If you want the name recognition, go to Oxbridge, the status quo doesn't change just because the rankings decide to rank Imperial and UCL high. Keep in mind that Imperial is only at 15 and UCL at 25 while Cambridge and Oxford are easily 70+.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Okorange)
    You don't have to get it, you just have to accept it. Politicians, Lawyers, the Media are all more high profile than Engineers.

    No matter how good MIT is, it will never beat Harvard for name recognition.

    LSE isn't actually ranked very well compared to Oxbridge. Imperial and UCL have been ranked highly but this is only a few years. Until UCL and Imperial can convince Oxbridge acceptees to turn down Oxbridge for them in sufficient enough numbers and until UCL and Imperial can graduate famous alumni and attempt to challenge Oxbridge with nobels they just won't get the same name recognition. If you want the name recognition, go to Oxbridge, the status quo doesn't change just because the rankings decide to rank Imperial and UCL high. Keep in mind that Imperial is only at 15 and UCL at 25 while Cambridge and Oxford are easily 70+.
    I believe MIT does more than just engineering courses. David Milliband went to MIT for is Masters in Political Analysis. He didn't do to badly afterwards. Harvard is barely more well known than MIT.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Okorange)
    You don't have to get it, you just have to accept it. Politicians, Lawyers, the Media are all more high profile than Engineers.

    No matter how good MIT is, it will never beat Harvard for name recognition.

    LSE isn't actually ranked very well compared to Oxbridge. Imperial and UCL have been ranked highly but this is only a few years. Until UCL and Imperial can convince Oxbridge acceptees to turn down Oxbridge for them in sufficient enough numbers and until UCL and Imperial can graduate famous alumni and attempt to challenge Oxbridge with nobels they just won't get the same name recognition. If you want the name recognition, go to Oxbridge, the status quo doesn't change just because the rankings decide to rank Imperial and UCL high. Keep in mind that Imperial is only at 15 and UCL at 25 while Cambridge and Oxford are easily 70+.
    Imperial and UCL do have famous alumni and nobel laureates. It isn't their fault that they were not founded 700-800 years ago. As far as I am concerned, at this point in time and for the last 2-3 years (and I assume the next 4), you will get a similarly good education at UCL and Imperial. Not to mention, if you look up the number of nobel laureates which were part of the University of London, they would easily beat/match Oxbridge.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kedstar99)
    Imperial and UCL do have famous alumni and nobel laureates. It isn't their fault that they were not founded 700-800 years ago. As far as I am concerned, at this point in time and for the last 2-3 years (and I assume the next 4), you will get a similarly good education at UCL and Imperial. Not to mention, if you look up the number of nobel laureates which were part of the University of London, they would easily beat/match Oxbridge.
    What Imperial and UCL lack is personnel of the calibre of Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, modern day geniuses.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kedstar99)
    Imperial and UCL do have famous alumni and nobel laureates. It isn't their fault that they were not founded 700-800 years ago. As far as I am concerned, at this point in time and for the last 2-3 years (and I assume the next 4), you will get a similarly good education at UCL and Imperial. Not to mention, if you look up the number of nobel laureates which were part of the University of London, they would easily beat/match Oxbridge.
    As long as the tutorial system at Oxbridge exists, you will not get a similarly good education, regardless of what people say. And you cannot compare the enormous University of London with either Cambridge or Oxford: Oxbridge colleges have a total of about 500 students, whereas UoL colleges have the same numbers as every other university on their own.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    As long as the tutorial system at Oxbridge exists, you will not get a similarly good education, regardless of what people say. And you cannot compare the enormous University of London with either Cambridge or Oxford: Oxbridge colleges have a total of about 500 students, whereas UoL colleges have the same numbers as every other university on their own.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That's the point - the tutorial system, amongst others.

    The reasons Oxbridge are considered "great" by many include its tutorial system. What is not possible to replicate is its history, ie they are the two oldest unis in the UK (though they're only second and third to uni of Bologne) and you can't turn back time to change that!

    Everything else, be it the tutorial system, funding, etc. CAN be replicated and if by doing so, will PROBABLY result in other institutions being of a similar, possible even better, calibre than Oxbridge.

    After all, wouldn't it be great to have more than just two "supreme" universities?

    BUT these measures to replicate them have not been done. Why? Probably because the UK government wants Oxbridge to remain as they are ie dominating the rest.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    As long as the tutorial system at Oxbridge exists, you will not get a similarly good education, regardless of what people say. And you cannot compare the enormous University of London with either Cambridge or Oxford: Oxbridge colleges have a total of about 500 students, whereas UoL colleges have the same numbers as every other university on their own.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You are correct, Imperial does not have professors spoon feeding you, that does not mean the education is any worse. In fact, I feel that you gain a better more independent approach to learning that way. If you have an issue, you have plenty of opportunities to discuss with professors or pHD students.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by curiousquest)
    That's the point - the tutorial system, amongst others.

    The reasons Oxbridge are considered "great" by many include its tutorial system. What is not possible to replicate is its history, ie they are the two oldest unis in the UK (though they're only second and third to uni of Bologne) and you can't turn back time to change that!

    Everything else, be it the tutorial system, funding, etc. CAN be replicated and if by doing so, will PROBABLY result in other institutions being of a similar, possible even better, calibre than Oxbridge.

    After all, wouldn't it be great to have more than just two "supreme" universities?

    BUT these measures to replicate them have not been done. Why? Probably because the UK government wants Oxbridge to remain as they are ie dominating the rest.
    Funding another university to such levels that will allow it to employ Oxbridge-like means of teaching will mean that funding from Oxbridge (or other universities) will have to decrease. Thus, since funding is already too tight, it comes down to whether we want to petentially harm the reputation of Oxbridge and create a third, similar, university or keep things the way they are.

    In my opinion -given these reasons- the UK government is right, if what we assume is true. Oxford and Cambridge benefit the UK not only because they themselves are prestigious, but because they are linked with the wider UK academia. I would say that they are the main(!) reason the UK as a whole is considered a centre of academic excellence, which of course benefits the UK economy immensely.

    As such, a third ultra-prestigious university is not really needed. Unlike most other countries, which only boast one-two very good universities with the rest being under-funded and generally bad, you will receive a good education outside of Oxbridge (say the top 15?), which I believe is more than enough.

    EDIT: And by the way, there are quite a few other universities which are older than Oxbridge.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kedstar99)
    You are correct, Imperial does not have professors spoon feeding you, that does not mean the education is any worse. In fact, I feel that you gain a better more independent approach to learning that way. If you have an issue, you have plenty of opportunities to discuss with professors or pHD students.
    "Spoon feeding"? Obviously you don't know how tutorials work. It's not like colleges where teachers prepare everything for you. Quite the opposite I'd say.

    You will be independent no matter where you go. Don't forget that at Oxbridge you're expected to work a minimum of 40-45 hours a week individually (varies per subject of course), which inevitably means you'll be doing a lot of stuff on your own.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    "Spoon feeding"? Obviously you don't know how tutorials work. It's not like colleges where teachers prepare everything for you. Quite the opposite I'd say.

    You will be independent no matter where you go. Don't forget that at Oxbridge you're expected to work a minimum of 40-45 hours a week individually (varies per subject of course), which inevitably means you'll be doing a lot of stuff on your own.
    Although, Imperial has 3 extra weeks normally to make up for that "40-45" hour work week, which allows us to spend more time learning the material. Do you honestly thing Imperial students spend any less time working?

    Also, perhaps "spoon feeding" is too strong a term, although speaking to my sister and parents, they don't feel i'm missing out, especially considering the practical nature for many of the subjects offered.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kedstar99)
    Although, Imperial has 3 extra weeks normally to make up for that "40-45" hour work week, which allows us to spend more time learning the material. Do you honestly thing Imperial students spend any less time working?

    Also, perhaps "spoon feeding" is too strong a term, although speaking to my sister and parents, they don't feel i'm missing out, especially considering the practical nature for many of the subjects offered.
    Although I don't know from personal experience, I'd say Imperial is just as demanding when it comes to work (even more so than the rest of the prestigious universities such as LSE, UCL, Durham etc).

    Do bear in mind though that, since terms at Oxbridge are so short, and you're expected to write essays ever so often for the tutorials, the work can be very intense, more so than any other university.

    It does depend on the individual though; some may consider short, very intense, terms to be much more difficult while others would say that longer, perhaps a bit less intense from a week to week viewpoint, but still as intense overall to be more difficult. I cannot really comment on that when it comes to others.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kedstar99)
    Imperial and UCL do have famous alumni and nobel laureates. It isn't their fault that they were not founded 700-800 years ago. As far as I am concerned, at this point in time and for the last 2-3 years (and I assume the next 4), you will get a similarly good education at UCL and Imperial. Not to mention, if you look up the number of nobel laureates which were part of the University of London, they would easily beat/match Oxbridge.
    It actually is their own fault they weren't founded earlier. There is no such thing as sympathy points for universities. Besides Nobels only started being awarded in the early 1900s.

    You can't use the UoL when you want them and throw them away when you don't. UoL is like the university of california, it doesn't really mean anything. Berkeley is as much a different university from Riverside as UCL is from QMUL or Birkbeck.

    To be honest, it just looks like you are grasping at straws here. We can talk when people are turning down Oxbridge offers for UCL and Imperial in large numbers.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.