Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by manchild007)
    Its not really time I think - take the top American universities, they were formed much later than Oxford and Cambridge, yet they are head and shoulders above/better than Oxbridge.

    It may be down to money however, as combined Oxford and Cambridge barely have an endowment of $2billion, whereas Harvard alone has an endowment of $27-37billion. The same goes for the other top universities in the US.
    They aren't better than Cambridge or Oxford.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by honoris)
    They aren't better than Cambridge or Oxford.
    Yes they are - putting subjective opinions aside, we only have league tables for example to settle this. Harvard for example >>>> Oxford and Cambridge.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJKL)
    I know, I went there. However given the individual autonomy of the individual Oxford colleges, they might argue at similar time they had more than one University.

    Not that I can see. Charters and Bulls established Kings and Marischal as truly separate institutions of university status. Oxford's establishment wasn't that clear and I don't think any of the individual colleges have been formally recognised as independent institutions of university status at any time.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by manchild007)
    Yes they are - putting subjective opinions aside, we only have league tables for example to settle this. Harvard for example >>>> Oxford and Cambridge.
    I can live with Harvard (maybe also Princeton and Yale) being better than Oxbridge but to say ALL Ivies are better is ridiculous. Brown (no offense, it is a great school!) better than Oxbridge?

    I don't think league tables are the be all end all. UC Berk ranks very highly on most; would you say it is superior to schools like Columbia? League tables may be useful for reference but they are not a perfect indicator. Nothing is.

    I would say Oxbridge's tutorial/supervision system is what makes them truly stand out, especially for undergraduate teaching. It is very rare that all classes are taught by professors at the undergrad level, and in such a small group for any university, even Harvard.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mishieru07)
    I can live with Harvard (maybe also Princeton and Yale) being better than Oxbridge but to say ALL Ivies are better is ridiculous. Brown (no offense, it is a great school!) better than Oxbridge?
    By Ivy, whilst incorporating 8/9 other universities in its technical definition, its most often used to describe HYP - so thats the term I meant, but I apologise for not making that clear.

    I agree with you that HYP >>> Oxbridge.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by honoris)
    They aren't better than Cambridge or Oxford.

    (Original post by manchild007)
    Yes they are - putting subjective opinions aside, we only have league tables for example to settle this. Harvard for example >>>> Oxford and Cambridge.
    Come on, this is a tad childish. I'd hardly say that Harvard >>>>>>> Oxbridge. Let's be honest, they're all much of a muchness. They're all great institutions, and I'm sure many of the students at Harvard could've got into Oxford/Cambridge and vice versa. Personally, if I had the choice, I'd pick Oxford or Cambridge because I wouldn't want to move to America. That's all it can boil down to in the end, where you actually want to study, and most British people would rather study in the UK and Americans in America. To try and say that one of Oxford/Cambridge/Harvard are much better than each other is insane. Also, the grass is always greener
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheSownRose)
    Oxford was founded in the 11th century (evidence of teaching as far back as 1096), and Cambridge in 1209 by a group of scholars unhappy with Oxford. They then exist in isolation in England until Durham, in 1832.
    Technically, the University of Northampton existed in between, but i'm willing to overlook 4 years of inaccuracy
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidmarsh01)
    and most British people would rather study in the UK
    The massive amount of money you need to get into Harvard may influence us Brits as well, i'd wager. Apparently, the first thing they check when you apply is whether you can afford it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidmarsh01)
    .....
    I always find this juxtaposition moronic - b/c Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Oxbridge are all great universities, they are all the same. No; they're not. Oxbridge may be excellent and all, but Harvard, Yale and Princeton are better, period. One can argue subjectively, but there is no point in that, so objectively considering, HYP >>> Oxbridge. This difference may be small in your eyes and huge in other peoples eyes, but to just go from HYP > Oxbridge to HYP=Oxbridge, is just ridiculous (apologies for the symbols, I'm currently on my phone whilst typing).

    As for students applying to Oxbridge can get into HYP - I highly doubt that. I'm not saying no student admitted to Oxbridge could not get into HYP, as thats just false, some could. But the US admissions process is different (for the better in my view), whereby you have to consider the EC's of an individual. At Oxbridge therefore, as long as you have the grades and perform well at interview (something which can be couched quite easily), you're set. Whereas at the likes of HYP, in addition to having the grades, you need to excel in your EC's - some do this by having published scientific work or journals, others are olympic level athletes in their fields, others world champions in their respective academic fields. My point being this, I think it is foolish to say those who get into Oxbridge could get into HYP when the system is so different; HYP requires a lot more from students in addition to just grades (because otherwise, they could fill classes 10x over with the amount of people who already have perfect grades and SAT scores).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheSownRose)
    Oxford was founded in the 11th century (evidence of teaching as far back as 1096), and Cambridge in 1209 by a group of scholars unhappy with Oxford. They then exist in isolation in England until Durham, in 1832.

    They had 600, 700 years alone to establish themselves as the universities in England, to attract sole attention and funding, to educate all of the brightest minds.

    Would they have been as good if they hadn't had this time? Is that why we haven't really had any Oxbridge-quality universities since - because they came too rapidly in succession?

    Or is there another reason why they're considered to be so good?
    sorry out of topic how did you make a thread
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by manchild007)
    But the US admissions process is different (for the better in my view), whereby you have to consider the EC's of an individual. At Oxbridge therefore, as long as you have the grades and perform well at interview (something which can be couched quite easily), you're set. Whereas at the likes of HYP, in addition to having the grades, you need to excel in your EC's - some do this by having published scientific work or journals, others are olympic level athletes in their fields, others world champions in their respective academic fields. My point being this, I think it is foolish to say those who get into Oxbridge could get into HYP when the system is so different; HYP requires a lot more from students in addition to just grades (because otherwise, they could fill classes 10x over with the amount of people who already have perfect grades and SAT scores.
    I think which admissions process you judge to be better depends on what you think a university should target in their prospective candidates. Should a university be interested solely in their academic potential (ie Oxbridge) or how "well-rounded" a student is? (ie US schools in general). Both have their pros and cons.

    In my case, I actually like Oxbridge's approach. (And we cherry-pick ECs for the Personal Statement. ECs are especially important for medics so you surely need some). Sure, all-roundedness is important but my main focus is still academics. What do ECs like sports and music have to do with my academic potential anyway? (Not that I don't have ECs - I do have a very decent list!) Are my essay writing skills (bar those with awful grammar and bad vocabulary) an accurate reflection of my academic potential?

    Have you been to an Oxbridge interview? If you haven't, how would you know it can be "couched quite easily"? I've been there, done that and I honestly feel it is a b****. No amount of formal training would have helped much, you simply cannot train for it (at least for my subject). Maybe this is generalization, but the seniors who got into Oxbridge tend to have impressive CVs too. Perhaps less amazing than the folks at HYPMS, but still very good nonetheless.

    Actually, if Oxbridge took in every suitably-qualified and deserving candidate, they'd be 10x oversubscribed too. Have a look at some of the excellent candidates who get turned away every year. This is why selection tests, written work samples and interviews play a huge role in selecting good candidates who are most suited to Oxbridge. They're the equivalent to the CommonApp in that sense. ITA that both selection schemes are VERY different, so that means a student who gets into HYP may not be admitted to Oxbridge and vice versa. I doubt Oxbridge cares whether you're an Olympic-class athlete - their sole interest is in taking the best and academically most able candidates.

    Some of my seniors abandoned HYP/ Wharton Huntsman to study at Oxbridge, mostly because they feel that the tutorial/supervision system allows for greater depth since you get more time and attention from profs and in a smaller group. Put in the same situation, I'd probably do the same too - better undergraduate teaching IMO. Clearly, we are all nuts.

    Internationally, HYP and Oxbridge are all renowned institutions (which tend to be regarded as on par, at least in my country) so I honestly don't think a student will be shortchanged giving up either. It really boils down to personal preference (Lib Arts or focusing on your chosen subject(s)? and structural circumstances (eg the choice of subjects available, future employment issues, cost of living). In the long run, it's how you make the most out of your opportunities at Uni that is going to matter.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mishieru07)
    ......
    You have a number of things wrong in your post;

    1. For the likes of HYP, top academic grades are a standard. They NEED to differentiate between applicants then based on their EC's AND interviews - as LIKE I SAID BEFORE, they could fill their incoming classes 100x over with students with perfect academic grades and academic EC's etc. I find this leads to a much more diverse student body, as where else in the world would you be able to have dinner and be sat next to one of the best regarded young poets in the world, an olympic level rower who took part in the 2008 Beijing Olympics and say the creator of something like Facebook? No where frankly.

    2. I have indeed had an Oxford interview for E&M this year and being couched certainly helped - I was told in advance for example, that I would be tested on some sort of Game Theory question and was given soem previous questions which had been asked in interviews on this topic (one of which then later came up in my Economics interview). I was also then told how to answer questions whereby you are given a management study case, which you have to read and then answer questions on in the interview - it certainly helped going through various examples beforehand, and knowing exactly what boxes to tick.

    3. I doubt the validity of your "some of my seniors abandoned HYP/ Wharton Huntsman to study at Oxbridge" - either they're complete morons, or you're lying here. I can speak for HYP on a personal note; they all have tutorials systems, they may be under different name (Harvard for example calls them sectionals), but its a known part of the teaching. So its a pretty moronic reason to leave one university for another based on this principle wouldn't you say :rolleyes:

    4. As for which has better undergraduate reaching, I have deliberately avoided this as topic as no one has had an undergraduate degree from both universities to fairly compare, and nor are there any objective data to say which is better in terms of teaching. So its pretty stupid to say 'IMO', as its just that - YOUR opinion, the opinion of ONE person. I could say the same thing about HYP :rolleyes:

    5. I'm sorry, but HYP on an international scale are MUCH more renowned than Oxbridge on the whole - I am someone who has had a quite tumultuous childhood and have lived in over 6 countries since the age of 2, ranging from Singapore, India, Dubai, NZ and England. I can quite categorically say that HYP are more aspirational/epitomised for students than say Oxbridge in these countries, just as easily as you can say for your ONE country.


    Conclusion;

    Read posts and research basic facts before you post such inaccurate nonsense. HYP >>> Oxbridge, unless you find me any objective date which says so otherwise (as thus far everything agrees with the aforementioned statement).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by manchild007)
    You have a number of things wrong in your post;

    1. For the likes of HYP, top academic grades are a standard. They NEED to differentiate between applicants then based on their EC's AND interviews - as LIKE I SAID BEFORE, they could fill their incoming classes 100x over with students with perfect academic grades and academic EC's etc. I find this leads to a much more diverse student body, as where else in the world would you be able to have dinner and be sat next to one of the best regarded young poets in the world, an olympic level rower who took part in the 2008 Beijing Olympics and say the creator of something like Facebook? No where frankly.

    2. I have indeed had an Oxford interview for E&M this year and being couched certainly helped - I was told in advance for example, that I would be tested on some sort of Game Theory question and was given soem previous questions which had been asked in interviews on this topic (one of which then later came up in my Economics interview). I was also then told how to answer questions whereby you are given a management study case, which you have to read and then answer questions on in the interview - it certainly helped going through various examples beforehand, and knowing exactly what boxes to tick.

    3. I doubt the validity of your "some of my seniors abandoned HYP/ Wharton Huntsman to study at Oxbridge" - either they're complete morons, or you're lying here. I can speak for HYP on a personal note; they all have tutorials systems, they may be under different name (Harvard for example calls them sectionals), but its a known part of the teaching. So its a pretty moronic reason to leave one university for another based on this principle wouldn't you say :rolleyes:

    4. As for which has better undergraduate reaching, I have deliberately avoided this as topic as no one has had an undergraduate degree from both universities to fairly compare, and nor are there any objective data to say which is better in terms of teaching. So its pretty stupid to say 'IMO', as its just that - YOUR opinion, the opinion of ONE person. I could say the same thing about HYP :rolleyes:

    5. I'm sorry, but HYP on an international scale are MUCH more renowned than Oxbridge on the whole - I am someone who has had a quite tumultuous childhood and have lived in over 6 countries since the age of 2, ranging from Singapore, India, Dubai, NZ and England. I can quite categorically say that HYP are more aspirational/epitomised for students than say Oxbridge in these countries, just as easily as you can say for your ONE country.


    Conclusion;

    Read posts and research basic facts before you post such inaccurate nonsense. HYP >>> Oxbridge, unless you find me any objective date which says so otherwise (as thus far everything agrees with the aforementioned statement).
    The university systems are dramatically different, and it doesn't particularly do either justice to compare them--you aren't comparing like with like to compare Oxbridge's specialised undergrad programmes with HYP's broader undergrad degrees. I don't really want to get dragged into this, but two questions come to mind. First, are sectionals taught by academics, or by postgrads? Second, how many students are in an average sectional?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jjarvis)
    The university systems are dramatically different, and it doesn't particularly do either justice to compare them--you aren't comparing like with like to compare Oxbridge's specialised undergrad programmes with HYP's broader undergrad degrees. I don't really want to get dragged into this, but two questions come to mind. First, are sectionals taught by academics, or by postgrads? Second, how many students are in an average sectional?
    1). Sectionals are given by academics - it is only the remedial classes (beginner mathematics class, beginner economics class etc), that are given by fellows (those who are a step below gaining tenure/professorship). This is b/c these remedial classes are basic in nature and sometimes can often have a high enrollment count - thus its more efficient to have fellows run the sectionals, as there are more of them and b/c the content is basic, you'll learn as much as you would with a professor.

    From my experience of a sit-in tutorial I was witness too (i.e. you follow a student in your proposed subject around for a normal day) at Oxford during one of their outreach events etc, it wasn't a very established professor giving the tutorial nor was it very intellectually riveting (it was just repeating to the professor what you had learnt and being questioned on a few things, nothing too major). Of course, I'm sure there are bad tutorials/sectionals on both sides of the pond, but my point is, you cannot say that tutorials at Oxbridge (or sectionals at Harvard for that matter) are universally better than the other just b/c you are more familiar with one over the other. Both must be evaluated in context and using as varied/relavent criteria as possible.

    2). Average sectional size is between 2-7 students (which I prefer as it often leads to much more engaging discussions on the topics being learnt and oddly gives you perhaps less room to hide than even smaller tutorials, as there are a lot more opinions in the room so you have to be confident in what your saying, not to mention your professor is likely the guy who developed some major foundation in the topic you are discussing and it was his works you had to read in preperation), with the remedial sectionals being typically 7-12 students in size.

    More importantly, put it like this, at Oxbridge my tutorial for say something like economics would be given by a middle-of-the-range professor on average, not someone at the actual forefront of the academic field (i.e. leading the field). So at Oxbridge I would only discuss the macroeconomics concepts written in the 'Introduction to Macroeconomics' textbook (used by virtually all economic students around the world) in a tutorial. At Harvard however, I'll be in a sectional with the guy who wrote the damned thing himself; Gregory Mankiw. Moreover, the reach and prestige of Harvard/Y/P is unparalleled - you have guest seminars for example, where the likes of Ben Benanke, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner etc, all come down to teach a small selected class (of about 10-20 students) once/twice a week/biweekly. Would you get such high-profile and prominent figures (people who are currently shaping the subject you are studying) coming down to teach on a regular basis at the likes of Oxbridge - even from the Bank of England/Treasury, let alone the likes of the Fed etc.

    I'm just using economics as an example as that is the subject I know most about to compare HYP to Oxbridge, but the same can be said for Politics (which has even more leading figures come down to teach) and many other subjects etc like Computer Studies (Gates teaches a class in the spring semester for example).
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by manchild007)
    You have a number of things wrong in your post;

    1. For the likes of HYP, top academic grades are a standard. They NEED to differentiate between applicants then based on their EC's AND interviews - as LIKE I SAID BEFORE, they could fill their incoming classes 100x over with students with perfect academic grades and academic EC's etc. I find this leads to a much more diverse student body, as where else in the world would you be able to have dinner and be sat next to one of the best regarded young poets in the world, an olympic level rower who took part in the 2008 Beijing Olympics and say the creator of something like Facebook? No where frankly.

    2. I have indeed had an Oxford interview for E&M this year and being couched certainly helped - I was told in advance for example, that I would be tested on some sort of Game Theory question and was given soem previous questions which had been asked in interviews on this topic (one of which then later came up in my Economics interview). I was also then told how to answer questions whereby you are given a management study case, which you have to read and then answer questions on in the interview - it certainly helped going through various examples beforehand, and knowing exactly what boxes to tick.

    3. I doubt the validity of your "some of my seniors abandoned HYP/ Wharton Huntsman to study at Oxbridge" - either they're complete morons, or you're lying here. I can speak for HYP on a personal note; they all have tutorials systems, they may be under different name (Harvard for example calls them sectionals), but its a known part of the teaching. So its a pretty moronic reason to leave one university for another based on this principle wouldn't you say :rolleyes:

    4. As for which has better undergraduate reaching, I have deliberately avoided this as topic as no one has had an undergraduate degree from both universities to fairly compare, and nor are there any objective data to say which is better in terms of teaching. So its pretty stupid to say 'IMO', as its just that - YOUR opinion, the opinion of ONE person. I could say the same thing about HYP :rolleyes:

    Conclusion;

    Read posts and research basic facts before you post such inaccurate nonsense. HYP >>> Oxbridge, unless you find me any objective date which says so otherwise (as thus far everything agrees with the aforementioned statement).
    1. Diversity is wonderful and I am all for it but is it a good indicator of how good a university is? I strongly believe anybody who can be admitted to HYP(MS) is amazingly smart (this isn't meant to be sarcastic, I mean it). That said, how do things like URM, legacies, 1st gen HE and athletics work? Do people get a pass here academically to some degree in favour of diversity or is it unfounded urban myths? (I have yet to apply to the US so I'm in no position to judge at all. Perhaps you can shed some light?)

    Just how does the US application system work? (Since that was the original point of contention; you favour the US system and I beg to differ) Does it end up valuing diversity (in the form of ECs and URMs etc) at the expense of the more academically able candidates? How do you draw the line? I honestly have no answer to that question.

    2. Good for you; my friend applied for PPE and was told that a Game Theory question would certainly come out. It didn't. I applied for Law and my interviews were based on extracts. There are just way too many scenarios to try and guess which topics are coming out and what sort of questions would be asked, which made it impossible to prepare well. Perhaps this is peculiar to certain subjects such as mine and not quite applicable to yours. Or I simply did not have access to such resources, unfortunately. Are they even supposed to be publicly available? (I don't know, maybe you can tell me!)

    3. I'm sure you would undoubtedly call him a liar and/or moron for claiming he was offered Yale and Wharton Huntsman but here's his formspring: http://www.formspring.me/arcanumzw He has answered this question previously. And I didn't know I am a liar AND a moron!

    4. I did say it is IMO! My personal experience of Oxbridge/ HYP is surprisingly the reverse of yours. The current undergrads I met at interview personally attested to the depth of the system (but maybe they were just biased/ told to paint a positive picture of the uni regardless). This was also affirmed by Oxbridge graduates. OTOH, a friend who went to Harvard MUN was advised by the undergrads there that applying for postgrad would be better, since most of the attention isn't at undergrad level. This appears to be polar opposites with your experience, so it could well be an anomaly. Either that or my friend (and/ or the undergrads) are all liars. I'd like to give them benefit of the doubt though.

    But yes, ITA that this is all very subjective. That's why it's MY opinion, not yours.

    5. You asked me for objective evidence, can I ask you for yours? I don't deny that I live in just ONE country so what I say cannot be taken as representative of the whole world. I am not familiar with international employer/ layman perception rankings (do they exist?).

    I think the only "objective" evidence we can ever find would be the ranking tables, however flawed they are. ARWU and THE ranked Yale below Oxbridge and in fact Chicago - are we in agreement the former is inferior? THES-QS ranks Princeton below Oxbridge for 6 years. The fact that schools like Stanford are not even ranked in the top 10 seriously makes one question the veracity of rankings though. I don't buy that Berkeley > Stanford. That really begs the question - is there ANY objective ranking in the world we could possibly use without degenerating into endless speculation based on purely subjective and inherently biased experiences? I don't think your view that Oxbridge < HYP is necessarily wrong, but I stand by mine (I might concede on the Harvard point, but certainly not Princeton and/or Yale). IMO, Postgrad in HYP > Postgrad in Oxbridge though.

    Unless I misunderstand you, we're not contesting whether Oxbridge are good, just HYP(MS?) vs Oxbridge. Maybe we should revive this thread instead? http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=169931

    Off-topic: Are you a current undergrad at HYP(MS) or Ivies? Or are you simply very familiar with the US system? If it's the former, I'm very curious to know what motivated you to apply for Oxford, since you clearly regard Oxbridge as inferior institutions! (Again, not being rude/ sarcastic, just genuinely interested to understand the view from the other side). If you haven't been totally offended by my idiocy, maybe we can carry on through PM, rather than clog up this thread with irrelevant posts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by manchild007)
    2. I have indeed had an Oxford interview for E&M this year

    ....

    Read posts and research basic facts before you post such inaccurate nonsense. HYP >>> Oxbridge, unless you find me any objective date which says so otherwise (as thus far everything agrees with the aforementioned statement).
    For someone not even at university your unwarranted arrogance is astounding. I would like to see the objective data to support your assertion, it is ridiculous to say that others need data to disprove your idea and in the absense of such data to claim that you are right.

    On topic, I have tutors who have taught at both Ivy league and at Oxford. General consensus seems to be that Oxbridge is better for undergraduate, but HYP is far superior at postgrad.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mishieru07)
    .......
    There are so many inaccuracies in this post, that I don't know where to begin (and I don't mean this in a snide manner!). I can see spending the next 10 minutes or so correcting your post and us going back and forth to no end; it perhaps may be best to say the old adage, "agree to disagree" at this junction

    Put simply, HYP > Oxbridge, at both undergraduate and post-graduate for me, and objectively also using league tables. As to my position, I have applied to Oxford as you know this year, but its a backup to the university choices in the US I received offers from last year when I applied (i.e. I have about 4/5 offers which I would quite easily value more than an Oxbridge, or Oxford in my case, degree).

    As to why I have applied to Oxford, its largely down to personal circumstances - I may soon be the sole carer for my mother and thus leaving the country to attend university (as I had planned to when I applied to the US) may not be an option for me anymore - should it not therefore, I have Oxford as a sort of 'back-up' here in the UK, but if this obstacle of sorts was not in the way, I would indeed not have applied to Oxbridge at all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chruchill)
    ........
    Is this not an oxymoron if there ever was one? You ask for objective data (simply search ANY worldwide league table and you'll see for yourself, at least in the case for Harvard for example), and yet state an assertion which has no basis in fact WHAT SO EVER.

    What general consensus claims to say that Oxbridge is better than HYP at undergraduate? Have you carried out an extensive survey which I do not know about? :rolleyes:

    I have experience with both systems and the consensus I saw was that HYP > Oxbridge in terms of undergraduate teaching, as well as post-graduate too. I've thus made an equally valid assertion judging by your criteria therefore.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by manchild007)
    I can see spending the next 10 minutes or so correcting your post and us going back and forth to no end; it perhaps may be best to say the old adage, "agree to disagree" at this junction

    Put simply, HYP > Oxbridge, at both undergraduate and post-graduate for me, and objectively also using league tables. As to my position, I have applied to Oxford as you know this year, but its a backup to the university choices in the US I received offers from last year when I applied (i.e. I have about 4/5 offers which I would quite easily value more than an Oxbridge, or Oxford in my case, degree).

    As to why I have applied to Oxford, its largely down to personal circumstances - I may soon be the sole carer for my mother and thus leaving the country to attend university (as I had planned to when I applied to the US) may not be an option for me anymore - should it not therefore, I have Oxford as a sort of 'back-up' here in the UK, but if this obstacle of sorts was not in the way, I would indeed not have applied to Oxbridge at all.
    I can easily see where you are coming from and I don't feel you're necessarily wrong but I still stand by my view. Agree to disagree!! (: I will say that objectively using ranking tables only would prove that Harvard is superior, but we can't say that with all certainty for Princeton and Yale. Besides, the very fact that excellent schools like Stanford don't rank very highly as opposed to the UC schools is really suspect IMO. (Unless I've overestimated Stanford?)

    I'm so sorry to hear about your situation ): ; I hope your mom's alright! Here's wishing you all the best in your future pursuits; wherever you end up!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by manchild007)
    Is this not an oxymoron if there ever was one? You ask for objective data (simply search ANY worldwide league table and you'll see for yourself, at least in the case for Harvard for example), and yet state an assertion which has no basis in fact WHAT SO EVER.

    What general consensus claims to say that Oxbridge is better than HYP at undergraduate? Have you carried out an extensive survey which I do not know about? :rolleyes:

    I have experience with both systems and the consensus I saw was that HYP > Oxbridge in terms of undergraduate teaching, as well as post-graduate too. I've thus made an equally valid assertion judging by your criteria therefore.
    Yes and you are very welcome to your opinion, based on subjective criteria as are mine. I think you some how missed the point I was making and the word you are looking for is 'contradiction' not 'oxymoron'. Enjoy going to your far superior university.

    Oh and by 'general consensus' it's pretty obvious that means amongst my tutors, the ones who have actually taught or studied at both and have far more experience than either of us.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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