Basically there is still a gap in intelligence between people from Oxbridge and universities lower down; even as good as UCL, Warwick, Bristol, etc. My question is how do they develop you intellectually once you get onto the degree, what sets it apart from the other top institutions i.e. it could be better teaching quality, harder course material, atmoshere, etc. I mean the top institutions require very similar A-level grades, so why is there still a fairly large intellectual gap between them?
Also an oxbridge degree seem much more rigorous than A-levels, how do you progress from there, it's like people on the degree haven't even reached their intellectual peak. Or is everyone actually just naturally very intelligent?
It beats me.
They make you do more essays, give you more work, and the lecturers are better in theory, and there are tutorials every week too.
harder work, and more of it. they simply push their students harder.
i also get 3 or 4 supervisions a week, which are amazing help. and you don't really get that anywhere else
Imho Oxbridge students aren't distinguishable from other top University students by their intelligence. What distinguishes them are other important characterises like being hard-working and such.
I'm actually going to agree with Simplicity here. Certainly at Warwick the people with very high marks at STEP aren't necessarily the ones who score highly at degree level. All of these entrance methods are flawed (interviews and entrance tests like STEP). I think it's possible that the extra practice people have had before they enter Cambridge allow for a more demanding course, at least initially, but I'm not sure it's fair to say that many of the students at Warwick, Manchester, Imperial e.t.c would struggle massively with Cambridge's course.