Is CHURCHILL COLLEGE good? Watch

This discussion is closed.
ladyvice
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#21
Report 14 years ago
#21
(Original post by happypad)
Our library is open 24 hours too. Though we don't have showers! The accomodation at Christs is supposed to be poor.

Paddy
Well, I only know a couple of people at that college, but the typewriter block still gives me nightmares It is RANK. I think that they have some l,.ovely rooms/sets, but when one friend came quite low in the ballot, I could not believe how shite his room was...at least at Robinson no room is sub-standard, no matter how low down in the ballot you are!
0
Radagasty
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#22
Report 14 years ago
#22
(Original post by ladyvice)
In my experience it is pretty arbitrary. I mean, there are of course the colleges that have done well in the Tompkins table, and people do recognise that. Then of course different colleges have different specialisims, or subjects in which they often perform extremely well at. Then there are the colleges which survive on their age/reputation. I guess it's all about what matters to you; your own criteria. For example, a Socialist Workers Party member would probably LOVE to be at Kings, and for threm and in theoir social circles this would be about as prestigious as it could get! A Pitt Club memebr would probably want to be at Peterhouse, Magdalene, Trinity etc, regardless of the fact that the first isn't academically prestigious. It's generally accepted that Christs' is mental, but then that's because it has showers outside the library and it opens 24 hours, and students are not allowed televisions.....I guess bottom line is it's all about what kind of person you are.
Hmm... so what you're saying is that the relative prestige of a college depends on the person. Isn't this then a measure of the desirability of the college for a given person, then, rather than the prestige of the college itself? I've always thought of prestige as a global property, i.e., the esteem of society at large, rather than that of an individual person.
0
ladyvice
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#23
Report 14 years ago
#23
(Original post by Radagasty)
Hmm... so what you're saying is that the relative prestige of a college depends on the person. Isn't this then a measure of the desirability of the college for a given person, then, rather than the prestige of the college itself? I've always thought of prestige as a global property, i.e., the esteem of society at large, rather than that of an individual person.
well, it's not so much individual, as in within a group. for example, a community project i worked on were impressed by my friend being at kings, whereas a bank might be more impressed with peterhouse...does that make any sense? sorry if not... :rolleyes:
0
Helenia
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#24
Report 14 years ago
#24
(Original post by winorloose)
Any strange reputations/specialisims associated with Queens'?
Apart from obvious puns on the name, not really. They are meant to have pretty good ents though, although I've never been to one.

(Original post by Radagasty)
Isn't this then a measure of the desirability of the college for a given person, then, rather than the prestige of the college itself?
Well, I suppose so, partly. But prestige is such a subjective quality that it would be impossible to create a categorical list of which college is most prestigious. Besides, the reputation among the student body can be different from its reputation outside - I mean, academically Christ's is the most prestigious, but a lot of people wouldn't want to be there. Similarly places like John's and Trinity are old, famous, beautiful etc, but again people would rather not go there, despite the "prestige."

Why are you so interested in all this?
0
KHL
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#25
Report 14 years ago
#25
my brother was from queens', and from his personal experience, queens' was more of a "party" college than some others...

the people at queens' during his time played quite hard, and worked... okay. they got decent grades (2:1s, 2:2s, some firsts), but never really shone - too much partying? too little work? supervisors? one will never know. apparently every night there was some sort of party going on somewhere in queens', aside from the massive ents, of course. if you're a very social creature, it might get hard to say no to these...

from my personal viewpoint, this whole thing about college culture generally works. why? firstly, the applicants - those that choose colleges, choose colleges that they like, and so birds of a feather flock together. secondly, the interviewers - those they accept, they like, and i assume they do have a certain set of criteria they look for which is different from college to college. therefore, in the end, each college gets its own subtly distinctive subculture, which is for future applicants to try and figure out from their research.

as for open applications, they are either selected for through interviews, and "mismatched" applicants redistributed via the pool, or maybe they just enter a random college and are moulded by the environment?
0
happypad
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#26
Report 14 years ago
#26
We don't have a ballot system for rooms at Churchill!

Most of the rooms are similar in quality and you choose them according to affordability. I've got quite a nice room. Only share with 3 other people on my staircase so next best thing to en suite and I overlook the entire college!

Paddy
0
Radagasty
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#27
Report 14 years ago
#27
(Original post by ladyvice)
well, it's not so much individual, as in within a group. for example, a community project i worked on were impressed by my friend being at kings, whereas a bank might be more impressed with peterhouse...does that make any sense? sorry if not... :rolleyes:
What you say definitely makes sense, though I am not sure if what you describe is actually 'prestige'.

I have perhaps expressing myself badly. I've always considered 'prestige' (I'm not sure if others here agree) to be something more intangible. To take your example, that a community project would be more impressed with King's doesn't necessarily make it 'prestigious', per se, only that graduates from there are more desirable, or better, in according to some set of criteria. However, 'prestige' itself is more global, and the bank and community project should have the same idea of a college's relative prestige, even though they might consider them differently in terms of desirability.

For example, take the example of economics at LSE and Oxbridge. (I'm simply using this as an example, so please don't take me to task if what I say is not completely accurate.) LSE may have a better reputation for economics, investment banks may view their graduates as more technically proficient in their field, but the Oxbridge degree in economics is nevertheless more 'prestigious'. Likewise with Imperial and engineering. Thus, I'm drawing a distinction between reputation and prestige, in that the former is more concrete and can be measured more objectively than the latter, (though 'reputation' is by definition subjective as well).

I don't know if I'm splitting hairs here, but I feel that perhaps the perceptions of prestige should not vary so drastically from group to group, though I am prepared to accept that there will be some variation.
0
Helenia
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#28
Report 14 years ago
#28
Well really, unless someone actually went to Cambridge, they're unlikely to know that much about the colleges. They'll probably have heard of Trinity, King's and maybe a couple of others, but I'd bet half the employers in the world would go "Clare? What the hell's that? That's not at Cambridge!" whereas those that know realise that it's a decent place (even if they didn't go there ) So prestige is very hard to measure. I think they'd be impressed enough by the fact that it's Cambridge and that unless you went to their old college (Old Boys' Network and all that rah stuff) the college isn't likely to sway them.

I'm still not clear on exactly what you mean by prestige.
0
Alaric
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#29
Report 14 years ago
#29
(Original post by Helenia)
They'll probably have heard of Trinity, King's and maybe a couple of others, but I'd bet half the employers in the world would go "Clare? What the hell's that? That's not at Cambridge!" whereas those that know realise that it's a decent place (even if they didn't go there )
Sadly it's worse than that, the half that has heard of it will call it "the small one next to kings"... although it really isn't that small :rolleyes:

A.
0
Helenia
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#30
Report 14 years ago
#30
(Original post by Alaric)
Sadly it's worse than that, the half that has heard of it will call it "the small one next to kings"... although it really isn't that small :rolleyes:

A.
No, but Old Court is. I think in terms of numbers of students we're about the same as King's, if not bigger. Just because ours is more spread out...
0
Radagasty
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#31
Report 14 years ago
#31
(Original post by Helenia)
Well, I suppose so, partly. But prestige is such a subjective quality that it would be impossible to create a categorical list of which college is most prestigious. Besides, the reputation among the student body can be different from its reputation outside - I mean, academically Christ's is the most prestigious, but a lot of people wouldn't want to be there. Similarly places like John's and Trinity are old, famous, beautiful etc, but again people would rather not go there, despite the "prestige."
Hmm... I suppose the last word in the above quote is the 'prestige' I'm talking about. Some sort of across-the-board perception of an institution that may not reflect actual desirability. To give another example, Oxbridge is undeniably 'prestigious', the most prestigious universities in the UK, but, at the same time, certain people might rather not go there, perhaps because their chosen course has a better reputation elsewhere (e.g., economics at LSE) or perhaps because they feel intimidated by Oxbridge. Yet Oxbridge would be no less prestigious to these people, even though they may not want to go there themselves. I suppose this is what I mean by prestige... held in high esteem even by those who may want something else for themselves.

(Original post by Helenia)
Why are you so interested in all this?
I suppose it's sort of a pet interest of mine. I've always been interested in higher education, and my studies of mediaeval history led me to focus particularly on education (for instance, I did a final paper on the Carolingian renaissance) and one of the things that struck me was the effect of prestige on various institutions and the perpetuation of their prestige.

Anyway... I hadn't realised that individual Oxbridge colleges themselves were accorded different levels of prestige relative to each other, and I just trying to determine if there is a generally accepted ranking (it doesn't have to be an exact ranking, in that the colleges have to be strictly numbered from 1 to 30, but, can be a vaguer sort of ranking) of the colleges.
0
Helenia
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#32
Report 14 years ago
#32
(Original post by Radagasty)
Anyway... I hadn't realised that individual Oxbridge colleges themselves were accorded different levels of prestige relative to each other, and I just trying to determine if there is a generally accepted ranking (it doesn't have to be an exact ranking, in that the colleges have to be strictly numbered from 1 to 30, but, can be a vaguer sort of ranking) of the colleges.
Well, within the student body, it depends to be based on reputation rather than prestige, if you can separate the two. Outside, as I've said - the big famous ones are probably more prestigious among those that don't know, but Cambridge in itself is enough, I should think.
0
Radagasty
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#33
Report 14 years ago
#33
(Original post by Helenia)
Well, within the student body, it depends to be based on reputation rather than prestige, if you can separate the two. Outside, as I've said - the big famous ones are probably more prestigious among those that don't know, but Cambridge in itself is enough, I should think.
True enough, true enough... I wonder if there really is prestige attached to the colleges themselves, if this is the case. I really am interested to find out if there is a consensus on a general ordering of the colleges in terms of prestige. If there is no consensus, then, I think, by definition, the concept of prestige is invalid in terms of the colleges. Perhaps I shall start another thread on this.
0
Mentally Ill
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#34
Report 14 years ago
#34
(Original post by Radagasty)
True enough, true enough... I wonder if there really is prestige attached to the colleges themselves, if this is the case. I really am interested to find out if there is a consensus on a general ordering of the colleges in terms of prestige. If there is no consensus, then, I think, by definition, the concept of prestige is invalid in terms of the colleges. Perhaps I shall start another thread on this.
Graduate colleges such as St Edmunds, Darwin and Wolfson are not measured by the tompkins table.......How does one assess the prestige of one of these colleges? Or don't they have any?
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (1377)
79.5%
Leave (355)
20.5%

Watched Threads

View All