PPE or PPS?

I'm afraid it doesn't apply to the other subjects you mention, science has nothing to do with it. There is nothing vaguely deep or abstract about SPS and having sat in supervisions for the subject, I can honestly say that the level of intellect on display is at the low end, the kind of questions asked by SPS students would shame a five year old and the essays I have seen written by many of the students, which I borrowed to see what was required before I decided to take the paper, gave no indication of any kind of sophistication and were stuffed with childish slogans and what might be termed "linear chains". The essays did not require any kind of expertise, could have been written by a layperson with no association with the subject and gave no indication of any sort of long-term consolidation of advanced concepts - an average GCSE student could do the job. Having seen the material produced by those doing other arts subjects, I can honestly say they are miles ahead.

SPS students are most often seen in the bar, have a workload that is well below that of other students at Cambridge and are notorious for being wasters - nobody takes them seriously.

In fact, the course was so bad that in the 90s a load of SPS students slagged off the course in Varsity, saying how it was even less demanding than A Levels. No wonder they had to rebrand it as PPS.

Go into a lecture hall and look at the disproportionate numbers of inner-city oiks on special access schemes on the course, in fact just go and ask them what type of school they went to and they'll tell you, not that you should need to ask given their appearance.

It's a frigging joke and it's not just the opinion of economists, it's the opinion of virtually everybody at Cambridge whatever their subject.

My advice (I am the Christ Church PPE rejectee ) which may be a factor in your choice to choose PPE over PPS is how comfortable you are in mathematics. I would argue that the ability to think mathematically is seen as a pre-requisite for PPE (performance in TSA, economics problems and elementary logic in philosohpy, etc.) whereas for PPS (as far as I'm aware) this is not the case. If you are not comfortable with maths my advice is to go for PPS.

PPE: You do the three subjects, 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3.
PPS: You have to do two or three of those subjects in your first year, after that you specialise in the one you like.

Plus, PPS is done at Cambridge. So, PPS any time of the day.

1) Those who switch to SPS for the final year (e.g. medics), and who effectively do the Part II in one year, aren't restricted by their choice of papers. The paper I sat appeared to include a majority of SPSians and you have no idea just how far away you are from the rest of the Cambridge pack when it comes to the technical demands of your subject. Your papers have a huge choice, the questions are almost the same every year, the reading lists consist of (joke) low-grade references and the essays that I saw, including from those who supposedly gained firsts (I can't see how you can get anything less), were essentially childish stories written by the exceptionally naive and exhibited nowhere near the quality and depth of those in other arts subjects. You don't need any prior training in Sociology/Politics and your claim is just a facile attempt to cover up just what kind of low-grade intellect does this pitiful subject and your diatribe illustrates this - you make a series of dubious assumptions about who would do what kind of paper and then insult your own peers in the process, failing to note that the percentages gaining the various classes do not vary a great deal between SPS papers. I took 8 supervisions and that was 8 more than I needed - the SPS students were asking questions for which the answers should have been obvious in kindergarten.

2) You can lie about your workload, and you are lying to the nth degree, not only about the number of essays in comparison to other subjects, the amount of effort you had to put in etc...but what you fail to mention are the technical demands of the subject, which many would put in the bargain basement category.

3) You then exhibit the classic hallmark of the intellectual lightweight - the discrimination/prejudice card. You make a childish claim, like most of your ilk, and then assume that I am the same age as you - I finished my Cambridge degree in the 90s, have a Phd, and have worked for a number leading employers in London. You then make a series of laughably naive assumptions about my 'corporate agenda' (and that of others) in the process, throwing around typically wet notions of "value" systems without any evidence to back up your claims - I've noticed that sociologists do suffer from the need to make up the opinions of others or invent theories without any basis, thinking that they have provided some kind of insight into a particular topic that nobody else has ever thought of - it's usually nothing insightful at all. Let me guess, you are attending the University of Life, you don't care what happens around you because you think that by smoking a joint, dressing like a hippie, going on about the poor in society and spouting your facile nonsense might actually change things ? Tell me, why did you go to Cambridge if you didn't want to be a conformist with a decent job ?

4) You then go on about original/creative clothes, most would regard it as late-onset puberty - just what point are you trying to prove by standing out in a crowd, are you attention seeking ? Since when did a gender balance equate to entry on merit ? You should know that there are three times as many men as women with an IQ above 130 (the Oxbridge top 2%) - I bet that would get me a third in the mother of all non-subjects, Gender. Since when did the proportion of ethnic minorities/international students imply anything about the quality of the course or the intelligence of those doing it ? Since when is a "social" environment of any consequence to anyone except a sociologist who has too much time on his/her hands and who does nothing else but spend their life socialising (banging townies) at 5th Avenue ? I daresay you don't ask how many are from disadvantaged backgrounds or on special access schemes as the answer is obvious - most of them.

5) I'd take a History graduate over an SPS/PPSian every time; when recruiting graduates from Cambridge I chuck all those with an SPS/PPS degree in the reject pile now - it's frightening the frequency with which those graduates leave any given graduate scheme they somehow manage to get onto, they just can't handle it. I'd rather be a tweed-wearing toffy historian with a brain and a bank balance of note than an SPS/PPS graduate without either. Nobody has anything bad to say about any degree at Cambridge other than SPS, why is that ?

Try again.

On the face of it you may think so and I wouldn't blame you - I only bother with threads that relate to Oxbridge. A few like-minded souls decided that after the Laura Spence debacle it was about time Oxbridge graduates did something to fight back and save the reputation of the two universities from the populist Oxbridge bashing that one sees so often, with particular reference to the nonsense issue of elitism and degree classifications wherever there exists a forum on such topics online. These are dark times for Oxbridge and unless they come out fighting, we'll go from having two out-and-out world class institutions to having none - if the truth be told, we have little else to brag about abroad now.

There are, however, a number of people aged 30+ on TSR.

.

I'm afraid it doesn't apply to the other subjects you mention, science has nothing to do with it. There is nothing vaguely deep or abstract about SPS and having sat in supervisions for the subject, I can honestly say that the level of intellect on display is at the low end, the kind of questions asked by SPS students would shame a five year old and the essays I have seen written by many of the students, which I borrowed to see what was required before I decided to take the paper, gave no indication of any kind of sophistication and were stuffed with childish slogans and what might be termed "linear chains". The essays did not require any kind of expertise, could have been written by a layperson with no association with the subject and gave no indication of any sort of long-term consolidation of advanced concepts - an average GCSE student could do the job. Having seen the material produced by those doing other arts subjects, I can honestly say they are miles ahead.

SPS students are most often seen in the bar, have a workload that is well below that of other students at Cambridge and are notorious for being wasters - nobody takes them seriously. In fact, the course was so bad that in the 90s a load of SPS students slagged off the course in Varsity, saying how it was even less demanding than A Levels. No wonder they had to rebrand it as PPS.

Go into a lecture hall and look at the disproportionate numbers of inner-city oiks on special access schemes on the course, in fact just go and ask them what type of school they went to and they'll tell you, not that you should need to ask given their appearance.

It's a frigging joke and it's not just the opinion of economists, it's the opinion of virtually everybody at Cambridge whatever their subject.

Try again.

Yes, after great and serious thought, I have decided that PPS is indeed a weak choice. PPE at Oxford and International Relations @ LSE/St Andrews are far better choices for someone seriously considering a degree of both practical use and prestige in the field of politics.

x

Not according to these statistics from a HESCU report on 2009 graduates.

There is higher employment amongst graduates of sociology than amongst graduates of the following: biology, chemistry, environmental science, physics, computer science, maths, architecture, engineering, economics, geography, law, politics, psychology, English, history, languages and performing arts. The only graduates with employment rates higher than sociology are media studies, marketing, business, accountancy, art and sports science.

Looking also at unemployment, there is more unemployment amongst graduates of biology, physics, computer science, maths, architecture, engineering, economics, politics, art, media, accountancy and marketing than amongst graduates of sociology. (N.B. Those continuing with study are not counted as unemployed.)

Stop spreading your false and snobbish ideas.

I did not argue that sociology is a 'superior' degree and I make no general comment on the worth of any degree subject. My post was simply a response to Bubblyjubbly's claim that "employment rates for the subject [sociology] are poor and deservedly so". This was indicated by the fact that I quoted these words at the start of my post.

Yes, perhaps what you're saying could be correct but until we find some sort of evidence, or you carry out your own sociological study to find out, it will just be speculation based on your preconceived ideas about sociology graduates. I don't deny that what you say is a possibility, indeed I would say it could be the explanation.

Edit: Funnily enough, a very similar percentage of English, biology, history, law and sociology graduates go into retail, catering, waiting and bar staff jobs ('McDonald's jobs') according to the HESCU stats. So much for law graduates being prepared to take 'only the best' jobs. As you will no doubt point out there are of course problems with this. These stats don't tell us what jobs these graduates were in after another 6 months and another 6 months etc. but it is the best we have until we have another study.

reckon it's easier to get into pps then?

You'd be perfectly fine. I'm the only PPSer at my college that did A-Level Maths! (If you want piece of mind, I took: Maths, FM, Economics, History and Law.)

PPS (SPS as it once was) is the biggest joke of a degree in Oxbridge history and many, including academics and past students, regard it as being populated by thick students from 'disadvantaged groups' in order to boost their numbers and should not be regarded as a tripos subject. The workload is a joke, the level of technical skill required is an insult to an Oxbridge degree and is below A Level standard - you barely get to a correlation coefficient let alone anything more. In my final year, I did one of the most popular SPS papers for Part II - being an economics undergraduate we did the SPS papers in one year (like medics who did it for Part II) as opposed to two and even then it was joke, even the academics (including one A. Giddens) were thick. The tragedy is that most PPS undergraduates fail to realise how far off the pace most of them are in relation to their peers and the trendy academics who prop them up are no better.

Sociology is a useless subject, employment rates for the subject are poor and deservedly so. In answer to the question, do PPE unless you want to have three years off and possibly the rest of your life off.

PPS (SPS as it once was) is the biggest joke of a degree in Oxbridge history and many, including academics and past students, regard it as being populated by thick students from 'disadvantaged groups' in order to boost their numbers and should not be regarded as a tripos subject. The workload is a joke, the level of technical skill required is an insult to an Oxbridge degree and is below A Level standard - you barely get to a correlation coefficient let alone anything more. In my final year, I did one of the most popular SPS papers for Part II - being an economics undergraduate we did the SPS papers in one year (like medics who did it for Part II) as opposed to two and even then it was joke, even the academics (including one A. Giddens) were thick. The tragedy is that most PPS undergraduates fail to realise how far off the pace most of them are in relation to their peers and the trendy academics who prop them up are no better.

Sociology is a useless subject, employment rates for the subject are poor and deservedly so. In answer to the question, do PPE unless you want to have three years off and possibly the rest of your life off.