The Student Room Group

Difference between Oxford English / Cambridge English

Does anyone have an idea what the differences are in the English degrees offered at Oxbridge? I've tried looking at the wesbites, but I'm not finding the differences easy to spot (although I am assured they exist!)

One thing I have been told is that Ox concentrate on literary theory, whilst Cam goes in for structure (although I can't say that makes it any clearer to me!).

Any advance on this?! :confused: :cool:
To a certain extent, I think you're right.

I think one of the main differences is in the degree of choice - at Oxford, you get some choice of papers from the off and can begin to specialise in second year. For most Cambridge students, there is only really one paper in the first two years that you have a say about - and for most this is just between doing a foreign language literature or English Language work. Theoretically, there is a bit more choice over papers but it is generally rather restrictive and few people go outside the "standard" papers. This ties in with the general attitude at Cambridge which seems to be that in the first two years you just read everything to give you a solid grounding. Even in Part II, in third year, you can only choose two out of four options. That said, one of the obligatory papers, Tragedy, is absolutely legendary - basically studies the idea of tragedy from ancient Greece to the current day. There's also a lot of focus on language at Cambridge, and if you do a foreign language then some very interesting options open up.

At Oxford I think the focus is a bit more towards literary theory, in that you spend a year learning how to read literature before setting off. I can't speak with much authority on their course, obviously, but it seems to be somewhat less traditional than the Cambridge course in terms of post-colonial and contemporary literature - though perhaps this is just their website trying to give that impression, since until a few years ago they were famous for being VERY trad, with obligatory Old English and little lit theory. It is true, however, that apart from foreign language literature, at Cambridge you can't study any authors from outside the British isles until third year (though helpfully Eliot, James etc. are allowed!)

Personally, I chose the Cambridge course because it forces you to look at everything before you specialise. Before I started I thought I had quite set ideas about where I wanted to go, but after a term I'm now not so sure. I also think that more interesting specialist options can perhaps be opened up after spending a long time looking at everything with both breadth and depth, but that's highly questionable.

This said, I think the courses are most notable in their differences with most English courses, rather than with each other. Neither is particularly trendy, it's very difficult to avoid entire eras in both, and both are fairly traditional - though certainly not backwards - compared to the norm.

Hope this helps somewhat, sorry if the language is skewed but I've just finished two hours of Middle English translation!
Reply 2
no idea what the difference is, because i only do english at oxford. and, if i'm honest, i'm not 100% sure what i'll be studying, anyway, because i am only in the first year hehe. buuut the oxford course does seem to give you a lot of personal freedom in terms of what you study. this year i am doing literary theory (which i don't think the entire course is based on, because you can drop it at the end of the first year), anglo saxon literature, twentieth century literature and, at the end of the year, another module which i haven't chosen yet. as far as i can see, in the schools (the last two years) you basically study books from the whole span of english literature, by choosing to study certain modules. moreover, within those modules you often get the choice of which individual authors you study (for example, in twentieth century literature we get a list of about 30 authors, two of which are compulsory, and then choose four more to study). i don't know if that makes any more sense to you, basically i think it's just a course with lots of options.
Magicalsausage: you are completely and utterly misguided, with regards to the Oxford English course.

Marcus-B: Since I never even looked at the Cambridge course I cant tell you anything about it, but let me tell you about the Oxford English course.

YR 1

*The amount of freedom you get in this course depends entirely upon your college: some choose exactly which 4 papers of the 5 you will do, others let you decide*

> Paper 1: Literary theory paper (compulsory for everyone)
> Victorian era
> Modern era
> Old/Middle English (you must do Old or Middle)
> Literary Criticism
> Special author

You will be tested in four of these by exam at the end of the first year.

YR2&3 (Course I, which most people do. If you are weird and obsessed with old/middle English you can do Course II which is a bit different since it doesnt cover literature beyond 1100s)

*There is very little freedom in YR2...in fact, none at all, since all of these are compulsory modules*

> The 1100-1509 era
> The 1509-1642 era (but not Shakespeare, he gets his own unit)
> The 1642-1740 era
> The 1740-1832 era
> Shakespeare

There are then three courseworks: a special author; a special topic; and history and use of the english language. In these courseworks there is far more freedom since there is a huge range of topics and authors to choose to study, and these courseworks are done in the 3rd year.

I have to say that I really enjoy the structure of the course: apart from the courseworks (in which you can do American/foreign authors) you are restricted to English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh authors (although they make some allowances e.g. Sylvia Plath/Henry James) but the chronological aspect is really beneficial, gives you a wide variety of literature to read and study. Even from the pre-prescribed eras you must study, which authors you choose to study within that era is entirely upto you.

Hope that answers any questions. If there's something that is unclear or you want to know more about feel free to PM me.
ProzacNation
Magicalsausage: you are completely and utterly misguided, with regards to the Oxford English course.


It appears so! In my defence, I was basing my judgment of the Oxford course on the faculty website which does seem to be presenting the course as having a great deal more choice than it really does!

That said, I still think the Oxford course has more specialisation, if not free specialisation - we have no special authors or short period (like your Victorian) papers until third year. There is also no obligation to have a special author at any point - most of the Part II papers are of a broader scale, though certainly narrower than Part I.
magicalsausage
It appears so! In my defence, I was basing my judgment of the Oxford course on the faculty website which does seem to be presenting the course as having a great deal more choice than it really does!

That said, I still think the Oxford course has more specialisation, if not free specialisation - we have no special authors or short period (like your Victorian) papers until third year. There is also no obligation to have a special author at any point - most of the Part II papers are of a broader scale, though certainly narrower than Part I.


Ah, fair enough.

I have to say that I knew very little about the course itself when applying, because the website isnt particularly helpful and until you're actually doing the course, its difficult to comprehend it. Sorry for getting a bit defensive! :redface:
Reply 6
I love the aspect of the Cambridge course that lets you combine your studies with a foreign language. And if you have a rich college, they can give you lots of one-on-one foreign language supervisions :smile:
Reply 7
And if you don't have a foreign language A-Level / and particular desire to study foreign languages, is this counted against an applicant?

I kinda want to study English... which is why I'm applying for an English degree :wink:
Reply 8
Not counted against you, but some colleges say that an ancient or modern foreign language would be well-regarded...If you don't have one, you do linguistics stuff i.e. stuff still in English :wink:

Does anyone know if anyone has taken up ancient Greek as part of their English degree at Camb?
Reply 9
There is also the difference that Cambridge will consider creative writing, whether it be fiction/poetry or some essays on a subject of your choice, as part of your degree. It's optional and can't actually affect your degree negatively :smile: Not sure how many students actually opt to do this, but it is certainly not offered on the Oxford course.
Reply 10
I'm also toying with the idea of which to apply to. I think I will probably settle on Cambridge because I like the idea you can read loads and loads and you can really get to grips with Literary terminology and Practical Crit. That said, I equally like the general Literary theory which Oxford offer, and the option to do a special author/topic- but I think that's specialising too early. Also, at Cambridge you don't have exams untill your second year!
Bryllyg
There is also the difference that Cambridge will consider creative writing, whether it be fiction/poetry or some essays on a subject of your choice, as part of your degree. It's optional and can't actually affect your degree negatively :smile: Not sure how many students actually opt to do this, but it is certainly not offered on the Oxford course.


I wouldn't use this as any swaying factor, to be honest. Any creative writing would occupy such a tiny, tiny part of your degree that it is truly insignificant compared to the greater difference in course between the two universities. Plus, I've heard that they mark it fiendishly.
rich_
I'm also toying with the idea of which to apply to. I think I will probably settle on Cambridge because I like the idea you can read loads and loads and you can really get to grips with Literary terminology and Practical Crit. That said, I equally like the general Literary theory which Oxford offer, and the option to do a special author/topic- but I think that's specialising too early. Also, at Cambridge you don't have exams untill your second year!


If you go to Cambridge this does not mean that you will not learn about recent developments in literary theory or read any of it. Since you read criticism when writing essays you'll end up being exposed to various schools anyway, and the 'Function of Criticism' topic in Part I, Paper 6 ('Literary Criticism') covers it so that you could end up writing an exam essay explicitly on the development of structuralism or whatever. There's also a paper in Part II called 'History and Theory of Literary Criticism' which would allow you to explore this topic even further at the expense of more interesting areas of study. You'll probably cover the same material as Oxford undergrads do, but the organisation of teaching and the points emphasised in exams will differ. Likewise, I can't see how Oxford wouldn't teach any Prac Crit.

At Cambridge you effectively do a 'special author / topic' as a 5,000 word disstertation in Part I, and another, longer dissertation in Part II.

Also, you also will have Prelims at Cambridge at the end of your first year: they don't count towards the degree, but you'll be expected to work for them. As far as I know, only Queens' students are exempt from these (because of the DoS).

On the whole, I think the core course at each Uni covers pretty much the same ground: I'm studying something on all of the Oxford papers listed earlier in this thread, and I imagine an Oxford undergrad can go through the Cambridge course and say something similar. The Tragedy paper is the only compulsory thing that seems to lack an equivalent.

I feel I should point out that, whilst both Cambridge and Oxford period papers look like a massive amount of literature, you'll study 6-8 topics/authors for each. You will not get to know this topic or author extensively from 1-2 weeks' study, nor will you acquire an exhuastive knowledge of a period. You'll get an excellent overview of literature, but the canon is so large that you cannot cover it all in three years. Bear this in mind before thinking that you'll get to do anything truly 'in depth'.

From my experience of the Cambridge course, and what little I know of the Oxford one, there are ultimately two differences: novels, and foreign languages.

Novels: At Cambridge, there are four period papers, the 'modern' one being called '1830 - Present' (or it might be 1810). This is because when the Tripos was set up in the 1920s, '1830 - Present' wasn't quite so absurdly big. Oxford has, sensibly, divided the paper into more-manageable 'Victorian' and 'Modern', which I imagine most people take. So, at Cambridge, if you do this paper as an exam you'll end up covering roughly half the amount the Oxford students do of this period. Also, when you do an exam in something, this effectively means that you'll have to answer three questions (there are variations upon this theme). Hence, you choose 3-4 topics to learn so you can be sure you'll not be forced to answer a question you find impossible. I get the impression that most people do a dissertation in place of this paper, narrowing its scope considerably, and hence studying only one or two writers from the period. Even if you do take the exam, what you do will be restricted - and you have to account for the poetry too ('In Memoriam' and 'The Waste Land' are both set texts). Not many novels.

Of course, novels do feature on the Long 18th paper, which more people sit as an exam, and you can (if you wish) write on Sterne, Defoe, Fielding, Richardson, Austen et al. But, for most people, the only novels they study in their first two years will be a few from the 18th Century and a few more from the 19th/20th. I get the impression Oxford students will do more of them. And you can always read novels in your own time.

There is, though, a Part II paper called 'The Novel', which has possibly the stupidest scope (and reading list) imaginable: you have to do both pre-1830 and later novels, and can do anything from Apuleius to Ian McEwan. Language is no barrier, hence this beast of a paper allows you do to Proust, Tolstoy, Mann - anyone who wrote novels. In fact, you're encouraged to read in a foreign language if you have it. Obviously it's impossible to cover even a fraction of the material available, but if you want to look at any particular novels, foreign authors, and - above all - the idea and development of the novel as a form, you can do so for this paper. You also have to spend a long time reading. Novels will fall into the 'Post-1979' Part II paper too. You can make up for what you miss in Part I if you choose these optional papers. There's also a paper on Moral Philosophy that lets you do pretty much any philosopher you like in translation, providing you study their works on ethics.

This leads to the second (and much more marked) difference: Foreign Languages. You can forget about this entirely if it doesn't interest you, as you can avoid the relevant papers. It's not compulsory, so it won't be an issue at interview if you don't have a language. However, if you are interested in doing foreign literature - or comparative lit as on 'The Novel' and 'Tragedy' - you will have the opportunity. As far as I can tell, you can't do this at Oxford unless you apply for a Joint Honours degree which I assume will substantially alter the way you do your English.

The optional 'European Literature' paper in Part I allows you to pick a language (surprisingly, Spanish isn't on it) and study a large amount of poetry, as well as two short-ish set texts. Teaching will vary between colleges, but you're not going to get language tuition in the same way MML students are. Whilst you can do Italian 'ab initio', and I presume there is grammar/reading teaching offered for this, you're not advised to attempt taking up any completely new languages. Some people hold supervisions in the language, if you want some oral practice, but it's probably not the best method to prepare for what is a literary paper. Still, you get the chance to study a considerable amount of foreign literature, and can use this as a means to improve your language skills . You'll need some in order to tackle the translations (from the set texts - the wimpish Faculty board dropped the unseens a few years back), as well as a working knowledge of versification in the language to do a Prac Crit type essay.

Part I also offers the Early Medieval paper, which has a translation component like the normal Medieval one; but, you can translate from Middle English, Latin or Old French. The most interesting things from this period are all in Anglo-Norman anyway, so you're effectively doing a foreign paper - though they encourage the comparative element between texts in the three languages. Obviously you can use translations (since the wimpish Faculty board &c &c...)

In Part II, you can borrow a paper from the French or ASNAC tripos - though I don't think you can do any other modern language. I might be wrong. I think the Faculty has chosen to show favour towards French (it's the only language you can quote from in essays without offering translation) arbitrarily, as a gesture of it's openness to other literatures that, were it carried further, would lead to chaos. Maybe.

After such knowledge, what forgiveness?

Well: you can probably choose options on the Cambridge course that allow you to do the same stuff as on the Oxford course, but at Cambridge you have the choice of being a little less parochial. If you're more interested in studying Literature than English Literature - as I am - then Cambridge is the better course. If what you like is just English, there's probably little beyond the Tragedy paper to choose between the two, and you'd be better basing a decision on the atmosphere you experience at Open Days. I get the impression that student politics is far more lively at Oxford, and that science students who haven't heard of Victor Hugo will probably be less rife there. I also think that Oxford is a nicer town than Cambridge. My application to the latter was ultimately decided by the fact that I wanted to study French literature but didn't have a French A-level, so couldn't apply for Joint Honours anywhere.

I do hope someone gives a one-line reply to this whilst quoting it in its entirety.
Reply 13
Da Bachtopus
If you go to Cambridge this does not mean that you will not learn about recent developments in literary theory or read any of it. Since you read criticism when writing essays you'll end up being exposed to various schools anyway, and the 'Function of Criticism' topic in Part I, Paper 6 ('Literary Criticism') covers it so that you could end up writing an exam essay explicitly on the development of structuralism or whatever. There's also a paper in Part II called 'History and Theory of Literary Criticism' which would allow you to explore this topic even further at the expense of more interesting areas of study. You'll probably cover the same material as Oxford undergrads do, but the organisation of teaching and the points emphasised in exams will differ. Likewise, I can't see how Oxford wouldn't teach any Prac Crit.

At Cambridge you effectively do a 'special author / topic' as a 5,000 word disstertation in Part I, and another, longer dissertation in Part II.

Also, you also will have Prelims at Cambridge at the end of your first year: they don't count towards the degree, but you'll be expected to work for them. As far as I know, only Queens' students are exempt from these (because of the DoS).

On the whole, I think the core course at each Uni covers pretty much the same ground: I'm studying something on all of the Oxford papers listed earlier in this thread, and I imagine an Oxford undergrad can go through the Cambridge course and say something similar. The Tragedy paper is the only compulsory thing that seems to lack an equivalent.

I feel I should point out that, whilst both Cambridge and Oxford period papers look like a massive amount of literature, you'll study 6-8 topics/authors for each. You will not get to know this topic or author extensively from 1-2 weeks' study, nor will you acquire an exhuastive knowledge of a period. You'll get an excellent overview of literature, but the canon is so large that you cannot cover it all in three years. Bear this in mind before thinking that you'll get to do anything truly 'in depth'.

From my experience of the Cambridge course, and what little I know of the Oxford one, there are ultimately two differences: novels, and foreign languages.

Novels: At Cambridge, there are four period papers, the 'modern' one being called '1830 - Present' (or it might be 1810). This is because when the Tripos was set up in the 1920s, '1830 - Present' wasn't quite so absurdly big. Oxford has, sensibly, divided the paper into more-manageable 'Victorian' and 'Modern', which I imagine most people take. So, at Cambridge, if you do this paper as an exam you'll end up covering roughly half the amount the Oxford students do of this period. Also, when you do an exam in something, this effectively means that you'll have to answer three questions (there are variations upon this theme). Hence, you choose 3-4 topics to learn so you can be sure you'll not be forced to answer a question you find impossible. I get the impression that most people do a dissertation in place of this paper, narrowing its scope considerably, and hence studying only one or two writers from the period. Even if you do take the exam, what you do will be restricted - and you have to account for the poetry too ('In Memoriam' and 'The Waste Land' are both set texts). Not many novels.

Of course, novels do feature on the Long 18th paper, which more people sit as an exam, and you can (if you wish) write on Sterne, Defoe, Fielding, Richardson, Austen et al. But, for most people, the only novels they study in their first two years will be a few from the 18th Century and a few more from the 19th/20th. I get the impression Oxford students will do more of them. And you can always read novels in your own time.

There is, though, a Part II paper called 'The Novel', which has possibly the stupidest scope (and reading list) imaginable: you have to do both pre-1830 and later novels, and can do anything from Apuleius to Ian McEwan. Language is no barrier, hence this beast of a paper allows you do to Proust, Tolstoy, Mann - anyone who wrote novels. In fact, you're encouraged to read in a foreign language if you have it. Obviously it's impossible to cover even a fraction of the material available, but if you want to look at any particular novels, foreign authors, and - above all - the idea and development of the novel as a form, you can do so for this paper. You also have to spend a long time reading. Novels will fall into the 'Post-1979' Part II paper too. You can make up for what you miss in Part I if you choose these optional papers. There's also a paper on Moral Philosophy that lets you do pretty much any philosopher you like in translation, providing you study their works on ethics.

This leads to the second (and much more marked) difference: Foreign Languages. You can forget about this entirely if it doesn't interest you, as you can avoid the relevant papers. It's not compulsory, so it won't be an issue at interview if you don't have a language. However, if you are interested in doing foreign literature - or comparative lit as on 'The Novel' and 'Tragedy' - you will have the opportunity. As far as I can tell, you can't do this at Oxford unless you apply for a Joint Honours degree which I assume will substantially alter the way you do your English.

The optional 'European Literature' paper in Part I allows you to pick a language (surprisingly, Spanish isn't on it) and study a large amount of poetry, as well as two short-ish set texts. Teaching will vary between colleges, but you're not going to get language tuition in the same way MML students are. Whilst you can do Italian 'ab initio', and I presume there is grammar/reading teaching offered for this, you're not advised to attempt taking up any completely new languages. Some people hold supervisions in the language, if you want some oral practice, but it's probably not the best method to prepare for what is a literary paper. Still, you get the chance to study a considerable amount of foreign literature, and can use this as a means to improve your language skills . You'll need some in order to tackle the translations (from the set texts - the wimpish Faculty board dropped the unseens a few years back), as well as a working knowledge of versification in the language to do a Prac Crit type essay.

Part I also offers the Early Medieval paper, which has a translation component like the normal Medieval one; but, you can translate from Middle English, Latin or Old French. The most interesting things from this period are all in Anglo-Norman anyway, so you're effectively doing a foreign paper - though they encourage the comparative element between texts in the three languages. Obviously you can use translations (since the wimpish Faculty board &c &c...)

In Part II, you can borrow a paper from the French or ASNAC tripos - though I don't think you can do any other modern language. I might be wrong. I think the Faculty has chosen to show favour towards French (it's the only language you can quote from in essays without offering translation) arbitrarily, as a gesture of it's openness to other literatures that, were it carried further, would lead to chaos. Maybe.

After such knowledge, what forgiveness?

Well: you can probably choose options on the Cambridge course that allow you to do the same stuff as on the Oxford course, but at Cambridge you have the choice of being a little less parochial. If you're more interested in studying Literature than English Literature - as I am - then Cambridge is the better course. If what you like is just English, there's probably little beyond the Tragedy paper to choose between the two, and you'd be better basing a decision on the atmosphere you experience at Open Days. I get the impression that student politics is far more lively at Oxford, and that science students who haven't heard of Victor Hugo will probably be less rife there. I also think that Oxford is a nicer town than Cambridge. My application to the latter was ultimately decided by the fact that I wanted to study French literature but didn't have a French A-level, so couldn't apply for Joint Honours anywhere.

I do hope someone gives a one-line reply to this whilst quoting it in its entirety.


Very helpful, thank you! :smile:
Reply 14
Yes, to quote the comic shop guy: Best Description EVER!
Reply 15
ProzacNation


Marcus-B: Since I never even looked at the Cambridge course I cant tell you anything about it, but let me tell you about the Oxford English course.

YR 1

*The amount of freedom you get in this course depends entirely upon your college: some choose exactly which 4 papers of the 5 you will do, others let you decide*

> Paper 1: Literary theory paper (compulsory for everyone)
> Victorian era
> Modern era
> Old/Middle English (you must do Old or Middle)
> Literary Criticism
> Special author

You will be tested in four of these by exam at the end of the first year.



I'm doing English at Oxford and wasn't aware that I'd be tested on Literary Criticism?! I'm pretty sure it doesn't have a paper to itself :confused:

This year I'm studying:
Paper 1: Introduction to literary studies
Paper 2a: Victorian Literature
Paper 3a: Old English
Paper 4: Modern lit

Paper 4 was the only one we had a choice on. We could have chosen to study one of a few authors, literary theory, introduction to linguistics, middle english dream poetry.. some others I can't remember.
Rose64
I'm doing English at Oxford and wasn't aware that I'd be tested on Literary Criticism?! I'm pretty sure it doesn't have a paper to itself :confused:

This year I'm studying:
Paper 1: Introduction to literary studies
Paper 2a: Victorian Literature
Paper 3a: Old English
Paper 4: Modern lit

Paper 4 was the only one we had a choice on. We could have chosen to study one of a few authors, literary theory, introduction to linguistics, middle english dream poetry.. some others I can't remember.


Hmm, maybe the lit crit paper is the lit theory one you chose not to do. You won't be tested on it if you haven't chosen it. You're doing the same units I did last year (and we didn't have any choice in the matter). V few people do the lit theory one and usually its because they have a fellow specialising in it at their college. If you have any particular qs about any of the units feel free to PM me.
Reply 17
ProzacNation
Hmm, maybe the lit crit paper is the lit theory one you chose not to do. You won't be tested on it if you haven't chosen it. You're doing the same units I did last year (and we didn't have any choice in the matter). V few people do the lit theory one and usually its because they have a fellow specialising in it at their college. If you have any particular qs about any of the units feel free to PM me.


There is some literary theory and criticism in the Intro to lit studies paper (paper 1), I think that's the one that used to be Text, Context and Intertext? Thanks for the offer, will definitely be taking you up on that come revision time!
Reply 18
Narcissus
I love the aspect of the Cambridge course that lets you combine your studies with a foreign language. And if you have a rich college, they can give you lots of one-on-one foreign language supervisions :smile:


hmm, tell me more about this rich college malarky. name names! x