Da BachtopusIf 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.