The Student Room Group

Will any university in the UK ever be comparable to Oxbridge?

In terms of reputation/prestige, etc., will any universities ever be on par with the famous Oxbridge? There seems to be such a gap between them with other top uni's such as UCL, LSE and Imperial - buy why?


Posted from TSR Mobile

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
In terms of general prestige, it would probably be very hard for other unis to challenge oxbridge- they've dominated for hundreds of years and I doubt that it will change any time soon. However it depends very much upon the course and the situation. For example, this year Warwick and LSE were both ranked above oxbridge for economics. Warwick and Imperial both have outsanding maths departments which do challenge the likes of oxbridge. Taking an international view, London based unis such as UCL, LSE, Imperial are often more recognised abroad- in the QS rankings last year UCL was above oxford.
However, at the end of the day, oxford and cambridge attract the best academics and therefore are likely to continue having the highest standards. They're also established as leading across all subject areas which many other universities are not and have the whole oxbridge hype surrounding them, so in terms of other unis becoming generally comparable to them, I think yes perhaps in specific subject areas, but they wont be dislodged from the top of the general league tables.
Reply 2
Original post by Incredimazing
In terms of reputation/prestige, etc., will any universities ever be on par with the famous Oxbridge? There seems to be such a gap between them with other top uni's such as UCL, LSE and Imperial - buy why?


Posted from TSR Mobile


There can never be anything even remotely comparable to Oxbridge in the minds of many, just as when quoting public schools, Eton / Harrow spring to mind, even though the best is one of Westminster / St. Pauls / North London Collegiate, etc.
It's not unheard of for another university to make it into the top two in the league tables. The main gap is one of name recognition, and with the possible exception of the big London ones the OP mentioned, nowhere else comes close in that regard.
I think it would be very hard for other universities to match the endowment funds and also things like the provision of tutorials across all subjects. Without those things, it's harder for other unis to match Oxbridge.

That said, there's no real need for every uni to try and compete with Oxbridge. We have a number of stellar universities in this country, and world-class departments too, as has been addressed above :yes:
Reply 5
When it comes to business, management, economics, maths and statistics, Warwick, LSE and Imperial aren't really far from Oxbridge. In the long run, maybe the prestige of these three unis will intensify and become a solid peer of Oxbridge.

When it comes to law, UCL and LSE are the next best thing to Oxbridge. For medicine, UCL, Imperial and Edinburgh are really competitive, and are best alternatives to Oxbridge.

For engineering, Imperial has almost the respect that Cambridge has.

For the humanities, I think there is still a sizable gap between Oxbridge and the nest best uni for those subject areas.
Reply 6
Original post by ILIGAN

When it comes to law, UCL and LSE are the next best thing to Oxbridge. For medicine, UCL, Imperial and Edinburgh are really competitive, and are best alternatives to Oxbridge.


They may be "really competitive" but does that mean they are the "best alternatives" to Oxbridge?
Reply 7
Original post by River85
They may be "really competitive" but does that mean they are the "best alternatives" to Oxbridge?


I'd say YES, though the list is quite short. I realize now I missed a few others such as Warwick, Durham, Bristol, Edinburgh, Nottingham and a few more.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 8
Original post by ILIGAN
I'd say say, though the list is quite short. I realize now I missed a few others such as Warwick, Durham, Bristol, Edinburgh, Nottingham and a few more.


How on earth is Durham in particular an "alternative"? It no longer runs its own medical school, with its current medical school only established in the 1990s. Newcastle, which is known for its strength in medicine, remains a more popular choice of the two.

Go into the medicine subforum and say what you've just said. You'll be shot down. Especially as the standard of medical schools is said to be very broadly comparable.

Firstly, can you even comment on the teaching style of Oxford and Cambridge's Medical Schools? Do you know if they have PBL teaching? Traditional? How theoretical or clinical are they? Without knowing this, how are you supposed to say which are the most "like" Oxford and Cambridge, or will be the best alternative for a student interested in Oxford and Cambridge's course?

I would also argue against there being a "sizeable gap" between Oxford/Cambridge and the rest in humanities. Have a look at teaching quality reports, or the RAE. Archaeology? Durham and UCL. Human Geography? LSE and Durham. Philosophy? LSE, Bristol, St Andrews, Reading..Yes, no other large multi-faculty university can offer the tutorial system Oxford and Cambridge can, and public perception is different, but this isn't unique to the humanities.

It can be argued that no multi-faculty university can match Oxford or Cambridge across all, or most, faculties. But a case can easily be made that several universities can compete with them in individual subjects.
Reply 9
Surely Edinburgh is better at medicine than Oxbridge?
Reply 10
Original post by emma2013
In terms of general prestige, it would probably be very hard for other unis to challenge oxbridge- they've dominated for hundreds of years and I doubt that it will change any time soon. However it depends very much upon the course and the situation. For example, this year Warwick and LSE were both ranked above oxbridge for economics. Warwick and Imperial both have outsanding maths departments which do challenge the likes of oxbridge. Taking an international view, London based unis such as UCL, LSE, Imperial are often more recognised abroad- in the QS rankings last year UCL was above oxford.
However, at the end of the day, oxford and cambridge attract the best academics and therefore are likely to continue having the highest standards. They're also established as leading across all subject areas which many other universities are not and have the whole oxbridge hype surrounding them, so in terms of other unis becoming generally comparable to them, I think yes perhaps in specific subject areas, but they wont be dislodged from the top of the general league tables.


Just thought I'd add a qualifier here. This doesn't really matter at all at undergraduate level. Employers still respect Cambridge (not sure about Oxford E&M) more when it comes to undergrads.The rankings are distorted by the research scores and student satisfaction, both of which are pretty irrelevant when it comes to undergrad rep. Also, the fact that Warwick is ranked above LSE is pretty telling that the list is garbage. Despite the rankings, the fact is that the best students still choose Cambridge and the fact remains (people well debate this until they turn blue because they go to other unis) that it is harder to get a first at Cambridge. The workload is a lot higher even after controlling for shorter terms also. Also, you can quote your international rankings all you like, but abroad it's still about Oxbridge. Lots of people abroad have not heard of the other institutions you mentioned.

As for Warwick and Imperial's maths departments, the same is true again. The best students go to Cambridge (and to a lesser extent Oxford for Maths) and the degree is more difficult so the employers like it the most.

To sum up, in terms of research output other universities are comparable but in terms of undergraduate reputation they are not really comparable. Since most of us are undergraduates this is what matters.
Original post by stefl14
Just thought I'd add a qualifier here. This doesn't really matter at all at undergraduate level. Employers still respect Cambridge (not sure about Oxford E&M) more when it comes to undergrads.The rankings are distorted by the research scores and student satisfaction, both of which are pretty irrelevant when it comes to undergrad rep. Also, the fact that Warwick is ranked above LSE is pretty telling that the list is garbage. Despite the rankings, the fact is that the best students still choose Cambridge and the fact remains (people well debate this until they turn blue because they go to other unis) that it is harder to get a first at Cambridge.

Having compared Cambridge past papers to those on my course, it seems slightly harder but not significantly so. I reckon someone from with a top first in another uni could easily work towards a first at Cambridge, at least in physics.

EDIT: I got a bit of flak for this so I'll clarify. The Cambridge papers are undoubtedly harder, but not in a way that would be a barrier to an excellent student from another top uni, because the difficulty of the problems is not much harder. The hardest questions are very difficult, but since they make a small proportion of the paper I doubt you have to answer many of them to get a first - the standard questions are in roughly the same range of difficulty that I've seen at Durham. The largest difference in difficulty is that you are expected to remember quite a bit more, so there is a wider range of material you have to draw upon to answer a question. However, even if you have to remember 100% more than what I do, which you don't, that is a difference between perhaps five days of learning bookwork and ten days of learning bookwork to me. So forgive me if I don't look at their papers and think "wow these poor darlings really have it tough".

I don't disagree "that it is harder to get a first at Cambridge", but I also address the claim OP makes; "There seems to be such a gap between them with other top uni's". I'm pointing out that this is more a gap in finances and resources than in concrete academic rigour. Academically there is a solid overlap.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by stefl14
Just thought I'd add a qualifier here. This doesn't really matter at all at undergraduate level. Employers still respect Cambridge (not sure about Oxford E&M) more when it comes to undergrads.The rankings are distorted by the research scores and student satisfaction, both of which are pretty irrelevant when it comes to undergrad rep. Also, the fact that Warwick is ranked above LSE is pretty telling that the list is garbage. Despite the rankings, the fact is that the best students still choose Cambridge and the fact remains (people well debate this until they turn blue because they go to other unis) that it is harder to get a first at Cambridge. The workload is a lot higher even after controlling for shorter terms also. Also, you can quote your international rankings all you like, but abroad it's still about Oxbridge. Lots of people abroad have not heard of the other institutions you mentioned.

As for Warwick and Imperial's maths departments, the same is true again. The best students go to Cambridge (and to a lesser extent Oxford for Maths) and the degree is more difficult so the employers like it the most.

To sum up, in terms of research output other universities are comparable but in terms of undergraduate reputation they are not really comparable. Since most of us are undergraduates this is what matters.


Research quality and student satisfaction are more important than you think. Cambridge would be terrible if students were taught by sub-par tutors, right? So to stay on top, they need to attract the best academics. Unis do that by producing high-quality and world-leading research. Students at those unis are then taught by the leaders in their field. If a uni's research drops in quality, tutors look to universities with better research, and the department's reputation declines. Ceteris paribus, this would lead to decreased student satisfaction rates, a lesser-quality education, and a declining view of those graduates by employers. Research DOES have an impact on undergraduate prestige, it just takes a while to feed in. The reason why LSE and Warwick are now encroaching on Oxbridge in Economics is because the research at those two places is far, far better than at Cambridge.

So because a league table doesn't correspond with your view it's garbage? You're not an employer or an academic; neither have you studied at those two institutions. Yet you're more qualified to make a judgement? Similarly, who are you to say which degree is more difficult?

Right, so students at other unis must be wrong when they debate over whether it's harder to get a first at Cambridge than other unis or whether the workload is harder because of the fact that they go to other unis and are therefore biased? Cambridge students are just as institutionally biased as other students are - but you make it seem like they have an absence of bias and are therefore correct.

Your point about Oxbridge being the only institutions people abroad have heard of is a little silly. OK, the average American on the street wouldn't have heard of any other institutions (and many are likely to only have heard of Oxford), but the people who matter when it comes to getting to a top job or academic position WILL have heard of the best UK institutions. LSE is more represented in Obama's administration than Oxford or Cambridge. If no-one's heard of LSE, then I'm assuming it's just a coincidence that so many of his advisors happen to have LSE degrees.

It seems to me you're subscribing to views of overall university prestige rather than trying to work out which department is of the highest quality. Not everyone is like you; people in the know have a far more progressive hierachy which doesn't have Oxford and Cambridge at the top for every subject. A maths tutor at Cambridge said Warwick are their biggest competitors, not Oxford. And it's becoming far more common for undergraduates to pick Warwick over Oxford for maths as people start to get out of their head the notion that Oxbridge are always top.
Reply 13
For particular subjexts there will always be other universities challenging oxbridge for teh top spot, but I think it will be a long time before any university is comparable to oxbridge in all subjects. While oxbridge aren't top for everything, they are very close to it.
Reply 14
Original post by flyingsilver
Research quality and student satisfaction are more important than you think. Cambridge would be terrible if students were taught by sub-par tutors, right? So to stay on top, they need to attract the best academics. Unis do that by producing high-quality and world-leading research. Students at those unis are then taught by the leaders in their field. If a uni's research drops in quality, tutors look to universities with better research, and the department's reputation declines. Ceteris paribus, this would lead to decreased student satisfaction rates, a lesser-quality education, and a declining view of those graduates by employers. Research DOES have an impact on undergraduate prestige, it just takes a while to feed in. The reason why LSE and Warwick are now encroaching on Oxbridge in Economics is because the research at those two places is far, far better than at Cambridge.

So because a league table doesn't correspond with your view it's garbage? You're not an employer or an academic; neither have you studied at those two institutions. Yet you're more qualified to make a judgement? Similarly, who are you to say which degree is more difficult?

Right, so students at other unis must be wrong when they debate over whether it's harder to get a first at Cambridge than other unis or whether the workload is harder because of the fact that they go to other unis and are therefore biased? Cambridge students are just as institutionally biased as other students are - but you make it seem like they have an absence of bias and are therefore correct.

Your point about Oxbridge being the only institutions people abroad have heard of is a little silly. OK, the average American on the street wouldn't have heard of any other institutions (and many are likely to only have heard of Oxford), but the people who matter when it comes to getting to a top job or academic position WILL have heard of the best UK institutions. LSE is more represented in Obama's administration than Oxford or Cambridge. If no-one's heard of LSE, then I'm assuming it's just a coincidence that so many of his advisors happen to have LSE degrees.

It seems to me you're subscribing to views of overall university prestige rather than trying to work out which department is of the highest quality. Not everyone is like you; people in the know have a far more progressive hierachy which doesn't have Oxford and Cambridge at the top for every subject. A maths tutor at Cambridge said Warwick are their biggest competitors, not Oxford. And it's becoming far more common for undergraduates to pick Warwick over Oxford for maths as people start to get out of their head the notion that Oxbridge are always top.


The first paragraph is absolute rubbish. LSE and Warwick are both ahead of Cambridge by a long way for research but that does not mean it has better teachers. At undergraduate level you don't need nobel prize winners to teach you. So yes, the achievements of academics is pretty irrelevant for undergraduates. In fact, arguably my best supervisor for first year at Cambridge is a Ph.D student and I ended up getting one of the best grades in the year for his subject. One of the poorer supervisors was the most distinguished academics and she has now moved to UCL, which has better research than Cambridge but now they've got another bad teacher! At a top institution all tutors have enough knowledge to teach you the stuff - it's how good they are at teaching that matters. LSE and Warwick (and other places too) have been better than Cambridge in economics research for a long long time, but the fact remains that the better students go to Cambridge. You can deny it all you want but the quality of LSE and Warwick students is lowered by the fact that most (not all) of their best offer holders go to Cambridge. You also mention that the best researchers teach undergraduates which is just a load of rubbish in many cases. Rarely if ever will you get a nobel laureate teaching undergraduates and it doesn't matter if they do because it doesn't mean they will be able to explain the required concepts better than less celebrated academics.

The reason I say Cambridge is harder is simple: they have a higher quality intake (often quite substantially) yet get more grades below 2.1 and similar or less firsts (less than LSE for example) despite having a workload that is significantly higher and more support via supervisions etc.

Also you are right that Warwick > Oxford for maths in terms of research. But I'd still rather go to Oxford as you'll get much better teaching and supervisions, thus learning more. The fact is that the calibre of students at Oxbridge is and remains to be higher than for other institutions in most subjects. The workload is higher, the papers are often harder and the entry standards are higher. You can argue until you're blue in the face about the calibre of students but the entry standards for undergraduates are pretty telling (and regardless of what you say A level results (particularly UMS) correlate well with degree classification).

If you want to argue that the calibre of economics students at LSE, for example, compares to those at Cambridge you're having a laugh. At my school there were 8 people who applied to both LSE and Cambridge for economics - all of them got LSE offers and made them whereas I was the only one to get an offer from Cambridge. If you've got 10A*s and 4A*s predicted and a good PS (which could be plagiarised) and reference, you'll get an LSE offer. The same is definitely not true for Cambridge.
(edited 10 years ago)
I wonder how much different the top ones are, I mean, the subjects must be pretty much the same and how much better can the quality of teaching be really? I reckon oxbridge just gets considered to be so elite because people keep on repeating it is.
Reply 16
Original post by Unkempt_One
Having compared Cambridge past papers to those on my course, it seems slightly harder but not significantly so. I reckon someone from with a top first in another uni could easily work towards a first at Cambridge, at least in physics.


Of course they could. It would be silly to suggest that only Cambridge students could get firsts at Cambridge. Also, when I say it's harder I'm referring not only to the actual difficulty of the paper but also marking standards. Cambridge marking is typically very stringent. In first year economics, 74-75% can get you first in the year out of 170 of the top students in the country whereas I know someone at Exeter (which is good for economics) who was a good but not outstanding student at A level (who didn't get close to my grades or yours) who didn't work ridiculously hard. He got 81% in his first year. This sort of percentage is absolutely unheard of in economics at Cambridge in first year. From what he says, this student didn't have to work any where near as hard as me either.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 17
Original post by SnoochToTheBooch
I wonder how much different the top ones are, I mean, the subjects must be pretty much the same and how much better can the quality of teaching be really? I reckon oxbridge just gets considered to be so elite because people keep on repeating it is.


Let me put it this way, the lectures here for economics are nothing special and I don't bother going most of the time. I'd imagine the same is true at many other placed (I've heard LSE has terrible lectures). The supervisions help me learn so much and nothing is really comparable to how fast you learn in them. This just isn't available at other universities. The quality of teaching is also not the only thing that matters. Oxbridge students are worked much harder even when controlling for term length. There are papers showing this and the difference is quite staggering even over other top institutions like LSE and imperial. The exams are harder and the marking is more stringent (academics at my college who have worked at other top places have said this). We are also expected to work much harder over holidays than other students (I'm comparing with school friends at top institutions).
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by stefl14
Of course they could. It would be silly to suggest that only Cambridge students could get firsts at Cambridge. Also, when I say it's harder I'm referring not only to the actual difficulty of the paper but also marking standards. Cambridge marking is typically very stringent. In first year economics, 74-75% can get you first in the year out of whereas I know someone at Exeter (which is good for economics) who was a good but not a special student at A level (much worse than myself) who didn't work ridiculously hard. He got 81% in his first year. This sort of percentage is absolutely unheard of in economics at Cambridge in first year. From what he says, this student didn't have to work any where near as hard as me either.

I'm aware they apply different marking standards to essays but I was talking about physics exams.
It depends what exactly you're comparing. I've studied at both Cambridge and Nottingham and they're simply very different.

Prestige in many senses is going to be very difficult to beat but also very subjective. Everything about Oxford and Cambridge screams of tradition and heritage. You only need to walk round the grounds and colleges, look at some of the activities, and listen to a lot of the terminology and traditions that still exist.

I would say that reputation is different though. There are lots of universities that hold strong reputations both in and out of the country. There's no point listing them, because there's dozens that when a lot of people hear the name, they go, "Ah, that's a good university."

Then there's specialist areas. Loughborough is the best at competitive sport, there are only 8 universities which teach veterinary sciences, and then some people like the type/time of builds e.g. redbrick institutions.

In terms of research quality and output, we'll see later next year when REF outcomes are published, but lots of international league tables make a good attempt at measuring the research reputation of institutions as well as their individual schools/departments/faculties. There are lots of instances where UK universities are ranked higher than Oxbridge in both domestic and international league tables, which are perhaps given more time of day than is needed.

Of course, if you take student satisfaction, NSS results show the Open University is the best by far.

If you want to compare students' unions, Oxbridge do things so much in colleges that their SUs are totally different to other universities', and as such students rate them lower down. Sheffield and Leeds came out on top last year.

Universities are so diverse and unique that it's very difficult to come up with an overall reputation/prestige measure imo.

Quick Reply

Latest