Why did YOU choose Oxford or Cambridge over the other?

I chose Oxford for history:
5 Oxford is older and hence more historical

I don't know whether you're being facetious, but Cambridge has been around since roughly 1209! True, younger it's than Oxford; perhaps the latter was just a trial?

Very few people know the name of the 2nd man to step on the moon; if our institutions and we are still around in a million years Oxford will still be the oldest university in the English-speaking world. Oxford feels more medieval having had 7 saints and 1 pope; Cambridge has a less historical feel and tends to be associated with modern post-enlightenment science. Even your history department looks modern. Cambridge is our younger sibling. You shouldn’t take this the wrong way, I am doing my masters at the LSE and have no problem with modernity, but if you are going for history you should seek out the oldest and the causes.

The university at Cambridge is younger, but the settlement is far far older. Oxford dates back to the 8th century AD, Cambridge to the 1st century BC.

What has the existence of a pre-Roman settlement in the area got to do with the university? If we use this measure then we should ignore both universities and all go to Bristol which had settlements back in the paleolithic era or Durham which has a history of settlement going back to roughly 2000 BC.

My post was a little tongue in cheek. I think your whole argument with regard to the importance of age is ridiculous. With two institutions as old as Oxford and Cambridge, the difference in age amounts essentially to nothing. Bearing in mind there is really only a bunch of colleges and a city, it makes more sense to compare these than the abstract concept of a university. Did you make a point of going to the oldest Oxford college, or did you accept that old is old and beyond that it's a pointless distinction?

I think that the distinction between being 1st and being 2nd is meaningful; it is that simple.

From what I've heard Cambridge also has a stronger history department...

I think, in this context, that is *not* a good way of choosing your university.

That is very much open to dispute; Cambridge is only better at Asian history, population history and economic history - but LSE is even better than both on economic history, and the top American colleges are better than both of us at Asian history. European and British history is what the British do best, and it is done best at Oxford.

That is very much open to dispute; Cambridge is only better at Asian history, population history and economic history - but LSE is even better than both on economic history, and the top American colleges are better than both of us at Asian history. European and British history is what the British do best, and it is done best at Oxford.

I think that the distinction between being 1st and being 2nd is meaningful; it is that simple.

What evidence do you have to support that? I'm just interested.

It is meaningful if it is something important. e.g. 1st in reputation, or being the 1st choice of the best students. Like I said, Cambridge uni has just as much history as Oxford uni, and the town has even more history (not that I think it's important, but you seem to think the history of a place makes such a difference... and this is as relevant as saints having studied at Oxford). The difference really is inconsequential except for bragging rights.

you're right that cambridge economic history is dominated by the population survey, i can't imagine anything else so dull.

i was quite surprised at a consulting assessment day once when in a group exercise we were trying to assess the impact of population growth and everybody was like well here's it's 1%, that's practically zero and I was suddenly able to quote all these findings where an increase of a fraction of a percent led to mass change.

Mainly off the record word of mouth from Oxford, Cambridge and LSE academics really. But if you look at the faculty of the three places you will get a similar picture. E A Wrigley (who did all his degrees at Cambridge and has spent most of his career there, although he has also been a senior research fellow at All Souls, Oxford and a professor at the LSE in the past) is the godfather of demographic economic history. Cambridge is very much into population, though my former professor who was head of the economic history dept at the LSE and who sadly died recently - Larry Epstein - was dubious about the story of population and economic growth being told at Cambridge.

In the past we had many separated Economic History depts around the country, but now the one at LSE is a survivor, I think if you look at the concentration of top economic historians in the department - Patrick O’Brien for example, its difficult to argue that Oxbridge can rival them. They are also ahead of the curve at LSE on looking at global history, Schumpeterian growth, technology and institutions.

Unsurprising, seeing as it is after all the London School of Economics, which with the macro focus, ideas about technology and institutions- all of which are linked to economics- is attracting top-bench economic historians.

But, using the same logic that lets you argue that LSE is better than Cambridge because it is good at economics, you could also argue that SOAS is better at African history?

I do agree with you about EM European history; Rublack, for example, gives the department great kudos.

I've heard it said, however, that Cambridge excels at traditional constitutional history; after all, it's got a great history in this 'Great History' (please pardon that rather cheesy line!). Overall it does seem that the Faculty is rather staid and old-fashioned in the types of history it prefers; Undergrads and Postgrads are limited in their research specialisations to the interests of the Faculty members, ergo change can't really happen.

Anyway, I'd say the whole argument is somewhat specious; Cambridge is indubitably "well regarded" for some areas of history, and overall is well regarded also; but "the best" is rather a subjective and meaningless term.

The problem for talking about population is that it’s very Eurocentric, China has had a massive population for a long time and it does not fit the pattern of expected consequences that the Cambridge school would expect. I think the problem is that the Cambridge people just seem to assume there is a direct and sufficient causal link although they have never proved that it is anything more than a necessary precondition. I used to think demography was very dull and wondered how Wrigley could have spent his whole career on it, but I found his book Poverty, Progress and Population really fascinating - the resource capitalism argument is quite good, the problem is that the monocausal explanations which so many top academics love are essentially reductionist. Even within an economic framework you have to account for technology and institutions, and beyond that I think cosmologies and geography are highly important in explaining long duree economic trajectories.