Why are oxbridge so heavily subsidised?

Watch
imsoanonymous123
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
I think Imperial College would be the clear #1 if oxbridge didnt get so much money
0
reply
Banana00
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
Okay?
2
reply
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
Oxford and Cambridge are also three times bigger than Imperial is, each, so what's your point?

In reality, under no circumstances would Imperial be a clear No 1.
2
reply
slb971
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
I have to disagree, for the following reasons:
- Oxbridge are the oldest universities in the english speaking world and therefore will always have that history, prestige and influence that you just can't get anywhere else.
- They attract the best students from all over the world, therefore generally produce the best graduates.
- Lots of notable alumni, Cambridge has more nobel prize winners than any other university and many of the recent prime ministers have been Oxford educated.

Although the gap seems to be closing, there are currently no rivals to Oxbridge in the UK.
1
reply
username2228735
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by slb971)
I have to disagree, for the following reasons:
- Oxbridge are the oldest universities in the english speaking world and therefore will always have that history, prestige and influence that you just can't get anywhere else.
- They attract the best students from all over the world, therefore generally produce the best graduates.
- Lots of notable alumni, Cambridge has more nobel prize winners than any other university and many of the recent prime ministers have been Oxford educated.

Although the gap seems to be closing, there are currently no rivals to Oxbridge in the UK.
Well put.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by imsoanonymous123)
I think Imperial College would be the clear #1 if oxbridge didnt get so much money
Oxford and Cambridge used to get extra money for students; originally for being collegiate and later for having old buildings.

They don't get any extra money for being Oxbridge now.

They compete with other universities for money for post-graduate students and they win a lot (as does Imperial) because their research is so good.

They also compete with other universities for research funding with the same result.
2
reply
caveman123
Badges: 4
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by slb971)
I have to disagree, for the following reasons:
- Oxbridge are the oldest universities in the english speaking world and therefore will always have that history, prestige and influence that you just can't get anywhere else.
- They attract the best students from all over the world, therefore generally produce the best graduates.
- Lots of notable alumni, Cambridge has more nobel prize winners than any other university and many of the recent prime ministers have been Oxford educated.

Although the gap seems to be closing, there are currently no rivals to Oxbridge in the UK.

Oxbridge are undeniably the oldest unis in the UK (but not the world) and that can never change, unless they're abolished.

With their history comes prestige.

However, every other aspect can be replicated, be it the 1-1 tutorial system, collegiate structure, funding, etc.

But the fact is it is NOT being replicated, simply because there is a deliberate ploy to keep them unique.

Take for example, why can they award their graduates an MA for only doing a first (UG) degree, when all other unis award a BA?

Don't say it's because Oxbridge degrees are harder than the rest (they may well be) but if all other unis only award a BA, that means all other unis are of the SAME standard, which is clearly false.

Their fame is largely due to the media giving them an unfair amount of publicity, as they tend to be Oxbridge grads. (Conversely, how many Imperial grads work in the media)?

How many times have you read: Oxbridge grad / student ..... , as opposed to only: Grad / student .....

Even in the latest league table of international unis (complete meaningless imo),

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...versities.html

the media still would not add Imperial in their headlines but if it was Oxbridge coming top, they would think twice.

Look at this article from the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...bs-market.html

It claims Oxford medical grads become GPs and consultants only after graduating for 6 months, which is obviously b*llocks!

Is it true only the best get into Oxbridge? Maybe the best UK students but not necessarily international students. Those that are from abroad must fulfil several criteria: they must speak english, have sufficient funds, actually want to live abroad!

Nobel prize awards are subjective anyway.

If you consider non subjective measurements, such as the international math olympiad, the winning teams tend to be from China and Korea. Which unis do those students attend?

Look at the international math competitions for uni students. Cambridge (never mind about Oxford) have never even come close to winning.

Whilst many might defend by saying Oxbridge don't care but if that were the case, why participate at all?

The bottom line is Oxbridge might still be the best in the UK but probably there's not much in it, if all their advantages were stripped away.
0
reply
Crammyandcrabby
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by caveman123)
Oxbridge are undeniably the oldest unis in the UK (but not the world) and that can never change, unless they're abolished.

With their history comes prestige.

However, every other aspect can be replicated, be it the 1-1 tutorial system, collegiate structure, funding, etc.

But the fact is it is NOT being replicated, simply because there is a deliberate ploy to keep them unique.

Take for example, why can they award their graduates an MA for only doing a first (UG) degree, when all other unis award a BA?

Don't say it's because Oxbridge degrees are harder than the rest (they may well be) but if all other unis only award a BA, that means all other unis are of the SAME standard, which is clearly false.

Their fame is largely due to the media giving them an unfair amount of publicity, as they tend to be Oxbridge grads. (Conversely, how many Imperial grads work in the media)?

How many times have you read: Oxbridge grad / student ..... , as opposed to only: Grad / student .....

Even in the latest league table of international unis (complete meaningless imo),

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...versities.html

the media still would not add Imperial in their headlines but if it was Oxbridge coming top, they would think twice.

Look at this article from the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...bs-market.html

It claims Oxford medical grads become GPs and consultants only after graduating for 6 months, which is obviously b*llocks!

Is it true only the best get into Oxbridge? Maybe the best UK students but not necessarily international students. Those that are from abroad must fulfil several criteria: they must speak english, have sufficient funds, actually want to live abroad!

Nobel prize awards are subjective anyway.

If you consider non subjective measurements, such as the international math olympiad, the winning teams tend to be from China and Korea. Which unis do those students attend?

Look at the international math competitions for uni students. Cambridge (never mind about Oxford) have never even come close to winning.

Whilst many might defend by saying Oxbridge don't care but if that were the case, why participate at all?

The bottom line is Oxbridge might still be the best in the UK but probably there's not much in it, if all their advantages were stripped away.

Why is your only argument Maths related? Oxbridge are the best universities in world, pretty sure if you had that on your CV you would be regarded highly and given a job over someone else. The medical school is amazing there, so doctors will have a higher chance of getting to work quicker than other graduates. Why would Oxbridge pull out random stats from nowhere? They have nothing to prove.
0
reply
curiousquest
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by Crammyandcrabby)
Why is your only argument Maths related? Oxbridge are the best universities in world, pretty sure if you had that on your CV you would be regarded highly and given a job over someone else. The medical school is amazing there, so doctors will have a higher chance of getting to work quicker than other graduates. Why would Oxbridge pull out random stats from nowhere? They have nothing to prove.
Let me introduce the concept of mathematical proof to you.

Assuming someone suggested there are only 5 primes numbers, we only need to find a 6th to disprove it. We do not need to find all other prime numbers, (not to say we can anyway, as there are infinitely many).

So if we assumed Oxbridge are the best for everything, we only need to choose a single discipline (Caveman123 chose maths) and if he correctly proved Oxbridge are not the best for that, then that proves they're not the best. He does not need to prove it for other disciplines.

You mentioned Medicine but that is one degree, possibly only one, where it is universally accepted that standards are the same, regardlkess of the uni.

Besides, how do you define, "best in the world"?

If it's by league tables, don't MIT and Harvard top those internationally?

BTW, the physics competitions for uni students, Oxbridge also fail miserably.
0
reply
ChancedTravels
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
Oxbridge received large endowments many, many, many years ago.

So they can award scholarships, and pay staff, and fund research purely from the interest that is being made on those investments in like the 15th century.
0
reply
jelly1000
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by caveman123)
Oxbridge are undeniably the oldest unis in the UK (but not the world) and that can never change, unless they're abolished.

With their history comes prestige.

However, every other aspect can be replicated, be it the 1-1 tutorial system, collegiate structure, funding, etc.

But the fact is it is NOT being replicated, simply because there is a deliberate ploy to keep them unique.

Take for example, why can they award their graduates an MA for only doing a first (UG) degree, when all other unis award a BA?

Don't say it's because Oxbridge degrees are harder than the rest (they may well be) but if all other unis only award a BA, that means all other unis are of the SAME standard, which is clearly false.

Their fame is largely due to the media giving them an unfair amount of publicity, as they tend to be Oxbridge grads. (Conversely, how many Imperial grads work in the media)?

How many times have you read: Oxbridge grad / student ..... , as opposed to only: Grad / student .....

Even in the latest league table of international unis (complete meaningless imo),

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...versities.html

the media still would not add Imperial in their headlines but if it was Oxbridge coming top, they would think twice.

Look at this article from the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...bs-market.html

It claims Oxford medical grads become GPs and consultants only after graduating for 6 months, which is obviously b*llocks!

Is it true only the best get into Oxbridge? Maybe the best UK students but not necessarily international students. Those that are from abroad must fulfil several criteria: they must speak english, have sufficient funds, actually want to live abroad!

Nobel prize awards are subjective anyway.

If you consider non subjective measurements, such as the international math olympiad, the winning teams tend to be from China and Korea. Which unis do those students attend?

Look at the international math competitions for uni students. Cambridge (never mind about Oxford) have never even come close to winning.

Whilst many might defend by saying Oxbridge don't care but if that were the case, why participate at all?

The bottom line is Oxbridge might still be the best in the UK but probably there's not much in it, if all their advantages were stripped away.
No, its because of the substantial extra cost involved in providing 1-1 or 1-2 tuition. And its an MA the same way the Scottish ancients award an MA- its not an actual masters degree. Oxbridge grads would still need to do another year of study to get a masters.
0
reply
powwer
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by jelly1000)
No, its because of the substantial extra cost involved in providing 1-1 or 1-2 tuition. And its an MA the same way the Scottish ancients award an MA- its not an actual masters degree. Oxbridge grads would still need to do another year of study to get a masters.
Oxbridge are great, so wouldn't it be better for the UK as a whole if there were more such institutions? If money was the problem, the government has pots of it. Even if they didn't, they can raise taxes to fund another uni.

The majority of politicians are from Oxbridge, so it's no wonder they want it to remain exclusive.

As for the MA, I know it's not real but there are Oxbridge grads who do put MA after their name, when really it should be MA (Oxon / Cantab).

Scottish MAs are real, as their degrees are four years.

Regardless, why mess with the qualifications by allowing Oxbridge award their students an MA? What's the point of that?

Imagine if every university awarded their own qualification for their degrees. What confusion would that cause?
1
reply
jelly1000
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by powwer)
Oxbridge are great, so wouldn't it be better for the UK as a whole if there were more such institutions? If money was the problem, the government has pots of it. Even if they didn't, they can raise taxes to fund another uni.

The majority of politicians are from Oxbridge, so it's no wonder they want it to remain exclusive.

As for the MA, I know it's not real but there are Oxbridge grads who do put MA after their name, when really it should be MA (Oxon / Cantab).

Scottish MAs are real, as their degrees are four years.

Regardless, why mess with the qualifications by allowing Oxbridge award their students an MA? What's the point of that?

Imagine if every university awarded their own qualification for their degrees. What confusion would that cause?
They aren't 'real' MA's in Scotland- the degree might take four years but its an undergraduate degree, the first year being almost equivalent to a foundation year here. To get a masters a student still needs to undertake another year of study.

And you are very naive if you think the government has pots of money & can just raise taxes to fund 1 to 1 tuition for everyone going to university nowdays.
0
reply
powwer
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by jelly1000)
They aren't 'real' MA's in Scotland- the degree might take four years but its an undergraduate degree, the first year being almost equivalent to a foundation year here. To get a masters a student still needs to undertake another year of study.

And you are very naive if you think the government has pots of money & can just raise taxes to fund 1 to 1 tuition for everyone going to university nowdays.

Re the Scottish MA, are you saying it's like an MEng, whereby it's a masters in name but still an undergrad degree?

Regardless, there's nogood reason awarding an MA to Oxbridge or Scottush grads for doing a BA degree.

Not pots of money for everyone but certainly if they seriously wanted to create another Oxbridge, they certainly have the money to do so.

I worked in the civil service and the amount they squander is unbelieveable.
0
reply
jelly1000
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by powwer)
Re the Scottish MA, are you saying it's like an MEng, whereby it's a masters in name but still an undergrad degree?

Regardless, there's nogood reason awarding an MA to Oxbridge or Scottush grads for doing a BA degree.

Not pots of money for everyone but certainly if they seriously wanted to create another Oxbridge, they certainly have the money to do so.

I worked in the civil service and the amount they squander is unbelieveable.

Yes.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Regarding Ofqual's most recent update, do you think you will be given a fair grade this summer?

Yes (326)
34.53%
No (618)
65.47%

Watched Threads

View All