Also remember that Durham is a relatively small university. iirc, it's not in the Russell Group not because its research quality isn't good, but because it just doesn't have the quantity of most other universities.
Why is research so important if you are an undergrad. Surely being focused on teaching is a good thing.
It's just I've changed tripos, a lot, I know the basic literature for quite a few subjects, and I find the reading lists dominated by authors in Oxbridge, LSE, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford. The occasional exception of note are places like Manchester or Newcastle - MUP publishes a relatively high amount of my key reading actually.
On a different note, Durham, the kind of people who go there, is there not a certain Durham type? Why can't I shake off notions of rugby, binge drinking and really crappy ents.
Yes I agree, Durham is a place where Middle class kids go to have a middle class time, and to avoid poor people.
why is this argument still running? Reputation wise, which is all that matters, Oxbridge has, is, and always will be, a cut above, which is why the exlusive term 'Oxbridge' is still in use. Even if i dont make my offer, which may happen, im not going to start saying 'oh well actually Bristol has better teaching' or whatever. It doesnt matter, Oxbridge is the daddy, end of story.
That's not really true though. It's only a cut above in prestige. If LSE were to offer one-to-one tutorials it would definitively kick Oxbridge's ass at nearly all subjects it offers. And a handful of US universities already kick Oxbridge's ass.
At least in what I study, LSE has significantly better academic staff (in terms of diversity of subjects studied, publications, consulting governments, etc.). Better staff + individual teaching = better than Oxbridge.