Glasgow or Cambridge??

Hi!

I have conditional offers to study vet med at both Glasgow and Cambridge for 2017 entry. I'm so so chuffed but i really can't decide what I'm going to make my firm and insurance choices on UCAS, so I was wondering if I could get some advice.

It would be A LOT cheaper for me to just go to Glasgow because I'm Scottish so I wouldn't have to pay 9 grand a year of tuition fees and it's only a 5 year course, so I would graduate a lot quicker. Also, the people in Glasgow are lovely and the vet school campus is quite nice.

However, I'm worried that going to Cambridge is an opportunity that is too good to miss, and I'll regret not taking the chance. Obviously it would be very expensive and it's a year longer, but you get 2 degrees out of it. I am really interested in the sciencey side of stuff too, and I think this would be covered really well at Cambridge, but I'm not sure if Glasgow is as sciencey. I also like the practical side of stuff, but I've heard you don't get as much of that at Cambridge. I'm also not sure if I just want to go into vet practice, I'd like to explore other related stuff too.

I'm 100% up for the challenge of going to Cambridge, but I've heard the workload can be unmanageable and there is little support for students. Is this true for vet students? And would I be better off just going to Glasgow?

I would appreciate any help, especially from current students!

)

If Vet Med is like Med, that it shouldn't matter where you go - you have identical prospects. Furthermore, you can do an intercalated degree at other universities like Imperial, KCL, Bristol etc.

Well done on getting your offers!

People replying here don't really take into the account the fact that it's veterinary medicine we're talking about here, and at the end of the day it doesn't matter AT ALL where you end up.
And considering you're Scottish, if I were you I wouldn't even think twice about it, Glasgow would be the obvious choice for me. They're not only more practical than Cambridge, but it's also closer to your home and you'll be avoiding the £54000 debt.

I think Glasgow is a win-win situation here, especially considering you can also intercalate at Glasgow and graduate with 2 degrees!!!

But if you end up choosing Cambridge make sure you choose it not because it's Cambridge (because as I mentioned before it doesn't give you any advantage as a vet) but because you think the course structure is better suited for you or you would prefer to live there in general.

Congratulations!!! I don't think Glasgow would lack in teaching the in-depth science really. Is there an option to intercalate at glasgow? If so, look into doing a BSC in biochemistry or something if you'd like a more in depth knowledge of the science. I do think the amount of science you'll be learning at glasgow will be extensive and this shouldn't be a deciding factor for your choice.

Cambridge is no better for veterinary than Glasgow. Cambridge will not aid you in getting a better job than glasgow and if anything the lack of practical skills muted to be with Cambridge grads may work against you.

You'll come out as a vet at the end of the day and you'll enjoy wherever you go. Glasgow and Cambridge have to cover the same bases, so the difference in "sciencyness" is somewhat a mute point and the additional degree is of no benefit to you as a vet, or getting further qualifications as a vet, or scientist as it's just another undergrad degree. (Here at Nottingham we also have 2).

Points worth considering
- Cost - £54000 vs £0 is a hell of an undertaking
- How much you like to party
- Practicalness of the course

but I've heard the workload can be unmanageable and there is little support for students.
)

Sorry, calling this out for ********.

'the lack of practical skills muted to be with Cambridge grads'

Vague (what 'practical skills' are you referring to, exactly, and what does 'muted' do for you in this sentence?) and complete hearsay; in my experience (I'm a Cambridge undergrad, full disclosure), this is entirely untrue.

'so the difference in "sciencyness" is somewhat a mute point'

Not really, considering Cambridge is blessed with some of the greatest academics in the world - and, what's more, they will sit down and teach you one-on-one multiple times a week. The super-curricular opportunities at Cambridge are absolutely phenomenal (and very varied). I know of medics doing unbelievable things in their summers which other universities simply don't offer.

'Points worth considering'

I mean, this section entirely skips out everywhere Cambridge trumps Glasgow, so I'll introduce an equally biased version to counter-balance.

Points worth considering:

- Quality of academia - Cambridge is world-leading and you'll be taught, therefore, by world-leaders in their fields

- Super-curricular opportunities, academic networking, and contacts

- Style of teaching - supervisions + lectures vs lectures (honestly, supervisions are the reason I went to Cambs and they're not over-hyped at all imo; I think I'd lose my mind sitting in a lecture hall all day every day for x years being told the answers)

Are you a vet student?

It is hardly news to the veterinary world that Cambridge grads are perhaps unfairly, stated to have less practical experience when first qualified.

True, there are some quality academics at Cambridge. That said is it significantly higher than the other vet schools for actual tangible benefit? No

In some other fields, absolutely - at vet school... No. Cambridge has no better vet contacts than any other.

That is conjecture and unprovable, you like tutorial and supervision style teaching. The other vet schools have to get you to the same standard as the others in order to meet, you can't show that to be superior.

I'm not saying Cambridge is a bad vet school, it most certainly isn't. But do I think it's £54,000 better than Glasgow and a flight to go home? No I don't, not by a long shot