Percentage of applicants awarded places at Oxford University?

Invisible

That is not true. Hawking went to Oxford, and i am now reading his books, and they are good, so Oxford must be the best if he chose it. :smile:

Is that why he is a fellow at Caius college now? Hawking left Oxford following his time as an ungraduate because Cambridge was a better place for research. He did his PhD at Caius and all his major breakthroughs have come since he has been at Cambridge.

So actually Cambridge is the best :biggrin:

. Realistically it now makes little difference at undergraduate level, and at PhD level it depends on what field you want to study. Cambridge is stronger all around for Physics research, but depends on what one's particular fields of research are Oxford may be better.

Reply 45

slinec

ASNaC

Is that why he is a fellow at Caius college now? Hawking left Oxford following his time as an ungraduate because Cambridge was a better place for research. He did his PhD at Caius and all his major breakthroughs have come since he has been at Cambridge.

So actually Cambridge is the best :biggrin:

. Realistically it now makes little difference at undergraduate level, and at PhD level it depends on what field you want to study. Cambridge is stronger all around for Physics research, but depends on what one's particular fields of research are Oxford may be better.

Actually, read his autobigraphy and you'll find that he moved because there was no-one in Oxford who specialised in what Hawking wanted to study, so he had to move.

Reply 46

slinec

Actually, read his autobigraphy and you'll find that he moved because there was no-one in Oxford who specialised in what Hawking wanted to study, so he had to move.

In other words Cambridge was better for research in the field. Is that not what I said? It is true that for some fields Oxford was and is stronger, but the overall research programme at Cambridge has greater strength overall as there are more people researching in more diverse fields.

My further point was merely that to claim his presence at Oxford makes Oxford's programme better is ridiculous, seeing as his breakthroughs came in his time in Cam.

Reply 47

slinec

ASNaC

My further point was merely that to claim his presence at Oxford makes Oxford's programme better is ridiculous, seeing as his breakthroughs came in his time in Cam.

If someone wanted to continue with this further, they would say Oxford is better because it gave him his initial grounding.

However, I agree with you in general.

Reply 48

A0307

7

ASNaC

In other words Cambridge was better for research in the field. Is that not what I said? It is true that for some fields Oxford was and is stronger, but the overall research programme at Cambridge has greater strength overall as there are more people researching in more diverse fields.

My further point was merely that to claim his presence at Oxford makes Oxford's programme better is ridiculous, seeing as his breakthroughs came in his time in Cam.

Not that I agree this is a conclusive way of comparing anything, but..

To say that would be clutching at straws a bit, since at the time Oxford's research in that field simply didn't exist. It was something of a fluke that he ended up making his breakthroughs at Cambridge, as had it been available at Oxford he would no doubt have stayed there.

Reply 49

Ultimately we are all clutching at straws by looking at the big names, whereas it is ulikely that any of us will ever be more than some hole-in-the-wall lecturer (if even that) in a very obscure field. Which produces the most geniuses is actually less important than looking at how well average Oxbridge students do in their respective courses (I have no idea which is better for this).

And of course if we want to go into the realm of pettiness, Trinity college has more nobel laureates from the departments of natural sciences and medical sciences than all Oxford colleges in all fields :biggrin:

. (I have no clue how Fields Medals would compare though.)

Reply 50

ASNaC

And of course if we want to go into the realm of pettiness, Trinity college has more nobel laureates from the departments of natural sciences and medical sciences than all Oxford colleges in all fields :biggrin:

. (I have no clue how Fields Medals would compare though.)

Delving deeping into the realms of pettiness - IIRC, Christ Church has more prime ministers than all Cambridge Colleges :tongue:

Reply 51

Drogue

Delving deeping into the realms of pettiness - IIRC, Christ Church has more prime ministers than all Cambridge Colleges :tongue:

Which of course makes Oxford better for physics :tongue:

Reply 52

ASNaC

Which of course makes Oxford better for physics :tongue:

Of course. It get's more government funding :redface:

Reply 53

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/James-Mirrlees

Also, looking at the Trinity Nobel Prize winners, you notice things like this:

James Mirrlees

James Alexander Mirrlees (born July 5 1936, Minnigaff, Scotland) is a Scottish economist and winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize for Economics.

Educated at the University of Edinburgh and Trinity College, Cambridge, he taught at both Oxford (1969-1995) and Cambridge (1995-). It was during his time at Oxford that he published the economic models and equations for which he would eventually be awarded his Nobel Prize.

Reply 54

Drogue

Also, looking at the Trinity Nobel Prize winners, you notice things like this:

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/James-Mirrlees

Fair enough. But I discounted the economics, peace and literature winners from Trinity's Nobel Laureates

Reply 55

shiny

12

Drogue

Also, looking at the Trinity Nobel Prize winners, you notice things like this: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/James-Mirrlees

Hey, at least he was educated at Trinity at some point :smile:

Reply 56

I noticed that just after I posted :redface:

But yeh, basically I agree with you, although for undergrads, you do have to do some non-physics for the first (and possibly second?) year, doing Natural Sciences.

Reply 57

Willa

11

I still stand by the summary a non-bias teacher gave to me (he didnt go to either oxford nor cambridge and had no interest in either). He said "Those who go to oxford go to Run the country....Those who go to cambridge go to Spy on the country"....i.e. Oxford peeps end up as politicians or work in the city, Cambridge peeps end up as MI5 operatives :tongue:

Reply 58

shiny

12

Drogue

I noticed that just after I posted :redface:

But yeh, basically I agree with you, although for undergrads, you do have to do some non-physics for the first (and possibly second?) year, doing Natural Sciences.

Depends whether you think that Geology and Materials are part of physics or not?

Reply 59