Why do YOU want to go to Oxbridge?

Choosing a feature shared by all universities would be invalid, yes. But choosing a feature that is shared by some isn't invalid at all.

My argument:
If I choose university X largely for reason A, it does not matter that university Y also has reason A.

Your false analogy:
If I choose university X largely for reason A, it does not matter that all conceivable universities also have reason A.

Considering the fallacy, I'd rather be less mindful of it...


I'm fairly sure it's contributing.


*Zing*


That's hopelessly incorrect. Many people are happy going to a good university, and don't need to compare themselves to other universities to feel good about it.

Many people are happy to attend a university with sumptuous architecture. What makes Oxford so special?


I doubt anyone chooses anything for a sole reason, but for me, architecture was one of the things that grabbed me. Luckily I'm in good company - Matthew Arnold was a fan too.


if it were the sole reason, perhaps. But it's not - it's one of a vast array of different reasons. It just happens to be one of the most important.


The perhaps gives me more scope than Sabski could offer, so warm thanks for that. I think there's more to architecture than you give credit for though - why is Oxford's architecture held in such high esteem? Because of centuries of wealth. And what do centuries of wealth imply? That's right, they imply a strong academic history. A strong academic history at least implies a current level of academic power. My idealising of the architecture is essentially an amalgamation of prestige, wealth (the wealth of the university I find attractive, because this affects my experience there) and academic reputation.



If I applied everywhere with nice architecture, I'd be applying to dozens of universities.

The idea of studying surrounded by buildings like that seems, to my youthful, impressionable naivety, quite attractive. Luckily it won't be long before Chemistboy crushes any romanticism out of me with his cold philosophy. Not long either before all charms fly, the way he's following me around, picking up on my every claim.

Eh?

The post that sparked all this off. I'm sure you'll agree, not in the slightest offensive or aggressive.



Chemistboy gets things rolling with his usual tact:




HCD goes in for a snide jab:



and then another:



So who was it who started this again?

Hey, I love a joke as much as the next guy:

I even attempted one myself recently, cheekily replacing 'flesh' with 'thread' in a well know Hamlet quote.

The thing is, implicit in your joke is something that comes up everytime HCD, yourself and Chemistboy gang up on one of my posts - it's always supposedly me who started it...

Hey, I love a joke as much as the next guy: I even attempted one myself recently, cheekily replacing 'flesh' with 'thread' in a well know Hamlet quote. The thing is, implicit in your joke is something that comes up everytime HCD, yourself and Chemistboy gang up on one of my posts - it's always supposedly me who started it...

Hey, I love a joke as much as the next guy: I even attempted one myself recently, cheekily replacing 'flesh' with 'thread' in a well know Hamlet quote. The thing is, implicit in your joke is something that comes up everytime HCD, yourself and Chemistboy gang up on one of my posts - it's always supposedly me who started it...

Oh, it is for me. Very much so. I haven't claimed otherwise - I simply pointed out that many people applying to university are content with somewhere that is considered 'good', rather than having to apply to the places worthy of superlatives.


It should be remembered that being better than elsewhere is instrinsic in the word 'good' (unless we grant that no universities are bad, which seems a bit far-fetched). So essentially everyone who applies to a university for the reason of it being good is using the 'better-than' principle - it's just some apply it more directly than others.

Wow, you sure know how to live on the wildside!

2. No it isn't. It really, really, really isn't.

Okay, just so you're totally clear, I'll outline my reasoning to you:

- I want to study in London. For me, the positives outweigh the negatives. I won't go into detail on why, unless you're desperate to know.
- This gives me the choice between UCL and Imperial, with Warwick and Southampton being thrown out for not being in London.
- Both have strong reputations for Physics. Before interviews, I would struggle to decide.
- The "atmosphere" at Imperial, and its location within London, appealed to me.
- The tour and interview at Imperial gave me a very strong impression of the strength of the department, the flexibility of the course and the awesomeness of the academics.
- The tour and interview at UCL, a few days after Imperial's, felt somewhat underwhelming compared to Imperial. I can't pin down precisely why.
- With Imperial already having the edge in my mind, the fact that its reputation is marginally stronger than UCL's gave me no reason to pick UCL. Hence, Imperial is my firm.
- Of my insurance choices, only Warwick could guarantee accommodation. Without the first year in Halls, UCL looked too expensive and lonely, negating the London advantage. Southampton is too close to home. Warwick was the obvious logical choice. If UCL could guarantee accommodation, I'd have put them down without hesitation.

Yes it is - you've just misread my post. If something is good it is better than that which is bad (by definition of being good!). We are assuming the existence of bad universities (not all universities are good). All I was saying was that if we say 'I chose X because it is good' we imply that X is better than something out there. I don't know what you think I meant.

The temptation to say 'I don't give a rat's anus' is overwhelming. Absolutely overwhelming.



But the real reason you don't like UCL is because they're all uncultured philistines, isn't it? *Insert smiley of choice*

(You see, these comments are annoying, and don't have the slightest comedic value. Just don't bother saying them).

We can say that £5 is good. We can say £10 is good. However, £10 is clearly better than £5.

It's about context, you tit.

Whoaaa, easy tiger! How about you just go back to your self-proclaimed quirky, *no-one actually finds you funny* mode of popping into threads and making irritating and horribly unfunny posts? I hear there's a great thread on the go in the Oxford forum that is just crying out for a cringe-worthy attempt at humour followed by an obscure emo-icon...

Hey, I love a joke as much as the next guy: I even attempted one myself recently, cheekily replacing 'flesh' with 'thread' in a well know Hamlet quote. The thing is, implicit in your joke is something that comes up everytime HCD, yourself and Chemistboy gang up on one of my posts - it's always supposedly me who started it...

Hmm. But then, the closest thing I have to a 'home town' is Stamford, which is built out of the same stone as Oxford and Cambridge, and whose architecture and layout rivals both (though it is a smaller town):

for example

But Stamford is the most depressing town on earth, for all its beauty. At least in my opinion.

The architecture at Oxford can be very oppressive too, when it wants to be.