Why do YOU want to go to Oxbridge?

There are probably 10's of thousands of people more intelligent than anyone at oxford or cambridge. It's all about preparation, good family support, determination, and if you want everyone, when you graduate to masturbate and take a pic. It's all hyped up bs, but thats what some people want from life innit.

I've already explained that architecture encompasses various attractions for me - wealth, prestige, accomodation and history all seem to be illuminated and enriched by the city's architecture, and its intellectual heritage seems to be engraved into the architectural layout of the colleges, musems and churches.

Course content wasn't particularly important for me, and is definitely less important than prestige or architecture. Maybe this has something to do with the nature of English; course content is probably more important when considering a science degree. How bad can the course content be? I actually can't think of a scenario that could possibly disappoint me. Should I be deterred by authors I don't like? That seems, to me, a superficial, trivial means of choosing a degree course. I know that whatever is on the course will have some significance in the history and development of English literature, and that's all I need to know. I couldn't care less if they have a module on Ian Rankin at The University of Essex, and I really enjoyed one of his detective novels last summer holiday. Of all the literature I've read (the type of literature that is studied at Oxford, normally of great critical acclaim), I haven't necessarily enjoyed all of it, but I've recognised artistic merit in every case, and I applied for English to learn more about that artistic merit, what exactly it is and how it is created; I didn't apply for the type of enjoyment I get from casual reading. So tell me, why I should care about course content, when it's obvious that all the literature studied at Oxford has something to do with this abstract concept of artistic merit? You seem to think a disregard for course content is symptomatic of lacking academic interest; on the contrary, I'd say my disinterest for it if anything demonstrates academic aspirations.

I can't give percentages accurately, but I'd say prestige/reputation (perhaps some combination of the two) is the most important aspect for me. After that it's probably architecture, but, as I've said earlier, all my reasons are inter-related - part of Oxford's prestige lies in its architecture.

The bits in bold are somewhat logically inconsistent with the bit in italics, no?

knowing that i'm getting pretty much the best teaching in the world as well as a nice bullet point on a CV would be my reasons for going.

Apparently it's arrogant to honestly explain my application, just beause certain dullards view my reasons as being superficial.

There are probably 10's of thousands of people more intelligent than anyone at oxford or cambridge. It's all about preparation, good family support, determination, and if you want everyone, when you graduate to masturbate and take a pic. It's all hyped up bs, but thats what some people want from life innit.

Nice hypocrisy, given that you have dismissed other reasons for choosing the institution as trivial and superficial yourself.

I had the impression sport, drama, music, debating and other activities are even more important at Oxbridge than anywhere else.

Perhaps important is to strong a word, but things like the Oxford/Cambridge Union are joined by close to the majority of students, whereas the debating societies at other universities simply don't attract as many people. The tradition of rowing and the international fame of the 'Boat Race' means rowing is an immensely popular sport that a higher than expected proportion of students get involved with (Plenty of universities have rivers nearby, but none have the same number of rowers). The fame of the Cambridge Footlights probably attracts more people than drama clubs at other universities.
None of this means that these facilities are in any way better than at other universities (which is clearly what you suspect me of believing), just that for reasons of their fame or tradition, they are perhaps frequented or 'experimented with' by a higher proportion of students.

Again, the societies in oxbridge, especially things like rowing and debating, will sometimes be more popular than at other universities. Certainly, rowing is of enormous importance at Oxbridge - far more so than anywhere else. College rivalry and the notion of a college league probably raises the status of sports like rugby and football to higher than that of non-collegiate universities. Just so you don't go off in a hissy-fit, I'm not arguing that these societies or sporting facilities are better (I don't know if this is the case). I'm simply stating reasons why they may be more significant or popular than at other universities.

I'd rather like some figures to back up your assertion that more money is spent, per head, on extra-curricular activitise at Oxford than elsewhere.

They (societies at Oxbridge) are probably funded better and, being oxbridge students, people will run them like pros.

Um.. what? Would you care to elaborate, seeing as that made very little sense?

I think I've explained well enough why they aren't. If you're insistent on holding on to the stereotypical, clichéd view that anyone who values Oxbridge's prestige is basing their application on triviliaties, despite a considerable effort at an explanation on my part (befitting of a troll, no doubt), then I give up.

If you think my above post consists of 'sheer arrogant idiocy' I am genuinely confused. I would concede that a fair few of my posts could reasonably be criticized in that manner, but the above is a sincere, honest explanation of my reasons for applying. Apparently it's arrogant to honestly explain my application, just beause certain dullards view my reasons as being superficial.

You illustrate my point quite nicely. A Firm from oxford and you can't read between the lines?

Here, I'll spell it out for you...

You don't need to be talented or have natural ability to go to Oxford or Cambridge. You need to have a lot of luck and be able to work hard. I can bet there's many many MANY more applicants at other universities that are MUCH brighter but are just lazy ****ers, or don't give a damn about education as much as those who attend Oxford of Cambridge do.

That's not what you said, though, dear. You said: "It's all about preparation, good family support, determination, and if you want everyone, when you graduate to masturbate and take a pic. It's all hyped up bs, but thats what some people want from life innit", which is absolute rubbish.

So no, it's nothing to do with not being able to "read between the lines" - it's to do with you posting inaccurate crap.

You can't read between the lines again. How thick are you?

I'm illustrating the same point in 2 different ways.

Prestige and architeture are prima facie superficial and trivial.

Ergo, you were being inconsistent.

You are always confused by people finding your posts arrogant and idiotic.

I submit no smoke without fire. How precisely are people infinitely more qualified than a schoolchild dullards? I would like to see the logical fallacies you pull out on this one ...

The only thing I said was that if I apply to a course simply because it has a lot of (modern) authors on it that I enjoyed reading, that seems to me a superficial reason.