"Applying to Oxford or Cambridge"

My point was derived from what I thought would be a more suitable basis for your original criticisms, that is, those who would do any course, so long as they could do it at Oxbridge. Those, I think, are the people more likely to want to attend for the name dropping opportunities.

To be honest, I would go to either Oxford or Cambridge over pretty much every university in this country. You're [sic] argument really doesn't make much sense. I think passion for subject is an awful lot more important than passion for institution.

One finds these posts incongruous. You raise Oxford and Cambridge on a pedestal, saying you'd go to either over any other university in the country. Whilst one finds you less despicable than the "any course" lot, you're still somewhat consumed by the "Oxbridge hype". That you would sooner go to them than others, based on name and prestige alone, speaks volumes. You appear to have the notion that those two universities are leagues ahead of all other universities in all subjects, which is simply not the case at all. That would make you misinformed. That, or you don't care about the specifics of the course, and so long as you're doing "subject X" at "Oxbridge", you're happy. That makes you a prestige whore.

Ironically, you come across as one of the despicable individuals that Irrelevance was ranting about. That you'd jump at the chance to study your subject (whatever that may be) at either hardly shows a passion. If you were truly passionate about your subject, you'd look at the course structures to see which universities covered the parts of your subject you like the most in the greatest depth, and other such details (without knowing your subject, one cannot be more specific. If a science, one would move on to the labs/theory ratios, if a historian the particular periods covered, etc.). No, you'd rather go to "Oxbridge", merely down to their reputations. Well done, you.

Not quite, it was orignally about the equal consideration of both based on the value of reputation in such a fashion that makes hopefuls appear they aren't really bothered which one they go to, so long as it's one of them

That you'd jump at the chance to study your subject (whatever that may be) at either hardly shows a passion. If you were truly passionate about your subject, you'd look at the course structures to see which universities covered the parts of your subject you like the most in the greatest depth, and other such details (without knowing your subject, one cannot be more specific.

Not quite, it was orignally about the equal consideration of both based on the value of reputation in such a fashion that makes hopefuls appear they aren't really bothered which one they go to, so long as it's one of them

Your making an awful lot of assumptions there. Who says I'm placing them leagues ahead of any other university, and who says it's on name and prestige alone? Certainly not I. In fact, I think those arguments ridiculous. You may be interested to know I'm actually studying at Edinburgh University, and the reason that I'd pick Oxford and Cambridge above other universities is the supervision/tutorial styles of teaching, and the course content. Having a friend at Cambridge doing the same subject as me (mathematics), I've been impressed by the content she has covered, and the experiences she has described.

Maybe you shouldn't make so many judgments based on my single post

It's the fact that so many people consider both instead of being commited to a single choice which is what baffles me. If you end up considering both, there's no real decision there, it's more like, "Ah well, one or the other should do me just fine" due to their names and reputation alone. They don't know anything about the uni's, the courses, etc, they just want to go to either

They aren't picking it for the course, for it's location, the people, the social life, whatever. They choose it for it's name.

That you'd jump at the chance to study your subject (whatever that may be) at either hardly shows a passion. If you were truly passionate about your subject, you'd look at the course structures to see which universities covered the parts of your subject you like the most in the greatest depth, and other such details (without knowing your subject, one cannot be more specific. If a science, one would move on to the labs/theory ratios, if a historian the particular periods covered, etc.).

The reason why people don't say "I'll either apply to UCL or LSE", is because they would be able to apply to both, as you've mentioned. That's really the only reason people would say either - they like both, and have yet to make up their mind.

The guarentee of academic rigour and the weekly tutorials/supervisions, plus the fact that most Oxbridge courses cover the subject in great detail, means that you're unlikely to go wrong with an Oxbridge degree because it doesn't have your favourite author on it, or it doesn't have a lab/teacher ratio of >0.1. If you do go 'wrong', it'll be because you aren't equipped for the level or quantity of work, or because of social factors, or because the collegiate system doesn't suit you, not because you're longing for that one extra lab session a week that Durham were offering.

One should not underestimate the potential differences between courses. Whilst, largely, most courses with the same course code will be the same, there are also many courses where the difference will be significant. For example, Imperial College's Chemistry course is far more "practical" than Oxford's; Oxford's is renowned for its theoretical focus, and Imperial College's is renowned for its practical focus. If one detested the practical side of Chemistry, one would be better off at Oxford. If one loved the practical side, one would be better off at Imperial College. In such a case, the difference is far more than just "one more lab a week". Another example is History; the History course that LSE offers is very different to those offered at either Oxford or Cambridge. In all of the natural sciences, Oxford offers narrower, more rigid options compared to other universities such as UCL and Imperial College; one is forced to take "U + V + W, X or Y" in year "Z" for many Oxford science courses. Contrastingly, other universities such as Imperial College, Southampton and UCL offer "P + 3 of Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X or Y" in year "Z". This choice should be a factor in decisions; whilst applicants won't know the contents of the modules (represented by letters), candidates should decide whether they prefer the more rigid or the more flexible system. Less confident applicants might choose the flexible system, under the safety net of "if I don't like V when I start it at uni, at least I won't be forced to take it futher". Cambridge natural sciences are a whole different kettle of fish, so one will not go into that.

So, essentially, you take umbrage with people who prioritise academic reputation, subject-choice and career-prospects (in which respect Oxford and Cambridge are equally pre-eminent)? How very petty. I rather suspect that what really piques you is the propensity of certain individuals (who are often, despite their flippancy, prodigiously talented) to approach such venerable institutions in such a blasé fashion; with no trace either of reverence or of awe. Heresy, indeed.

So, essentially, you take umbrage with people who prioritise academic reputation, subject-choice and career-prospects (in which respect Oxford and Cambridge are equally pre-eminent)? How very petty. I rather suspect that what really piques you is the propensity of certain individuals (who are often, despite their flippancy, prodigiously talented) to approach such venerable institutions in such a blasé fashion; with no trace either of reverence or of awe. Heresy, indeed.

One should not underestimate the potential differences between courses. Whilst, largely, most courses with the same course code will be the same, there are also many courses where the difference will be significant. For example, Imperial College's Chemistry course is far more "practical" than Oxford's; Oxford's is renowned for its theoretical focus, and Imperial College's is renowned for its practical focus. If one detested the practical side of Chemistry, one would be better off at Oxford. If one loved the practical side, one would be better off at Imperial College. In such a case, the difference is far more than just "one more lab a week". Another example is History; the History course that LSE offers is very different to those offered at either Oxford or Cambridge. In all of the natural sciences, Oxford offers narrower, more rigid options compared to other universities such as UCL and Imperial College; one is forced to take "U + V + W, X or Y" in year "Z" for many Oxford science courses. Contrastingly, other universities such as Imperial College, Southampton and UCL offer "P + 3 of Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X or Y" in year "Z". This choice should be a factor in decisions; whilst applicants won't know the contents of the modules (represented by letters), candidates should decide whether they prefer the more rigid or the more flexible system. Less confident applicants might choose the flexible system, under the safety net of "if I don't like V when I start it at uni, at least I won't be forced to take it futher". Cambridge natural sciences are a whole different kettle of fish, so one will not go into that.

I picked King's College, Cambridge, specifically.