No, Oxbridge are not the only universities worth going to

This is a thread to dispel the Oxbridge myth in the context of 2020. All over TSR, there are countless posts about how it’s the end of the world of you don’t get in and Oxbridge is the be all and end all. I think it’s been more than proven that this is not the case, even during this pandemic. For example, Oxbridge have not taken a leadership role when it comes to the future delivery of education after the lockdown and policy implications which you would expect from the ‘most prestigious universities’. The data for the basis of the lockdown also came from Imperial and King’s has another medical research group that was set up by the government. LSE has also heavily advised on policy and the economic implications. This shows that the level of ‘prestige’ or status is far more evenly spread than imagined on this forum.

Aside from this, the purpose of this thread is more to say that if you don’t get in, don’t worry as the reality is most universities today have a strategic advantage in something. In the 21st Century, I’d most definitely rank LSE, UCL and Imperial alongside Oxbridge and it’s time that TSR toned down its Oxbridge fantasising and recognise the potential of studying at other institutions too.

Are Oxford researchers not working on a vaccine?

People feel like it's the end of the world because they had to work so hard to get in i.e. doing entrance exams and interviews which are notoriously harder than other universities. It makes Oxbridge unique and once you're in the process of applying you don't really see yourself going anywhere else because you're so invested.

I worked just as hard to get into other universities personally. Then again, I wanted a more modern education so Oxbridge was not for me.

That's very astute - I agree with the idea. The worst, and most useless posts on the 'which uni should I go for' threads are 'University X because it's RG/the most prestigious' without ever unwrapping what 'prestigious' means.

It's also interesting to note that most people who have no day-to-day dealings with academia have no idea what the Russell Group is until they come to TSR, and see an obsession bordering on paraphilia of it. This is another TSR thing - and I don't think it will ever go.

That's very astute - I agree with the idea. The worst, and most useless posts on the 'which uni should I go for' threads are 'University X because it's RG/the most prestigious' without ever unwrapping what 'prestigious' means.

It's also interesting to note that most people who have no day-to-day dealings with academia have no idea what the Russell Group is until they come to TSR, and see an obsession bordering on paraphilia of it. This is another TSR thing - and I don't think it will ever go.

The Russel group thing really annoys me. There are plenty of non-RG unis that are ranked better then RG unis. The Russel group is a self selecting research group that has nothing to do with quality of teaching/undergraduate experience. This is what I’ve heard from my parents who are academics anyway.

As with the oxbridge thing. I will be the first to admit I can have snobbish tendencies and when oxbridge came on my radar when I was in year 10 it was 100% a prestige thing. However now I’m coming up to actually applying in the autumn it’s completely shifted. The course I’m applying for is one of a kind (HSPS), the supervision system is the way I like learning and the collegiate system is really appealing to me. There are a lot of oxbridge related threads but I think that has something to do with how different the process is. As with UCL/LSE/ICL like how some people decide oxbridge isn’t for them I’ve decided they aren’t for me (I’m not at all a city gal lol) even though I’ve felt pressure to apply to them over other places I’m applying to (York,Bath,Durham etc).

For example, Oxbridge have not taken a leadership role when it comes to the future delivery of education after the lockdown and policy implications which you would expect from the ‘most prestigious universities’. The data for the basis of the lockdown also came from Imperial and King’s has another medical research group that was set up by the government. LSE has also heavily advised on policy and the economic implications. This shows that the level of ‘prestige’ or status is far more evenly spread than imagined on this forum.

I probably a bit biassed here because i am going to apply to medicine at Cambridge but they were the first uni to decide to have online lessons for the whole of next year but they keeping their supervision system.

Obviously, Oxbridge are not the be all or end all as they are many unis (i.e London unis) which have arguably better opportunities. For example, I know a 3rd year medic at Newcastle who doing a research placement on SARS-CoV-2 effect on patients with cystic fibrosis

1. Collegiate System (it's offered in a few other unis such as Durham)
2. Supervision/Tutorial System (most unis have something similar but Oxbridge supervisions are only with around 2-4 people)

I wouldn't accept that, given its not true at all

The performance in doctor's exams, both written and clinical, varies substantially according to which med school you went to. https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7015-6-5
https://www.gmc-uk.org/education/reports-and-reviews/progression-reports

The content taught at med school does also vary quite a lot.



I agree - Cambridge very much did lead on this. And Oxford is very much leading in both vaccine development, vaccine manufacture and antiviral trials. OP picked a very unfortunate time to try to demonstrate that Oxbridge aren't leading the country!



I mean... a research project is literally built into the 3rd year course at Oxford, and there will be similar opportunities elsewhere. That is not a unique example



I think you're far too generous with these two. Durham's college system is nothing like Oxbridge, and a "tutorial" with 12-30 people is absolutely nothing like an actual tutorial with 2.

The other major way in which Oxbridge is different is selection process. Oxbridge conducts massive interviews each year as well as dedicated exams. I think anyone trying to argue x uni is as good as Oxbridge (overall), surely stumbles at the first block - why does e.g. UCL just let people in without properly assessing them then? You aren't going to get the best students until you actually try to get the best students.

Anyway - this was a very pro-Oxbridge post. I agree with the sentiments of the thread. What is actually meant by prestige. Is that actually what you want.

It's also interesting to note that most people who have no day-to-day dealings with academia have no idea what the Russell Group is until they come to TSR, and see an obsession bordering on paraphilia of it. This is another TSR thing - and I don't think it will ever go.

I think it's just a fascination with difference and heirarchy. These are normal human preoccupations in many areas of life, but students happen to obsess more over such things in a university context and hence the absorption with which university is above which and so on.

I don't it's unrealistic though, if you want to do well in life, to want the best start in all respects. Whilst employers may not typically be all that clued up on the RG or the precise league table placing of St Andrews - vs - Leeds, they often to have general impressions about the 'better' universities and that matters to some. The big change over recent decades has been the push towards corporate in-house testing as the basis for recruitment, with a 'good degree' being only the first thing in entry and not a very important thing at that. Another change has been a general reduction in the once desperately widespread tendency for Oxbridge-dominated places to employ only Oxbridge types, ranging from the Beeb to the Foreign Office and from investment banks to the secret services.