Oxbridge vs LSE/Imperial/UCL vs Harvard/Yale for MPhil+PhD

On a slightly unrelated note, I quite like the phrase "inert advantage", actually.

I did not read through all the post; i did not have to when I saw in the first paragraph that you have an Oxford undergrad. That would save your ass in the US, to be frank with you. Capitalize on that Oxford brand and complement it with your great performance at York PhD.

For what I'm researching (James Joyce, the modernist aesthetic, Victorian folly) York is one of the best departments in the world, Oxford would be distinctly average, and Cambridge would be nowhere. Academic employers tend to be quite suspicious about people who do PhDs at Oxbridge just for the prestige, instead of putting their research first. Oxford would be brilliant, better than most other places, for medieval literature for example. But for 20th century stuff it is inadequate. Prestige does not enter into the equation at all at postgraduate level.

Well, one would feel quite uneasy in a department with an overly reactive advantage: I hear if you get a bunsen burner anywhere near the Manchester Classics faculty, its KABLAMO!

1. An MSt is not an "undergrad", it's a taught, one-year postgraduate degree.
2. Unless I'm very much mistaken about the_alba, she's unlikely ever to be in a situation where she'll be forced to "capitalize on that Oxford brand".

Unfortunately, there are very, very few people in the world that would agree with you. On the other hand, people would break an arm just to get into Oxford. Whether or not York would be the best training ground for English/Lit would not matter in the real world as the general public has heard of Oxford (and has heard that it is the best place) but not of York. I hope you get what I mean.

Unfortunately, there are very, very few people in the world that would agree with you. On the other hand, people would break an arm just to get into Oxford. Whether or not York would be the best training ground for English/Lit would not matter in the real world as the general public has heard of Oxford (and has heard that it is the best place) but not of York. I hope you get what I mean.

Unfortunately, there are very, very few people in the world that would agree with you. On the other hand, people would break an arm just to get into Oxford. Whether or not York would be the best training ground for English/Lit would not matter in the real world as the general public has heard of Oxford (and has heard that it is the best place) but not of York. I hope you get what I mean.

For god's sake, what she is talking about getting a job in Academia where what the general public has heard of is irrelevant - just actually read the posts! Yes for industry or something the 'brand' may be quite important, but when it comes to PHD's and research ect it is not about that at all; it is a completely different affair.

Iligan, in case you've missed it, she's not planning to get some sort of job in industry, she's going to be an academic - the area where academic prestige as viewed by the "general public" is probably least relevant. Her future employers are going to be far more likely to be wowed by the fact that Professor X was her supervisor than by the fact that she spent a year studying at Oxford and could easily have stayed on had she so wished.

Iligan, in case you've missed it, she's not planning to get some sort of job in industry, she's going to be an academic - the area where academic prestige as viewed by the "general public" is probably least relevant. Her future employers are going to be far more likely to be wowed by the fact that Professor X was her supervisor than by the fact that she spent a year studying at Oxford and could easily have stayed on had she so wished.

From what I understand, even if one has a 90%+ average in the undergrad, (s)he is not necessarily going to be supervised by the person (s)he desires especially if in a different university to the one the person studied in for undergrad/masters. So what therefore does one have to do?

I honestly can't believe people are still under the impression that overall uni prestige carries any weight in the academic job market. If you want to do a masters degree and then go and work in law or consultancy, then yes, it will be better to aim for the most prestigious place you can get into. If you want to work in academia, it is wholly contingent on the quality of the supervisor and his specialism in your area, whether this is at Cambridge, Harvard, York or Liverpool. Some silly people on here.

Tell me about it. If you feel like helping me out on this thread, I'd be grateful. I only got drawn into it because Iligan had started insulting me over there for what I'd said on this thread, thinking I wouldn't pick up on it. It's too frustrating - this miasma of ignorance and belligerence.

For what I'm researching (James Joyce, the modernist aesthetic, Victorian folly) York is one of the best departments in the world, Oxford would be distinctly average, and Cambridge would be nowhere. Academic employers tend to be quite suspicious about people who do PhDs at Oxbridge just for the prestige, instead of putting their research first. Oxford would be brilliant, better than most other places, for medieval literature for example. But for 20th century stuff it is inadequate. Prestige does not enter into the equation at all at postgraduate level.