The University of Oxford – College Life
Friday, 12. March 2010
Oxford University is the oldest university in the English speaking world and has been educating world changing leaders for over 800 years. Find out more about being a member of an Oxford college. www.sbs.oxford.edu
meaning1 Says:
@THthefirst
Cambridge asks for UMS points and A*AA; UCL asks for A*AA and are infamous for being ‘GCSE nazis’; Oxford, however, is inconsistent with its demands, and prioritizes interview performance and qualification type over sheer academic strength. As I said before: Oxford is definitely more selective, of course, but, similarly to Edinburgh (who are notoriously selective), it does not mean theyget the best. I know dozens of people in BOTH unis who can confirm this.
meaning1 Says:
@THthefirst
1. Their entry requirements are on their own pages; Oxford asks for AAA, UCL, for its most competitive subjects, asks for A*AA. You really need to stop claiming that I am not providing you with evidence. I have told you what to search to find the results. The OFFICIAL and most REPUTABLE rankings rank UCL higher.
2. You are going to have to accept that Oxbridge are not the only two unis anymore – their ‘dominance’ is over. There are many unis now overtaking, which is just fact.
THthefirst Says:
You still haven’t provided any evidence for your claims.
The evidence I provided is very reputable, since it from the Times, who spend a lot of time researching universities.
They say explicitly that Oxford is top, and that Oxford’s ENTRY REQUIREMENTS WHICH ARE ACADEMICS are considerably better than UCL’s.
So all your points are just waffle, because it’s documented and proven that Oxford has higher entry standards. You’ve not said anything to disprove that.
meaning1 Says:
@THthefirst
The difference is that I am not saying UCL students are better or Oxford students are; I am saying that just because Oxford is more selective, it does not mean its students are more academic…Cambridge, on the other hand, does select in a way that separates the truly elite. As I said before, Edinburgh is incredibly selective, but they are nowhere near the best.
meaning1 Says:
@THthefirst
And you still have not been able to contend the point that JUST because Oxford is more selective, it doesn’t mean its students are more intelligent/academic. Thousands of equally academic applicants are turned down, and, as I said before, many Oxford students who get in sometimes have LOWER grades, but got in because they did well in an interview (something which does not accurately measure academic ability) I have mine and other Oxford students’ insight to confirm this.
meaning1 Says:
@THthefirst
Oxford’s general A level requirement is AAA; the majority UCL’s A levels are the same, EXCEPT that their more popular subjects have gone up to A*AA – it is you who needs to research better. And you have still ignored all of my other points which strip your argument of any validity. Also,look up the official world rankings and just search “UCL beats Oxford” – UCL is 4th in the world, Oxford is joint 5th with Imperial.
THthefirst Says:
Absolute nonsense. If you want to debate, you need to know your facts and be prepared. You clearly haven’t bothered to do any research, and have made up what you think are the facts.
Well, a quick search for the Times Good University Guide 2010 puts Oxford top, Cambridge second. As for entry requirements, Oxford is 2nd with 524 pts and UCL is 8th, with 452.
Unless you can provide better evidence, (or any evidence, for that matter, other than your random “opinions”), it’s game over.
meaning1 Says:
@THthefirst
Use common sense; Oxford has lower A level requirements, it is less consistent with its GCSE demands, and the interview (which can be blagged, to an extent,by someone who is not clever) can alone get someone a place. Whereas UCL, the ‘GCSE nazis’, and Cambridge have higher A level demands and use entry methods that really do get the best of the best. Oxford is more selective, but that doesn’t mean it’s better. Hell, look at bloody Edinburgh! No one gets in there, but is it best?
meaning1 Says:
@THthefirst
And your notion that an acceptance from Oxford inevitably means academic seniority and superiority is an insult to the thousand of rejects who had BETTER academic results than those who were accepted. The differenc between you and me is I know dozens and dozens of people who go to Oxford, UCL, LSE and Camb etc…An acceptance from Oxford does NOT mean they are academically better; Oxford holds more weight on their INTERVIEW, whereas UCL and camb. do not. Grow up and look around.
meaning1 Says:
@THthefirst
You truly are an imbecile, aren’t you…How on earth does my line “sets it apart” inevitable mean “something that attracts students”. It could be something that acquires its funding, builds a specific image etc. That was an incredibly poor attempt to try and point out a ‘contradiction’. A uni’s history can still set it apart but not be the ‘dealbreaker’ for potential students.
THthefirst Says:
Sets apart = attracts students because it is unique = therefore offers something different = you are contradicting yourself.
Look, I had this “debate” with UCL students when I was there a few years ago who tried to convince themselves that they were just as good and academic (despite having been rejected by Oxford but given a place by UCL) but in the real world of employment Oxford has a prestige and cache that UCL doesn’t. No amount of youtube puff will change that.
THthefirst Says:
Who are you trying to convince, me or you?
meaning1 Says:
@THthefirst
I did not contradict myself AT ALL. I did not say the 800 year history was what attracted students- I said it is what SETS IT APART. My point about its 800 years of dominance was that, during several hundred of those years, there were none ,or few other, universities to contend with. That has changed now. My point in the last post abut Oxford’s entry criteria corroborates that – it is not selective in a way that gets them the most intelligent.
meaning1 Says:
Oxbridge (Oxford students in particular) are not more academic than UCL students, which is my point. Cambridge will be, on average, but not Oxford. Of course, Oxford is much more selective than UCL, but does that mean they are getting the most academic? Not necessarily. At UCL, GCSEs are usually staight As and the A level requirements are A*AA (higher than Oxford) and the interview carries less weight. My point is that, in terms of raw intelligence, Ox. students are not better.
THthefirst Says:
Where do you base all this from? Oxford is well above UCL in the rankings.
Also, you contradict your own arguments because before you said that Oxford’s 800 years of tradition is what attracts students, yet now you say it has absolutely nothing that would get it the best students. Nonsense. Oxford is one of the most cities in the country with medieval colleges to live in, leading authorities and academics, and a route into the very best jobs in the land………
THthefirst Says:
You seem to be thinking that i am suggesting a student who doesn’t get into Oxbridge is somehow less of a human being – no, of course not. But objectively, they tend to be less academic – Oxbridge students have the best grades overall (that’s a fact which can be proven as records are kept) because it can afford to be so highly selective, given all the other students (inc. UCLites) who wanted to get in. UCL does give you the London experience though, which is pretty cool.
THthefirst Says:
What facts do you use to base these bold claims? The facts are the only things we can use. And in the top professions – law, civil service, management consultancy etc – Oxbridge students have a disproportionate representation.
The league tables are pretty objective (as much as is possible) and one of Oxf or Cam have been top, and quite often 1 and 2, since the tables began.
The kudos they have in attracting the top talent is as strong as ever. Where is your evidence to the contrary?
meaning1 Says:
@THthefirst
It does not take a genius to see that the traditional Oxbridge dominance is in a state of decay. Their history is subsequent to their being the only two unis in Britain for hundreds of years; and, over the years, other unis have upped their standards and found more effective ways of finding the truly intelligent.
meaning1 Says:
@THthefirst
I agree that many of UCL’s students are Oxbridge rejects, but that is not to say that they are lesser students. I went with a friend to an Oxford open-day, and they even professed to turning down thousands of equally good students because of limited places. I have friends with Bs and Cs who got into Oxford who were rejected from Durham; similarly, I have a friend who got 14 A*s who was rejected because he stumbled in the interview. Their entry methods do not get the best students.
THthefirst Says:
The other point is that due to the demand for places at Oxbridge, which is higher than UCL, or other redbricks, because redbrick students would also love to go Oxbridge in the main, there is masive prestige in being offered a place. As a result, O’brdige can pick the best of the best, because they are all beating down the doors to get in.
The history and tradition also attract the very best, which is a self-fulfillfing prophecy, as the best want to be taught alongside the best.
THthefirst Says:
What do you base these assertions on? Your opinions? You need to define “superior” and your terms.
If you actually look at the objective evidence which the Times, for intstance, takes into account, then O’bridge students have better A-level points etc than UCL students, and O’bridge leads the way for research and attracting top international students. UCL is full (and I speak from experience) of students who applied but didn’t get into Oxford, not vice versa That said, it’s no poor relation
meaning1 Says:
@THthefirst
I do not go to UCL, actually. I just know many, many students who go to top universities. So I am not crusading on UCL’s behalf, I assure you.
1. In terms of actual standards, Oxford is not better than UCL, and the grade requirements etc are all very similar; Oxford just has its 800 years of history that set it apart. If you meet lots of the students at Oxbridge then at other top worldwide unis, you’ll find that Oxbridge students are by no means ’superior’ (seriously).
meaning1 Says:
I would agree that Cambridge is discerning the elite by looking at UMS points (UCL has upped general grade requirements to A*AA, like Cambidge; whereas Oxford has remained AAA). But Oxford has absolutely nothing that would get it the best students- it is less stern with the number of As and places too much emphasis on the interview…there is a reason why Cambridge has remained on top, UCL has climbed above Oxford, and Oxford itself is having countless bad reports written about it.
THthefirst Says:
It won’t be destroyed because the Oxbridge – top jobs route will always be there.
THthefirst Says:
I read history at UCL and it has an excellent reputation. However, Oxford and Cambridge have a certain unique reputation, which is linked to history and tradition, and which set them apart. The vast majority of students would take an offer from Oxford over UCL – and employers in the top professions etc still attach a lot of kudos to Oxford.
Sounds like you are one of the UCL students I remember – chip on shoulder and trying to convince yourself it’s better than Oxford when it isn’t.