Which University are you at?

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Yes. University College.

That's where I went. If you'd have gone, you and I would have probably first met many, many years earlier. Now there is a scary thought

[Dauphin]

You dodged a bullet there then.

[Provost Harrison]

...or were you lucky. A 19 year old me would be a scary presence

[Shi Huangdi]

University of Pittsburgh

[*End Is Forever*]

Oxford is crap for undergraduates these days. It only maintains it's high league table standing through postgraduate and research work, and that's ****-all use if you're studying at undergraduate level. Cambridge, Warwick, York and others are soaring away... only one half of Oxbridge is prestigious any more, not like it was when Rich went there.

[Provost Harrison]

It is rather concerning looking at it from my perspective because when I went there it was not the case...makes me wonder what is going on...still, it is certainly not a bad uni. But when I went the choice between Oxford and Cambridge for me was one of course structure, not reputation.

[*End Is Forever*]

Times Higher Education Supplement, Teaching Rankings, August 2002.

1. YORK
2. Cambridge
3. Oxford
4. Warwick
5. Loughborough

Daily Telegraph, Teaching Quality, August 2002.

1. Cambridge
2. YORK
3. London School of Economics
4. Oxford
5. Imperial College

[Provost Harrison]

You must have bribed the papers

[Drogue]

True, but both league tables are both fickle and a oftenr wrong IMHO. I chose Oxford because speaking to admissions tutors at Cambridge, they advised me that for academic economics, Oxford was the place to be. I was also told this at LSE. Cambridge is better overall IMHO, and is better at some things, but for Politics, Economics, English or most other humanities or social sciences I believe Oxford is better.

Warwick is a great place, and the tuition is fantastic for some things (It's much better than Oxford for Maths and related subjects IMHO) but I would still give Oxford an overall edge. I think the supervision and collegiate structure (if both kept ) make it hard to draw direct comparisions with other Unis, thus most league tables should be taken with a large pinch of salt IMO. Although as Provost Harrison said, it's about course structure not reputation. I've found a course that suits me to a T, with tutors who are vibrant, open minded and exceptionally intelligent and I wouldn't want to go anywhere else.

Clear Skies: What subject are you going to do? At which college? Are you going to accept the offer.

[Provost Harrison]

Yes, exactly. I had the choice of Oxford and Cambridge. I found the tripose system rather bewildering at Cambridge, as I wanted to do biochemistry so obviously I opted for Oxford.

[*End Is Forever*]

Yes, that's certainly true Drogue. For certain subjects, particularly if you want to specialise early, Cambridge just isn't an option. I think at least part of the reason my application to Cambridge failed (which in hindsight I'm very glad about) was because the course was more general, and it must have been pretty clear I was only interested in one part of the course. Indeed, my other UCAS applications bore that out (SPS at Cambridge, Politics everywhere else).

[Frankychan]

University of Hawaii-Manoa!



(But I gotta get into a good criminal justice program for my Master's)

[Agathon]

Grad school - University of Toronto.

Don't be too hard on Oxford - the tutorial system is a good way to learn.

As for rankings - undergraduate rankings say more about the calibre of the applicants than the teachers. After all, History 101 is much the same everywhere you go. Graduate rankings, however, are a different story.

One thing - I would never, ever, do a PhD in a British University.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

w00000t I just got a letter from the University of Chicago. They want to recruit me to play soccer.

[Asher]

University of Calgary