tiny.cc / ukpolitics <<<<< this one , you have to TYPE the URL in to the IE browser
JUST look at this subliminal advertisement, fall for stem cell fictions trap , HOW STUPID can new generation of mothers be -- - or family -- illiterate !!
i feel like this would be a great school for academics, but you also need to have fun, is the atmosphere here really stiff and solely about education, or is there room for fun too?
@milio1995 They do have over 130 student clubs, as well as a striving nightlife from what I hear. They have student nights and if you want something a little different there's a venue for everything. Check unionview[dot]com. They have videos covering everything about oxford and it's from the view of student who actually go/went there.
@basildonboi18 Good for you. Some people want to go to the university of life - like you. Others want to go to Oxford - like me. It's a personal choice so don't slate people who choose to go there. If you can get in, and want to go, then why not?
@khan197khan exactly, a common person with average intelligence cannot get in without special help, they are too busy partying and going out to study for a chance to get into a good school
@cnavaro88 yes, Oxford, both the best and oldest university in the UK, whose scholars went on to CREATE Cambridge, is where the latter's rejects go -_-
@Mazza4Azza Really? In that case you've misunderstood or misinterpreted what I wrote :/ It was a sarcastic response to cnavaro88's comment which you should find and read first.
@YachiruXx Because i'm choosing one of them. Of course i'll use my scholarship from highschool, because i am not wealth or rich for those universities. I wiil use a scholarship. And by the way!, i am mexican
@qsheridan13 Being gay is not acceptable what so ever its a hardcore sin i have no problem with gays but if they try something its going to be a problem
Arethey allergic to doing interviews on youtube with the english students? Hell's teeth. I'm at Oxford myself, there are a lot of foreign students but still the overall majority are UK students. Oxford is a quintessentially english place, we should treat as such and be proud of that.
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.
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.
@meaning1 Certainly, UCL, LSE and many other UK universities are top notch and comparable to Oxford and Cambridge. However, the reason for Oxford's ostensibly lower entry requirements at this time is that they do not want to adopt the A* grade at a premature state. They have explicitly stated that for the 2010 and 2011 admissions cycles, they will compile statistics on the A* grade to determine the most suitable offers for the following cycles. That, to me, seems to be a wise decision.
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.
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.
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.........
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
UCL is up and coming it may not have the history of oxford, but people are beginning to become aware of the alternatives. The hegemony will be destroyed.
Dont be stupid, if sheffield, which is considered a good - but still mid range uni GIVES OFFERS to 1 out of ten applicants, id hate to think what it was for oxbridge. And that is giving offers, not everyone gets in remember.
actually less people apply to oxford and the applicants are all of a similarly high quality. i'm going to do history this year and the success rate was 1 in 4
doesnt work like that at all, for example history the subject I'm doing...
700 Apply - 90% of those applicants get through to take the HAT test. (history aptitude test) from that they get rid of 25% and the remaining 75% get called back for interview, then in january you're told whether or not you have a place.
Well im not sure about Oxford Uni, but my older bro got into cambridge, he didn't do exceptionally well in hes gcse's but he got 4 A's in hes A-Levels, he done maths, further maths, physics and chemistry.
Yeah it is, the average they accept is majority A's, subject which are taken on at A level need to be A stars. Two or three B's are ok if your taking 9 or so GCSE's. At the moment they are only asking for three A levels but they all need to be A's (A stars are being brought in so that will probably change). Really wanting to learn and study the course is surprisingly important.
Its easy to get into grad school at Oxford, especially if you are a foreigner and can pay the bills. When I was there some students used to worry about exams and we simply joked that if your cheque had cashed you'd be fine.
my sister is going to oxford next year... its not grades you need, if you are clever you will get them with ease. You have your interviews and exams and then they choose if you are good enough.
I feel that I can cope with interviews but never a one off exam
Truth be told I'm just starting my A levels next year in English studies, theatre studies and media and I'm afraid that my exams would let me down latter on and I need to test my options incase the worst comes the worse
I'm looking into a degree in English writing there but I feel with the latest development of economic affairs more people are trying to get in and my chances are narrowing
I hate to be the cynic, but if you're a publicly educated, white, middle-class person you're immediately at a huge disadvantage. I think fitting into their ideal is more important than ability in the subject. Meh, still gonna apply.
The application discrimination really isnt THAT bad, not yet. After all, the majority of Oxford undergraduates are still publically educated, white and middle class.
Is that so? Then I'm sure that three full stops a the end of a sentence would fall into that category, especially from someone who seems so smug and pompous, and so quick to put others down for minor gramattical offences.
Haha! I'm sure it'll serve you well. I did come across as a bit anal in that comment, but I'm sure ending a sentence with an ellipsis is fine: it just denotes some kind of suspense, I think.
hi you seem to have a good knowledge of the oxford university, could you tell me if i have a chance. well this is my current position: i got A*'s, A's, and B's in gcse but im 1 year ahead of my age... i could happily get 6 A's at A-level. please reply =) thanks!
well u might withstand a chance, i obtained 8A*, 2A, 1B, 1C. And i am predicted with 6A in A2. I had my interview yesterday for Biochemistry, the tutors are very nice. Go a head, by applying you have nothing to lose~~
apply at the year when you do A2, remember that for oxbridge application the closing date is usually earlier than normal. It should be in the middle of October
I'm currently living in Australia, and I want to apply for undergrad. We actually graduate in October, but only take exams in november and get our results back december. How can I apply?
i go to cambridge, trinity college and i feel that people are really elitist in their attitudes, i am from working class background and found it quite difficult to fit in but now that i am here for 3 years i am really enjoying it because you get used to it and you meet new people from everywhere. but yeah its virtually impossible i got 13a*s at GCSE and 5 As at a-levels, and its really common around there so try hard and never give up
you seem to know a little bit about requirements at Oxford, Do you know what UCAS points are? I need like 700 or something... I live in Norway and the british educational system is really complicated...
I wouldn't say it's that hard to get in to Oxford given that about 1 in 4 people who apply there are accepted. I know that means that a lot of people are discouraged from applying in the first place by their tutors but, still, for some courses, it is statistically harder to get in to, for example, Durham.
But only people who are extremely intelligent even bother to apply. I know you have sort of addressed this but it really changes the whole statistical basis of their applicants and matriculates.
Plenty of unintelligent people also apply. I know people in Oxford who are far from being the spectacularly brainy individuals that they are perceived to be.
Well then you are talking about personal opinion, perhaps even intuition. I mean only people who are intelligent on paper bother to apply, you won't find many applicants with predicted D grades will you?
You will not find students with predicted D grades at ANY university in this day and age. Oxford requires AAA, UCL usually requires AAA, as does Durham, Imperial, LSE etc.On paper, most people have As these days. My point is that the typical Oxford student is not uniquely bright (not anymore so than other top universties' students). Believe me, I know many people in Oxford, and they are relatively dim compared to the people I know in Exeter and UCL.
You do realise that those are five of the best universities in the entire country don't you? Perhaps your expectations are slightly elevated but many people would be happy with a couple of Bs and a C, that is not Oxford material. I really don't understand what point you are trying to prove, it sounds as though you are either bitter about not going there or are trying to convince yourself you could have. It is incredibly competitive and only those who are predicted AAA will bother to apply.
By the way, out of all the papers marked, only a little more than a fifth of papers are graded A. If we assume that only those with 3 As will apply then we are already in a pretty damn small percentile. If we assume that only 20% of those applicants, who have both 3 As and who actually apply, are accepted then we are in an extremely selective set. Even if all your friends are more intelligent, those at Oxford are still some of the brightest brains in the country.
Of course I'm not undermining Oxford as an academic institute, but I think -given the actual standard of its students compared to other top universties - it is overrated. It is a university steeped in history, but the students are no more unique than students in other top universities. As far as your deduction concerning percentiles goes, it is wrong. The number of people who score three As is, perhaps, one tenth...which is far from being the iota of academic brilliance.
I really don't think so, purely on the grounds of upper seconds and firsts Oxford gets 4% more than Cambridge and almost 10% more than any other university in the country, not to mention that the courses are generally harder. That means for every 100 students, 10 more get u.s. or firsts. Last time I checked 3% of 18 year olds get AAA at A Level, so not one tenth. I would say that 3% classifies as an iota. Regardless, 3 As are requisite, that doesn't guarantee you a place at Oxford.
I think you're missing the overall point. The requisite grades for Oxford are similar or the same in many of the top universities. Some of the mid- echelon universities even ask for AAA now. My original qualm was that you made the assumption that all Oxford applicants are "extremely intelligent". Though there is a higher concentration of people with As in Ox. tan, say, Sheffield, te fact remains that the standards between the top universities are not so immense.
'Some of the mid- echelon universities even ask for AAA now' - Name me one and the course. I mean surely if you have applied you know this from personal experience, in any year only a few people apply to Oxford and usually they are regarded as extremely intelligent by their peers. Perhaps not intuitive, perhaps they can't argue effectively, but they are not regarded as average by any means.
I cannot recall the specific university courses, but there are universities not in the UK's top ten which ask for AAA/AAB. And no, the typical Oxford student is not usually regarded as average; however, they are not always regarded as "extremely intelligent". You asserted a key point - that only people "intelligent on paper" apply. Yes, but my point was that, on PAPER, there are thousands and thousands of students who would then be regarded as "extremely intelliget". It does not work like that.
'on PAPER', do not get me wrong, I only ever asserted that you have to be extremely intelligent on paper to bother to apply. I personally think that the whole system is a fucking joke, that we are tested on the most irrelevant factors of intelligence. Our education system is a fact retaining quiz, we may as well take a pub quiz. I know plenty of people at Oxford that I think are supreme idiots, but then that's just the way it is.
"But only people who are extremely intelligent even bother to apply"
You later added that you meant "on paper", but it was your original comment that I disagreed with. On paper,I agree; though I do not think, on paper, Oxford students are any better than UCL/LSE either. On the contrary, everyone I know who gets into UCL gets in because they have a thousand A*s...whereas I do know people with...OK GCSEs/decent A levels who wing the Oxford interview.
I made it pretty clear in my second comment that I was talking only about 'on paper'.You are trying to draw this argument one of two ways:you are beginning to get into a semantic argument about what intelligence is,and you are trying to make this into an argument about which is the best of the best.Neither of these relate to my original point, perhaps the first but I ruled this out in my second comment.If you would like to discuss either then I'd be happy to, but sinuous arguments are dangerous.
You ruled it out in the second comment, yes. And it was the first comment that disputed, so there is no problem. The only slight point of difference is that I do not feel, on paper, that Oxford students are better (or even as good, in some cases) as Cambridge and UCL students. Many people get in with good,but not amazing results at Oxford (due to the entry exam and interview carrying masses of weight). Out of interest, which university did you go to, if any?
I did not make the point that Oxford students are more intelligent than any other, you are playing a game of filling in gaps.I made two unrelated points. That those who apply to Oxford are extremely intelligent (I then saw the danger and corrected my statement to 'on paper').I also made the point that, for next year,Oxford ranks higher than Cambridge. It does according to the guides I trust with the exception of one. That isn't to say I agree, or that this extends to anything more than academia.
You are lying, now. You DID say that only the extremely intelligent apply to Oxford...you THEN corrected yourself AFTER I had commented against your point. Do I need to quote you again? The comment that I first saw DID say what you just claimed it didn't. I acknowledged the correction and moved on - you then said, inexplicably, that I was 'pretending' not to see it...
I do not understand. I said only the extremely intelligent apply to Oxford, not the extremely intelligent only apply to Oxford. Those two sentences have entirely different meanings. I then realised that this was going to turn into a pointless argument about what intelligence is, so I made the decision to attach the objective results of examination. This was not a correction, it was a refinement. I saw that I may have been misunderstood so I clarified (apparently unsuccessfully) my position.
"Only the extremely intelligent apply" IS the fallacy. Because, as I have said numerous times, it is NOT ONLY the extremely intelligent who apply - also the mundanely intelligent. I can see you know you are failing at this, because you are ignoring certain points, lying about what you previously said, and disputing official rankings. You're going to have to learn to argue far more efficiently if you plan on going to UCL/Kings (at 31?...)
You'll have to forgive the missing letters, too: the keyboard is lagging.
Anyway, I was not refuting the overall standards of Oxford. But I do think that it is overrated, given that it ranks quite a bit lower than Cambridge (which I do not think is overrated), and UCL is ranked higher. However, I am just a college student, so I have yet to experience any university atmosphere. Either way, I and many other people know our fair share of idiots at Oxford.
1. You made the case yourself that 10% is not an iota.
2. Oxford (with the exception of two universities) gets proportionately 10% (+/- 1%) more 1sts and upper seconds than any other university in the U.K.
3. Oxford is not an iota better than any other university, it is better (on a purely academic basis), the difference is therefore then surely not negligible.
That is entirely invalid as a point, and highly "negligible". Oxford is not raked the highest, and does not always score the highest, therefore it is defintely a point of contention. Oxford ranks 5th with Imperial, and reviews/ratings have placed Oxford on par with UCL + LSE...with Cambridge just about exceeding them all.
Ok now to me there are only two ranking systems worth listening to; those being 'The Good University Guide' in which Oxford ranks higher than Cambridge, and 'The Academic Ranking of World Universities' which lists Cambridge way above Oxford and UCL even further down. That is not the argument though, I've always seen the choice between Oxford & Cambridge as a location preference, they are essentially the same, with UCL pretty much with them.
I think you need to re-check that table...UCL is fourth best - followed by Oxford joint fifth with Imperial. Harvard is first, followed by Cambidge, then Yale. And no, the argument was pertaining to intelligence. And, as you can see, your original comment did not say "on paper", it just said "only people who are extremely intelligent apply".
Sorry I just did and I was right. What are you looking at 'The Good University Guide' only considers universities in the UK. The Times, The Independent and The Guardian rate Oxford above Cambridge for 2010. This is really irrelevant but those are the facts. But it would be ignorant of you, in the most literal sense, to pretend I never made that second comment and to wildly pursue some ridiculous straw-man.
"You ruled it out in the second comment, yes. And it was the first comment that I disputed, so there is no problem."
Ignoring what I write? I did not pretend that you had not made the second comment, I acknowledged it. I was just piqued by your first comment. As for the leages, I will post the links. It is in the telegraph, Daily Mail etc. I am talking about world rankings, obviously, as mentioned Harvard and Yale.
Sorry, but you are going to cite the Daily Mail... Really? It is a tabloid paper. Ok this is just a difference in who we put faith in so this argument on rankings is nullified. I am taking a year out and didn't defer, I intend on applying to UCL and King's.
Official?do you not understand how this works?Each paper does its own survey(some nick others)and it is the 'Good University Guide' published by The Times that is usually considered the most reliable.I have mentioned that this was my source,you could have contested that at any moment.The Times is one of the most respected newspapers in the world that is why I refer to it over others.The newest Telegraph league I can find is from 2007 and even that admits that Oxford students got better results.
WHY ARE THERE SO MANY AMERICANS
TheZadzzz 4 hours ago
some really good stuff here
SuperDogbrown 2 weeks ago
why do they speak with such horrible accents? is this oxford or is it bloody princeton?
mekornilol 1 month ago
what do you think about college?
yourcollegethoughts.blogspot.com/
collegethought 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
all the illiterate people are I
tiny.cc / ukpolitics <<<<< this one , you have to TYPE the URL in to the IE browser
JUST look at this subliminal advertisement, fall for stem cell fictions trap , HOW STUPID can new generation of mothers be -- - or family -- illiterate !!
rTVstation 4 months ago
if only...
blackxbamboo 4 months ago
Why are they all American? I thought they'd be mostly English, no? lol.
Nicole3900 5 months ago
i feel like this would be a great school for academics, but you also need to have fun, is the atmosphere here really stiff and solely about education, or is there room for fun too?
milio1995 7 months ago
@milio1995 They do have over 130 student clubs, as well as a striving nightlife from what I hear. They have student nights and if you want something a little different there's a venue for everything. Check unionview[dot]com. They have videos covering everything about oxford and it's from the view of student who actually go/went there.
jessie245 7 months ago
@jessie245 thank you!!
milio1995 7 months ago
My father turned down Oxford to attend Cambridge instead....but me, I cant even make Oxford :P
RedNativeRose 7 months ago
All of the Americans in the video have slight British accents. It's amusing :)
kelsohammy 8 months ago
University graduates are talking so fast. No wonder why.
ThePinkFloydPig 8 months ago
is it me or all these people have american accents>?
claudiacloclo2 10 months ago 38
@claudiacloclo2 that where the cash comes from, see
IlRezzonico 4 months ago
@claudiacloclo2 no they all do. Maybe it's for Americans, the ad I mean
ben9DB 3 months ago
@claudiacloclo2 there was a kiwi though...
ben9DB 3 months ago
i went to the university of life, and passed with flying colours. these people have no idea of the REAL problems normal life
basildonboi18 10 months ago
@basildonboi18 Good for you. Some people want to go to the university of life - like you. Others want to go to Oxford - like me. It's a personal choice so don't slate people who choose to go there. If you can get in, and want to go, then why not?
nickwilliammusic 7 months ago
@basildonboi18
university of life = school of hard knocks? ;))
cheeriosinabowl 6 months ago
Oxford pales in comparison to Manchester Metropolitan University.
MrBadjujuman 1 year ago
@MrBadjujuman And Manchester Met pales into insignificance comapred to Slough Polytechnic, which pisses on both
THthefirst 9 months ago
Go to CHEGG.COM to rent your books for cheap, free shipping to you and back
use my offer code: CC118223 for an additional 11%off
VictoriaPINK119 1 year ago
After graduate ,back to square 1 :) welcome to the real society
Genoga12 1 year ago
Hardcore parties?
WaCkOjAcKoDaKING 1 year ago
oxford is not for commoners
iakodu 1 year ago
@iakodu
My friend got into Cambridge with ACC (reason: Nepotism)
khan197khan 1 year ago
@khan197khan exactly, a common person with average intelligence cannot get in without special help, they are too busy partying and going out to study for a chance to get into a good school
iakodu 1 year ago
@iakodu that's not true. if there's a will, there's a way (even for people with average intelligence)! :)
cinephilist 1 year ago
kind of..like...um...uh...sort of...surreal experience. This is the top of the top?
elijahstanfield 1 year ago
Is Oxford the university for the Cambridge rejects?
cnavaro88 1 year ago
@cnavaro88 infact cambridge was founded by scholars rejected by oxford when oxford was formed
SamH141191 1 year ago
@cnavaro88 infact cambridge was founded by scholars rejected by oxford when oxford was formed
SamH141191 1 year ago
@cnavaro88 yes, Oxford, both the best and oldest university in the UK, whose scholars went on to CREATE Cambridge, is where the latter's rejects go -_-
YachiruXx 1 year ago 9
@YachiruXx
Cambridge students are rejects? Funniest thing I've heard all day.
Mazza4Azza 5 months ago
@Mazza4Azza Really? In that case you've misunderstood or misinterpreted what I wrote :/ It was a sarcastic response to cnavaro88's comment which you should find and read first.
YachiruXx 5 months ago
@YachiruXx Oxford or Harvard?... Im choosing one both of them
mauriciomille 2 months ago
@mauriciomille Good luck for both but why are you telling me this? ._.
YachiruXx 2 months ago
@YachiruXx Because i'm choosing one of them. Of course i'll use my scholarship from highschool, because i am not wealth or rich for those universities. I wiil use a scholarship. And by the way!, i am mexican
mauriciomille 2 months ago
@YachiruXx Cambridge is now actually the world's top uni.
MrGadgetx 4 weeks ago
@MrGadgetx Yeah, but when I wrote that post Oxford was :P they alternate, there's no difference between the two in terms of quality.
YachiruXx 4 weeks ago
would you prefer manchester uni. instead of oxford??
FarahTak993 1 year ago
those are bottom 3 % people in school saying. all they do is study or suicide just like harvard
JCtherocks 1 year ago
the black dude is gay
Darksider009 1 year ago
@Darksider009 so what?
whiterichandhandsome 1 year ago
@whiterichandhandsome dont respond if you dont give a shit people like need to shut the fuck up
Darksider009 1 year ago
@Darksider009 i find it very discriminatory and disturbing that you find it necessary to point out "gays"
qsheridan13 1 year ago
@qsheridan13 Being gay is not acceptable what so ever its a hardcore sin i have no problem with gays but if they try something its going to be a problem
Darksider009 1 year ago
@Darksider009 duuude deja vu, i read stuff like this when i was studying african american oppression
qsheridan13 1 year ago
@Darksider009 i'm guessing you take a liking to this man. only gays have good gaydars ;)
sdfoiuwermnbzxclkj 1 year ago
@sdfoiuwermnbzxclkj i sorry but that was something that i was able to point out. I dont need your sad a ignorant opinion so go fuck yourself
Darksider009 1 year ago
looks like a nice place, too bad even if I get A*A*A* I won't get in since I do not have a language
Fuckign cunts.
Xen1aserman 1 year ago
@Xen1aserman english language???
Grand7007 1 year ago
severe lack of english people lol
14mm2 1 year ago
@14mm2 maybe cause english people go to better schools
Iken69 1 year ago
@Iken69
I am english.....
14mm2 1 year ago
Oxford university is a breathtakingly boring place full of breathtakingly boring people.
THEORIGINALTEEJAY 1 year ago
Arethey allergic to doing interviews on youtube with the english students? Hell's teeth. I'm at Oxford myself, there are a lot of foreign students but still the overall majority are UK students. Oxford is a quintessentially english place, we should treat as such and be proud of that.
dezboss 1 year ago
@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 1 year ago
@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.
meaning1 1 year ago
@meaning1 Certainly, UCL, LSE and many other UK universities are top notch and comparable to Oxford and Cambridge. However, the reason for Oxford's ostensibly lower entry requirements at this time is that they do not want to adopt the A* grade at a premature state. They have explicitly stated that for the 2010 and 2011 admissions cycles, they will compile statistics on the A* grade to determine the most suitable offers for the following cycles. That, to me, seems to be a wise decision.
thevidfather 1 year ago
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.
meaning1 1 year ago
Who are you trying to convince, me or you?
THthefirst 1 year ago
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.
meaning1 1 year ago
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 1 year ago
@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 1 year ago
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 1 year ago
@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.
meaning1 1 year ago
@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 1 year ago
@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 1 year ago
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.
THthefirst 1 year ago
@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.
meaning1 1 year ago
@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 1 year ago
@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 1 year ago
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.
THthefirst 1 year ago
UCL is up and coming it may not have the history of oxford, but people are beginning to become aware of the alternatives. The hegemony will be destroyed.
baptista4555 1 year ago
It won't be destroyed because the Oxbridge - top jobs route will always be there.
THthefirst 1 year ago
The discussion between curzmg and meaning1 made me rofl in real life.
skipppertje 2 years ago 2
there are lot of brillian ppl who dnt apply for oxford .or harvard and so one
spawn1890 2 years ago 2
yes. They go to Princeton, MIT, IST, Stanford and Caltech ;D
iamdonalduck 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
glass pipes and deer antler pipes for sale at charleysislanddotcom check it out
halfoffsdaily 2 years ago
How many AP or Honors classes should I take in order to get a shot at getting into Oxford? Please no "however many you can handle" comments...
lsuk0dyou 2 years ago
Dont be stupid, if sheffield, which is considered a good - but still mid range uni GIVES OFFERS to 1 out of ten applicants, id hate to think what it was for oxbridge. And that is giving offers, not everyone gets in remember.
minnietin 2 years ago
According to the official Oxford website, admission rates vary from 10% (Medicine, most Joint Schools) to as high as 40% of all applicants.
ArthB 2 years ago
actually less people apply to oxford and the applicants are all of a similarly high quality. i'm going to do history this year and the success rate was 1 in 4
jamesg24 2 years ago
hello Im ahmet I from kosovo a stady or veterinariy
007meti 2 years ago
What are GCSEs?
m1a2s3o4n 2 years ago
general certificate of secondary education
CarbonDioxide1990 2 years ago
Is rather comparable to the SAT in the states :) if that helps .
MissSAlexander 2 years ago
exams at the end of high school in england
14mm2 2 years ago
no there not ,they are in the middle, you are thinking of a levels.
adamturner123 2 years ago
omg theres no space for me for yr 10 what happens if i dont finish secondary wont i be aible to go unerversity?.
boxingking7 2 years ago
Oh, and thanks for sharing guys! ))
martinydakotiny 2 years ago
Its just that... so many apply. And if the majority has A* in their A-levels, they start to look at their GCSE's... isn't that so?!
It is worth trying, but they take only the best...
And cans someone explain to me how everything is organised in Oxford UNI? What's all about those colleges and stuff?
martinydakotiny 2 years ago
not really they select like for example
200 people apply and they have to choose 50
out of 200 100 will be called for n interview
those 100 will be chosen on theres results and personal statement
then the interview will decide the 50
xmuneebx 2 years ago
doesnt work like that at all, for example history the subject I'm doing...
700 Apply - 90% of those applicants get through to take the HAT test. (history aptitude test) from that they get rid of 25% and the remaining 75% get called back for interview, then in january you're told whether or not you have a place.
Rorxz 2 years ago
*would be*
acerb45666555 2 years ago
going to Oxford would a wet dream for an Archeological student! 800 years of history right outside the window!
acerb45666555 2 years ago
The University is so legendary its daunting.
Thehatedtruth 2 years ago
What if you didn't do well in your GCSE's but you got straight A's in your A-levels, is it still possible to get into Oxford uni?
martinydakotiny 2 years ago
Well im not sure about Oxford Uni, but my older bro got into cambridge, he didn't do exceptionally well in hes gcse's but he got 4 A's in hes A-Levels, he done maths, further maths, physics and chemistry.
Yu2Kal 2 years ago 2
Yeah it is, the average they accept is majority A's, subject which are taken on at A level need to be A stars. Two or three B's are ok if your taking 9 or so GCSE's. At the moment they are only asking for three A levels but they all need to be A's (A stars are being brought in so that will probably change). Really wanting to learn and study the course is surprisingly important.
jas4life4eva 2 years ago
Of course. It says so on the website.
gorillachops 2 years ago
Its easy to get into grad school at Oxford, especially if you are a foreigner and can pay the bills. When I was there some students used to worry about exams and we simply joked that if your cheque had cashed you'd be fine.
jellybummail 2 years ago
Comment removed
mathiasT55 2 years ago
SBS is in Oxford, UK. Check out the map on their website.
Jaitro 2 years ago
how come they all have american accents?
littleraskle 2 years ago
These people come from all over the world, people come to oxford because they feel that this is the place for their best education.
They are high lighting these people because this advert is trying to address people globally about the use of oxford.
echoingheads 2 years ago
Comment removed
K1dCurry 2 years ago
my sister is going to oxford next year... its not grades you need, if you are clever you will get them with ease. You have your interviews and exams and then they choose if you are good enough.
liora30 2 years ago
Is this based mostly on exams or interviews.
I feel that I can cope with interviews but never a one off exam
Truth be told I'm just starting my A levels next year in English studies, theatre studies and media and I'm afraid that my exams would let me down latter on and I need to test my options incase the worst comes the worse
I'm looking into a degree in English writing there but I feel with the latest development of economic affairs more people are trying to get in and my chances are narrowing
echoingheads 2 years ago
very educated people normally don't excel in real business
skaka2 2 years ago
Haha... What?
stenw17 2 years ago
I hate to be the cynic, but if you're a publicly educated, white, middle-class person you're immediately at a huge disadvantage. I think fitting into their ideal is more important than ability in the subject. Meh, still gonna apply.
curriedmussels 2 years ago
The application discrimination really isnt THAT bad, not yet. After all, the majority of Oxford undergraduates are still publically educated, white and middle class.
ScourgeOfGodUK 2 years ago
i've dreamed of Oxford since i was 8. i want it so bad.
hotshot2392 2 years ago
They usually encourage proper grammar and punctuation...
talinistaxx 2 years ago 3
Is that so? Then I'm sure that three full stops a the end of a sentence would fall into that category, especially from someone who seems so smug and pompous, and so quick to put others down for minor gramattical offences.
capaldicorporations 2 years ago 4
It's called an ellipsis, not 'three full stops,' and is a perfectly acceptable way of ending a sentence.
ellecto 2 years ago
Thanks, I'll bear that in mind on my graduation day.
capaldicorporations 2 years ago
Haha! I'm sure it'll serve you well. I did come across as a bit anal in that comment, but I'm sure ending a sentence with an ellipsis is fine: it just denotes some kind of suspense, I think.
ellecto 2 years ago
Comment removed
K1dCurry 2 years ago
i'm 15 && my heart is set && endlessly hopin to be admited THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD the college i want to undertake me is BALLIOL
my future is to be in oxford
clic818 3 years ago
I'm also 15 and living in Luxemburg. I just hope they will accept me. We both must work so hard for this =)
chemical93girl 2 years ago
this is the best university in the world
bechko89 3 years ago 5
i'm 12 but i've always wanted to go to oxford.
sawingeagle 3 years ago 2
yep buddy..you can fo there if you work hard...good luck
mulholland1985 3 years ago 3
best wishes my friend
Iam now studying at oxford
It is a graet place to study
ahmad0554444 3 years ago 2
thanks i don't doubt it
sawingeagle 3 years ago
hi you seem to have a good knowledge of the oxford university, could you tell me if i have a chance. well this is my current position: i got A*'s, A's, and B's in gcse but im 1 year ahead of my age... i could happily get 6 A's at A-level. please reply =) thanks!
Russiaaan 3 years ago
well u might withstand a chance, i obtained 8A*, 2A, 1B, 1C. And i am predicted with 6A in A2. I had my interview yesterday for Biochemistry, the tutors are very nice. Go a head, by applying you have nothing to lose~~
S20021018 3 years ago
sweet thnx! ow and one more thing, when did u apply at AS or second year?
Russiaaan 3 years ago
apply at the year when you do A2, remember that for oxbridge application the closing date is usually earlier than normal. It should be in the middle of October
S20021018 3 years ago
I'm currently living in Australia, and I want to apply for undergrad. We actually graduate in October, but only take exams in november and get our results back december. How can I apply?
thedollarbillgill 3 years ago
awesome!!!
ireneassh 3 years ago
I have a long time to go but Oxford is my dream , thank you for putting this video up :) .
xkateunwantedx 3 years ago
i go to cambridge, trinity college and i feel that people are really elitist in their attitudes, i am from working class background and found it quite difficult to fit in but now that i am here for 3 years i am really enjoying it because you get used to it and you meet new people from everywhere. but yeah its virtually impossible i got 13a*s at GCSE and 5 As at a-levels, and its really common around there so try hard and never give up
LOVE4woolwich 3 years ago 2
you seem to know a little bit about requirements at Oxford, Do you know what UCAS points are? I need like 700 or something... I live in Norway and the british educational system is really complicated...
eizhowa 3 years ago
Impossible is nothing
longrmit 3 years ago
Wow! I want to study there...
jonel002 3 years ago 3
Good luck, it's damn hard to get into Oxford
danlelle 3 years ago 5
really?
notToast 3 years ago
yes really. they have rejected 10,000 students in 2006
korinne09 3 years ago
i ended up first in my region in a math / logic contest can i go to oxford
notToast 3 years ago
I wouldn't say it's that hard to get in to Oxford given that about 1 in 4 people who apply there are accepted. I know that means that a lot of people are discouraged from applying in the first place by their tutors but, still, for some courses, it is statistically harder to get in to, for example, Durham.
Picnicl 2 years ago
about 1 in 3 that apply actually ^_^
PkinKlutchd 2 years ago
1 in 5
Rorxz 2 years ago
But only people who are extremely intelligent even bother to apply. I know you have sort of addressed this but it really changes the whole statistical basis of their applicants and matriculates.
curzmg 2 years ago
Plenty of unintelligent people also apply. I know people in Oxford who are far from being the spectacularly brainy individuals that they are perceived to be.
meaning1 2 years ago
Well then you are talking about personal opinion, perhaps even intuition. I mean only people who are intelligent on paper bother to apply, you won't find many applicants with predicted D grades will you?
curzmg 2 years ago
You will not find students with predicted D grades at ANY university in this day and age. Oxford requires AAA, UCL usually requires AAA, as does Durham, Imperial, LSE etc.On paper, most people have As these days. My point is that the typical Oxford student is not uniquely bright (not anymore so than other top universties' students). Believe me, I know many people in Oxford, and they are relatively dim compared to the people I know in Exeter and UCL.
meaning1 2 years ago
You do realise that those are five of the best universities in the entire country don't you? Perhaps your expectations are slightly elevated but many people would be happy with a couple of Bs and a C, that is not Oxford material. I really don't understand what point you are trying to prove, it sounds as though you are either bitter about not going there or are trying to convince yourself you could have. It is incredibly competitive and only those who are predicted AAA will bother to apply.
curzmg 2 years ago
By the way, out of all the papers marked, only a little more than a fifth of papers are graded A. If we assume that only those with 3 As will apply then we are already in a pretty damn small percentile. If we assume that only 20% of those applicants, who have both 3 As and who actually apply, are accepted then we are in an extremely selective set. Even if all your friends are more intelligent, those at Oxford are still some of the brightest brains in the country.
curzmg 2 years ago
Of course I'm not undermining Oxford as an academic institute, but I think -given the actual standard of its students compared to other top universties - it is overrated. It is a university steeped in history, but the students are no more unique than students in other top universities. As far as your deduction concerning percentiles goes, it is wrong. The number of people who score three As is, perhaps, one tenth...which is far from being the iota of academic brilliance.
meaning1 2 years ago
I really don't think so, purely on the grounds of upper seconds and firsts Oxford gets 4% more than Cambridge and almost 10% more than any other university in the country, not to mention that the courses are generally harder. That means for every 100 students, 10 more get u.s. or firsts. Last time I checked 3% of 18 year olds get AAA at A Level, so not one tenth. I would say that 3% classifies as an iota. Regardless, 3 As are requisite, that doesn't guarantee you a place at Oxford.
curzmg 2 years ago
I think you're missing the overall point. The requisite grades for Oxford are similar or the same in many of the top universities. Some of the mid- echelon universities even ask for AAA now. My original qualm was that you made the assumption that all Oxford applicants are "extremely intelligent". Though there is a higher concentration of people with As in Ox. tan, say, Sheffield, te fact remains that the standards between the top universities are not so immense.
meaning1 2 years ago
'Some of the mid- echelon universities even ask for AAA now' - Name me one and the course. I mean surely if you have applied you know this from personal experience, in any year only a few people apply to Oxford and usually they are regarded as extremely intelligent by their peers. Perhaps not intuitive, perhaps they can't argue effectively, but they are not regarded as average by any means.
curzmg 2 years ago
I cannot recall the specific university courses, but there are universities not in the UK's top ten which ask for AAA/AAB. And no, the typical Oxford student is not usually regarded as average; however, they are not always regarded as "extremely intelligent". You asserted a key point - that only people "intelligent on paper" apply. Yes, but my point was that, on PAPER, there are thousands and thousands of students who would then be regarded as "extremely intelliget". It does not work like that.
meaning1 2 years ago
'on PAPER', do not get me wrong, I only ever asserted that you have to be extremely intelligent on paper to bother to apply. I personally think that the whole system is a fucking joke, that we are tested on the most irrelevant factors of intelligence. Our education system is a fact retaining quiz, we may as well take a pub quiz. I know plenty of people at Oxford that I think are supreme idiots, but then that's just the way it is.
curzmg 2 years ago
"But only people who are extremely intelligent even bother to apply"
You later added that you meant "on paper", but it was your original comment that I disagreed with. On paper,I agree; though I do not think, on paper, Oxford students are any better than UCL/LSE either. On the contrary, everyone I know who gets into UCL gets in because they have a thousand A*s...whereas I do know people with...OK GCSEs/decent A levels who wing the Oxford interview.
meaning1 2 years ago
I made it pretty clear in my second comment that I was talking only about 'on paper'.You are trying to draw this argument one of two ways:you are beginning to get into a semantic argument about what intelligence is,and you are trying to make this into an argument about which is the best of the best.Neither of these relate to my original point, perhaps the first but I ruled this out in my second comment.If you would like to discuss either then I'd be happy to, but sinuous arguments are dangerous.
curzmg 2 years ago
You ruled it out in the second comment, yes. And it was the first comment that disputed, so there is no problem. The only slight point of difference is that I do not feel, on paper, that Oxford students are better (or even as good, in some cases) as Cambridge and UCL students. Many people get in with good,but not amazing results at Oxford (due to the entry exam and interview carrying masses of weight). Out of interest, which university did you go to, if any?
meaning1 2 years ago
I did not make the point that Oxford students are more intelligent than any other, you are playing a game of filling in gaps.I made two unrelated points. That those who apply to Oxford are extremely intelligent (I then saw the danger and corrected my statement to 'on paper').I also made the point that, for next year,Oxford ranks higher than Cambridge. It does according to the guides I trust with the exception of one. That isn't to say I agree, or that this extends to anything more than academia.
curzmg 2 years ago
You are lying, now. You DID say that only the extremely intelligent apply to Oxford...you THEN corrected yourself AFTER I had commented against your point. Do I need to quote you again? The comment that I first saw DID say what you just claimed it didn't. I acknowledged the correction and moved on - you then said, inexplicably, that I was 'pretending' not to see it...
meaning1 2 years ago
I do not understand. I said only the extremely intelligent apply to Oxford, not the extremely intelligent only apply to Oxford. Those two sentences have entirely different meanings. I then realised that this was going to turn into a pointless argument about what intelligence is, so I made the decision to attach the objective results of examination. This was not a correction, it was a refinement. I saw that I may have been misunderstood so I clarified (apparently unsuccessfully) my position.
curzmg 2 years ago
"Only the extremely intelligent apply" IS the fallacy. Because, as I have said numerous times, it is NOT ONLY the extremely intelligent who apply - also the mundanely intelligent. I can see you know you are failing at this, because you are ignoring certain points, lying about what you previously said, and disputing official rankings. You're going to have to learn to argue far more efficiently if you plan on going to UCL/Kings (at 31?...)
meaning1 2 years ago
Are not do immensely different*
You'll have to forgive the missing letters, too: the keyboard is lagging.
Anyway, I was not refuting the overall standards of Oxford. But I do think that it is overrated, given that it ranks quite a bit lower than Cambridge (which I do not think is overrated), and UCL is ranked higher. However, I am just a college student, so I have yet to experience any university atmosphere. Either way, I and many other people know our fair share of idiots at Oxford.
meaning1 2 years ago
Let us try a syllogism here:
1. You made the case yourself that 10% is not an iota.
2. Oxford (with the exception of two universities) gets proportionately 10% (+/- 1%) more 1sts and upper seconds than any other university in the U.K.
3. Oxford is not an iota better than any other university, it is better (on a purely academic basis), the difference is therefore then surely not negligible.
curzmg 2 years ago
That is entirely invalid as a point, and highly "negligible". Oxford is not raked the highest, and does not always score the highest, therefore it is defintely a point of contention. Oxford ranks 5th with Imperial, and reviews/ratings have placed Oxford on par with UCL + LSE...with Cambridge just about exceeding them all.
meaning1 2 years ago
Ok now to me there are only two ranking systems worth listening to; those being 'The Good University Guide' in which Oxford ranks higher than Cambridge, and 'The Academic Ranking of World Universities' which lists Cambridge way above Oxford and UCL even further down. That is not the argument though, I've always seen the choice between Oxford & Cambridge as a location preference, they are essentially the same, with UCL pretty much with them.
curzmg 2 years ago
I think you need to re-check that table...UCL is fourth best - followed by Oxford joint fifth with Imperial. Harvard is first, followed by Cambidge, then Yale. And no, the argument was pertaining to intelligence. And, as you can see, your original comment did not say "on paper", it just said "only people who are extremely intelligent apply".
meaning1 2 years ago
Sorry I just did and I was right. What are you looking at 'The Good University Guide' only considers universities in the UK. The Times, The Independent and The Guardian rate Oxford above Cambridge for 2010. This is really irrelevant but those are the facts. But it would be ignorant of you, in the most literal sense, to pretend I never made that second comment and to wildly pursue some ridiculous straw-man.
curzmg 2 years ago
"You ruled it out in the second comment, yes. And it was the first comment that I disputed, so there is no problem."
Ignoring what I write? I did not pretend that you had not made the second comment, I acknowledged it. I was just piqued by your first comment. As for the leages, I will post the links. It is in the telegraph, Daily Mail etc. I am talking about world rankings, obviously, as mentioned Harvard and Yale.
meaning1 2 years ago
Sorry, but you are going to cite the Daily Mail... Really? It is a tabloid paper. Ok this is just a difference in who we put faith in so this argument on rankings is nullified. I am taking a year out and didn't defer, I intend on applying to UCL and King's.
curzmg 2 years ago
No, that was ONE source. The telegraph, London Now, etc...it is everywhere. Are you actually in denial? It made it to several papers and is OFFICIAL.
meaning1 2 years ago
Official?do you not understand how this works?Each paper does its own survey(some nick others)and it is the 'Good University Guide' published by The Times that is usually considered the most reliable.I have mentioned that this was my source,you could have contested that at any moment.The Times is one of the most respected newspapers in the world that is why I refer to it over others.The newest Telegraph league I can find is from 2007 and even that admits that Oxford students got better results.
curzmg 2 years ago