beyphy

That's probably true. I'm sure that an ego boost is provided by thinking that Caltech is a slightly worse Imperial; or that Princeton is a slightly worse Oxford. But again, lacking the comparable endowment, facilities, and academic talent, this probably isn't the case.

As a side point, i find it interesting that QS and Times used to work together and now, each lists one of two rivals as the best university in the world: MIT and Caltech (respectively)

g0ld3n

Eh, I have a hard time believing that Oxbridge is NOT comparable to Harvard/Stanford/MIT/Caltech. Their endowment does not properly reflect their prowess in academia since the University is a federation of colleges and functions differently than the standard US university. Maybe it's just my British bias even though I have never stepped on British soil, I don't know, but I really do legitimately believe that Oxbridge is comparable to Harvard/Stanford/MIT/Caltech.

beyphy

They're equal in reputation, but then you'd also have to call Berkeley their peer as well, which seems counter-intuitive (at least to me.)

They're great universities, that's undeniable. But they're just slightly below HYPSM.

After Oxbridge, there's a steep fall in the quality of universities. It's hard to compare Imperial or UCL to American universities. But i think most would agree that they shouldn't be with oxbridge among the top 6 worlds best universities.

warblersrule

Eh, I don't know about that. I think most people would agree that Cambridge is their peer in math, for example, and Oxford in philosophy. Both outperform HYPSM in some humanities and social sciences like classics, archaeology, Oriental studies, and geography. Law takes about 3 years, and medicine 6, a significant advantage over the American system in both time and money. Let's also not forget the tutorial system, which even Williams (considered one of the most undergraduate-focused colleges in the US) has striven to emulate. Many of the museums and resources -- Oxford's Ashmolean, natural history museum, and Bodleian, for example -- compare favorably with the holdings of any American university.

Princeton, MIT, and Stanford are stronger in engineering, and most/all of HYPSM may be a bit stronger in the sciences in general, but overall, I think Oxford and Cambridge perform quite well.

That said, I agree that there is a noticeable drop in quality and reputation after Cambridge and Oxford, and UK universities do seem to be a bit overranked in the QS ranking. UCL is arguably the third best university in the UK, and even it is probably closer to Toronto or Wisconsin than Stanford and Harvard.

g0ld3n

Well then if everyone truly believes that Oxbridge is not on the very same level as HPSMC then maybe the real question should be what happened for the English Ancient Universities' to fall from grace? They used to be undisputably the #1 academic center on the planet before the last quarter of the 20th century. Everything used to be the British. I'm just wondering maybe we have a big American bias because how many people in this thread actually have even half a year of personal experience at Oxbridge?

beyphy

I can't comment on most of their programs, but i have heard complaints about Oxford's philosophy program. I've heard that their doctoral program feels much less student focused. They might accuse American doctoral programs of "hand-holding" their graduate students. Ultimately it might just amount to a fundamental difference in pedagogical philosophy. Whether it makes a difference is hard to say since such outcomes are hard to measure. All i can say is that i've heard some complaints about the program (but i suppose that could be said of any university.)

I'm not denying that Oxford isn't our philosophical peer. Their program is well respected, and at least three professors from my department got their PHDs at Oxford. And they certainly had top people working for them, past (Gareth Evans) and present (Timothy Williamson.) I was just trying to say that calling them our peer is sort of an odd statement, given how different they are at teaching the subject matter.

I won't comment on law since it takes the same amount of time as (most) ABA certified law schools in the U.S. What i will say is that i've heard someone from a U.K. university say that they're like 10 years behind us with regard to their facilities. Such facilities are very expensive so it isn't that surprising, but 10 years!? Granted, i don't know if he went to Oxbridge, so i can't comment on whether it applies to them or not, but he made it seem as if it was undisputed fact.

I also don't know if i agree with your post, which seems to imply a tit-for-tat relationship. Aren't we their peer in humanities and mathematics, but they aren't our peer in the sciences which require new and expensive facilities? And if that's the case, then aren't they a notch below HYPSM, as i concluded above?

I don't think they got worse, elite American universities just got significantly better. This is in part due to the size of the US' GDP, and that it devotes the percentage of its GDP to education. Institutes like the NIH and NSF, for example, have become an instrumental part of universities' budgets.

But let's take a look at a particular elite American university. Stanford, for example, has a higher endowment than Oxbridge combined, but still has less students than either university individually. This gives Stanford the flexibility to do many things that they can't do. And Stanford isn't even the richest American university.

orangelogic

I love the armchair assessments of the relative merits of Oxbridge. Particularly from people who've never studied at either institution and likely have little understanding of how they operate. The world of higher education is a lot bigger than what goes on in the United States. Only those whose experience hasn't yet reached beyond their locality would think otherwise.

Alexandre

I personally think OxBridge are on par with HYPSM. My issue with QS and Times is that they make it seem as though Imperial and UCL are also on par with them...they are not. Imperial lacks the academic breadth and both of them the resources to effectively complete with the top US universities.