Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.

Rank the universities of the WORLD


Replies to: Rank the universities of the WORLD

  • uWarwickuWarwick Registered User Posts: 28 New Member
    i duno my oxbridge friends are always boasting about having the people who write the textbooks giving them 1-to-1 sessions, so...

    there is braindrain to the US but only people for whom money is a big issue.
    here at warwick we have some great profs who have written a couple of textbooks between them, i dont think they care that much about money, its more about climbing the academic ladder.
  • aca0260aca0260 Registered User Posts: 693 Member
    hash - you need to relax and take your condescending attitude elsewhere...we are merely trying to discuss something and your acting like an Oxford recruiter dressed in the disguise of a little child.

    Anyways...theres really no point to debate with you...you resist a seemingly simple topic like inflation. The goal is lofty, resources are being wasted, and institutions are digressing.

    If you took the time to read my comments, you wouldnt get your panties in a bunch. I said that you are making the admission of legacies, athletes, etc at top schools larger than it is. It just doesnt happen at the astronomical rate which you claim. Take a look at the kids on the Harvard football team...they all have SAT scores in excess of 1300. Doesnt this correlate with your argument that Oxbridge recruits the most well-rounded? You said you might have all A+'s and Oxbridge will easily take some with a few A's and a few B's that is well-rounded. Well doesnt Harvard, letting in football players with 1350 over kids with 1450 do the same thing?
  • cevoniacevonia Registered User Posts: 501 Member
    Why is it sad? It's smart. Take the best, offer them what they dream of, everyone benefits. Oxbridge can't rely on their name forever. It doesn't matter if Newton or Keynes formulated ideas that changed the world on the Cambridge campus if Cambridge today can't offer a competitive contract. By going to Harvard, they get to both study the academics they love and get well paid for it. What's more, they'll be working alongside the finest of their peers. It's really a no-brainer.

    Also it's not usually the eminent professors that make the best teachers (the exception probably being those like Cornel West, who got reprimanded by Summers for not being scholarly enough).
    like trinity college cambridge (a constituent college of cambridge university) has an endowment more than the actual universities of oxford and cambridge put together. and madalen (sp) college oxford is wealthier than some countries (i heard)!

    I read something similar, though I think what it meant was that the endowment of the colleges is way larger than the endowment of the umbrella group "the University of Oxford" or "the University of Cambridge" (which do co-ordination, exams, admin, the specialised labs like the Cavendish, etc.) Hope that clears it up.
  • aca0260aca0260 Registered User Posts: 693 Member
    How much is this endowment?
  • cevoniacevonia Registered User Posts: 501 Member
    The overall endowment (colleges + umbrella group) is usually estimated at around US$2 billion each for Oxford and Cambridge, perfectly respectable even by American standards. Their shortfall lies primarily in the fact they can't set tuitions.
  • aca0260aca0260 Registered User Posts: 693 Member
    Yes 2 billion US is respectable...but it isnt elite

    Harvard is 22 billion
    Yale is 14 billion
    even Michigan, a public school is 5 billion
    even University of Toronto, a public school is 1.5 billion

    2 billion is alot in the grand scheme of things but it just isnt enough financially to make Oxford and Cambridge competitive with the Ivy's
  • cevoniacevonia Registered User Posts: 501 Member
    Oops, my bad, its over 2 billion pounds each (so around US$4 bn), not dollars.
  • jkhjkh Registered User Posts: 120 Junior Member
    "Why is it sad? It's smart"

    It is sad for Oxbridge. Seriously, you seem to have a problem making deductions from even the simplest things.

    And there is nothing smart about offering money pots for eminient professors. If oxbridge has the dough (as does any other university) they too would be offering the money pot too. It's common sense.
  • cevoniacevonia Registered User Posts: 501 Member
    Seriously, you seem to have a problem making deductions from even the simplest things.

    I thought you meant sad in the sense that you felt as though academia was being demeaned somehow (as in, it's a sad state of affairs). I don't think you can apply the term 'sad' to a university. Are you sure you don't mean it's a pity for Oxbridge? Seriously, learn to use the English language properly.
  • hashhash Registered User Posts: 186 Junior Member

    It has become apparent to me that there is no use in trying to debate with you, since you lack the skills.

    You made some points/comments which I responded to, and I made some comments of my own. However, you could not reply without degrading yourself to the level of name calling.

    I already told you, I am not launching a personal attack on you, or American Universities. I am simply putting forward the other side of the argument. Not only for you, but for others who visit the the site. It would be a shame if others' views about Oxbridge were to be negatively polarized by people who make ill informed comments.

    I have nothing against American universities, otherwise I wouldn't have applied.

    I have already explained to you in straight forward terms why it is economically sensible for the UK to get more university students.

    In any case, the UK has also introduced a wide range of formal qualifications for vocational subjects (e.g. hairdressing, carpentry etc). So even the people with non-academic jobs will be well trained and educated in their fields.

    I am still interested as to how attracting more people into university correlates with the UK's education system being "BS".
  • hashhash Registered User Posts: 186 Junior Member
    aca, perhaps I wasn't clear. Earlier, I said:

    "A candidate who has straight A+ grades will NOT get in over a candidate with many As and a few Bs but who is committed to the course and has done a number of ECs related to the course and otherwise."

    Oxbridge look for applicants commited to the course. One way of measuring commitment is looking at the ECs done related to the course. Not necessarily ECs not related to the course.
  • cevoniacevonia Registered User Posts: 501 Member
    Of course, there is some devaluation of degrees. So Mr X who got a degree in crap studies at crap university will still end up being a janitor. In which case...what's the harm in having an educated janitor?

    So it makes economic sense for the government to spend 10,000 pounds a year subsidising the uneccessary education of a janitor? I think that's a pretty good example of 'waste'. While I agree that it is good that England specialises even further to retain competitive edge, I don't think that arbitrarily setting a number and then cutting all sorts of corners to achieve it is helping the economy. Instead, the government should place more emphasis on reforming the A-levels and improving the quality of the universities, not the quantity. Having 20,000 badly taught economists is much worse 10,000 well taught ones.
  • hashhash Registered User Posts: 186 Junior Member
    err, the educated janitor commment was tongue in cheek, not to be taken seriously :) . I'm sorry if it seemed otherwise.
  • ParforthecourseParforthecourse Registered User Posts: 17 New Member
    Let's bring this down to earth guys, the Oxbridge love-in thing, that is. Let me be devil's advocate..

    1/There were some newspaper scandals recently about Oxbridge tutors taking bribes to let people in. A lot of entry is still based on social class and connections with particular private schools. Oxbridge has a terrible record for taking students from poor families and for taking mature and disadvantaged students..

    2/Oxbridge has the time to do interviews because it doesn't get that many applications per place... In fact Oxbridge application rates are amongst the lowest in the country.

    According to the stats at least 50% of straight A students don't even bother applying.

    3/Oxbridge has a terrible record for innovation. It was left to LSE to pioneer social sciences in the UK and Imperial to do the same for technology. Now of course those areas have taken off and Oxbridge has tried to muscle its way in, using its unearned inherited wealth acquired in the many centuries when there were only two universities in the UK.

    4/The same pattern is repeating itself in business studies: for years Oxbridge sneered, then suddenly it saw the dollar signs and now it's trying to buy itself into a field which others pioneered.

    5/Of course Oxbridge and Cambridge are world class universities, but for chrissake cut the bowing and scraping whenever somebody mentions them..they have their faults as well as their merits..
  • jkhjkh Registered User Posts: 120 Junior Member
    1. When students from poor families and disadvantaged students don't even send in an application to Oxbridge, how are they to take them in in the first place?

    2. If everyone is allowed to apply to BOTH oxford and cambridge, everyone else would. From applicants in the UK, to EU, to overseas. Try restricting applicants to apply to only one of HYPSM and let's see if applicant per place would drop or rise.

    The 50% of straight A applicants probably recognise that there are other good universities in UK who suit their needs more. (closer to home, cheaper city to live in etc)

    3. Oxbridge probably learnt how to use their wealth from wealthy American universities.

    4. Again, seeing the dollar opportunity is not unlike American universities.

    5. This I agree. Oxbridge does has its demerits.
This discussion has been closed.