<p>Recently I heard some talk about U of Oxford being much more famous than U of Cambridge in the US. Is this true or are they equally famous?</p>
<p>As far as I’ve heard, they are about equally famous in the US.</p>
<p>Again, though, for grad programs the quality of fit matters a heck of a lot more than the prestige of the school, especially when comparing two similarly prestigious schools like Oxford and Cambridge.</p>
<p>Would employers in the US view a degree from Oxbridge as similar in prestige to that from HYPMS?</p>
<p>Oxford is generally is seen as being the “Humanities and Social Science” half of oxbridge, with cambridge as the research half. But they are both basically the same in terms of prestige and respect.</p>
<p>ThePhilosopher: Really? That’s funny, considering the Oxford biosciences department is much better than the Cambridge one, at least for postgrad. Perhaps historically Cambridge is considered more important due to Crick & Watson discovering the structure of DNA there, but Oxford has pretty consistently been ahead since.</p>
<p>I’m not saying that a good program doesn’t exist there. I’m just saying that typically, in the non-academic field, that is how to two programs are viewed from at least my experience. Its sort of like how Harvard Law is considered to teach more “practical law” while Yale law is considered to teach more “theoretical law.”</p>
<p>They are the same, but Oxford is really better, don’t you think?</p>
<p>Probably true that among the mass of people in the US, Oxford is more famous, primarily because Rhodes Scholars get mentioned a lot here. The selectors of Rhodes Scholars have a really good track record at picking people who later become well-known (Bill Clinton being the most prominent example, but there are many more), or in some cases – e.g., Bill Bradley – are already famous when they’re picked. At the same time, the Scholarship is a glitzy enough credential that news accounts go out of their way to mention when a subject has received one. The net result of this feedback loop is that the program is great publicity within the US for Oxford.</p>
<p>Here’s a list of “prominent” recipients. <a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_Rhodes_Scholars[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_Rhodes_Scholars</a> One notable characteristic that most of these folks have in common (besides a knack for getting their names in the papers) is an enormous ego.</p>
<p>Cambridge is better for science, Oxford is better for humanities/social sciences. If you are asking about each school’s reputation, there you go.</p>
<p>And by the way, Oxford’s biology program is not better than Cambridge’s… I’m not sure why you have that misconception.</p>
<p>I know several people who have visited and interviewed with both and opinion is fairly unanimously skewed towards Oxford.</p>
<p>I’ve never heard of either of these places. Oxford? Cambridge? Are these professional schools somewhere in the UK?</p>
<p>‘I know several people who have visited and interviewed with both and opinion is fairly unanimously skewed towards Oxford.’</p>
<p>What programs did they interview with? I know for genetics Cambridge is right next to the Sanger Institute and EBI so there is a lot of activity focused in molecular biology, genomics, systems bio, structural bio… Oxford has great evolutionary biology, ecology, zoology… on the whole I’d say it’s a mixed bag.</p>
<p>Those institutes in Cambridge you mention have their own PhD programs. Oxford has fantastic biochemistry and related research, and they have a brand new department building with excellent labs. Anyway it doesn’t really matter to me since I’m not going to either!</p>
<p>cambridge is ahead of oxford especially in the sciences… just look at cambridge physics and who’s there</p>
<p>Oh wait, you mean Oxbridge?</p>