<br>
<blockquote> <p>To me, an Oxford education is becoming less and less relevant today. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's the best.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Insert Harvard for Oxford and you'll have a statement that many Harvard detractors say about that school.</p>
<p>The reality is that both Oxford and Harvard are two of the finest universities in the known universe.</p>
<p>An Oxford education is still one of the best in the world to get, but the sad truth is that is going to be very hard to maintain that standard of education with their current finances (kind of the same thing is happening at Berkeley, but Oxford hasn't gotten to that level yet). Oxbridge is finding it harder and harder to compete with its American competitors and its education programs are slipping (or rather, growing at a slower rate) compared to that competition. I think that that is what Massamune meant by the Oxford education becoming less and less relevant. Another thing he may have meant by it was that as more and more traditionally less prestigious colleges emerge as intellectual powerhouses (Pomona, Duke, even Stanford in a historical context), the traditionally top schools 'lead' is reduced, making an education there mean less than it would when there was less competition. </p>
<p>'Just because its old doesn't mean its the best is true' in most circumstances. But universities are a conditional anomoly to the rule, as the most prestigious univerties can attract the things that make universities great (talented faculty and student, donations for research etc.). This prestige is largely based on age in the case of universities. However, I still partially agree with Masamune when he made this statement, as after a certain age the age of a university can stop adding to prestige significantly (and may even detract from the university's quality by reducing its ability to adapt). So just because Oxford is technically the oldest elite university in the world, HPY have also acheived this necessary age and can be judged alongside it (by most rankings beating Oxford). Even the relative newcomer Stanford has made its way above Oxbridge on world-wide rankings. So yes, I agree with the statement that just because Oxford is the oldest university in the world it isn't the best, for the simple reason that age becomes irrelevent after a necessary age and Oxford is not the greatest university in the world at the moment. It is a great university nonetheless, and Masamune's disregard of it was uncalled for.</p>
<p>Masamunes comment about the quality of an Oxford undergrad degree is
ignorant and rude. We all know the frighteningly in depth and rigorous education Oxbridge provides (check out the course syllabus- the work load is phenominal). Where in IVY league schools do you get 1-1 tuition from a proffessor for 2 hours 3-4 days a week on top of lectures?</p>
<p>Madd stressed the reason i applied to St Peters is not really because it was easy to get in to (which it isnt) but because my tutor is head of Astrophysics at Oxford and specialises is black hole research (my favourite area).</p>
<p>Oxford future is a very debated topic. Oxfords endowment is the second highest in Europe ($5billion), with total funding also being the second highest-After Cambridge. The top up fees introduced this year will at current level (£3000) per year only sustain Oxfords ranking for another five years. Here are the options</p>
<p>1) cut the number of spaces for british undergrads and take more high fee paying foreign students (ironically making it an a good alternative for ivy league applicants)</p>
<p>likelyhood?- 10% cut already is taking place from 2007. Foreign student fees set to rise.</p>
<p>2) try to increase donations from alumini</p>
<p>happening, **** hot new fundraiser (from Toronto university) who aims to at least double annual donations from this year to $90m from $180m
currently only 5% of alumini give compared to 50% for Princeton.
Cambridge attempting to raise $2billion over the next decade.</p>
<p>3) increase top up fees.</p>
<p>very likely, over the next few years these will probably rise to 5k per year.</p>
<p>4) go completely private like Harvard?</p>
<p>unlikely, but Oxford has stated over the next 5 years it is to become increasingly independent from government control.</p>
<p>I wish it would go totally private, almost overnight we would overtake Cambridge and within a decade, through charging fees of $30k from wealthy home students we might rise to 2-3rd in the world rankings from 9th. Fees in my opinion should be as high as Harvards, and on top of this should be dependent on family income. So many wealthy students study at Oxford, yet only have to pay $6k per year!</p>
<p>Oxford is the British Institution, it educates our leaders. Believe me, think they are they are going to let it down without a fight?</p>
<p>None of this, or Harvards wealth is really relevant as an undergrad though.</p>
<p>Bluefuture, you know astro is an extremely small field, right? If we're not collaborating in ten years, we'll certainly be seeing each other at conferences and the like. Wonder if we'll remember each other from here? lol</p>
<p>hey....hey harvard is 1636! Know your harvard history!! :) :D</p>
<p>Sorry dude, I was wrong about Oxford too! first recorded teaching=1096!</p>
<p>Come on, University College was founded by Alfred the Great in the 9th century, or at least that's what the college used to claim. Unfortunately it was based on a document forged in the 14th century for use in a property dispute :)</p>
<p>fascinating...</p>
<p>I admit Oxford's an excellent institution. Didn't mean to make everyone mad. Madd Stressed phrased my opinions well.</p>