<p>Thanks for the very interesting article. IMHO, while funding does affect a university in many more ways than one, what matters most (at undergrad level) is still how you are taught by the professors at university, and rather not what salary he/she is getting or how much endowment the university has. This is not to say money is unimportant - it certainly matters for grads and research (all the high-end labs, equipments etc), which is why more prominient researchers are lured to U.S. Even then, these researchers/professors may or may not directly teach undergrads in U.S.?</p>
<p>UK does has a strong hold in undergrad teaching, though obviously not all UK universities offer good teaching. The top UK unis sure do though. (Read my previous post on Oxbridge's one-to-one system)</p>
<p>yeh also dont forget the colleges in oxbridge and durham are autonomous, so actually its not the university that gives you the 1-to-1s but the colleges.</p>
<p>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)!</p>
<p>its hard to understand isnt it? i dont get it myself.</p>
<p>cenovia - "..... based on the fact that so many Ivy graduates are in top graduate programs, both in America and other countries." </p>
<p>No one is saying that there are no Ivy grads in top graduate programs. The whole point is - UK grads (who went to top UK universities for their undergrad) know more about their subject matter than Ivy grads. Simply because the UK undergrad program is more focused and they learn deeply into their subject matter, and hence would know a tons of a lot more things when they start their PhD/Masters, as compared to Ivy grads.</p>
<p>"what matters most (at undergrad level) is still how you are taught by the professors at university, and rather not what salary he/she is getting or how much endowment the university has."</p>
<p>I agree that the professors who you learn from are very important. However, if you bothered to read the article in its entirety, it explains that many of Oxbridge's best professors have left for HYPSM. Why? Higher salary from US universities which operate on a meritocracy (awarding grant money to profs with talent rather than the egalitarian approach of UK universities). Thus the prof's salaries definitely play a crucial role in the quality of a university's faculty.</p>
<p>Excerpt from article:
As well as the best students, Summers is also fighting for the best staff. In the US there is a massive turnover
of faculty as star academics are lured with lucrative inducements - offers of houses or cars, money for
laboratories or think-tanks - from one university to another. When I was in Harvard, there was much
back-slapping that Steven Pinker, the celebrated evolutionary psychologist, had been persuaded to switch
allegiances from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
We spend a lot of time thinking about finding and recruiting, Larry Summers assured me. We think about
peoples homes, peoples spouses, the educational needs of their kids. Getting the stars is important because
they attract students, money and awards; academic achievement is highly skewed and it is this elite that
comes up with the big ideas that fill the textbooks for the next 100 years.</p>
<p>Britain, with its clever, underpaid academics, is an obvious target. The top US universities can more than
double UK academics salaries and require them to do less teaching so they can write or focus on research.
Many British academics have accepted the offer. Niall Ferguson, the star Oxford historian, last year
decamped to New York and this year is moving to Harvard; Peter Goddard, master of St Johns, Cambridge,
last year moved to Princeton to run its Institute for Advanced Study. When I walked through Oxford with
Alan Ryan, warden of New College, he recited a list of star academics who had left the university and said:
We are in danger of turning into an incubator for the likes of Yale and Harvard.</p>
<hr>
<p>So my point: yes, the 1-1 system of Oxbridge is great...but if the best Oxbridge professors are leaving for the US (whether for research or monetary gains), how can you claim that Oxbridge are still the best (using your claim that it's the professors who define a good education)</p>
<p>"No one is saying that there are no Ivy grads in top graduate programs. The whole point is - UK grads (who went to top UK universities for their undergrad) know more about their subject matter than Ivy grads. Simply because the UK undergrad program is more focused and they learn deeply into their subject matter, and hence would know a tons of a lot more things when they start their PhD/Masters, as compared to Ivy grads."</p>
<p>It really depends on your view on education. The UK and US systems are very different. Most schools in the US are liberal arts schools and the philosophy of a liberal arts education is that an educated person is a well-rounded person. In the UK, students acquire a lot of depth about one subject area and no knowledge of any other subject areas. I don't think its fair to say that one system produces more educated people; it's totally up to each person and his/her values. Personally, I like the US system which is why I wanted to study in the US and not Canada (which is very similar to UK), but to each her own.</p>
<p>"The top US universities can more than double UK academics salaries and require them to do less teaching so they can write or focus on research."</p>
<p>I think this sums up most of what I am thinking, and confirms what I heard that many oxbridge professors are lured over because they can avoid teaching (to a much lesser extent) in U.S.</p>
<p>This, however, does not translate to Oxbridge not attracting enough eminient professors to fill the gap. Being perceived as one of the best universities in the world mean that Oxbridge will never have too many problems attracting enough good people there. Let's just say it is not very likely that the two universities will end up with crappy professors who can't teach or research for nuts just because the 'star academics' all went to U.S.</p>
<p>In the first place, the 'star academics' only became "stars" at Oxford and Cambridge through their years of research there, so the universities must be doing something right in their 'training' of academics/researchers.</p>
<p>It is sad, but true, that U.S. universities are poaching them with money offers.</p>
<p>Anyway, the point is - them leaving Oxbridge does not mean undergrad teaching at Oxbridge is any less. There are always sufficient eminient professors around. Stephen Hawking (at Cambridge) being one.</p>
<p>i duno my oxbridge friends are always boasting about having the people who write the textbooks giving them 1-to-1 sessions, so...</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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). </p>
<p>
[quote]
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)!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>It is sad for Oxbridge. Seriously, you seem to have a problem making deductions from even the simplest things. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Seriously, you seem to have a problem making deductions from even the simplest things.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>It has become apparent to me that there is no use in trying to debate with you, since you lack the skills.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>I have nothing against American universities, otherwise I wouldn't have applied.</p>
<p>I have already explained to you in straight forward terms why it is economically sensible for the UK to get more university students.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>I am still interested as to how attracting more people into university correlates with the UK's education system being "BS".</p>
<p>aca, perhaps I wasn't clear. Earlier, I said:</p>
<p>"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."</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Let's bring this down to earth guys, the Oxbridge love-in thing, that is. Let me be devil's advocate..</p>
<p>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..</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>According to the stats at least 50% of straight A students don't even bother applying.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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..</p>