<p>^Depends on the girls. If Rice has hotter girls than Cambridge, then Rice is definitely superior.</p>
<p>Owned 
But, not necessarily true. Letās say, the average British girl barely wear anything, and theyār always keen for some action. Despite this, the girls of Rice can be hotter, true. Debate solved: Rice is superior to Cambridge because itās girls. Makes sense, at last, and possibly even satisfies IvyBear too:D</p>
<p>^Waitā¦if what you say about the average British girl is true then Cambridge is superior to Rice.</p>
<p>Hereās something Iāve wondered about:
Are all the different colleges at Oxford and Cambridge considered equally prestigious, by those in the know in UK? Is a degree from the least respected college at Oxford more prestigious than a degree from the next most respected university in UK below Oxbridge? How does that work?</p>
<p>Look at all the different Oxford colleges in Table 9 of this link:
<a href=āhttp://www.ox.ac.uk/media/global/wwwoxacuk/localsites/gazette/documents/statisticalinformation/UGAdmissionsStats2009.pdf[/url]ā>http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/global/wwwoxacuk/localsites/gazette/documents/statisticalinformation/UGAdmissionsStats2009.pdf</a>
(Not that I understand it, or what āmaintainedā means, butā¦)</p>
<p>Is a grad of Brasenose College, Oxford, considered just the same as a grad of Mansfield College, Oxford? Etc? Or are distinctions made, by the educated elite and high-level employers?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is no āleast or most respected collegeā, and Oxbridge colleges donāt grant individual degrees - only the university does. So in that sense, yes theyāre all considered equally prestigious.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>P.S. I believe maintained refers to government maintained schools (public, non-fee paying schools). Table 9 simply refers to the level of applicants from public schools.</p>
<p>āOxbridge colleges donāt grant individual degrees - only the university does. So in that sense, yes theyāre all considered equally prestigious.ā</p>
<p>Iāll accept it that people in UK donāt make distinctions, if thatās the case, but itās not merely because only the university grants degrees. If there were material differences in prestige associated with individual colleges there, people would just ask you to identify the particular college at Oxford you attended, or you would seek to volunteer that information. So for example there are some who would distinguish a graduate of Columbia College from a graduate of Columbia School of General Studies, though both receive degrees from Columbia University.</p>
<p>The good old question. Letās say that colleges and the federal university are just like the states and the US as a whole. Each state have itās own budget, have a certain degree of independence with own leaders, have its own police, institutions, ecc, but they are not independent. They belong to a country, and the government, the senate and congress make the laws, they order, say, the military to do that and that, they have the money, to run high-tech institutions like NASA. The Oxbridge system is very same to this; the colleges have a certain degree of independence, own money, etc, but they belong to the university, and the university is the institution that runs the departments/faculties, research centres, and have the big money and power. Most teaching staff (but not the research staff) belongs to the university via a department, and to a college as well. Like a US senator represents his native state and the whole US too, and belongs to both.</p>
<p>Actually, the importance of colleges is falling rapidly. That is indeed true, that centuries ago the central university was pretty weak, and both Oxford and Cambridge were a bunch of different colleges (in many cases, strong and powerful ones), with a little central administration. Nowadays, however, from a purely research perspective, the colleges are absolutely neglectable. The colleges have their libraries for example, but the departments have their own research libraries, and there are damm big, world-class central university libraries in both Cambridge and Oxford. Researchers barely ever use college libraries, just the ones belongs directly to the university. In case of hard-science, all research centres belongs to the university, and there is a raising number of research staff without any college affiliation. The colleges still rich, but when, for example, college X built a nice and spacious research like centre for Ā£15 million, at the same time the university build a complex cost Ā£ 1 billionā¦</p>
<p>So, nowadays the colleges became what they originally were: the places where students (mainly undergrads) live, socialize, and study (undergrads partially receive teaching in the college, postgrads never ever). But that college faculty that teaches in a college, also belongs to a department as wellā¦there are no differences in received teaching. The college systemās benefit is creating a smaller, intimate environment (which consist hundreds of people, still, compared to the total number of students, which is about 17-18.000 both places, it is small), with own traditions, history, wonderful buildings, the feeling that the student not ājustā belongs to Oxbridge, but to a particular college as well, own social life, and the wonderful supervisions. So, for (undergraduate) teaching, and socializing, the college system is great. But it have nothing to do with the research, and the quality of degrees: you receive a degree, with all the necessary data, and that you were a member of xy college. Thatās all. Because of the previously mentioned reasons, no one is interested your college membership. </p>
<p>Obviously there is a romantic notion how important the colleges are, but Oxford and Cambridge are not belongs to the world top 10 universities because of such romanticism and wonderful old buildings and traditions, but because they spend hundreds of millions of pounds every year on research and research facultiesā, and they have excellent departments and excellent professors. Neither have anything to do with the good old colleges, their traditions and myths. </p>
<p>Outside the UK, people barely knows what a college is, and just interested in the fact that you have an Oxbridge degree in hand. The only advance of being in a particularly college could that, you possibly meet an important guy, who was also a member of that college, and it will turn out as a benefit for you. But thereās very little chance for thatā¦ Otherwise, the nice, mainly old colleges are just the places when people socialize - and they are wonderful places to do that, thatās for sure! Otherwise, as I said, their importance is falling rapidly. And of course, the colleges existence makes people confused about the Oxbridge system :D</p>
<p>P.S. The basic college prestige indicators are the wealth, age, and how many famous people attended to the college. Obviously, most people wants to belong to a rich, old one, but this hardly ever affects the quality of teaching - simply because as mentioned, all college staff belongs to a department as well. In case of postgrads studying for a Masters (MPhil, in Oxbridge) or a PhD, it is even more simple. I know many-many research students who donāt care much with their collegesā¦sometimes they go to formal halls, but they live and work outside the college, and they just go there once in a blue moon. There are no obligations to do reverse. You can have social life outside of the college, although many research staff have problems with it, as they donāt belong to a college, and it effects their social life heavily. But social life, eating in medieval college halls, and proudly saying that you are a member of a 700 years old college, hardly effect the quality of teaching, or research. As everyone know this in the UK, nobody cares with college affiliations. And, as said, outside the UK, nobody ever hear about the colleges, so they donāt care with it, just the sigh on the paper, that it was awarded by Oxbridge. Thatās simple :)</p>
<p>But here, for example Columbia General Studies shares faculty with Columbia College, arguably difficult to distinguish by research, they are all part of the same university. But, though they are all part of the same university, one college is much more difficult to gain admission to than the other. And many people here will recognize and consider this difference.To a not insignificant extent, prestige here is influenced by difficulty of admissions.</p>
<p>So I take it thatās not the case there, or admissions difficulty to every college is basically indistiguishable?</p>
<p>Nobody knows the answer for that. Undergraduates must choose one Oxbridge college from the 68 or so (as they cannot apply to both Oxford and Cambridge at the same time, and they can just apply to one collegeā¦). And most people thinks that getting into Trinity, the wealthiest and most prestigious of all Oxbridge colleges, is far more difficult than getting into a ā¦say, women only Cambridge college. But, there was an interesting comparison, that as no college have obligations to make an interview with those students applied there, they can get many from the pool of applicants submitted an open application, so did not indicate a college choice. As a result, about one third of those applied to Trinity get admitted, but just 15% of those of that women only college. So, the women only is more prestigious, or better than Trinity? Hardlyā¦ </p>
<p>The acceptance rates do not differ significantly, and also, there is a university-wide standard, that you must have xy points, and have A-s and A*-at a GCE Advanced level. If you have all the grades and points, that will not make it for sure, that you will have an interview (and of course, you must perform really well on the interviews, and tests), just that you have the necessary grades for that. Also, many colleges emphasise different things: Churchill Collegeās student population is about 80% engineering and the like students. Clare College welcomes those who wants to deal with music more, than other colleges. Many colleges do not have such priorities, but many have. many people apply to a particular college because of family affiliations (brother, mother went there), or they just fallen in love with that college when visited it. So they apply there, but this is, again, not about quality. The pool of applicants not differs, neither the admission statistics.</p>
<p>I understand your point with Columbia, but this is not how things work in Oxbridge. The big difference (at an undergrad level, as about 70-80% of undergrads are still from the UK, while about 60% of postgrads are from elsewhere) is between the pool of applicants to Oxford and Cambridge, and the rest of the UK universities. Of course, there is a certain difference between the University College London, and the Queen Mary London applicants, but the biggest difference is between the Oxbridge applicant pool, and the rest. Everyone lookes to the Oxford or Cambridge statistics, not the individual colleges, as the latter barely ever differs. (Have to add, that the Oxbridge acceptance rate is bigger than the HYPSM rate, because, as mentioned, one cannot apply to Oxford and Cambridge at the same time, what basically splits the applicant numbers. Also, in the UK a student can apply to 5 universities, while there are no such restrictions in the US, so US universities receive much more applications.) </p>
<p>For graduates, it is even easier - you have two college choices, or you can have an open application. You apply to the particular department/faculty, and also there is a central university institution, checks your application. Even if, because of some reasons both colleges reject you (for example Christ Church donāt like taught MPhil students much, just research students), the university will allocate you to a college, they guarantee that. But this is not about quality, again, as for example, most colleges do not have many flats for married studentsā¦you will be possibly rejected, but that have nothing to do with your qualitiesā¦ But as the colleges are even less important for postgrads, most people donāt spend time to check the colleges, just chooses two randomly. Many postgrads even donāt indicate a college choice, and make an open application, as they donāt care much with college membership. Also, there are many postgraduate only colleges - they are new, lack of prestige and money, but that makes them bad places? No, they are brilliant places with some research centre like feeling - which differs heavily from the old and traditional colleges. Matter of taste, frankly.</p>
<p>OK thanks for clarifying, it seems there are indeed some differences vs. here.</p>
<p>Also, itās hard to imagine that (in case of undergrads) while nobody cares with college affiliations in the UK, people outside the UK, who know nothing about the college system, will start to care with itā¦makes no sense. People outside the UK basically never ever heard about the colleges, and the college system, so they have nothing to do with that piece of information on the paper, that someone was a member of, say, Lincoln College. He or she graduates from Oxbridge, that is what matters. He or she recieved the same education like any members of any other college, and he or she was an applicant just as strong as any other applicant of other colleges. No difference.
On a postgrad level, it is even easier. I never ever met anyone in the UK who cared about the college affiliations. And the people I met outside of the UK (for example in my native country) never heard about the system (neither average Joe, or professionals) and they also just focused on that I went to Cambridge, and now Iām at Oxford. Yale have a college system, introduced inthe early 20th century, copied the Oxbridge system, and while those colleges, I have to admit, indeed heavily differs from the Oxbridge ones, no one cares about them. </p>
<p>No problem anyway. Even if colleges are loosing their importance, and nowadays mostly just functioning as places of socializing, their very existence indicated many questions about the system, and many people gets confused :)</p>
<p>Or maybe there arenāt as many prestige-whores at UK than there are hereā¦maybe folks at UK ACTUALLY care about which branch of Oxfbridge has hotter girls and choose accordingly instead of worrying about what other people would think of them if someone chose <em>gasp</em> Columbia over Harvard in spite of attempting to please employers and CC idiots.</p>
<p>Well, there are certainly less prestige whores in the UK, thatās true. Again, what truly matters, and what people and employers care about, that you went to Oxbridge or not. The question, that which was your college, never raised during the last 800 years, and I donāt think it ever will: the colleges are loosing their significance (and, for postgards, there never been any significance), and the primary reasons because of nobody cares, that there is certainly no difference between them. </p>
<p>The only way a college choice could affect ones life apart from the social one, is that rich ones can offer more money for travel bursaries and scholarships - for grads. But this hardly effects ones research. For undergrads, it could be great that your college have a Nobel-prize winner fellow, but if youāre not dealing with that particular subject, it will hardly effect your life. Also, you can be an undergrad at Christ Church, the most aristocratic, and one of the wealthiest Oxford colleges, and you will most likely go to lectures, held by a fellow of Kellog College, founded in 1990. Because that guy belongs to the department of that subject you are studying. Every undergrad in every college receives the same education, and gets admitted by the same percentage. So, whatās the difference? All colleges have fellows, who are really famous on their field, but college affiliation for professors nowadays usually depends on luck: when you applied for a job, which particular college offered a fellowship in your field? It could be a really old, or a really new one. The money and benefits theyāre offering is basically the same. So, whatās the difference, again?</p>
<p>The college buildings are fantastic, but grads usually donāt live at the main college site, so I also donāt benefit from that - well, I eat daily at the main hall, which is a Harry Potter like hall, but you get used to it, and after that it really donāt matters. And, as a matter of fact, in both places I saw that the new, grad, or mature only colleges, which are really poor, sometimes have much better flats for students, as they recently built themā¦ so, it could happen that you are a member of a old and āless prestigiousā college, and lives in a spacious room or flat, and you are a member of an old and wealthy, and lives in a piece of sā¦ This also affect undergrads too.</p>
<p>Both of my colleges here and Cambridge are really old, and wealthy ones. I choose them after some -?- research as they can offer more scholarships, and both looks great; but as I received scholarships from other sources, I will hardly ever benefit from that. But I know that I am a member of not just a university with some 800-900 years of history, but a 600-700 years old college with many famous members in the past and present. And I can make lovely pictures on college grounds, and upload them to Picassa. Actually, many people in Oxbridge thinks that this is exactly what they call āsnobberyā :D</p>
<p>Anyway, its good to know, that despite no one cares with it in Oxbridge, the outside world cares with college affiliations. It must have to do with something that when tourist visits both towns, they mainly visits colleges, as there are less old and nice university buildings. And nobody is interested in the faculties and research facilities, which cost a hell lot of money, but theyāre sometimes at the middle of nowhere, and, like nearly everything built in the past 70 or so years, not that attractiveā¦</p>
<p>Cambridge is where James Bond went to school. I assume Jason Bourne went to somewhere prestigious in the USā¦perhaps Princeton.</p>
<p>Tobias Wagnert (Executive Director, UBS Investment Banking) commented afterwards, āAs a leading global investment bank, recruiting the best graduates is critical for our continued success. We are very excited about our strong relationship with the University of Warwick, which is one of our key target universities in Europe. In 2010 our Investment Banking Department recruited more graduates from the University of Warwick than from any other university in the UK.ā</p>
<p>warwick should be quite favorable for landing a city job.</p>
<p>UCL owns. It is ranked 4th in the world.</p>
<p>Yeah, the only problem is that nobody believes that UCL is truly the world 4th best university, better than MIT, Yale, Chicago, Oxford, Berkeley, Princeton, Culumbia, just to mention a few. Itās the joke of the QS rankings.</p>
<p>UCL is generally regarded as #4 in the UK, so ranking it #4 globally is highly questionable. I would definitely rank it among the top 50, but not among the top 20.</p>
<p>UCL should be between 20 and 50.</p>
<p>UCL is definitely in the top 20.</p>