<p>The fact that Trinity Cambridge let in thick, inbred princes doesn't boost its academic credentials. Equally Cambridge has the Duke of Edinburgh as Chancellor, whereas Oxford always elects an Oxford alumnus. Morals of the story: 1). Cambridge likes sucking up to royalty; 2). Unlike such modern establishments, Oxford doesn't need to suck up to royalty ;)</p>
<p>The interviews were fun actually- at Peterhouse we have two. I applied for law, which I hadn't studied at school, so it was principles and stuff I had put on my personal statement. Great college if anyone is thinking of applying. The oldest at Cambridge which gives it a different feel to the more modern colleges like Trinity and Churchill...</p>
<p>Cambridge is academic, Oxford is for people who like to think that they went to Eton- which, generally, they didn't..</p>
<br>
<p>Oxford is for people who like to think that they went to Eton- which, generally, they didn't..<</p>
<br>
<p>Cambridge is academic. I wont dispute that much. It is an academic university after all. First all, as an Oxonian, I couldnt care less about Eton, especially coming from America. Eton let in Prince Harry which is telling. I will say however that lately, it seems like Oxford does receive the more politically ambitious - from Thatcher, Clinton, Blair to the recent Prime Minister Singh of India.</p>
<p>oldspc,</p>
<p>are you a fellow Oxonian? If so, which college?</p>
<p>GradStudent,</p>
<p>Yes, St Peter's, Modern History. But I graduated some time ago, hence my pseudonym. </p>
<p>& I'm not an Etonian!</p>
<p>I thought St. Andrews had a better academic reputation in Scotland than Edinburgh or Glasgow</p>
<p>I'd say that in the UK in general, Edinburgh has the best reputation, historically speaking, followed by St. Andrews and then Glasgow.</p>
<p>Don't forget that at Cambridge we had Philby, Burgess, Blunt and Maclean!! :)
Ken Clarke, Norman Lamont, Michael Howard, Vince Cable, Tam Dallyel, David Laws all are in parliament in the UK and went to Cam (I am sure that are lots of others). And from my experience, there is no lack of ambition politically for many people from Cam. Perhaps it is even more so at Oxford, but that would scare me more than encourage!!</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Don't forget that at Cambridge we had Philby, Burgess, Blunt and Maclean!! Ken Clarke, Norman Lamont, Michael Howard, Vince Cable, Tam Dallyel, David Laws all are in parliament in the UK and went to Cam (I am sure that are lots of others). And from my experience, there is no lack of ambition politically for many people from Cam. Perhaps it is even more so at Oxford, but that would scare me more than encourage!!<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Ah, a google search shows these people to be soviet spies. interesting. Dont know the MPs except Michael Howard. </p>
<p>Dont be scared. Bill Clinton showed that you can have plenty of fun at Oxford as long as you dont inhale. In fact, former Prime Minister of Australia Bob Hawke set a world record by drinking 2.5 pints of ale in 11 seconds while he was a student at Oxford. Politicos know how to have fun too!</p>
<p>Anyone who has ever been to an Oxford or Cambridge careers fair will probably have seen MI6 (like the FBI. james Bond works for them). They recruit quite openly. but yes, Cambridge is famous for a long line of spies. Apparently they particularly like people who study classics.</p>
<p>I would equate MI6 with the CIA while MI5 with the FBI more. I didnt know they favored classics students. I heard that the head of MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller, was recruited while reading English at Lady Margaret Hall Oxford. The current head of MI6, John Scarlett who replaced Richard Dearlove (the current head of Pembroke Cambridge) apparently read Modern History at Magdalen Oxford. It seems like students from both universities cant be trusted!? ;)</p>
<p>"I'd say that in the UK in general, Edinburgh has the best reputation, historically speaking, followed by St. Andrews and then Glasgow."</p>
<p>Historically speaking St.Andrews should not be classed in the same league as Edinburgh and Glasgow which have always been the powerhouses of scottish academia and were at the centre of the achievements of the imperial/industrial age ; compare the notable alumni of each university and St.Andrews really doesnt compete. St.Andrews seems to have a bigger reputation outwith Scotland (notably in England) generally as a result of the Prince William factor and its status as one of the select universitites for public schoolkids who cant get into Oxbridge(along with Durham and Bristol). In Scotland St.Andrews is respected but the best of scottish students tend to gravitate to one of its big city rivals.</p>
<p>"No offense, but SOAS is not of the same calibre compared to the institutions I have named above. It's entrance requirements and programs offered are far below of the leading institutions in the UK."</p>
<p>True, reputation wise SOAS is nowhere near as well known as its sister colleges of Imperial,LSE or UCL but within its subject area it is world renowned and is used by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office,Ministery of Defence and the intelligence services to train staff. Also its international reputation is in good nick - it was ranked inside the top 50 (the 7th ranked UK university) by the THES.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>The princes only got into Cambridge bceause they were princes. <<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>So I guess being a prince is a pretty solid EC for Cambridge application purposes.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Historically speaking St.Andrews should not be classed in the same league as Edinburgh and Glasgow which have always been the powerhouses of scottish academia and were at the centre of the achievements of the imperial/industrial age ; compare the notable alumni of each university and St.Andrews really doesnt compete
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>I totally agree with this. Before Prince William went there, who had heard of St Andrews? Anyone on this board? Certainly very few people outside the UK. Fame does not mean an exceptional education. I would rank Glasgow and especially Edinburgh much higher.</p>
<p>I've wanted to go to Oxbridge since I was a small child. I'd still like to attend, I just don't think I can afford it (v. unfortunate). The tuition is less, but the cost of living and the cost to relocate are high. </p>
<p>Anyway, there's always graduate school, except by that point - who knows - I may be up to my earlobes in students loans.</p>
<p>PS: You can't forget that Michael Palin went to Oxford. ,3</p>
<p>LSE has to be considered: it's unlike any other university in the world, especially considering its extraordinary internationalism and its huge influence in public life.</p>
<p>Just ponder some of the stats: in 100 years of existence it's produced about 30 prime ministers and presidents on the strength of a small student body, and as staff or students has housed about a quarter of all the Nobel winners in economics. It was the powerhouse both of the creation of the welfare state and later on of the Thatcherite/Reaganite reaction against welfare economics. Just recently it produced the intellectual dynamic for the 'Third Way' rediscovery of social democracy. It is a dynamic centre of debate and innovation, pioneering new academic subjects like international relations, social anthropology, social policy and criminology.</p>
<p>The Times international ranking places it 11th best in the globe out of thousand of universities, and 2nd best in the world for social sciences, just behind Harvard.</p>
<p>In the UK it's regarded as one of the special group of 'G5' universities (along with Oxbridge, Imperial and UCL).</p>
<p>Look at the course lists and descriptions on the website for Oxford and Cambridge - check differences, for example, in languages and the Greats - example, Cam emphasizes history and philosophy of science.</p>
<p>If I were going to study in the UK, since the course must be selected in advance, I would try to go to one of the unis that was in the top 5 in that course - because other academics, even across the pond, are definitely aware of "who's who."</p>