Tagged as: College, Life, Oxford, University
The University of Oxford – College Life
Previous post: Chapman/Dodge College Admissions Film
Next post: Major Harris WVU QB #9 Tribute
-
-
You may also like:
Categories
-
Recent Posts
- 10,000 Single Parent College Scholarships And Grants For 2010
- How can a student receive financial aid if his or her parents are illegal but he or she is a citizen?
- Managing Money for College Students
- Paying For College With The Teach Grant
- College Students, Your Academic Advisor Can Help You Determine If CLEP Exams Are Right For You
-
Recent Comments
- ladyxluckxrulesxok on College kids!
- boxergirl115 on College kids!
- asainshorty101 on College kids!
- omgbroadwaylovex3 on College kids!
- joel254 on College kids!
Archives
Copyright© 2010 Prepare-for-college.com All Rights Reserved. Visitors are solely responsible for comments left on the site.
{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }
Sigh, this is growing tedious. It will not let me paste links, so I will send them as a message (a couple) – otherwise, just search ‘UCL beats Oxford’. You need to do better research before you vehemently denounce comments.
Official?do you not understand how this works?Each paper does its own survey(some nick others)and it is the ‘Good University Guide’ published by The Times that is usually considered the most reliable.I have mentioned that this was my source,you could have contested that at any moment.The Times is one of the most respected newspapers in the world that is why I refer to it over others.The newest Telegraph league I can find is from 2007 and even that admits that Oxford students got better results.
“Only the extremely intelligent apply” IS the fallacy. Because, as I have said numerous times, it is NOT ONLY the extremely intelligent who apply – also the mundanely intelligent. I can see you know you are failing at this, because you are ignoring certain points, lying about what you previously said, and disputing official rankings. You’re going to have to learn to argue far more efficiently if you plan on going to UCL/Kings (at 31?…)
I do not understand. I said only the extremely intelligent apply to Oxford, not the extremely intelligent only apply to Oxford. Those two sentences have entirely different meanings. I then realised that this was going to turn into a pointless argument about what intelligence is, so I made the decision to attach the objective results of examination. This was not a correction, it was a refinement. I saw that I may have been misunderstood so I clarified (apparently unsuccessfully) my position.
No, that was ONE source. The telegraph, London Now, etc…it is everywhere. Are you actually in denial? It made it to several papers and is OFFICIAL.
Sorry, but you are going to cite the Daily Mail… Really? It is a tabloid paper. Ok this is just a difference in who we put faith in so this argument on rankings is nullified. I am taking a year out and didn’t defer, I intend on applying to UCL and King’s.
You are lying, now. You DID say that only the extremely intelligent apply to Oxford…you THEN corrected yourself AFTER I had commented against your point. Do I need to quote you again? The comment that I first saw DID say what you just claimed it didn’t. I acknowledged the correction and moved on – you then said, inexplicably, that I was ‘pretending’ not to see it…
“You ruled it out in the second comment, yes. And it was the first comment that I disputed, so there is no problem.”
Ignoring what I write? I did not pretend that you had not made the second comment, I acknowledged it. I was just piqued by your first comment. As for the leages, I will post the links. It is in the telegraph, Daily Mail etc. I am talking about world rankings, obviously, as mentioned Harvard and Yale.
I did not make the point that Oxford students are more intelligent than any other, you are playing a game of filling in gaps.I made two unrelated points. That those who apply to Oxford are extremely intelligent (I then saw the danger and corrected my statement to ‘on paper’).I also made the point that, for next year,Oxford ranks higher than Cambridge. It does according to the guides I trust with the exception of one. That isn’t to say I agree, or that this extends to anything more than academia.
Sorry I just did and I was right. What are you looking at ‘The Good University Guide’ only considers universities in the UK. The Times, The Independent and The Guardian rate Oxford above Cambridge for 2010. This is really irrelevant but those are the facts. But it would be ignorant of you, in the most literal sense, to pretend I never made that second comment and to wildly pursue some ridiculous straw-man.
You ruled it out in the second comment, yes. And it was the first comment that disputed, so there is no problem. The only slight point of difference is that I do not feel, on paper, that Oxford students are better (or even as good, in some cases) as Cambridge and UCL students. Many people get in with good,but not amazing results at Oxford (due to the entry exam and interview carrying masses of weight). Out of interest, which university did you go to, if any?
I made it pretty clear in my second comment that I was talking only about ‘on paper’.You are trying to draw this argument one of two ways:you are beginning to get into a semantic argument about what intelligence is,and you are trying to make this into an argument about which is the best of the best.Neither of these relate to my original point, perhaps the first but I ruled this out in my second comment.If you would like to discuss either then I’d be happy to, but sinuous arguments are dangerous.
I think you need to re-check that table…UCL is fourth best – followed by Oxford joint fifth with Imperial. Harvard is first, followed by Cambidge, then Yale. And no, the argument was pertaining to intelligence. And, as you can see, your original comment did not say “on paper”, it just said “only people who are extremely intelligent apply”.
Ok now to me there are only two ranking systems worth listening to; those being ‘The Good University Guide’ in which Oxford ranks higher than Cambridge, and ‘The Academic Ranking of World Universities’ which lists Cambridge way above Oxford and UCL even further down. That is not the argument though, I’ve always seen the choice between Oxford & Cambridge as a location preference, they are essentially the same, with UCL pretty much with them.
“But only people who are extremely intelligent even bother to apply”
You later added that you meant “on paper”, but it was your original comment that I disagreed with. On paper,I agree; though I do not think, on paper, Oxford students are any better than UCL/LSE either. On the contrary, everyone I know who gets into UCL gets in because they have a thousand A*s…whereas I do know people with…OK GCSEs/decent A levels who wing the Oxford interview.
‘on PAPER’, do not get me wrong, I only ever asserted that you have to be extremely intelligent on paper to bother to apply. I personally think that the whole system is a fucking joke, that we are tested on the most irrelevant factors of intelligence. Our education system is a fact retaining quiz, we may as well take a pub quiz. I know plenty of people at Oxford that I think are supreme idiots, but then that’s just the way it is.
That is entirely invalid as a point, and highly “negligible”. Oxford is not raked the highest, and does not always score the highest, therefore it is defintely a point of contention. Oxford ranks 5th with Imperial, and reviews/ratings have placed Oxford on par with UCL + LSE…with Cambridge just about exceeding them all.
By the way, have a look at the 2010 Good Universities Guide by The Times (the definitive UK guide), Oxford ranks higher than Cambridge this year. Oxford achieved 1000/1000 against Cambridge’s 968.
I cannot recall the specific university courses, but there are universities not in the UK’s top ten which ask for AAA/AAB. And no, the typical Oxford student is not usually regarded as average; however, they are not always regarded as “extremely intelligent”. You asserted a key point – that only people “intelligent on paper” apply. Yes, but my point was that, on PAPER, there are thousands and thousands of students who would then be regarded as “extremely intelliget”. It does not work like that.
Let us try a syllogism here:
1. You made the case yourself that 10% is not an iota.
2. Oxford (with the exception of two universities) gets proportionately 10% (+/- 1%) more 1sts and upper seconds than any other university in the U.K.
3. Oxford is not an iota better than any other university, it is better (on a purely academic basis), the difference is therefore then surely not negligible.
‘Some of the mid- echelon universities even ask for AAA now’ – Name me one and the course. I mean surely if you have applied you know this from personal experience, in any year only a few people apply to Oxford and usually they are regarded as extremely intelligent by their peers. Perhaps not intuitive, perhaps they can’t argue effectively, but they are not regarded as average by any means.
Are not do immensely different*
You’ll have to forgive the missing letters, too: the keyboard is lagging.
Anyway, I was not refuting the overall standards of Oxford. But I do think that it is overrated, given that it ranks quite a bit lower than Cambridge (which I do not think is overrated), and UCL is ranked higher. However, I am just a college student, so I have yet to experience any university atmosphere. Either way, I and many other people know our fair share of idiots at Oxford.
I think you’re missing the overall point. The requisite grades for Oxford are similar or the same in many of the top universities. Some of the mid- echelon universities even ask for AAA now. My original qualm was that you made the assumption that all Oxford applicants are “extremely intelligent”. Though there is a higher concentration of people with As in Ox. tan, say, Sheffield, te fact remains that the standards between the top universities are not so immense.
I really don’t think so, purely on the grounds of upper seconds and firsts Oxford gets 4% more than Cambridge and almost 10% more than any other university in the country, not to mention that the courses are generally harder. That means for every 100 students, 10 more get u.s. or firsts. Last time I checked 3% of 18 year olds get AAA at A Level, so not one tenth. I would say that 3% classifies as an iota. Regardless, 3 As are requisite, that doesn’t guarantee you a place at Oxford.
Of course I’m not undermining Oxford as an academic institute, but I think -given the actual standard of its students compared to other top universties – it is overrated. It is a university steeped in history, but the students are no more unique than students in other top universities. As far as your deduction concerning percentiles goes, it is wrong. The number of people who score three As is, perhaps, one tenth…which is far from being the iota of academic brilliance.