Talk:Oxbridge rivalry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of Universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents 1 LSE references 2 Relative age a factor? 3 "Linguistic differences" 4 "Greater literary heritage" 5 Oxford as a beta of Cambridge 6 State School Pupils 7 Nicknames 8 State school section 9 Oxbridge relationship to Ivy League and reputation in US 10 Civil War 11 British Prime Ministers 12 Tutorials/Supervisions unique to Oxbridge? 13 Insults...

[edit] LSE references

Do the strong London School of Economics references strike anyone else as slightly odd? I thought I might consolodate them a little unless anyone objects strongly --NeilRickards 22:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I think someone at the LSE made those edits. There wasn't even any mention of other universities in this article a few weeks ago.

[edit] Relative age a factor?

I'm a little unsure about the line in the second paragraph:

"Oxford is the older of the two (and some equate this with more prestigious)"

People have different opinions on Oxford and Cambridge, but im not sure many would consider Oxford's greater age as a major factor...

I'd be interested to hear opinions on this.

Age is normally (although not always) linked to prestige. One of Oxford and Cambridge's main boasts is that they are two of the oldest universities in the world, and I suppose Oxford has the slight edge in that it can say it is the oldest in the English-speaking world (having to claim you're second at anything isn't so desirable).

I live in England, so maybe I'm not too objective, but I've always had the impression that people from other countries see England as a place obsessed with tradition, so they assume our oldest university would naturally be the best.

Ok, fair point but... I'm also in England, and don't feel that too many lay-people actually can make a distinction between them...I don't believe the main Oxbridge boast is their age (although this is significant). If age were the main thing then people would probably consider the ancient Scottish universities in approximately the same category (as they are all over 500 years old) but this is not so - many newer universities are considered superior. Both universities (Oxbridge) have made huge contributions to academic development and this is what makes them prestigious. The mass of good work on both sides I think cancells the extra 80 years or so that Oxford has.

Thanks

The first medical school in Europe was at Aberdeen Uni so there.

Well, you're certainly right that age isn't the only factor that contributes to prestige. I'll admit I have a Cambridge bias in any case. Most laypeople probably don't distinguish between the two universities.

I'm afriad I am similarly biased (as you've probably realised), which is why I didn't simply edit the article...anyway, its nice article all in all.

Heh...thanks. I thought we were pretty subtle about which side we were on.

We at the Sorbonne find these dispute between young upstarts rather endearing Rhinoracer 13:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Linguistic differences"

Speaking of ... is it true that they're quite insistent on their respective Latin pronunciations esp of the u/v? ie one is adamant on veenee veedee veechee and the other weenie weedy weechy? =) I forget which bit of Britcom I got that from ... 142.177.15.145 03:06, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Greater literary heritage"

Is it really fair to say that "Oxford has a greater literary heritage" considering that Cambridge alumni include Milton, Byron, Woolf, Plath, Hughes, Wordsworth, Marlowe, Coleridge, Dryden and Salman Rushdie amongst many more? It has always appeared to me that Oxford in fact has the lesser literary heritage. Magicalsausage

Not to mention Tennyson, Herrick, George Herbert, Marvell... Harry R 00:37, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree with Oxford having the greater literary heritage either, but I have heard many people make the Oxford/Cambridge humanities/science distinction, inaccurate though it may be.

I dare say Harry R is completely right: the stuff about Oxford having the greater literary heritage is both misleading (no-one really distinguishes them as "the science one" and "the literary one") and entirely wrong. I may just rewrite that bit.

[edit] Oxford as a beta of Cambridge

"Cantabrigians, who insist that Oxford was a beta test for their own university"

I have never heard anyone here at Cambridge mention that. I've also heard people use "the dark side" far more often than "the other place", so good work picking up on that. If you're really trying to keep up with this cutting-edge sociopolitical issue ;-) why not add that the Cambridge equivalent of the Oxford "tab" seems to be "Oxford scum"? I have genuinely heard it used several times and I'm sure someone could fashion something slightly witty out of it perhaps...?

I've heard "Oxford scum" used a fair amount, but I don't think a common name for them is that popular.

80.5.160.4

I've always heard Oxford jokingly referred to as "the other place" (as opposed to "the dark side") for what it's worth. Though the anti-Cambridge sentiment in Oxford seems more pronounced than vice-versa. --NeilRickards 22:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

As someone currently at Oxford, Cambridge is often referred to as "the other place". I've never heard the "beta test" quote though.

[edit] State School Pupils

Is the number of state school pupils disproportionately low? I'm sure I've seen statistics showing that ~50% of students getting wholey 'A' grades are from private schools, and a similar proportion of students at Oxford are from state schools... --NeilTarrant 10:17, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Define "disproportionately" - in relation to what? Pure numbers? Yes. Results? No, if anything it's disproportionately high. Something else - Non-whiteness, richness, living-south-of-Watford-ness? ...

James F. (talk) 12:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have also only heard of oxford mentioned as "the other place". never the dark side, and I have been a cantab for two years.

[edit] Nicknames

"Oxford students nickname their Cambridge counterparts "Tabs", short for Cantabrigians...although the term is meant to be derogatory, it is unclear how this is implied by the word. In turn, Cantabrigians sometimes refer to Oxford as being 'a complete dump'."

Another great passage from the Wiki Wonder Web :-)

Indeed. Also, anyone who thinks we 'Tabs' do not have a return name for Oxford is dreaming. We're far more straight forward - they're the Scum. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.226.61 (talk • contribs) , at 01:12, 20 March 2006.

Charming. So glad you took the time to favour us with this helpful insight. Flapdragon 14:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] State school section

I just removed the part of this paragraph in bold:

Oxford and Cambridge are both seen by many in Britain as socially elitist, and this reputation has discouraged able students from applying. The two universities have worked together on public relations exercises to dispel their reputation as bastions of snobbery, with the aim of increasing the number of state school-educated students. The results of these efforts is mixed. While the overall numbers of state school pupils has remained roughly constant at about 50%, the number of schools sending pupils to the two universities has increased. Defenders of the two universities would argue that this situation is more of a reflection on, firstly, the failings of the state education system, and secondly, prejudice against applying to Oxbridge on the part of some potential students and their parents and teachers, which is created largely by the very people who decry its alleged exclusivity, than on any lack of effort to recruit students from all backgrounds on their own part. Students from state schools almost never report any problems with elitism once they are at Oxbridge.

First, it's not clear what "this situation" refers to, as the previous sentence says that more schools are sending students to Oxbridge. Secondly, it sounds very personal. Can references be provided for any of it? SlimVirgin 05:24, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oxbridge relationship to Ivy League and reputation in US

It seems to me that there's far too much discussion on which university is more significant in American culture in the opening of the article. The discussion comprises three lines, as much as the rest of the introduction put together; it is debatable whether that much contemplation is merited in the article at any point. I shan't edit it yet in case someone has something important to say about this, but will do something if there is no comment. Hardwick 15:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I moved the section lower. I'm not sure do we need it at all, but it's not like it's doing any damage. I guess. Hardwick 10:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that American perception of Oxbridge has no use in the lead of this article: these are British schools after all. However, the use of the term to describe a certain person connected with these universities has do to with reputation, prestige and educational excellence, and a direct comparison with European or American terms might be useful. Ivy League or Ivy Leaguer, though a loose association, probably is a similar term in U.S. For 250,000,000 Americans, the 60,000 (?) undergraduates at Harvard and Dartmouth and Princeton and Yale etc are part of a reputational elite not matched worldwide except by those from Oxbridge and other high-status colleges on each continent. Further, if this thread is continued, a structural comparison of the universities might be useful: Princeton, for example, is very uniform and has a single, medium sized undergraduate "college", whereas Oxford is a holding company for dozens of unique undergraduate "colleges". In that sense, the two "holding pen universities" of Oxbridge probably bear more than a little comparison to the "loose association of colleges" known as the Ivy League (Ivy Leaguer, Ivy League graduate). True, some Ivies (Princeton, Dartmouth, Yale) are more famous for undergraduate educations than others whereas the same is true for Oxbridges constituent colleges; mostly, however, the Ivy and Oxbridge comparison holds and is useful to our readers. I for one would like a European or Asian to help me "qualify and quantify" educational excellence and prestige for those continents. - Anonymous Kramned Americanus, May 2005

The comparison may be far-fetched, but I would say that Yale would probably be the present-day closest U.S. equivalent to Oxford in the terms of having a large number of prominent politicians among its alumni (e.g. Gerald Ford, G.H.W and G.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Joe Lieberman, Howard Dean, John Kerry, etc...). Harvard on the other hand would resemble Cambridge in terms of its scientific reputation as measured e.g. in number of Nobel laureates and winners of comparable high-prestige awards. Then there are the so-called "new" schools that lack the historical tradition of the older colleges, but nonetheless have established themselves as world leaders especially in engineering and IT. The typical example in that category would be MIT in the US and, perhaps, London's Imperial College in the UK. As for Princeton, as a historical college, it belongs in the same league as Yale and Harvard. However, Princeton lacks both Yale's political clout and Harvard's scientific prestige (despite several Nobel laureates of its own and a particular high profile in certain fields like Mathematics). 200.177.29.195 01:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

In reply to your last question above on "qualifying and quantifying educational excellency" in other countries, I would say there is no direct equivalent of Oxbridge or the American Ivy League in continental Europe. University quality in Germany seems to be reasonably uniform across the country and it doesn't really matter that much where you have graduated from. In France on the other hand, most of the country's business and political elite tends to come from one of the highly selectively Grandes Écoles, especially l'École Polytechnique. L'École Normale Supérieure is normally associated in turn with several prominent modern-day Nobel prize and Fields Medal winners, as well as famous French writers and philosophers. None of the Grandes Écoles however resemble the Oxbridge or HPY models, being instead small, state-funded, early-19th-century higher learning institutions that operate outside the normal French public university system and specialize in a restricted number of subjects, normally engineering, mathematics, natural sciences, and, to a lesser extent, business/economics or social sciences. The closest French equivalent to Cambridge or Oxford in terms of tracing its roots back to the Middle Ages (12th century) was the historic University of Paris (more commonly known as "La Sorbonne"). Following however the student protests of May 1968, the University of Paris was reorganized in 1970 into 13 autonomous universities which, for all practical purposes, are independent institutions though sharing a common chancellor (the "Rector of the Academy of Paris"). Several of the "baby-Sorbonnes" remain top-notch research universities, but they are not normally associated with the elitist ambiance normally found in Oxbridge or the U.S. Ivies. In particular, one important difference between the French and the US/UK models is that French universities lack residential colleges like the ones where students live in the elite British and American schools. Instead, most French students live either at home with their parents or in rented flats that they normally share with their peers. 161.24.19.82 20:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civil War

What about the time when some Oxford johnny sent thieving troops from Oxford to Trinity Cambridge to steal their silver instead. I think they were Royalist troops if my memory serves me right. Such rivalry surely deserves a mention, as virtually the rest of the article is contemporary rivalry. I am not up with the facts though, so if someone else could oblige....--JRL 14:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I do remember that some king (CharlesII?) once sent troops to Oxford to quell dissent, the same year he donated a library to Cambridge. It inspired the following ditty:

The King to Oxford sent horse; and why? That learnèd body wanted loyalty. To Cambridge he sent books, discerning How much that loyal body wanted learning.

If I can track down the reference, that would look appropriate in the article! Rhinoracer 13:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I recall that in the late 17th and 18th century Oxford was generally High Church, Jacobite and Tory whilst Cambridge was more tolerant of dissenters, Hanoverian and Whig. Are you sure Cambridge rather than Oxford was more Royalist during the Civil War? In any case the association of the two with different sides during key parts of the country's history is clearly notable - does anyone know enough to enhance the article? Timrollpickering 12:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Prime Ministers

Has anyone checked that the statement about all but two of the PMs since Churchill being Oxford grads is actually true? Because it seems pretty far-fetched; and also I'm certain that Blair went to St. Andrews. User:Richar4034 who forgot to sign.

According to Tony Blair, he went to St. John's College, Oxford

John Major didn't go to University,

Margaret Thatcher went to Somerville College, Oxford

James Callaghan apparently didn't go to University,

Harold Wilson went to Jesus College, Oxford

Edward Heath went to Balliol College, Oxford

Alec Douglas-Home went to Christ Church, Oxford

Harold Macmillan went to Balliol College, Oxford

Anthony Eden went to Christ Church, Oxford

And I can't find out where, if anywhere, Winston Churchill went.

Which takes us up to the second time Churchill was in power. Even Clement Attlee went to University College, Oxford.

Shows how amazing and impressive Oxford really is... did I mention I go to St Catherine's College, Oxford.

--Neo 20:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Winston Churchill went to Sandhurst, the military academy.

What's even more bizarre about this is the high number of politicians who've come close to the premiership in this period who went to other universities. If we limit this just to those who formally contested the Labour and Conservative leaderships then we get:

• 2005 Conservative:
  • David Cameron - Oxford
  • David Davis - University of Warwick, London Business School, Harvard
  • Liam Fox - University of Glasgow
  • Kenneth Clarke - Cambridge
  • Malcolm Rifkind (withdrew before round 1) - University of Edinburgh
    • Hmm - was the result built in?
• 2003 Conservative:
  • Michael Howard - Cambridge
    • And of course Howard went on to lose the 2005 general election to Oxford's Blair

• 2001 Conservative:
  • Iain Duncan Smith - Doesn't appear to have gone to university (although there was an interesting storm when he appeared to have done a Brookes style when taking attendance at a language school as having attended a university in the same town in Italy)
  • Kenneth Clarke - Cambridge
  • Michael Portillo - Cambridge
  • David Davis - University of Warwick
  • Michael Ancram - Oxford
    • An interesting case as the only Oxford candidate came last.

• 1997 Conservative:
  • William Hague - Oxford
  • Kenneth Clarke - Cambridge
  • John Redwood - Oxford
  • Peter Lilley - Cambridge
  • Michael Howard - Cambridge
  • Stephen Dorrell (withdrew before round 1) - Oxford
    • Interestingly by the final round Cambridge's Lilley and Howard endorsed Oxford's Hague, whilst Oxford's Dorrell and Redwood endorsed Cambridge's Clarke. Hague went on to lose the 2001 general election to Oxford's Blair.

• 1995 Conservative:
  • John Major - no university
  • John Redwood - Oxford
    • This was really a facing down of critics than an open contest.

• 1990 Conservative:
  • John Major - no university
  • Margaret Thatcher - Oxford
  • Michael Heseltine - Oxford
  • Douglas Hurd - Cambridge
    • A bizarre result by these standards!

• 1975 Conservative:
  • Margaret Thatcher - Oxford
  • Anthony Meyer - Oxford
    • Meyer was just standing to express dissent

• 1975 Conservative:
  • Margaret Thatcher - Oxford
  • Edward Heath - Oxford
  • William Whitelaw - Cambridge
  • Hugh Fraser - Oxford
  • Geoffrey Howe - Cambridge
  • James Prior - no idea
  • John Peyton - Oxford
    • Whitelaw had been widely seen as the heir apparent...

• 1965 Conservative:
  • Edward Heath - Oxford
  • Reginald Maudling - Oxford
  • Enoch Powell - Cambridge
    • Iain Macleod was prominent in this generation but sat out the 1965 contest and died in 1970 (many think he would have succeeded Heath otherwise). And yes, he was a Cambridge man.

As for Labour:

• 1994 election
  • Tony Blair - Oxford
  • John Prescott - University of Hull
  • Margaret Beckett - UMIST

• 1992 election
  • John Smith - Glasgow
  • Bryan Gould - Oxford
    • Smith won but suffered a heart attack in 1994.

• 1988 election
  • Neil Kinnock - Cardiff University
  • Tony Benn - Oxford
    • Kinnock lost both the 1987 and 1992 general elections.

• 1983 election
  • Neil Kinnock - Cardiff University
  • Roy Hattersley - Hull
  • Eric Heffer - None
  • Peter Shore - Cambridge

• 1980 election
  • Michael Foot - Oxford
  • Denis Healey - Oxford
  • John Silkin - Cambridge
  • Peter Shore - Cambridge
    • Foot went on to lose the 1983 general election to fellow Oxfordian Margaret Thatcher. Many believe Healey would have won.

• 1976 election
  • James Callaghan - none
  • Michael Foot - Oxford
  • Roy Jenkins - Oxford
  • Tony Benn - Oxford
  • Denis Healey - Oxford
  • Tony Crosland - Oxford
    • Callaghan won but went on to lose the 1979 general election to Thatcher.

And of those likely to run in the forthcoming election:

• • Declared:
  • Gordon Brown - Edinburgh
  • John McDonnell - Brunel University, Birkbeck, University of London
  • The two others most speculated upon:
  • John Reid - University of Stirling
  • Alan Johnson - no university (although he attended Ruskin College)

Quite a lot of non-Oxford contenders, yet only two succeeding post Churchill. Contrast that to the previous half century - of the Prime Ministers, Attlee and Asquith were Oxford men, but Baldwin was Cambridge, Chamberlain Birmingham, MacDonald Birkbeck, Law attended night classes at Glasgow but doesn't appear to be considered an alumni, Lloyd George doesn't appear to have attended and Campbell-Bannerman was both Glasgow & Cambridge. Timrollpickering 03:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tutorials/Supervisions unique to Oxbridge?

The article states: "This type of teaching is not unique to Oxford and Cambridge (despite their claims that it is)". Where else, then? This is a bit POV unless justified, I think... Steve Roberts 23:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Durham and York both do some tutorial teaching - but not as much as Oxford or Tabland.

Sussex University is known for using a similar tutorial system.

Noone does it on the scale and breadth of Oxbridge, though there are other places with similar systems Bwithh 03:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Insults...

Car Factory? I've never ever heard the Cotswolds Poly/the Other Place/the Dark Side described as such, and have been here for three years... the three terms I used in this message are in general use, so would there be strong objections if I returned them to the page? MikeMorley 19:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been in Cambridge now for three years, and I've never heard the phrase 'Cowley Poly' used to describe that Place. Indigenius 00:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm worried that this section is becoming a vehicle to insult each other. Everyone seems to want to insert any transient insult that they've heard recently, although I suspect most of them haven't gained general currency. There never has been a standard Cambridge slang for Oxford, as far as I'm aware, although people seemed determined to include several in the article. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

...And it's just got worse again. I propose to delete this section entirely. I think it's unsalvageable. Any agreement/dissent? Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've been bold and deleted it. It could perhaps be restored if it could be made neutral, sourced and unattractive to vandals. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)