Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Oxford and Cambridge are head and shoulders above the rest, report says
19 November 2009
The universities of Oxford and Cambridge merit their reputation as exceptional institutions because they outshine their supposed rivals in the UK.
Although a handful of other universities are often described as "elite" institutions equal to Oxbridge, a study from the Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi) argues that there is no comparison.
The report, Oxford and Cambridge: How Different Are They?, published on 19 November, says Oxbridge's students are "exceptionally talented", their research is second to none and the resources they have at their disposal are greater than at any other institution in the UK.
Almost 60 per cent of students accepted to Oxford have eight or more A* grades at GCSE, compared with 14.4 per cent of those admitted to Imperial College London, the report says.
And 55 per cent of those accepted to Cambridge have more than 540 Universities and Colleges Admissions Service points, compared with 33 per cent of those recruited to Imperial and 18 per cent accepted by University College London.
Students at Cambridge spend 40 per cent more time studying during the week and Oxford students 30 per cent more than those at other Russell Group universities.
They are also more likely to be satisfied with their teaching.
However, the Hepi report notes that Oxford and Cambridge recruit more students from independent schools - for 2006, the figures were 42 per cent and 47 per cent respectively, compared with 38 per cent for Imperial and 34 per cent for UCL.
In research, the two institutions submitted by far the highest volume of high-quality research in the research assessment exercise 2008.
The report notes that Oxford and Cambridge enjoy "exceptional" sources of income, such as funding for their old and historic buildings.
As well as having the largest endowment income, they benefit financially from their university presses.
Annual transfers from the Oxford University Press to the university total about £25 million.
"From all these perspectives - certainly when all are considered together - these two really are different from other universities in the sector, including the small number of institutions with which they are sometimes compared," the report concludes.
melanie.newman@tsleducation.com.
Readers' comments
Oxbridge's brand reputation is exceptional. However, when it comes to real competition today, London institution are on level with them if not better. According to Thompson Reuters' metrics, UCL is second in Europe behind only the Max Plank society in Germany, and 14th in the World for citation of their research across all disciplines. The LSE is also better in the social sciences than Oxbridge. So given London colleges' relatively smaller resources, they must be more efficient and better in quality. This ridiculous report discredits excellent universities because of their commitment to take on more state educated pupils.
It looks like a report commanded by Oxbridge and which only takes accounts the criteria for which Oxbridge is ahead of the best London Colleges. "In research, the two institutions submitted by far the highest volume of high-quality research in the research assessment exercise 2008." simply inexact.
Their contribution to access has been outstanding!!!
I wonder if the report took into account the higher number of international students at the London colleges - internationals are less likely to have done GCSEs etc.
'Oxford and Cambridge enjoy "exceptional" sources of income, such as funding for their old and historic buildings.' They have a greater proportion of historic buildings than other UK HE institutions and these are exceptionally costly to maintain, covert or run for modern purposes, but the institutions have a duty to look after them. The extra funding for maintenance is due to be withdrawn by HEFCE at the end of this year. With so many other funding streams intended to support the non-HE teaching and research aspects of universities (public and schools outreach, museum collections etc) the funding was moved to HEFCE to reduce the number of bodies and funding administration for efficiency, but doesn't fit with HEFCE's core remit so then is lost. or at risk. The AHRC funding for university museums to ensure collections weren't sold outside the UK by cash-strapped institutions went to HEFCE to administrate and is now at risk, leaving collections maintenance and accessiblity vulnerable. Elite institutions raise mixed feelings but, however wealthy, they are terribly expensive to run and ambitions to excel always stretch available funds. All funding sources are always stretched - by providing bursaries, the creation of new initiatives (lately more and more work in schools and support for applicants from regular schools). The public funding cuts are going to hurt the entire HE and culture sectors and Oxbridge is not immune to the effects.
Although I would agree that, on most measurements, Oxford and Cambridge are still ahead of UCL and Imperial (and most league tables do bear this out), this report does the latter two institutions a major disservice. The gap has massively closed over the last two decades (partly, it is true, as a result of a series of mergers involving UCL and to a lesser extent Imperial) and Oxbridge are simply not 'in a different league' today, certainly not in terms of research strength, turnover, number of citations or overall institutional importance. One of the areas where UCL and Imperial still lag Oxbridge the most is in terms of undergraduate entry grades. This is to a large degree the result of their weaker brands (as well as their taking more state school and overseas students). As their reputations grow, so this gap will also continue to close. It is generally acknowledged (and is reflected in the key global league tables) that the UK has four globally elite universities. UCL and Imperial have done very well to join this group, and this should be celebrated rather than disparaged.
Oxbridge is like the queen - lots of people want her to go.. intellectually, but they can't bring themselves to imagine a completely impotent and devalued royal family - so there is a tacit and ritualised set of procedures laws and customs that ensures she is nominally in charge. Sinilarly with Oxbridge - no one could really bring themselves to let Oxbridge be directly competitive such that they could lose their top place(s) in the UK. mY WORRy is that if we are too anti-snob we will just pull them down into a mire of average - Like my old colleague says there is a danger in stepping on others - if the others are lying on the floor - youwill only be a little bit higher.