QuoteOriginally posted by: GerasimosQuoteOriginally posted by: LondonPeteHighly regarded, although often a little cocky. I like Warwick if we're talking non-Oxbridge.I agree, Warwick is the best. It offers high standard education without the attitude......still don't think that there is an attitude amongst the majority of oxbridge students. Personally, i don't have anything against warwick per se, but oxford has so many other things going for it apart from the course that warwick has it's work cut out.that said, when it comes down to it, the resources offered by a decent us college blow uk unis awa yt o such a degree that i'd seriously consider going to the us if i were about to go to uni now.

QuoteOriginally posted by: TripitakaQuoteOriginally posted by: GerasimosQuoteOriginally posted by: LondonPeteHighly regarded, although often a little cocky. I like Warwick if we're talking non-Oxbridge.I agree, Warwick is the best. It offers high standard education without the attitude......still don't think that there is an attitude amongst the majority of oxbridge students. Personally, i don't have anything against warwick per se, but oxford has so many other things going for it apart from the course that warwick has it's work cut out.that said, when it comes down to it, the resources offered by a decent us college blow uk unis awa yt o such a degree that i'd seriously consider going to the us if i were about to go to uni now.Perhaps one of the reasons that Oxbridge people are defensive is that we constantly have to defend against accusations like the above, of having bad attitudes, or of only being where we are through privilege. My wife has had people come right out and say to her that she must only have got her position because she went to Oxford. The fact that she has proven herself again and again at the job isn't enough for some people, and they assume employers are willing to pick worse candidates just because they have the "right" university on their CV.Can those here who rejected their offer from Oxbridge in favour of another university perhaps explain their reasons behind the decision?

QuoteAt risk of opening myself up to all sorts of criticism, I interview anyone from Oxbridge whose CV I get. If they are not Oxbridge, then it is harder to decide who to invite in.&QuoteMy wife has had people come right out and say to her that she must only have got her position because she went to Oxford. The fact that she has proven herself again and again at the job isn't enough for some people, and they assume employers are willing to pick worse candidates just because they have the "right" university on their CV.shurely shome logic disconnect? Must be an 'Oxbridge' thing. btw never applied, never wanted to apply & damn glad I didn't if your initial quote above is anything to go by.

QuoteOriginally posted by: balrogshurely shome logic disconnect? Must be an 'Oxbridge' thing. btw never applied, never wanted to apply...i dunno, can't see why not - they're just other unis like the rest of them, only with nicer buildings and fewer annoying public school henries than at exeter or durham

QuoteOriginally posted by: balrogQuoteAt risk of opening myself up to all sorts of criticism, I interview anyone from Oxbridge whose CV I get. If they are not Oxbridge, then it is harder to decide who to invite in.&QuoteMy wife has had people come right out and say to her that she must only have got her position because she went to Oxford. The fact that she has proven herself again and again at the job isn't enough for some people, and they assume employers are willing to pick worse candidates just because they have the "right" university on their CV.shurely shome logic disconnect? Must be an 'Oxbridge' thing. btw never applied, never wanted to apply & damn glad I didn't if your initial quote above is anything to go by.Hmm. I'd also interview anyone with a nobel prize, or who has represented their country in the Olympics. Does this mean you wouldn't want to have either of those in your past, either?You seem to be one of the people who has a chip on their shoulder about the place. Your reply suggests that you perhaps think you could have attended there if you wanted to. May I ask, were you a long way ahead of every other person in your school, or only in the top two or three people academically? If the latter, it's a bit arrogant of you to assume you had the choice.You really also do sem to be confused if you think there is a contradiction between the two points above. If a person I have in front of me from LSE is a better candidate than the person from Oxford, then they get the job. Why would the fact that I will happily interview someone from Oxbridge imply in the slightest that I pick the worst of two candidates for a job.

QuoteOriginally posted by: NorthernJohnQuoteOriginally posted by: balrogQuoteAt risk of opening myself up to all sorts of criticism, I interview anyone from Oxbridge whose CV I get. If they are not Oxbridge, then it is harder to decide who to invite in.&QuoteMy wife has had people come right out and say to her that she must only have got her position because she went to Oxford. The fact that she has proven herself again and again at the job isn't enough for some people, and they assume employers are willing to pick worse candidates just because they have the "right" university on their CV.shurely shome logic disconnect? Must be an 'Oxbridge' thing. btw never applied, never wanted to apply & damn glad I didn't if your initial quote above is anything to go by.Hmm. I'd also interview anyone with a nobel prize, or who has represented their country in the Olympics. Does this mean you wouldn't want to have either of those in your past, either?You seem to be one of the people who has a chip on their shoulder about the place. Your reply suggests that you perhaps think you could have attended there if you wanted to. May I ask, were you a long way ahead of every other person in your school, or only in the top two or three people academically? If the latter, it's a bit arrogant of you to assume you had the choice.You really also do sem to be confused if you think there is a contradiction between the two points above. If a person I have in front of me from LSE is a better candidate than the person from Oxford, then they get the job. Why would the fact that I will happily interview someone from Oxbridge imply in the slightest that I pick the worst of two candidates for a job.I have to agree with Balrog; the attitude embodied in your first statement helps to create the perceptions that your wife has to combat.This seems pretty cut and dried to me.

QuoteI have to agree with Balrog; the attitude embodied in your first statement helps to create the perceptions that your wife has to combat.This seems pretty cut and dried to me.You are forgetting that being willing to meet someone is not the same as giving them a job, and then repeatedly promoting them.Perhaps you can explain this to me. If I believe that 10% of Oxbridge graduates who apply to my place are the sort of people I seek, and that 2% of York students are, and if I am willing to interview anyone who I think has at least a 10% chance of making the grade, why should I not interview all the Oxford graduates?In what way does this imply that someone will only get the job based on their university?I really don't understand how people cannot distinguish the difference between being given the chance of an interview and being employed. I reject 90% of the people I see from Oxford. The ones who make it in do so because of their abilities. Every person who I see has had to have done something to stand out from the crowd. Every single one of them, without fail. For some, this is having achieved entry to, and passage through, our finest universities. For others, it is having played professional sport while studying. For some it is having created and run a business, or having traded successfully on their own account.If it seems cut and dried to you that I am giving out jobs based on old school, well, there's probably not much that I can do to change your mind. I know that that's not how it works. I just hope that attitudes like those displayed here are not prevalent enough that people are avoiding Oxford through some kind of inverted snobbery.

I'm not questioning the efficacy of your approach to interviewing.All I'm saying is that such an approach, if pursued by many, would tend to engender a perception in the public at large that the playing field isn't level.You're arguing that this perception is wrong. I'm simply saying that its easy to see how such perception would arise, under the circustances.I'm not expressing any view as to the validity of such beliefs.

QuoteOriginally posted by: andymI'm not questioning the efficacy of your approach to interviewing.All I'm saying is that such an approach, if pursued by many, would tend to engender a perception in the public at large that the playing field isn't level.You're arguing that this perception is wrong. I'm simply saying that its easy to see how such perception would arise, under the circustances.I'm not expressing any view as to the validity of such beliefs.Well, fair enough then.

QuoteOriginally posted by: unkpathI would rate (for mathematics):1. Cambridge2. Warwick 3. Oxford4. IC5. UCL6. you gotta have Leeds somewhere. Ranks one and two are confirmed by the recent research assessment exercise. I think that Warwick is very good. This has probably not so much to do with undergrad education.One thing that sucks is that some UK universities offer too much latitude to the students in terms of what they can get away with or rather witrhout and still obtain a degree. For example IC a few years ago really sucked in the sense that one could get a maths degree without ever taking any proper analysis courses beyond Analysis 1. That is very bad in my oppinion, there should a minimal common standard.Come on, mathematics has a lot more than just analysis! No offence but you have such a narrow mind!

QuoteOriginally posted by: NE1QuoteOriginally posted by: unkpathFor example IC a few years ago really sucked in the sense that one could get a maths degree without ever taking any proper analysis courses beyond Analysis 1. That is very bad in my oppinion, there should a minimal common standard.Come on, mathematics has a lot more than just analysis! No offence but you have such a narrow mind!yes but the mind numbing pedantry that is proper analysis is the key to real maths.

QuoteOriginally posted by: NE1QuoteOriginally posted by: unkpathCome on, mathematics has a lot more than just analysis! No offence but you have such a narrow mind!yes, I did not mean analysis in any specific way, but rather to ask the question what definesa common standard when it comes to the study of a subejct, with which most (I don't know how to define that by the way) people would agree. but no offence taken.

Anybody got any opinions on the maths department at Bath ?

Good - and perhaps under-rated on the communal perception of these things - although the 3 groups (Maths, Stats, Computing) are regularly assessed as 4's and 5's [on the scale of 1-5]. Also a friendly place to study. I certainly wouldn't put you off.

Northern John:earlied you saidQuote I probably make offers to around 50% of the people I see from Oxbridge. 10% of those from Imperial, Durham, or St Andrews, and I have never passed someone from Trent Poly for as much as a second round. Even if I had started with a total lack of preconceptions, I think I'd be leaning to wards my current views by now. and now you say QuoteOriginally posted by: NorthernJohn<brI really don't understand how people cannot distinguish the difference between being given the chance of an interview and being employed. I reject 90% of the people I see from Oxford. The ones who make it in do so because of their abilities. this seems to suggest that you have a very high rate of acceptence for people with Cambridge on their Cv, I am sure lots cantabridgeans would be interested to know where you work