How does the Oxbridge college system work? Is it like University of London?

[kittybelle]

Are all the colleges separate entities like LSE, UCL, SOAS etc? When you apply to do a subject at an Oxbridge college - is it just taught in that college or is it taught with students from across the Uni?

Certainly at Cambridge, subjects are taught across the University. At Oxford I think there are some colleges that don't take students for subjects (but my info on this may be out of date).

Not like University of London at all.

...that don't take students for all subjects....

So, if you do History at XX College Cambridge, your lectures will be with people studying History at all the other colleges. You might have some 'supervisions' (one-to-one teaching) in your own college, but you might have others with specialists from other colleges.

Taught across the university. There's a horrendously patronising explanation in Stephen fry's second autobiography, but basically it's like houses in schools.

A mixture of both. The colleges are technically separate entities (they are all individually endowed foundatuons), but they all participate in the same teaching at Faculty/department level. Depending on the subject, a student might have all his or her teaching in the department (along with students from all the other colleges); or they might have lectures in the department, and some tutorial (small group or individual) teaching in the college.

Generally, science subjects are more department based and arts subjects are more college based, though there are some exceptions (some unusual languages are taught only in the department; a few science specialisms are taught in college tutorial teaching).

You have your lectures (and labs if applicable) and exams in the university department, but smaller-group teaching in the college, where you probably live.

It's more like living at home and having your mum get the lodgers to coach you through your exams.

Nothing like London at all.

College is also where a lot of social life goes on - typically you eat and sleep there, but also you'd do sport/music/drama clubs at college rather than within the university unless you are very good. Second netball team very achievable!

Not all Cambridge colleges do all subjects either. And some colleges only take a particular subject in exceptional circumstances.

Choose your college carefully because whilst changing subjects is theoretically possible (if tricky), changing colleges within Oxford is an absolute no go. It's the college you apply to and they decide whether to take you or not.

The subject faculties are university-wide, with lectures, labs etc. on a cross-college basis. Then tutorials usually take place in college, unless you are doing a rare subject like Oriental Studies in which case there might not be a tutor in your college and you will have tutorials in the same place as lectures (School of Oriental Studies, for ex).

It depends on the subject and the college at both places.

Some Oxbridge colleges don't take students for some subjects.

Some colleges, in some subjects, can do all or most of their non-lecture teaching in-house. Eg, if you do English or Maths, you might well find that only your lectures are held in the faculty building, and your classes, seminars and tutorials/supervisions (ie., one or two students with one academic) are held in college.

No Oxbridge college hold lectures in college.

Thanks all - really helpful.....DS looking to do architecture (camb only - and not available at all colleges).

So (apart from the subject you choose) - how do you choose your college? Is it just about social status and facilities? -- or are some more academically rigorous or more popular than others?

Does it matter externally or in the long run what college you went to? Would an employer want/need to know what college you went to?

Should he be researching the arch tutors at each college to see if he likes/connects with their specific interests?

Are some collages harder to get into than others...or are admissions just based on an a single overarching university criteria applied to each collage?

If you are put in "the pool" - is it a bit like clearing? - ie just a logistics issue in that you have been offered a place but no space at the specific 1st choice?

Yes some colleges are harder to get into - some colleges will have more than 100 applications for every place, others might have only 20 applications per place, it is obviously going to be tougher to be noticed at the former, so you have less chance of being selected for interview. It is your first choice college that decides whether you get an interview.
If the college only has 5 places for a subject then the candidates they rank at 6th place or lower who they think are good quality will be put in the pool and the less popular colleges get to decide whether the popular colleges' rejects are better than the candidates who chose them first. You do not have a place at that point, no.

Thanks Fish -- so the harder colleges to get in to is because of popularity - so supply and demand ? - an external factor - not any reflection of academic ability selection by the college?

The pool is a particular form of torture, OP. My Dd was in the (winter) pool this year (eventually successfully)

And no (except for medicine) it doesn't mean that you've got a place and just don't know where - its a second chance at a place if you're not successful at your first choice college. But once you know you're in the pool you just wait and wait to see if someone contacts you and either offers you a place straight out or invites you to interview. If you don't hear anything within a week you can assume you wont be 'fished'. (You get put into the pool if on a scoring basis the college that rejects you in the first place thinks you are good enough for a place somewhere else)

Theres also a summer pool for mathematicians who miss their STEP offer but otherwise make their offer on a levels, But again, no automatic place i don't think

The University of London has changed a lot since I was a student. Colleges like UCL, Imperial and LSE are now Universities in their own right and grant their own degrees. So other than the fact that they are in the same town they have little in common. More Oxford Brookes and Oxford.

I think far too much agonising goes into deciding upon a college.

Except for obvious things like the college doesn't do your subject, there's no real science to it.

Applicants who know a lot of previous students tend to base those choice on where they've heard is 'best' or 'fun'. Applicants who know no one worry that they don't have the inside track.

Applicants can of course make an open application and let the university allocate one.

It's worth mentioning that some colleges are richer than others. They tend to be the big, pretty famous ones (eg at Cambridge that would be Trinity, St John's, King's, Jesus) which also have more applications per place.

As an aside, the applications per place by subject by college used to be printed in the prospectus and is worth a look.

Anyway, since some of the teaching is organised through the colleges, what you find in reality is that the richer colleges can offer more teaching time. At one point in my second year some of my colleagues had as msny supervisions a week as I had per month.

It also m eans that there's more hardship money about - at my poor college the threshold for help was pretty high, eg when I couldn't pay my rent I still didn't qualify, but at others you could get a handout because you fancied a field trip.

I sound bitter - I accepted it at the time but now I feel that was wrong.

I don't know about Cambridge, but at Oxford, each college has its own character and also bursaries etc are distributed by the college not by the university, so if you are looking for funding that is one thing to consider. Whilst I wouldn't agonise too much about the college, the character of colleges does vary, some are much bigger than others for one. Social life tends to be centred around the college too.

Certainly if there is a particular tutor you want it might be worth applying their college, but I don't think this is a significant issue for most applicants.

Mrs Hathaway - thanks for that....I wonder if that still holds true given that now everyone is paying the same fees across colleges....?

Mrs Hathaway - do you think that is still the case given that now everyone now pays the same fees - I would imagine there would be a bit of transparency?

I'm not sure what it's like at Cambridge, but at Oxford there's often different facilities across the colleges, like music rooms you can go practice in. I only wanted to go somewhere that had a 24 hour library as I knew it was inevitably that I'd be trying to finishing something very last minute!

Anyway, since some of the teaching is organised through the colleges, what you find in reality is that the richer colleges can offer more teaching time. At one point in my second year some of my colleagues had as msny supervisions a week as I had per month.

This is increasingly not the case as the new fees regime has meant that the university is looking to standardise provision as much as possible across colleges, especially in some supervision-heavy subjects. There is still a little bit of variation between colleges (which is also desirable - some colleges may take more students from disadvantaged backgrounds, or higher numbers of students needing extra support with writing, study skills etc., so may offer additional teaching to catch up), but in general at the moment there is a drive to iron out big discrepancies in teaching provision.

Plus sometimes the richer colleges may surprisingly spend less than others on some aspects of the student experience - writing skills, counselling and welfare support, for example - and provision is very much dependent on individual senior tutors and directors of studies, so I would beware of assuming that everything is automatically better at the richer colleges!

The best advice is for the applicant to go to a few open days, look around a few colleges, and see how they feel about them. For most subjects college choice matters much less than you would think, but it's worth thinking about things like do I want to be in a small or big college? A modern or old college? Near to my department or a way out? (This makes a big difference if you don't cycle.) Mixed or single sex? Do I like the atmosphere? And so on. But lots of students apply to colleges they have not even visited and end up liking them a lot. Each one has pros and cons so you won't find a "perfect" college for you - applicants shouldn't overthink it too much.

Also, students may or may not end up being taught by the specific fellows at that college - people go on leave all the time, have babies, move to new jobs, don't do any college teaching for a while because of other job commitments and so on - so be equally careful of applying to a college because of who the fellows are. Professors in particular often do very little (if any) college teaching, so don't be swayed by applying somewhere because Professor Important Bigname is there.

"So (apart from the subject you choose) - how do you choose your college? Is it just about social status and facilities? -- or are some more academically rigorous or more popular than others?

I don't know about Oxford, but at Cambridge some colleges definitely get better academic results than others. The table I've linked to is for 2013, it looks very similar to how it was 20 years ago when I was a student. It's not, though, necessarily a bad thing to be at a relatively poorly performing college.

I think college 'feel' does make a big difference - so again going back 20 years, the experience of spending time in e.g. Peterhouse as opposed to Churchill was quite different. That's not to say one is better, but as a obsessive computer science student / left-winger / state school student / potential Tory MP you might find one college more congenial than another.

Does it matter externally or in the long run what college you went to? Would an employer want/need to know what college you went to?

Not at all, except I suppose if you wanted to be an academic / go on to a PhD and were less likely to get a 1st for the reasons above. It would be at a trivial level, I'd say.

Should he be researching the arch tutors at each college to see if he likes/connects with their specific interests?"

I'd say that might be worthwhile. I'm absolutely certain I got offered a place because through pure luck I happened to apply to a college where the Director of Studies' research interest was 100% in line with my personal passion within my subject. Hence at interview he asked me his stock questions and got a heartfelt if somewhat teenage-ly enthusiastic response.

Or you can simply do as DH did and go to the same collage as your dad.

Not that anyone would remember him, DH dad was a student in the 1920's (he was older than my Grandfather).

My understanding is that from an academic perspective college choice is more relevant at Oxford than at Cambridge. So, at Cambridge, provided your college actually offers your subject, you should be able to have a free choice within the course of topics - if your college doesn't have supervisors it will send you out to one in another college.

At Oxford my understanding is that supervisions (or tutorials as I think they are called there) tend to be more college based and limited to the modules that the Fellows in that college can teach?

Assuming your son is going for Cambridge for architecture, most of the colleges are open to him (apart from Corpus, Homerton, Hughes Hall and St Caths. So I think the things to look at are:

• application stats (for colleges and subject)

www.study.cam.ac.uk/undergraduate/publications/docs/admissionsstatistics2013.pdf
I see that Architecture is one of the hardest things to get in to do! Big caveat is that the stats could be totally different the next year, especially if those applying the following year take last years stats as a bible.

• location of college

Ones that are further out, e.g. Girton, are going to be easier to get into/. Which college is near the architecture faculty?

• age

Modern colleges tend to be less popular as everyone wants to go to a pretty medieval one. Eg Robinson, Churchill,

• size of college

It seems to me that even if the smallest college (is it Peterhouse?) and the largest (Trinity) usually offer the same percentage of architecture places each year (thought they probably don't) then that equates to more places at Trinity than at Peterhouse. That said they don't have fixed quotas for subjects to allow them flexibility.

Also, in a big college you have more chance of finding like minded friends. Conversely you don't get that small-community feel.

-Fame/wealth of college

Not sure how this plays really. I know from being at a very wealthy and famous college that there were definite benefits - no clearing out your room every holiday, they weren't all that bothered if you didn't pay a bill, lots of bursary support, generous grants and prizes to toddle off to look at paintings in Venice. I wonder if people are put off applying to the very famous colleges (e.g. Kings/Trinity) and as a result the hardest ones to get into are the ones that are pretty and centrally located but not imposingly famous (e.g. Trinity Hall, Sidney, Emmanuel, Clare and so on)

• Character of college

Colleges do have stereotypical characters, not that they are defining, but sth to think about. In my day it was something like this: King's is very left wing, state school, and progressive, with politically minded students and the abolition of many traditions e.g. formal hall. Trinity is traditionally the "posh" college - while very diverse and not at all "posh" now it does retain traditional customs and I don't think anyone would describe it as a hotbed of political radicalism! St Johns again is big, imposing wealthy and sporty and the butt of "I would rather be at Oxford than St John's" jokes. Jesus is sporty and rugby, Peterhouse is very small and Conservative, Christ's and Caius are are very swotty, and Emma, Sidney, Clare and Trinity Hall are kind of middle of the road normal.

Getting put in the pool is no guarantee of a place, its more of a potential second chance at a place. Basically you get put in the pool if they thought you were good and they think you should get a place somewhere, but they are full at that college. It then is up to undersubscribed colleges to fish you out of the pool if they wish. Must be torture for the kids involved.

At the end of the day you can read the stats and read all the info till the cows come home, most people quickly grow to love the college they go to whichever it is. Your son might decide to apply to the college with the most arch places, but then of course you can bet your life all the other applicants are doing that too.

So I think he should just pick the one he likes best and put his energies into making himself a really good candidate.

Good to hear from Magritte that that is being stamped out, but confirmation that it does exist, and that the colleges are not identical.

There are practical things you can think about - for instance, if you are a keen hockey player but the college playing fields are miles out of town, you might think about one which practises near your department instead. Or indeed a college near your department full stop.

An architecture student might choose a college for architectural/aesthetic reasons too - there are plenty of award-winning C21 college buildings.

I definitely agree about not chasing the big-name professors as it typically isn't them teaching.

I think colleges don't ask why you chose them (because it might be an open application) but they might ask what you're going to contribute to the college, so knowing just a bit about itbbbefore interviewing is good - MN can help out there though.

That said, I applied to a pretty college which wouldn't have suited me in the slightest, and was picked from the pool by one that did. You aren't necessarily disadvantaged by choosing a too-popular college, or the wrong one. I might be wistful about not going to a college on the postcards, but I had good friends and supportive supervisors and that matters far more.

LOL Bumps - you've just reminded me of "I'd rather shit my pants than row for Lady Margaret"

The rivalry between colleges is often very old indeed, but it isn't real even if it does feel it at the time.