How do you choose between Oxford and Cambridge?

[Justneedaflippingtemporaryname]

Namechanged for this as DD would not be happy if this post was too identifying.

She has been fixed on applying to Cambridge since year 10 (is in year 12 now) after going to a few talks and residentials at Cambridge university. She has never had the opportunity to visit Oxford and so is fixated on Cambridge due to familiarity. It is in her nature to not want to try new things at all.

She wants to study physics, so it would be Natsci at Cambridge and Physics at Oxford.

How does one go about choosing which to apply to?

We live in Manchester.

Thank you!

Hmmm. So if she's not predicted an A* in FM it could be a problem for Cambridge? I'd better check the individual college information.

Churchill want A* in FM. It's literally the only college with that requirement. And her favourite college. Great.

Has she thought about what she will do after the degree? (Or even work experience during.) I have no expertise in this but it seems to me that Cambridge has much more going on in the way of business park / silicon fen / start-ups / etc.

Cambridge has much more going on in the way of business park / silicon fen / start-ups / etc.
What does this mean?

Cambridge does have a lot of that type of thing (the company I work for has its U.K. HQ on one of the science parks). But Oxford has science parks too, and there's the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Didcot and Harwell (which among other things has the UKs synchotron www.diamond.ac.uk/Home.html)

This gives some idea what senua meant, OP
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Fen

Thanks Errol

Entrance requirements do vary by college, as you have seen, but are also candidate and school dependent. Some pupils from DDs school were given a 4 A * offer - basically because they weren’t the strongest of candidates and the college wanted to ensure they were up to scratch.

Others got 2 A * 2 A offer so it does depend. Especially if you are coming from a state school or one with no history of oxbridge then you might get a lower requirement.

The difference between oxford and Cambridge offers is really one of optics. Oxford make fewer, lower offers as their interview process is longer so once you have got through it they are confident you will fit. Cambridge make more offers and let the exam results weed a few people out.

So worry less about that and more about the right course!

[waves at Malbecfan ]

Interesting isn’t it - none of these kids would have applied for Materials but have all discovered it at Cambridge. I gather it’s very popular and more selective than Physics at this stage - not what I would have thought at all as a non-scientist!

WorkingitoutasIgo Since the physical Natural Sciences course appeals most to those who like both chemistry and physics, I would say that developing an interest in the interdisciplinary subject of material sciences is not surprising at all. Particularly for those who are more inclined to the practical aspects of physical sciences it is a natural fit.

Mine are liberal arts/linguists.
DH went to Oxford hard pushed by parents and school - now says that socially he thinks he'd have preferred Cambridge (Oxford didn't hold him back).

Both our DC had to mature into Oxbridge. Both exceeded expectations at IB/A'Level and both had a gap year. Agree the grades requested from other uni's were perplexing: DD got AAA from Exeter which she detested and ABB from Manchester, Edinburgh and Bristol. Anyway she didn't go that year as she got 3A* and decided to apply to Cambridge.

DS went to Oxbridge, very alpha boy and loved it, probably more than dh because he was more socially confident and is naturally very sociable. DD applied to Oxford first time round and did not get an offer. All her friends who interviewed did but about half didn't meet the offer.

When she reapplied she had her results, changed her subject, and like her brother benefitted hugely from a gap year. She is a quieter soul and things played out well for her.

Just thought I'd add that sometimes a little reflection helps and it may be beneficial for many to jump off the helter skelter of UCAS and A'Levels and give themselves a little more time for decision making which must be 100% theirs if it is to be the right decision.

I reckon materials is one of those fields that people in general aren't much aware of - despite materials, advanced and otherwise, being so fundamental to our society and modern technology.

Sorry, OP, I went to bed after posting. I think that Errol explained what I meant. Cambridge seems to be more practical; it's not just theory and academia but some people are thinking how to monetise carry forward that knowledge in the real world i.e. after University.
Or it may just be that they have better PR than Oxford!

Just thought I'd add that sometimes a little reflection helps and it may be beneficial for many to jump off the helter skelter of UCAS and A'Levels and give themselves a little more time for decision making which must be 100% theirs if it is to be the right decision.
I agree. But ...
You will note that OhTheRoses' DC are on the arts/languages side of life. I don't know about Physics but I know that Maths doesn't like gap years because it's a 'use it or lose it' sort of skill; you can get rusty very quickly.

Both Oxford and Cambridge are 'hubs' for science based industries and research. And you can move after your first degree so I'm not sure it's particularly relevant as a factor at this stage. As it happens, my DD is doing an internship in a small electronics company outside Cambridge this summer, but one of the other positions on the cards was in or near Oxford. Physics isn't my field but the names I pulled out of the top of my head in the previous post suggest that there might be more 'big physics' r&d near Oxford.

DDs college did not require FM at all. She has Maths Chemistry and Physics at Alevel. So it is definitely worth checking the college requirements. She did in fact attend FM lessons but did not enter for the exam and applied on the basis of three. Her offer was the standard 2A stars and an A. No specification on A star in a particular subject. And yes on materials I gather there was a cut off and quite a lot of people didn’t make it onto third year. I had not realised it would be so competitive.

I'm not sure FM is strictly a requirement for any course, because it's not available in all schools. Although obviously for some (not NatSci) you'd be unlikely to get an offer without it or evidence of alternative study beyond single maths.
But, students who apply with particular subjects will have their offer based on those and could be asked for specific A* on any. Some colleges might allow for variation post results.

Waves back at WorkingItOutAsIGo.

DD's offer only specified the 4 subjects, not what grades she needed. She ended up with A*s in Maths & Physics and A in Chemistry & FM but her college was fine about it.

Chitchattery, according to DD, there were 40 places available for Materials in the 3rd year so she was determined to get one.

DD said that there were 3 Maths groups: one for those who had done STEP, "normal" Maths, and "Maths for Biologists". A school friend who was in the year above studying Engineering at DD's college said that the STEP Maths group was just too much and if he wanted to do anything other than Maths, he would have to drop down to the "normal" one. That's the one DD did. Her Chemistry supervisor also did some extra Maths with them in college this year to make sure they were up to scratch.

A school friend who was in the year above studying Engineering at DD's college said that the STEP Maths group was just too much and if he wanted to do anything other than Maths, he would have to drop down to the "normal" one.

The general engineers just have a choice of 'fast maths' or 'slow maths' in the first term, covering the same material just at a different rate and thereafter it's the same. They're pretty much all starting with A* FM but only one college wants STEP (well, that's my understanding from DD). Some of the overseas students will have already done some university level maths, and of course some are just f'ing geniuses.

Maybe that guy was doing chem eng via NatSci?

I'd hope most science courses offer differentiated maths routes - they did back in my day doing chemistry. probably even more essential a bit lower down the ranking.

goodbyestranger Sun 28-Jul-19 23:00:08
Course content is overrated.

Yes, dear.

I would look at the departments. I realise that this may sound like a strange thing to say, but different departments sometimes have a different ethos/approach/flavour. It may only be there in the background at undergraduate level (becoming more important at PhD), but it will have an effect. I benefitted enormously from the ethos of my undergraduate college, which was incredibly groundbreaking and radical at the time I studied there - at the time, I didn't realise how lucky I was, and it was only later, at postgraduate level, I realised the calibre of the people who had been teaching me!

It is for a lot of subjects Groucho, in that there's more difference between universities themselves than the course content of the same subject.

I would look at the departments. I realise that this may sound like a strange thing to say, but different departments sometimes have a different ethos/approach/flavour.

No, not strange at all IMO!

A lot of DCs friends went on to maths/engineering/science from their very selective school.

Almost all the strongest applicants applied to Cambridge. Fall back was either Imperial or a reapplication to Oxford the following year. Imperial was seen as offering some distinct silver linings, mainly around being able to specialise early, so we know electrical engineers, material scientists and biomedical engineers etc who have all gone on to some interesting things.

Neither of mine ended up taking science so I am not sure why Cambridge was preferred (and was also seen, both engineering and NatSci, as more competitive than Oxford). However I would be surprised if most, if not all of them, did not look closely at course content.

Imperial too seemed to hand out different offers for the same course, presumably based on interview performance. Some, like Cambridge's 4A* ones, were tough.

The very best applied to Trinity Cambridge. Again I dont know why this was preferred.

The very best applied to Trinity Cambridge. Again I dont know why this was preferred.

I think it usually heads the 'Tompkins table' and, especially for maths, has something of a Primus inter pares reputation. (DD reported meeting a trinity mathmo in somewhat similar tones as if she'd encountered a unicorn. Apparently he called himself an applied theologian but apart from that seemed quite normal. ) A quick play with the interactive graph generator shows that for maths, quite a lot who apply there get a pool offer if they don't get a direct one.

www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/apply/statistics

Relative competitiveness is hard to judge without a detailed analysis of who you're competing against - the applicant to offer ratio looks to be somewhat higher for Oxford physics versus Cambridge NatSci but the opposite for chemistry.