Why are there more places for classics than computer science at Oxford?

[delicatedonkey]

Came across this quote from Rachel Reeves in today’s Times, “There are many more places at Oxbridge to study classics than there are to study computer science, and the number of children applying for computer science [means] it’s very hard to get in. Whereas if you apply for classics, there’s a much higher chance. We should be expanding the courses that businesses say that they need people to have the skills in.” Why in the 21st Century, with technology and AI becoming increasingly important, is this the case? It is absolutely imperative that a breadth of humanities subjects should continue to be taught but there does appear to be a real imbalance here in terms of places available and offer rates.

Another reason will be that those good enough to teach CompSci to Oxbridge level are probably off putting their skills to use to earn them far more than a lecturer's salary.

Maybe, but academics who've got what it takes to work in (or with) industry often do both - consulting, working with startups etc.

I would have thought that most if not all universities offer a Computer Science/coding-based degree, but only a limited number offer any places at all to read Classics. Oxford is one of the ones who are part of that relatively smaller offer.

Yes and I know of two who have made it big time and sold their companies for £millions and now teach "for fun" at secondary level. So hopefully with it now becoming one of the most popular degrees alongside economics and psychology more will be attracted into teaching or lecturing. Just need to get the lab space to match demand.

Rachel Reeves has misunderstood the purpose of Oxford and Cambridge. These universities are solely focused on excellence in the field of academic research. They don't exist to take orders for workers from business.

Also, are we going to need more computer science degrees?

Maybe not as AI is becoming very good at coding, very fast.

Oxbridge grads will probably be OK, but lower down the scale people starting to learn now may find they face a big glut of experienced programmers chasing the new jobs this creates, while no one junior is required to do the entry level stuff any more.

One of the things that drives me nuts (as an academic who has worked both in Oxbridge and elsewhere in the sector) is the nation’s obsession with Oxbridge and the idea that follows from that that it must be all things to all people. As pp have said, it’s fine for different unis to have different areas of strength.

Oxford is a traditional uni offering traditional courses, and it has the largest department of Classics in the world. It does offer CS but the department is a bit smaller. Other unis have tiny (or no) Classics departments and big CS ones. That is okay. It is also okay that Oxford doesn’t offer subjects like architecture, veterinary science, and dentistry. That doesn’t mean that those professions aren’t important, just that they don’t happen to be on offer at one particular uni. Students who want to take those can go elsewhere.

There are many places that UK students can study CS. Why does RR think there is some kind of duty for Oxford specifically to create more places in that area? Except for the underlying idea that Oxford is somehow the be all and end all and must somehow encapsulate everything that matters about education. (Which is detrimental both to Oxford and to the many other excellent universities we have in the UK.)

I imagine there is nowhere better to study classics whereas there are better places to study computer science.

Not true. Our CS students get excellent jobs in the tech sector. We don’t even offer the more specific degrees in Gaming, Computer Animation, even more specific components of CS and neither do most of the Russell Group.

Many RG now offer Computer Engineering, Warwick offers an excellent Cybersecurity degree, Manchester and possibly Queen’s Belfast offer an IT degree. Not a huge amount more, though surely some.

More vocationally orientated universities may offer CS in addition to specific degrees in Gaming, quite a different Cybersecurity to Warwick’s kind, Computer Animation, etc. These CS degree programmes may not offer the same depth of knowledge that make a degree from a strong programme so valuable.

Indeed, the general rule of thumb is that it is easier to specialise than to generalise. But this depends on having a firm grasp of the basics.

This principle is why CS has become a fiercely competitive degree programme, up there with Economics. It is also why, when MIT did a survey of new graduate salaries a few years ago, CS graduates came second (at around $118K) to …… Maths. (But that was MIT. Even top British graduates in the sector should not expect the same salaries)

Exactly. Why apply to Oxford to do computer science - it's not Oxford's purpose. It's like taking a holiday in Madrid for the beaches

This will be news to The Times League Table which just ranked Oxford No 1 in the world.

I appreciate your implicit defence of Oxford’s protection of the classical subjects, and @Sparsely ’s also. But it isn’t quite accurate

Oxford puts as much into the labour intensive tutorial system in STEM as in the Humanities. RG and certainly Oxbridge academics ate mostly driven by a love of research but it is wrong to suggest that this means Oxford is all about research.

Almost everyone I know gets a special pleasure from nurturing really bright young minds and Oxford academics have more opportunity than most

As the parent of a recent Classics graduate, and an aspiring comp sci student, the original comment really enrages me. Said Classics graduate walked straight in to a job with a small start-up company and is flourishing… not because she’s using her knowledge of Homer and Livy but because she has lots of transferable skills which were honed by mastering a very difficult, very broad subject.

RR is free to encourage the expansion of comp sci places at universities (why the focus on Oxford btw?!) but please, leave Classics alone.

But why does this matter OP? Yes it would be a problem if this was the case across all UK universities, but it isn't. Oxford chooses to specialise in classics over computer science, most other universities in the UK do the opposite. I can't see the issue?

My oldest DS is currently doing a Software Development and Cyber security degree at the other end of the university scale from Oxford. It's A 2+2 degree where you start off at an FE college then transfer to a local uni to finish your degree. He had to do two years of access courses to even get on the course due to bombing out of High School for various reasons and counts as a mature student.It's quite a practical course and you'd think it would be popular. He's doing very well through sheer determination and ADHD meds.
Unfortunately the course is being dropped after his cohort, applications too low and drop out rate too high. He says many of the teaching staff at college are not great.
CS is very hard! I think the idea that lots of school leavers could do it, or are willing to do the work necessary, a bit overstated. It's a bit disappointing, seeing what can be achieved by someone like DS ( who does not have good Maths qualifications) with effort that more haven't taken up the opportunity.

@LemonCitron I’ve learnt a lot from the responses and I’m definitely not opposed to having a strong classics department and appreciate that they are vulnerable at many unis. I was interested in the RR interview and think that the question does matter and should be asked/debated for a number of reasons. Just some thoughts.

1. Government funds are spent on education and we need to make informed choices on what we invest in. This includes the debt that comes from student loans that aren’t repaid. Of course value and outcomes should be debated. Which ones matter and can they be measured?
2. Balance is clearly important but it was this disproportionate focus in our elite unis that RR was seemingly calling out. (Imperial doesn’t count as a purely STEM based uni).
3. Appreciate that humanities degrees are cheaper to offer. Maybe funding needs to be looked at? The current model where many unis are having to seek out so many international students to be able help fund home students seems damaging to me. Less the case maybe for Oxbridge because of their wealth?
4. I worry that we will lose many bright STEM grads oversees when acceptance rates are so low for all the top unis in the UK for comp sci etc. This seems to be a shame as they will often stay abroad afterwards.
5. In a global world we need to be able to compete and lots of degrees - even STEM ones, shock horror, develop transferable skills. So this is not a good enough argument to support classics.
6. Every single start-up at the recent Oxford job fair was tech based - so yes there may be work for non STEM grads but who is driving the start-us? Some amazing innovations from Oxford based companies.

Balance is clearly important but it was this disproportionate focus in our elite unis that RR was seemingly calling out. (Imperial doesn’t count as a purely STEM based uni).

Of course imperial 'counts' in the overall sector. Very much so - the fact we have this world class uni which is purely STEM show that the focus of elite unis is biased (sensibly!) towards STEM.

But from the data I could find, there really isn't a disproportionate focus on classics vs CS and other stem subjects even at Oxford. I'm really curious to know what numbers she was using.

• I worry that we will lose many bright STEM grads oversees when acceptance rates are so low for all the top unis in the UK for comp sci etc. This seems to be a shame as they will often stay abroad afterwards.

We've got a strong set of universities in the U.K. Which are you counting as 'top'? I bet you're making the same mistake as Reeves, from her political-class Oxbridge obsession. Are you thinking about e.g. Southampton? Does RR have a clue about the strength of many northern unis?

When my DD was applying for engineering courses she was initially a bit discombobulated by the applicants to offers ratios. But fortunately she - and I'd hope anyone bright enough for the sort of courses we're talking about - can see how they work.
Firstly, they all have 5 UCAS choices.
Secondly, sensible youngster chooses a mix of aspirational, realistic and lower. Some of the applicants will be giving it a shot but are frankly over-aspirational (parents and schools and elitist politicians can be blamed).
The 11 or so applicants for each Cambridge CS place will have a mix of unis in their other 4 choices. They are not all applying to the same 5 unis. If DD hadn't got an offer from Cambridge (statistics not dissimilar for engineering) she'd have very happily gone to her second choice - not imperial - and had an excellent education there. Other applicants to Cambridge would have had it lower on their list - or not at all.

I think it poses an interesting question. The vast majority of universities recieve public funding, so should the government get a say in what degrees should be prioritised? Obviously a wider issue than just oxbridge or classics/computer science, but it is a valid question.

Oh, and re acceptance rates driving bright stem grads overseas...they're presumably only going to want to go to top unis there. The overall admissions rate for MIT is 4.8%, so I'd imagine it may be even lower for CS. Stanford CS is 4%

https://mitadmissions.org/apply/process/stats/

https://www.jamiefosterscience.com/stanford-computer-science-acceptance-rate/

Almost certainly acceptances for overseas students is lower.

So, for a U.K. student, their chance of getting into a top course in the U.K. is much higher than a top one overseas.

It is hard to compare USA and UK acceptance rates like for like as there is no cap on the number of universities US students can apply for (many apply for 15+ unis), so you cannot really just go by the percentages.

I am very sorry about this, @Wbeezer

I support vocationally orientated courses in the sector. They are meant to train students for a different type of job than (good) straight CS courses and they can be valuable - just different.

As for your DS, one key difference is that many are designed to be less reliant on a good maths background

But poor teaching can send anything awry. I guess we will never know what might have happened with this degree programme if the teaching had been better.

I hope your DS goes on to good things

Classics has always been a 4 year degree at Oxford.

@ErrolTheDragon is quoting acceptance rates by universities. This isn’t affected by how many universities one applies to

Classics has always been a 4 year degree at Oxford.

I was somewhat conflating two things... Cambridge added 4 year a priori to 3 year one, the poster I was replying to only cited thr latter number. Oxford also has an a priori course which it didn't in the past.