Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oxford loses top 3 university ranking in the UK

hotminute.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 446 posts

Re: Oxford loses top 3 university ranking in the UK

#321

Post by cauch »

rayiner wrote: post #219
Latty wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your best argument is "we've done it for a long time, so it can't be wrong"? Quite the contrary: there is a long history of "objective" tests being shown to be deeply flawed and biased towards certain factors (often cultural and class based), we explicitly know it isn't the case that test scores are purely about some innate intelligence characteristic: there is a reason the rich spend a lot of money to raise their ch…

The notion that the British A levels have “cultural bias” is absurd, given that Asians outperform white British: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/education... . In the U.S., research shows the SAT is highly predictive of college performance: https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/education-week-educatio... (summarizing research).

It is strange to pretend that there is no cultural bias and then given an example that is usually explained because Asians seem to culturally value more education than white British.

How will you explain that Asians outperform white British otherwise, knowing that the idea that Asians and white British are genetically different enough to explain this has been scientifically debunked, or that adopted Asians don't show the same pattern as not adopted Asians?

(and, yes, of course SAT is highly predictive of college performance, isn't that the point: people who get better training get better college performance while not being "smarter", just "better trained")

Re: Oxford loses top 3 university ranking in the UK

#322

Post by rmccue »

calf wrote: post #270
_hark wrote: post #174

I'm a researcher at Oxford, and I've both taught and studied here and in the US. The undergraduate teaching here is phenomenal. It's incredibly labor intensive for the staff, but the depth and breadth students are exposed to in their subject is astonishing. It's difficult to imagine how it can be improved. My favorite study of university rankings comes from faculty hiring markets, which compute implicit rankings by m…

I studied at Berkeley and Princeton (big classes vs small classes), I find your view to be fundamentally flawed. You presuppose that meritocracy is an inherently fair value system implementation, while many critics and philosophers reject this assumption; in the next breath you delegitimize social justice issues subtly framed as "identity politics", needless to say many other critics and philosophers do not share thi…

> Second if Oxbridge are so good then why is all the world's research still essentially American with some satellite results coming out of Europe and perhaps (very cautiously) China?

Do you have a source for this?

Re: Oxford loses top 3 university ranking in the UK

#323

Post by btilly »

ralph84 wrote: post #198
growse wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The very top aren't applying there any more at all, you don't need to: Stanford, Harvard, MIT, all better. The only people applying to those from the UK are the wealthy. If by "very top" you mean "richest", then maybe. But I'm not sure we care about that?

The network value of knowing a rich person far exceeds the network value of knowing a smart person.

This is why https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2015/10/29/our-firs... concluded that the best university in the USA is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_and_Lee_University.

For this they measured the gap between what graduates made, and what they would be expected to make based on high school record, test scores, and choice of major. In other words, "How much do you earn because of the university you went to, rather than your own virtues?"

That university won because it has a network rich people who could help people's careers get a good launch.

Re: Oxford loses top 3 university ranking in the UK

#324

Post by krisoft »

andmikey wrote: post #214
owlbite wrote: post #159

So my experience with moving from a Cambridge undergrad to an Edinburgh postgrad, albeit a couple of decades ago now, was the expectations between the two were nowhere comparable. Cambridge if you'd not done the homework before the tutorial, you got sent packing for wasting everyone's time, but in Edinburgh it was common for all but the best students to only start the homework at the tutorial (thus wasting their oppo…

This was also my observation but in the reverse direction. I turned down a place at Cambridge to do my undergrad at Edinburgh a few years ago (for various reasons, not relevant here). It was only the top n% of students in the cohort who'd turn up for tutorials (prepared, or indeed at all), do assignments without cheating, ask questions in lectures, etc. Getting high grades in exams was mostly a memorization game. The…

> This was also my observation but in the reverse direction.

I don’t see the “reverse direction” part. What you are describing and what owlbite is describing is the same thing seemingly.

What do you mean by “reverse direction”?

Re: Oxford loses top 3 university ranking in the UK

#325

Post by William_BB »

Local UK rankings have always been BS. The only rankings that really matter are international ones. Even then, I'm a strong believer that the best you can do when ranking universities is ranking them in tiers. The ranking within the tier is useless.

Oxbridge will always be tier 1. Undergraduate teaching quality + a rigorous selection process cannot be beat.

Re: Oxford loses top 3 university ranking in the UK

#326

Post by gmac »

rm445 wrote: post #124

I am a Durham graduate, still somewhat involved with the university via some voluntary roles, and a bit of a 'booster' in the sense that I'll sing its praises to anyone. I also have a postgrad degree from Cambridge and did a little teaching while there. So, I'm quite familiar, and while I'm happy to see Durham get some love, this is bunk. There is a gulf in undergraduate teaching between Oxbridge and the pack. The su…

100%. I went to Oxbridge as an undergrad. Now I’m an associate professor at a middling UK university. Comparing the prior ability of the students that attend, the expectations placed on them, and above all the support and feedback provided to get them there — it’s just an entirely different thing. If only every uni had the resources Oxbridge do, the country would be in a very different place.

Re: Oxford loses top 3 university ranking in the UK

#327

Post by neilv »

dan-robertson wrote: post #130
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brown is a shit school? That's a level of elitism I don't often encounter.

“Mmm, heck of a school. Weren’t you at Brown Otto?” I think you’re confusing a statement about ranking in a small set (Ivy League schools) for a statement about a bigger set. This isn’t uncommon – iirc there was some big furore a few months ago about admissions to US schools where much of the disagreement seemed to be downstream of different people thinking about different numbers of top or acceptable universities (a…

> Saying you went to school in Boston is much lower in fanciness than Harvard or Ivy League except that most people know what it is code for.

At one point, I identified at least 4 categories of how Harvard alumni may mention or not mention where they went to school.

The funniest category is the one you mention: saying something like "back East", as a way of avoiding saying that you went to Harvard, as if you don't want to brag, while still making sure they know you went to Harvard, because you actually do want to brag.

That category might still be a thing, but I bet only for a very small minority. Most Harvard people are decent people. And even most of the minority who graduate and eventually do things you don't like, from positions of power, will have some poise. Living in the neighborhood for a long time, I have a suspicion that there's a respectable decorum that new students pick up on almost immediately from the student body culture, if they don't arrive with it. Each academic year, I almost never see any kind of public douchiness after the first week of September, until guests arrive for graduation/commencement. Then, I will probably notice at least one bit of overt jerkiness by a visitor, who, my theory goes, didn't attend Harvard themselves.

Re: Oxford loses top 3 university ranking in the UK

#328

Post by nextos »

checker659 wrote: post #229
skippyboxedhero wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The time of every bright child having Oxbridge as first university pick ended quite a few years ago. Not accurate that parents are saying this either, the change has largely come from parents who are often people doing hiring and have seen the change over the past few years. The very top aren't applying there any more at all, you don't need to: Stanford, Harvard, MIT, all better. Oxford, in particular, has made their…

> The very top aren't applying there any more at all Do you have a source to back this claim?

I think this statement is a bit of an exaggeration. There is undoubtedly some competition from US, but Oxbridge still attract a lot of the top talent. This is reflected in quantitative rankings like ARWU, where Cambridge and Oxford are always in the top of the pack, and often #1 in some subjects: https://www.shanghairanking.com/rankings/arwu/2025.

ARWU is biased towards research, but nevertheless Durham is currently #201-300 and St Andrews is #301-400. So the post is a bit sensationalistic as well. However, as someone in Oxford, I reckon the university has serious structural issues that need to be addressed if they want to stay at the top of their game.

Unlike Cambridge, Oxford doesn't have a post equivalent to Assistant Professor. In many divisions, appointment as an Associate Professor often occurs by internal promotion and this has created really toxic dynamics that scare off top talent. Furthermore, in many fields, Junior Research Fellowships are no longer attractive compared to e.g. a Lecturer position at Imperial or an Assistant Professor position overseas. Failing to attract and retain junior faculty has devastating consequences in terms of teaching and research quality.

Undergraduate admissions have experienced lots of recent changes. It is great that anti-state school bias is no longer present, but some faculty I know have expressed concerns about admissions becoming too subjective and often taking in students that are gaming the system by creating a false narrative of overcoming learning difficulties and minor disabilities (vs considering true disabled students, for instance). I find this very unsettling.

With that said, some courses (e.g. Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science) are outstanding and more isolated from these issues. IMHO, they still offer terrific value at the Home Fee rate (£9k), even if you need a mortgage. A rigorous and timeless no-nonsense education that is greatly valued by top employers.

Re: Oxford loses top 3 university ranking in the UK

#329

Post by programjames »

afavour wrote: post #287
programjames wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EDIT: This rant isn't directed at you specifically. It's more just frustration at a phenomenon I see a lot on Reddit and (to a lesser extent) Hackernews. I'm fine if you feel personally attacked, I'm just putting this edit here so you don't feel specifically attacked. This is what was actually said: >> I provided a citation for the ABB grades, which is relevant to the comment I replied to. > An extremely tenuous conn…

> vaguely hinting about ideological picks doing ideological things, you knowing this is what they're doing, but then stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that and just repeatedly saying, "show me the connection!" when you know very well what it is? > You're making this out to be some kind of final stand, when this is the first time you have even gotten close to putting your point in writing. “show me the connection” is…

> “show me the connection” is a request for evidence.

Evidence... yes, that narrowed it down a lot. You're looking for evidence! In a debate! I never could have guessed! Luckily for you, @TMWNN did, and tried to help twice, but clearly they didn't know you were looking for evidence, not whatever they provided.

In case it wasn't clear, I'm being sarcastic. You asked for evidence of a connection, they gave you it twice, and yet it clearly wasn't the evidence you actually wanted because you wouldn't just tell them what you actually wanted!

Also, btw, I never said this guy was prominent. I meant what I said, not something slightly different to further a not-so-hidden agenda.

Re: Oxford loses top 3 university ranking in the UK

#330

Post by wulfstan »

growse wrote: post #260
patanegra wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, isn't it because kids in independent school are in the school from 8am till 6pm, including Saturdays, since the age of 9, and by the age 11 they board, and all their lives revolve around learning? In my sons' prep school, I have seen kids playing musical instruments so good, they could do concerts for a general public. I have seen boys taking GCSEs in Year 6. And 100% of parents are university educated, often h…

> Parents in state schools don't put in even half of the effort on average. I wondered how long it'd be before we'd see "parents who can't afford private education just aren't putting the effort in".

The truth is that if you have an intelligent child, independent school is a complete waste of money. In the UK you will be spending in the vicinity of £200k over a child’s education to finish a levels, and although they will get better a levels on average, their results at university do not reflect their a level achievements. This is why independent schools find themselves downgraded in university offers.

This isn’t a surprise, because independent schools hothouse children to ensure they peak at a levels, whereas what universities want is students who will continue to improve at university.

I have two children (3xA*, 1A for one and 3As for the other) who were not interested in Oxford or Cambridge. My experience of Cambridge students (I live in Cambridge) is that I have seen many burn out. You also end up with a very narrow program of study which for children with broader interests forces them into a box very early. It’s also a 3 year undergrad program with 24 contact weeks a year, which is insanely short.

My children have gone to Scotland (Edinburgh and St Andrews) which allows significantly more flexibility than English universities offer in choosing subjects outside your chosen degree pattern. St Andrews even lets you change degree completely if you find something else you like.

If you really really want to be a mathematician at 18 then I can see why Cambridge or Oxford might appeal; for kids with more breadth, I think it’s a poor choice.

Post reply on HN