Talk:University of Oxford

Admissions

Does anyone know if Oxford accepts anything less than a first class honours degree for entry to their graduate programmes? If so, does it have to be a good first or will a first "by-the-skin-of-your-teeth" do?!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.206.1.17 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

I'd say it would very much depend on what graduate course you were applying for. There are many people studying in Oxford as postgraduates who received a 2:1 degree. There are certainly also some (relatively few) DPhil/PhD students who received 2:2 degrees, especially in areas where well-funded research programs are nevertheless attracting comparatively few applicants for student places. In some subjects, being admitted as a research student is in practice primarily about finding a willing supervisor; department and college admission will follow as a formality in all but exceptional cases. Of course, being admitted and being able to fund your study are two quite separate issues!

Academic qualifications will not be the only factor in admission to any course of postgraduate study at Oxford - as with job applications some candidates will be successful because their broader life experiences catch the interest of the people responsible for the admissions process. More mature candidates might find that the class of degree they received many years before would be considered quite unimportant! --Casper Gutman 00:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Council Merge

I would propose that University Council be merged to the section University of Oxford#Governance and administration. This appears to be a simple task, but I don't know enough to avoid contradiction. Specifically, University Council implies that the council was established in 2000, while this article makes it seem like it's been around as early as 1969. Thanks. BFD1 16:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Support merge. It is a no brain-er really. The article title is too general - all UK, Australian, NZ, etc., universities have University Councils. Merge the Oxford stuff and rewrite a general article on University Councils. --Bduke 22:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have done the merge as there has been no objection and all the material is already in the main university article. I made University Council a redirect but it could be developed as above into a good article on university councils. --Bduke 02:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Founding Date

whoever changed the founding date I submitted is clearly wrong, Oxford was founded in the 1100's and so this is the 12th Century, not the 11th, pjs68@cam.ac.uk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.42.1 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Wiki Page Pranks

Unless this is some very obscure reference that I don't understand, I think this is a prank: under the admissions section, the first sentence reads: "Admission to the University of Oxford is based wholly on who you know and the ability of your father to do a funny handshake whilst felating a buxom goat" with a reference at the bottom of the page to Courses and Entrance Requirements. As you would expect, there is nothing related on the referred page. Noticed on 3/18/07 The Crunchy Frog 07:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you may need to refresh your cache - that was reverted quite some hours back.--Alf ^melmac 07:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A note, if I put this into the actual page it would be considered a prank. It says "citation needed" after "the workload is therefore instense" in the section about the short terms. Citation needed? Take it from a current student who seems to be working round-the-clock... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.67.62.187 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 8 May 2007.

Americans and "Oxford"

When Americans say that they went to Oxford is it generally accepted (in the US) that they mean this institution, or could one reasonably expect that they are referring to one of the other educational establishments of the same name which exist in the United States? We in the UK assume they mean the former, but a recent conversation I had with an acquaintance leads me to suspect that this may be incorrect. -- 86.17.211.191 10:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That's how these "other establishments" survive - it's a way for those who couldn't go to the Oxford to pretend that they did. If you ever see anyone wearing a "University of Oxford" tee-shirt, you can guarantee they didn't attend the university. Deb 11:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, yes. 23:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

I am curious to know whether the spelling used in this article was as a result of the usual procedures, or simply the result of an invisible contention that because this is a "British" establishment, its article must accordingly use British spelling. I care neither way, and I am aware of the policies on this topic. ALTON .ıl 23:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Any words in particular that catch your Bruin eye? The earliest version of the article I can find is this, (gosh, hasn't it improved!) but that is a conversion from an earlier version now lost, so I can't find out who the original author was. Whilst no words jump out at me in that earliest reachable version as being "British English" over "American English", maybe I'd only spot them if it was written in American English. Perhaps it's been edited overall by more British English editors than American English editors - or, when in doubt, editors have referred, of course, to the OED! Bencherlite 00:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No, just wondering. I was reading over it and came across "centre", and usually people slit thoats and start world wars over those sorts of things. The last explanation is more probable, thanks. ALTON .ıl 01:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

An interesting point, in the context of a recent change of spelling from "organisation" to "organization" and back to "organisation". The OED is unusual amongst British English dictionaries in preferring the form -zation to -sation -- so in theory you might think that an article on the University of Oxford might use the less-common-in-Britain -zation spelling, given that the University own the publishers of the OED! But hey, for my own part I don't have any preference either way, as long the approach is consistent! – Stuart. (Sjb90 | talk) 11:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Campus

Can someone add an aerial or satellite photo of the campus? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.184.53 (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Most Selective? - Discuss

The most selective University in the UK is Durham, regarded as most to be the hardest University to get in to.

Cambridge

When applying to Oxford or Cambridge, you apply direct to the College at which you intend to study.

If you meet the qualifications (3/4 A'Levels at Grade A), pass entrance exams, and perform well in the interview, you can be accepted.

Oxford

In thery the above applies to Oxford (quals, exam, interview), but Oxford is well known for also taking the rich. You can BUY entry in to University and buy a degree.

Durham

At Durham you have to apply to BOTH the University and the College. Both have stringent entrance requirements, like Oxbridge, however you MUST be accepted by both.

If either the University or the College do not accept your entry, you are not offered a place.

Conclusion

It is considered by many people to be much harder to get in to Durham than Oxbridge, and much harder to get in to Cambridge than Oxford, especially if you don't have the money to buy your way in.

Koos 15:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're wanting to propose that the most selective universities bit in the intro be removed, then just say so. See WP:PRESTIGE and User:Dpbsmith/rank for essays on why "selectivity" is an unhelpful metric for assessing the worth of an institution. — mholland (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

...Oxford is well known for also taking the rich. You can BUY entry in to University and buy a degree.

Please explain and justify this statement. Many rich people have studied at Oxford. However, I am not aware of any system for buying entry to the university. It is absolutely not the case that one can buy a degree at Oxford. Major benefactors to the university become members of the Chancellor's Court of Benefactors while honorary degrees (and degrees by diploma) are given to people distinguished in scholarship or public life. Nobody is admitted to a degree who has not satisfied a board of examiners, or been appointed to an office in the university, or been admitted to a degree in the University of Cambridge or the University of Dublin.--Oxonian2006 20:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It is considered by many people to be much harder to get in to Durham than Oxbridge, and much harder to get in to Cambridge than Oxford, especially if you don't have the money to buy your way in.

Statistically, there may be more applicants per place at Durham. The proportion of applicants to places is even higher at the London School of Economics. However, this is not necessarily a reflection on the calibre of the applicants or of those who are successful. Rumour also has it that Durham routinely turns down the best applicants because it is assumed that they will be offered places at Oxford or Cambridge and that it would therefore be pointless to offer them places at Durham, although I am sure that Durham would deny that this happens. Would you like to present your evidence for the assertion that it is "much harder to get in to Cambridge than Oxford"? Statistics may show a minimal difference between the applicant:place ratios at the two universities, but again, it may simply be that students are more reticent about apply to Oxford. If Oxford received thousands of applications from sixth-formers who were predicted very low A-Level results it would change the statistics but would not change the real situation. Again, I do not understand the comment about buying one's way into Oxford.

--Oxonian2006 20:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I know someone I went to Sixth Form with whose parents are loaded, and incidentaly titled. He got 1 C 2 D's and an E at A'Level, and his parents 'bought' him in to Oxford. It is a well known tradition that 'upper' classes like 'Old Etonians' go to Oxford, because i. they do not have the academic qualifications to get in to Cambridge, ii. Daddy has a title, iii. Daddy is loaded. Not only that there are a lot of foreign (american) students at Oxford who do not get good SAT scores, and would not get in to Yale, Harvard or MIT, that go to Oxford because thier millionaire oil baron daddies 'buy' them in. Oh and incidentally if you are thick, americam 6 foot 6 inches and can row a boat, you can also get in to Oxford. Don't get all huffy with me about it, everyone knows it happens. You are probably one of the deserving ones, four A's at A'level (same as me), and worked you nadgers off to get there, but everyone knows that if you have money you can be accepted at Oxford with below the normal requirement of qualifications.

Koos 12:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I know people at Oxford who can use their apostrophes correctly, don't know how much money their dads have though, except for the third son of a large estate holder, but I guess his Frist class with Hons in Classics was just his dad buying his degree, and not because he is phenomally intelligent? :p --Alf ^melmac 12:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

on Durham being easier to get into then Oxford: everyone i knew in sixthform who went to Durham failed to get in to Oxford or Cambridge