Talk:Oxbridge/Archive 2006-8

Punting directionality sentance in wrong place?
Quote: "In both places students enjoy punting, although the punter stands at the opposite end of the boat in the two cities."

Not only is the second half trivia, but the sentance currently resides in a section headed with "Collegiate structure" which is surely inappropriate? I recommend it is moved or deleted.

Also are not punts used elsewhere and would a survey of global direction of usage reveal if there is an anomaly in usage at one of the universities?

Mu2 10:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

LSE references
Do the strong London School of Economics references strike anyone else as slightly odd? I thought I might consolodate them a little unless anyone objects strongly --NeilRickards 22:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think someone at the LSE made those edits. There wasn't even any mention of other universities in this article a few weeks ago.

Relative age a factor?
I'm a little unsure about the line in the second paragraph:


 * "Oxford is the older of the two (and some equate this with more prestigious)"

People have different opinions on Oxford and Cambridge, but im not sure many would consider Oxford's greater age as a major factor...

I'd be interested to hear opinions on this.


 * Age is normally (although not always) linked to prestige. One of Oxford and Cambridge's main boasts is that they are two of the oldest universities in the world, and I suppose Oxford has the slight edge in that it can say it is the oldest in the English-speaking world (having to claim you're second at anything isn't so desirable).
 * I live in England, so maybe I'm not too objective, but I've always had the impression that people from other countries see England as a place obsessed with tradition, so they assume our oldest university would naturally be the best.


 * Ok, fair point but... I'm also in England, and don't feel that too many lay-people actually can make a distinction between them...I don't believe the main Oxbridge boast is their age (although this is significant). If age were the main thing then people would probably consider the ancient Scottish universities in approximately the same category (as they are all over 500 years old) but this is not so - many newer universities are considered superior. Both universities (Oxbridge) have made huge contributions to academic development and this is what makes them prestigious. The mass of good work on both sides I think cancells the extra 80 years or so that Oxford has.


 * Thanks


 * The first medical school in Europe was at Aberdeen Uni so there.


 * Well, you're certainly right that age isn't the only factor that contributes to prestige. I'll admit I have a Cambridge bias in any case. Most laypeople probably don't distinguish between the two universities.


 * I'm afriad I am similarly biased (as you've probably realised), which is why I didn't simply edit the article...anyway, its nice article all in all.


 * Heh...thanks. I thought we were pretty subtle about which side we were on.

We at the Sorbonne find these dispute between young upstarts rather endearing Rhinoracer 13:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) I have never found anyone anywhere seriously taking the greater age of Oxford university as indicating more prestige. I suspect that, like so much more of the views of these two universities, it is largely a view held by people outside the two, who like to believe that everyone in Oxford and Cambridge Universities is obsessed with such trivia.

(2) Doesn't "and some equate this with more prestigious" amount to weasel words? Anyway, the words in question are no longer there. just as well: otherwise I might have deleted them.

JamesBWatson (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"Linguistic differences"
Speaking of ... is it true that they're quite insistent on their respective Latin pronunciations esp of the u/v? ie one is adamant on veenee veedee veechee and the other weenie weedy weechy? =) I forget which bit of Britcom I got that from ... 142.177.15.145 03:06, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No. I am not aware that this was ever so, but it certainly isn't now, and hasn't been for at least half a century, probably much more. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"Greater literary heritage"
Is it really fair to say that "Oxford has a greater literary heritage" considering that Cambridge alumni include Milton, Byron, Woolf, Plath, Hughes, Wordsworth, Marlowe, Coleridge, Dryden and Salman Rushdie amongst many more? It has always appeared to me that Oxford in fact has the lesser literary heritage. Magicalsausage


 * Not to mention Tennyson, Herrick, George Herbert, Marvell... Harry R 00:37, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree with Oxford having the greater literary heritage either, but I have heard many people make the Oxford/Cambridge humanities/science distinction, inaccurate though it may be.


 * I dare say Harry R is completely right: the stuff about Oxford having the greater literary heritage is both misleading (no-one really distinguishes them as "the science one" and "the literary one") and entirely wrong. I may just rewrite that bit.


 * I didn't go to either university but my understanding is that until relatively recently eg. the last 50-100 years in some cases, Oxford as a whole tended to concentrate more on the arts and Cambridge as a whole more on the sciences. This was sometimes by a lot at certain times in history and in certain subjects. Although this split has since narrowed, Cambridge still seems to maintain a lead in the sciences whilst Oxford aims to maintain its reputation in the arts eg. by devoting wealth to spending per student on its libraries. Many of Cambridge's arts graduates are at least as impressive eg. Cambridge had Ted Hughes and Sylvia Plath and Cambridge has the famous Footlights Society, a dramatic arts society which has been home to many British comedy, and indeed film, stars though Oxford has some of its own. Oxford has some iconic people associated with childrens literature such as C.S Lewis, Tolkien and Lewis Carroll and a far longer list of prime ministers. Cambridge has the largest list of Nobel Prize winners of any university in the world- these tend to be awarded for the sciences. Paul Wilde (Picnico)

ALumni is not the only factor in the discussuion of a greater literary heritage, Oxford has a far far far bigger university press, (not noted in the article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.240.66 (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Oxford as a beta of Cambridge

 * "Cantabrigians, who insist that Oxford was a beta test for their own university"

I have never heard anyone here at Cambridge mention that. I've also heard people use "the dark side" far more often than "the other place", so good work picking up on that. If you're really trying to keep up with this cutting-edge sociopolitical issue ;-) why not add that the Cambridge equivalent of the Oxford "tab" seems to be "Oxford scum"? I have genuinely heard it used several times and I'm sure someone could fashion something slightly witty out of it perhaps...?

I've heard "Oxford scum" used a fair amount, but I don't think a common name for them is that popular.

80.5.160.4


 * I've always heard Oxford jokingly referred to as "the other place" (as opposed to "the dark side") for what it's worth. Though the anti-Cambridge sentiment in Oxford seems more pronounced than vice-versa.  --NeilRickards 22:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As someone currently at Oxford, Cambridge is often referred to as "the other place". I've never heard the "beta test" quote though.


 * The House of Commons also refers to the House of Lords as 'the other place' and I wouldn't be surprised if this was a throwback to some politicians student days at Oxbridge. Paul Wilde (Picnico)

State School Pupils
Is the number of state school pupils disproportionately low? I'm sure I've seen statistics showing that ~50% of students getting wholey 'A' grades are from private schools, and a similar proportion of students at Oxford are from state schools... --NeilTarrant 10:17, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Define "disproportionately" - in relation to what? Pure numbers? Yes. Results? No, if anything it's disproportionately high. Something else - Non-whiteness, richness, living-south-of-Watford-ness? ...
 * James F. (talk) 12:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have also only heard of oxford mentioned as "the other place". never the dark side, and I have been a cantab for two years.

Nicknames
"Oxford students nickname their Cambridge counterparts "Tabs", short for Cantabrigians...although the term is meant to be derogatory, it is unclear how this is implied by the word. In turn, Cantabrigians sometimes refer to Oxford as being 'a complete dump'."

Another great passage from the Wiki Wonder Web :-)


 * Indeed. Also, anyone who thinks we 'Tabs' do not have a return name for Oxford is dreaming. We're far more straight forward - they're the Scum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.226.61 (talk), at 01:12, 20 March 2006


 * I wonder if the "complete dump" phrase is taken from Blackadder, or whether it was included in Blackadder because it's common in Cambridge... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.173.227 (talk) 09:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Charming. So glad you took the time to favour us with this helpful insight. Flapdragon 14:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

State school section
I just removed the part of this paragraph in bold:


 * Oxford and Cambridge are both seen by many in Britain as socially elitist, and this reputation has discouraged able students from applying. The two universities have worked together on public relations exercises to dispel their reputation as bastions of snobbery, with the aim of increasing the number of state school-educated students. The results of these efforts is mixed. While the overall numbers of state school pupils has remained roughly constant at about 50%, the number of schools sending pupils to the two universities has increased. Defenders of the two universities would argue that this situation is more of a reflection on, firstly, the failings of the state education system, and secondly, prejudice against applying to Oxbridge on the part of some potential students and their parents and teachers, which is created largely by the very people who decry its alleged exclusivity, than on any lack of effort to recruit students from all backgrounds on their own part. Students from state schools almost never report any problems with elitism once they are at Oxbridge.

First, it's not clear what "this situation" refers to, as the previous sentence says that more schools are sending students to Oxbridge. Secondly, it sounds very personal. Can references be provided for any of it? SlimVirgin 05:24, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Oxbridge relationship to Ivy League and reputation in US
It seems to me that there's far too much discussion on which university is more significant in American culture in the opening of the article. The discussion comprises three lines, as much as the rest of the introduction put together; it is debatable whether that much contemplation is merited in the article at any point. I shan't edit it yet in case someone has something important to say about this, but will do something if there is no comment. Hardwick 15:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I moved the section lower. I'm not sure do we need it at all, but it's not like it's doing any damage. I guess. Hardwick 10:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that American perception of Oxbridge has no use in the lead of this article: these are British schools after all. However, the use of the term to describe a certain person connected with these universities has do to with reputation, prestige and educational excellence, and a direct comparison with European or American terms might be useful. Ivy League or Ivy Leaguer, though a loose association, probably is a similar term in U.S. For 250,000,000 Americans, the 60,000 (?) undergraduates at Harvard and Dartmouth and Princeton and Yale etc are part of a reputational elite not matched worldwide except by those from Oxbridge and other high-status colleges on each continent. Further, if this thread is continued, a structural comparison of the universities might be useful: Princeton, for example, is very uniform and has a single, medium sized undergraduate "college", whereas Oxford is a holding company for dozens of unique undergraduate "colleges". In that sense, the two "holding pen universities" of Oxbridge probably bear more than a little comparison to the "loose association of colleges" known as the Ivy League (Ivy Leaguer, Ivy League graduate). True, some Ivies (Princeton, Dartmouth, Yale) are more famous for undergraduate educations than others whereas the same is true for Oxbridges constituent colleges; mostly, however, the Ivy and Oxbridge comparison holds and is useful to our readers. I for one would like a European or Asian to help me "qualify and quantify" educational excellence and prestige for those continents. - Anonymous Kramned Americanus, May 2005


 * The comparison may be far-fetched, but I would say that Yale would probably be the present-day closest U.S. equivalent to Oxford in the terms of having a large number of prominent politicians among its alumni (e.g. Gerald Ford, G.H.W and G.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Joe Lieberman, Howard Dean, John Kerry, etc...). Harvard on the other hand would resemble Cambridge in terms of its scientific reputation as measured e.g. in number of Nobel laureates and winners of comparable high-prestige awards. Then there are the so-called "new" schools that lack the historical tradition of the older colleges, but nonetheless have established themselves as world leaders especially in engineering and IT. The typical example in that category would be MIT in the US and, perhaps, London's Imperial College in the UK. As for Princeton, as a historical college, it belongs in the same league as Yale and Harvard. However, Princeton lacks both Yale's political clout and Harvard's scientific prestige (despite several Nobel laureates of its own and a particular high profile in certain fields like Mathematics). 200.177.29.195 01:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In reply to your last question above on "qualifying and quantifying educational excellency" in other countries, I would say there is no direct equivalent of Oxbridge or the American Ivy League in continental Europe. University quality in Germany seems to be reasonably uniform across the country and it doesn't really matter that much where you have graduated from. In France on the other hand, most of the country's business and political elite tends to come from one of the highly selectively Grandes Écoles, especially l'École Polytechnique. L'École Normale Supérieure is normally associated in turn with several prominent modern-day Nobel prize and Fields Medal winners, as well as famous French writers and philosophers. None of the Grandes Écoles however resemble the Oxbridge or HPY models, being instead small, state-funded, early-19th-century higher learning institutions that operate outside the normal French public university system and specialize in a restricted number of subjects, normally engineering, mathematics, natural sciences, and, to a lesser extent, business/economics or social sciences. The closest French equivalent to Cambridge or Oxford in terms of tracing its roots back to the Middle Ages (12th century) was the historic University of Paris (more commonly known as "La Sorbonne"). Following however the student protests of May 1968, the University of Paris was reorganized  in 1970 into 13 autonomous universities which, for all practical purposes, are independent institutions though sharing a common chancellor (the "Rector of the Academy of Paris"). Several of the "baby-Sorbonnes" remain top-notch research universities, but they are not normally associated with the elitist ambiance normally found in Oxbridge or the U.S. Ivies. In particular, one important difference between the French and the US/UK models is that French universities lack residential colleges like the ones where students live in the elite British and American schools. Instead, most French students live either at home with their parents or in rented flats that they normally share with their peers. 161.24.19.82 20:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Civil War
What about the time when some Oxford johnny sent thieving troops from Oxford to Trinity Cambridge to steal their silver instead. I think they were Royalist troops if my memory serves me right. Such rivalry surely deserves a mention, as virtually the rest of the article is contemporary rivalry. I am not up with the facts though, so if someone else could oblige....--JRL 14:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I do remember that some king (CharlesII?) once sent troops to Oxford to quell dissent, the same year he donated a library to Cambridge. It inspired the following ditty:

The King to Oxford sent horse; and why? That learnèd body wanted loyalty. To Cambridge he sent books, discerning How much that loyal body wanted learning.

If I can track down the reference, that would look appropriate in the article! Rhinoracer 13:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I recall that in the late 17th and 18th century Oxford was generally High Church, Jacobite and Tory whilst Cambridge was more tolerant of dissenters, Hanoverian and Whig. Are you sure Cambridge rather than Oxford was more Royalist during the Civil War? In any case the association of the two with different sides during key parts of the country's history is clearly notable - does anyone know enough to enhance the article? Timrollpickering 12:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Likewise, I've read that 14th-century popes tended to side with Cambridge, because of Oxford's association with John Wycliffe Bluap 16:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

British Prime Ministers
Has anyone checked that the statement about all but two of the PMs since Churchill being Oxford grads is actually true? Because it seems pretty far-fetched; and also I'm certain that Blair went to St. Andrews. User:Richar4034 who forgot to sign.
 * According to Tony Blair, he went to St. John's College, Oxford
 * John Major didn't go to University,
 * Margaret Thatcher went to Somerville College, Oxford
 * James Callaghan apparently didn't go to University,
 * Harold Wilson went to Jesus College, Oxford
 * Edward Heath went to Balliol College, Oxford
 * Alec Douglas-Home went to Christ Church, Oxford
 * Harold Macmillan went to Balliol College, Oxford
 * Anthony Eden went to Christ Church, Oxford
 * And I can't find out where, if anywhere, Winston Churchill went.
 * Which takes us up to the second time Churchill was in power. Even Clement Attlee went to University College, Oxford.
 * Shows how amazing and impressive Oxford really is... did I mention I go to St Catherine's College, Oxford.
 * Shows how amazing and impressive Oxford really is... did I mention I go to St Catherine's College, Oxford.

--Neo 20:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Winston Churchill went to Sandhurst, the military academy.


 * What's even more bizarre about this is the high number of politicians who've come close to the premiership in this period who went to other universities. If we limit this just to those who formally contested the Labour and Conservative leaderships then we get:


 * 2005 Conservative:
 * David Cameron - Oxford
 * David Davis - University of Warwick, London Business School, Harvard
 * Liam Fox - University of Glasgow
 * Kenneth Clarke - Cambridge
 * Malcolm Rifkind (withdrew before round 1) - University of Edinburgh
 * Hmm - was the result built in?
 * 2003 Conservative:
 * Michael Howard - Cambridge
 * And of course Howard went on to lose the 2005 general election to Oxford's Blair


 * 2001 Conservative:
 * Iain Duncan Smith - Doesn't appear to have gone to university (although there was an interesting storm when he appeared to have done a Brookes style when taking attendance at a language school as having attended a university in the same town in Italy)
 * Kenneth Clarke - Cambridge
 * Michael Portillo - Cambridge
 * David Davis - University of Warwick
 * Michael Ancram - Oxford
 * An interesting case as the only Oxford candidate came last.


 * 1997 Conservative:
 * William Hague - Oxford
 * Kenneth Clarke - Cambridge
 * John Redwood - Oxford
 * Peter Lilley - Cambridge
 * Michael Howard - Cambridge
 * Stephen Dorrell (withdrew before round 1) - Oxford
 * Interestingly by the final round Cambridge's Lilley and Howard endorsed Oxford's Hague, whilst Oxford's Dorrell and Redwood endorsed Cambridge's Clarke. Hague went on to lose the 2001 general election to Oxford's Blair.


 * 1995 Conservative:
 * John Major - no university
 * John Redwood - Oxford
 * This was really a facing down of critics than an open contest.


 * 1990 Conservative:
 * John Major - no university
 * Margaret Thatcher - Oxford
 * Michael Heseltine - Oxford
 * Douglas Hurd - Cambridge
 * A bizarre result by these standards!


 * 1975 Conservative:
 * Margaret Thatcher - Oxford
 * Anthony Meyer - Oxford
 * Meyer was just standing to express dissent


 * 1975 Conservative:
 * Margaret Thatcher - Oxford
 * Edward Heath - Oxford
 * William Whitelaw - Cambridge
 * Hugh Fraser - Oxford
 * Geoffrey Howe - Cambridge
 * James Prior - no idea
 * John Peyton - Oxford
 * Whitelaw had been widely seen as the heir apparent...


 * 1965 Conservative:
 * Edward Heath - Oxford
 * Reginald Maudling - Oxford
 * Enoch Powell - Cambridge
 * Iain Macleod was prominent in this generation but sat out the 1965 contest and died in 1970 (many think he would have succeeded Heath otherwise). And yes, he was a Cambridge man.

As for Labour:


 * 1994 election
 * Tony Blair - Oxford
 * John Prescott - University of Hull
 * Margaret Beckett - UMIST


 * 1992 election
 * John Smith - Glasgow
 * Bryan Gould - Oxford
 * Smith won but suffered a heart attack in 1994.


 * 1988 election
 * Neil Kinnock - Cardiff University
 * Tony Benn - Oxford
 * Kinnock lost both the 1987 and 1992 general elections.


 * 1983 election
 * Neil Kinnock - Cardiff University
 * Roy Hattersley - Hull
 * Eric Heffer - None
 * Peter Shore - Cambridge


 * 1980 election
 * Michael Foot - Oxford
 * Denis Healey - Oxford
 * John Silkin - Cambridge
 * Peter Shore - Cambridge
 * Foot went on to lose the 1983 general election to fellow Oxfordian Margaret Thatcher. Many believe Healey would have won.


 * 1976 election
 * James Callaghan - none
 * Michael Foot - Oxford
 * Roy Jenkins - Oxford
 * Tony Benn - Oxford
 * Denis Healey - Oxford
 * Tony Crosland - Oxford
 * Callaghan won but went on to lose the 1979 general election to Thatcher.

And of those likely to run in the forthcoming election:


 * Declared:
 * Gordon Brown - Edinburgh
 * John McDonnell - Brunel University, Birkbeck, University of London
 * The two others most speculated upon:
 * John Reid - University of Stirling
 * Alan Johnson - no university (although he attended Ruskin College)


 * Quite a lot of non-Oxford contenders, yet only two succeeding post Churchill. Contrast that to the previous half century - of the Prime Ministers, Attlee and Asquith were Oxford men, but Baldwin was Cambridge, Chamberlain Birmingham, MacDonald Birkbeck, Law attended night classes at Glasgow but doesn't appear to be considered an alumni, Lloyd George doesn't appear to have attended and Campbell-Bannerman was both Glasgow & Cambridge. Timrollpickering 03:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Tutorials/Supervisions unique to Oxbridge?
The article states: "This type of teaching is not unique to Oxford and Cambridge (despite their claims that it is)". Where else, then? This is a bit POV unless justified, I think... Steve Roberts 23:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Durham and York both do some tutorial teaching - but not as much as Oxford or Tabland.

Sussex University is known for using a similar tutorial system.

Noone does it on the scale and breadth of Oxbridge, though there are other places with similar systems Bwithh 03:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Insults...
Car Factory? I've never ever heard the Cotswolds Poly/the Other Place/the Dark Side described as such, and have been here for three years... the three terms I used in this message are in general use, so would there be strong objections if I returned them to the page? MikeMorley 19:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been in Cambridge now for three years, and I've never heard the phrase 'Cowley Poly' used to describe that Place. Indigenius 00:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm worried that this section is becoming a vehicle to insult each other. Everyone seems to want to insert any transient insult that they've heard recently, although I suspect most of them haven't gained general currency. There never has been a standard Cambridge slang for Oxford, as far as I'm aware, although people seemed determined to include several in the article. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ...And it's just got worse again. I propose to delete this section entirely. I think it's unsalvageable. Any agreement/dissent? Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I've been bold and deleted it. It could perhaps be restored if it could be made neutral, sourced and unattractive to vandals. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I would like to propose merging Oxbridge and Oxbridge rivalry. Currently, there is a lot of overlap between the two pages, with Oxbridge rivalry actually being more about the similarity between the two universities, and how they differ from other UK universities (material which is probably better placed in Oxbridge). I would suggest using Oxbridge rivalry as the basis of the merged article, but that the article be located at Oxbridge. Bluap 13:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with this proposed merge. Rivalry should be a section of the Oxbridge article. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There being no objections, I have performed this merge Bluap 11:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Full Blues
Why are half-blues mentioned, but not full blues? Saccerzd 15:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC) -

Does this page stand any chance of evolving beyond a definition? If not, I suggest a merge and redirect to Ancient university -- Tarquin 11:49 Sep 16, 2002 (UTC)

That makes sense -- Derek

how about rather than redirecting to ancient university, redirecting to the substantial article oxbridge rivalry

Doxbridge
Am I the only person to notice that TSP is a Doxbridge graduate but not an Oxbridge graduate, and has also been heavily involved in the durham students' union, and thus should be considered highly biased? Gangeska


 * No - as you will see from the discussion I had on my talk page with Cantabrigian Sjb90, he and other editors have been perfectly well aware of this fact. However, as I have been arguing throughout based on the facts of the case, who I am should be irrelevant.  In addition, while there was significant (and justified) dispute over the original wording of the Doxbridge section of this article when it was merged, at least three other non-Durhamite editors, including 62.253.64.15 who originally proposed the VfD, have expressed their approval of the current draft.  TSP 10:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Please leave in mention of the term 'Doxbridge'. While everyone agrees it is an obscure term, Doxbridge redirects here, and the text was moved here following a Vote for Deletion failing to reach concensus to delete. TSP 22:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * "camperial" - show a source please? 62.253.64.14 22:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * There are a few Google hits - I was basing it off this message board, which is one of the things I stumbled across when I was trying to establish if Doxbridge was in real use. It does not seem to be in real-life use, but I wondered if some balance to 'Doxbridge' was required by mentioning that other combinations had been proposed (though Doxbridge is in live usage, at least as the name of a sports tournament, where the others do not seem to be. TSP 23:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)  PS. I assume 'Darvard' is meant as a parody of my edit - I can find no usages of it.  Please don't do this.  You may disagree with my edit, but I made it in good faith; adding information you know to be incorrect helps no-one.


 * Yes - I followed the link and found two students in a blog using the term. No more makes it a "current term" than my use of Dhavard a few minutes before to my cat (and I did use it to my cat so by your logic it would seem to be a term in current usage). Doxbridge is pretention of the first order - while I have no objection to its use for the sporting event - the sentence about "feeling in common" is just nonsense. I may feel like I have a lot in common with The Queen - doesn't mean I get to sit in the royal box at ascot, 'cus she dont feel nothing in common with me! 62.253.64.14 23:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, there's more than one Google hit for 'Camperial'; as I said, it's not a term in current usage; but it is something that has been proposed outside of Wikipedia. If you don't think the mention is appropriate, please feel free to remove it again, but please don't make bad-faith edits parodying it (see this guideline).  As far as Doxbridge goes - fine, please do rephrase it differently; but please avoid (a) breaking the Neutral Point of View policy, (b) implying that this is a phrase solely in aspirational use at Durham (because this has been shown not to be the case), (c) stating that the term refers solely to a sporting event (there are other uses, though this is by far the most common) or (d) removing the mention completely (because Doxbridge has been redirected here after VfD did not reach concensus to delete).  TSP 23:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "implying that this is a phrase solely in aspirational use at Durham (because this has been shown not to be the case)," - other than the sports event - where? 62.253.64.14 23:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * On a quick glance I see the Doxbridge Rag Jailbreak, an entirely unrelated event. Excluding the tournament does indeed show very few uses - at Durham as much as at Oxford or Cambridge (as I keep saying, there seems to be no evidence that this is a phrase Durham students use to a greater extent than Oxford or Cambridge ones - I've been at Durham for 7 years and have barely heard it either); but there are a few, so it does seem to be the case that it is simply an uncommon word used for the few occasions where Oxford, Cambridge and Durham all do things together.  TSP 00:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * With the very greatest of respect this is entirely on a par with my using "Dharvard" to my cat. 62.253.64.14 00:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * A well-publicised collaborative event organised between official student organisations of the three universities referred to is of equal value in demonstrating use of a term to a statement that someone once said the word in the absence of any other people? TSP 00:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I've just substantially condensed and edited the section to remove what was, you're right, unencyclopedic and POV stuff about "feeling in common", and to emphasise the insignificance of the term and particularly of its usage outside the sports tournament. Better? TSP 00:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Folks -- I've just reverted back to TSP's version of this page again. The info about Doxbridge was added as agreed after a Vote for Deletion elsewhere on Wikipedia. You'll notice on there that I wasn't in favour of keeping the Doxbridge article itself (I had suggested a move to Wikitionary instead), but agree that adding a small reference to the term on the Oxbridge article is a fair compromise. I also think that TSP's wording, as it currently stands, is extremely balanced. (sjb90)

For the record, I'm a long-standing member of the University of Cambridge myself: whilst I hadn't previously heard of the term 'Doxbridge', a Google search reveals that it has widespread, albeit limited, use -- and is in fact more commonly used on .cam.ac.uk and .ox.ac.uk webpages, rather than .dur.ac.uk. Doxbridge does indeed also appear to be used in reference to at least one regular sporting fixture, and the similarities between the Durham and Oxbridge collegiate structure are of some interest. (sjb90)

Nonetheless, this is a contentious issue -- but to avoid reverting back and forth, it'd be great if people could discuss it here first -- what do y'all think? -- Sjb90 21:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I actually started the original VfD and have to say that I tip my hat to TSP here. The Oxbridge article is a lot better than it was and the material about Doxbridge is really pretty balanced. I think he's done a real good job of inserting some NPOV in the face of some pretty harsh (though justified!) comment about the pretentions of the original wording. Good job. 62.253.64.15 11:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks - we got to something good in the end, I think. A lot of the credit should go to  User:213.48.162.7, who turned up from somewhere with a lot of good material on the term Oxbridge which has put the whole thing into a much better context. TSP 16:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The "Doxbridge" reference primarilly refers to the sports tournament between the universities, and should lead to an article on it, not to "Oxbridge". It was also included in the Durham University article referring to the sports tournament, but directed to this page. The text that says that Oxford, Cambridge and Durham are the "three oldest" is implying the term goes deeper than the sports tournament, when it does not. This I have removed as it is irrelevant and misleading. It is clear that the term has no reason to exist other than as referring to a sports tournament. "Oxbridge" is a commonly used term (getting 1.5 million hits on google, and not primarilly related to sports events), whilst "Doxbridge" only gets 230 hits, virtually all referring to the sports tournament. Logica 14:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I have found references to "Loxbridge" (a few google hits - 50 to be exact), so have included this in the text to balance out any impliance of a deeper link in "Doxbridge" on the same level as "Oxbridge". "Loxbridge" is a history conference I believe. I have created a stub for the Doxbridge sports tournament, to which "Doxbridge" leads to. Logica 14:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I'm in favour of removing the term completely from this article (and not having its own one either), as it only serves to get Durham Unviersity into an article about Oxbridge, as if it is somehow there is some common identity among the three that justifies this term. Oxford and Cambridge are, and always have been, the two most elite institutions in Britain, with their interaction being based on this fact. Durham hasn't even been close - a glimpse at the unviersity rankings show this. Imperial or UCL might have a better case for inclusion, but a university that rarely makes the top ten? That's ridiculous. In short - refer to it as a sports tournament, nothing else. It obviously annoys many Oxbridge students/graduates (me too), as evidenced by the discussions on this page. Oxbridge means the top. Doxbridge implies Durham is up there as well, especially when such remarks as "the three oldest" are used, implying a commonality that isn't even there age-wise (this ignores the Scottish universities with more equal age gaps than the massive age gap between Oxbridge and Durham). I think it was irresponsible for this to have been done. Logica 13:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My understanding of Doxbridge - and this is all or mainly based on what a Durham student who I interned with once told me (I think) - is that Durham is associated with Oxbridge as an uni with an old-fashioned reputation for have an "upper-class"/"toff" flavour to it i.e. Upper class kids who couldn't get into Oxbridge had Durham as their main English fall-back (I suppose the other fall-back would be St. Andrew's in Scotland). Like, current formal halls at Durham are supposed to have in general more of a traditionalist air than ones at Oxbridge (my Durham friend told me that singing the national anthem/toasting the Queen sometimes occurs at Durham formal halls, but this is unheard of at Oxbridge.). And "Doxbridge" comes from sporting and social events held between the uh, "toffs" of the three universities. Anyway, basically hearsay but perhaps someone can come up with refs. Bwithh 18:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Incidentally - Doxbridge Tournament?? Bwithh 20:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know all about this - I live in Durham City (just about), and there is this reputation that it is full of toffs, and that's why you shouldn't apply there. But that's a reputation Durham is wanting to shed, and I'd question how true it was. Furthermore (and mroe importantly), it can't be substantiated with any evidence (I doubt the rumour is as true as it sounds true). But with regard 'Doxbridge', any similarities Durham shares with Oxbridge - such as having 'formal halls', having a colliegate set-up (but which is a lot different to Oxbridge if you look at it properly), trying to play the 'old' card of being set in an ancient city (even though the university isn't) - means we have to compare other univerisites, which also share similar characteristics. The point of the matter is not to discuss whether "Doxbridge" is a justifiable term, but WHETHER IT EXISTS AS A TERM OTHER THAN THE DOXBRIDGE SPORTS TOURNAMENT, and there is no evidence beyond this, apart from hearsay. If anyone can suggest a reason not to delete the term from the article, speak now, or forever hold your peace... Logica 00:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't mind the current version which says, roughly, "other portmanteaux are occasionally derived from Oxbridge, such as Doxbridge and Loxbridge, but have not achieved widespread use". That seems pretty accurate to me. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to point out that I have already linked above to the Doxbridge Rag Jailbreak, another event, organised between recognised student organisations of the three universities and unrelated to the tournament, using the term 'Doxbridge'. I also note that the Durham Union Society says on its webpage that it is debating 'Doxbridge' this term, and the 'Icons' website mentions it in its writeup on Oxbridge.  So, an obscure term, yes; 'no evidence ... apart from hearsay', no. TSP 11:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, a mention on one website ('Icons') is hardly enough evidence (incidently, how many write ups of 'Oxbridge' on the internet DO NOT contain 'Doxbridge'???? All but one seemingly). The "Doxbridge Rag Jailbreak" is referring to a collaberation of those universities on that individual project, so I don't mind if there is an article on that if you really want (i.e. "Doxbridge Rag Jailbreak"). But "Doxbridge" by itself (and not meaning the sports tournament) is another matter. I can't find any more details on this debate on "Doxbridge" on the site that you linked. But even so, I presume this is debating whether the term really exists beyond any use as a term for discrete collaberation such as on RAG or playing in a tournament, and thus a word who's status is debateable should not be present in a factual article. Many other universities collaberate in a similar way with Oxford and Cambridge. To use the term "Doxbridge" without the qualiification that it is a collaberation on a specific issue, then this is misleading, and thus shouldn't be an this article referring to the far greater relationship between Oxford and Cambridge. Anyway, "Doxbridge" means the sports tournmanet in common use, as confirmed by its use on internet (greatest example that "Doxbridge" by itself simply refers to the tournament, see www.doxbridge.com - "Doxbridge 2007"). Logica 13:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten the paragraph again, making it absolutely clear that such words as Doxbridge and Loxbridge are used for a small number of specific events, and are not in general use. I think the new version agrees with your view of the status of these terms. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The Doxbride article was't hurting anyone - a nice little stub with a logo, referecnes and an external link that was destroyed by wikipedians that have let to see the inclusionist wikipedia philosophy is best. WHen you think how many secondary schools and train stations have articles the doxbrige tournaent is notable. Anyways You would think the article in question is the Arab-Israeli conflict the length that this 'debate' is. 81.145.241.21 23:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey confusion
The text says:


 * In the Times Higher Education Supplement's university league table Cambridge and Oxford are ranked respectively as the second and third best universities in the world. In a survey in which 3,703 academics worldwide were asked to name up to 30 universities which they considered the best research institutions in their field, Cambridge came first, and Oxford second, leaving Harvard - which tops the overall table - in third place.

An anonymous editor added this question, which I'm moving to the talk page:


 * This is unclear. In which estimation is Harvard ranked first and in which survey are Oxford and Cambridge ranked higher than Harvard? Is the Times supplement different from the survey of 3,703 academics? If not, please make this clear and tell us the survey's name.

For what it's worth, I agree. The BBC article cited doesn't seem much more clear either. Does anyone have a better reference?

Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Cambridge and Oxford came first and second in the academic peer review section of the THES World University Rankings 2006 (Available here directly from THES). This was the survey of 3,703 professional academics internationally who were asked to name the top institutions in their own field. In the overall ranking, which combines the peer review survey score with other factors such as academic-to-student ratios, graduate employer opinions etc etc, Harvard came first, Cambridge 2nd, Oxford 3rd. The academic peer review section is given the heaviest weighting (50%) in the scoring, but there were several other factors. The paragraph is not structured clearly, but its basic information is correct. Bwithh 10:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent, thank you. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Post-merge topics
OXBRIDGE COOPERATION - plagiarism

The content for this part of the article seems to have been directly plagiarised from:

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/oxbridge-rivalry/oxbridge-cooperation.html


 * You're right and I have now removed the section. Many thanks. asyndeton 13:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I think that site is copied from here. I've reinstated it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Oxbridge and Oxbridge rivalry
There has been a long running debate over the relationship between this article and Oxbridge rivalry. Please read Articles for deletion/Oxbridge to get some idea of the relevant history before making major changes. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And also read the merger proposal above - the two articles had been merged last October, before an anon reverted the change (without discussion) this June.  It's possible that two article are warrented, but if so, then a lot of the material in Oxbridge rivalry actually belongs in this article. Bluap (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all this article is about the portmanteau and its origins; it's not an in-depth synthesis of original thought regarding the ins and outs of university rivalry just as we don't have articles on, say, the rivalry between University of Liverpool and Liverpool John Moores University or any other number of possible combinations. Second, the AfD discussion indicated a consensus for keeping the two articles separate: part of the problem with the article was the swathe of WP:OR which surrounded the rivalry content. Consensus can change, but if the two are merged again it's likely that another AfD will be proposed to tackle the problem. Coldmachine Talk 14:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The articles merged in October 2007, and the combined article faced an AfD started by Coldmachine .  The consensus was for keep, but with a strong side-order of trim agressively and/or split.  This was implemented by Smerus in March, effectively undoing the original merge.  I am confused by the references above to "an anon reverted the change (without discussion) this June" which I can't place.  Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at the history of Oxbridge rivalry Bluap (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I think I now understand. The heavy trim by Smerus wiped out most of the merged material, but didn't move it back anywhere.  The anon user simply recreated the old Oxbridge rivalry so that the text would be available somewhere for future work.  Seems like the people with WP:OR concerns either didn't notice this recreation or didn't care as long as it was hived off. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And then N3r9 effectively re-did the same merge as I did back in October. And we're now half-way through a repeat of the cycle.  Bluap (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly so. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't have the other article on my watch list else I'd have noticed this sooner. I've no problem with properly sourced material going into Oxbridge rivalry provided it meets WP:V and the other content policies and also avoids the all-too-easy synthesis of OR problems which are endemic to the subject matter. The revert which Jonathan A Jones made here on Oxbridge meets with my endorsement. Meanwhile the content which was removed could go back on Oxbridge rivalry and be tagged for citation requests where necessary or trimmed aggressively where it fails on WP:OR etc. Coldmachine Talk 19:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)