Well I'm not saying I'll get in but I'm definitely applying, so which should it be? Oxford is closer to me [30 mins vs. 2 hours] but both are quite close really. Anyone studying at either? Anyone else applying and in same situation as me?

*cough*

*passes lozenge*

That cough's really bothering you...........

Yes, I know - it's a real pain...

I've decided not to apply for music, but from what I've been reading Oxford seems to be more academically based, while Cambridge has more performance/aural modules. But don't take my word for it - why don't you ring them up and see what they say?

I don't think Cambridge has a performance module at all. It's a wholly academic course - lots of musical history, and harmony, counterpoint etc
Of course, there are plenty of opportunities for practical music, and top-notch choirs and orchestras. But performance isn't examined at all.

There's information on both on the internet. What people have been saying is right though, Oxford is more performance-based. I've also looked at both and, on these grounds, I have ruled out Cambridge.

Cambridge certainly used to have a performance module, but only available in the final year together with performance practice (I know, cos I did them!!! ) which is one reason I went for Cambridge not Oxford, as I felt Cambridge was more general and Oxford seemed far more heavily weighted towards ....... (can't remember now - too long ago!!!) Not sure if the degree courses are the same these days ....... anyone know what cheebie's reading at Cambridge?

Look at the courses - no point going to a prestigious uni if you don't like the course content.

edit: Cheebs is reading straight music, I believe... and it's heavily history/compositional based IF I remember rightly.

Yep . Despite considerable pressure from my school to apply, the 1960s vintage Oxbridge computer science courses didn't appeal to me, so I took my 3 As elsewhere (4 including cycling proficiencygeneral studies). Worked out quite well in the end - found a research group at Durham who were doing some really neat work, so I hung with them after my first degree to do a PhD and got a job with them after that . Veering back on topic somewhat, I know for a fact that Durham do offer performance on their music course. Or as a free-elective to first years studying other subjects - if I had the self-confidence at the time I would have done music performance in my first year, but I chickened out and did more maths .

Oxford and Cambridge aren't the best places to go if you want to study music. Some other universities offer much better courses, like Southampton, for example.

Anyone who is at Cambridge , I live within a short car journey and am able to meet up.

However I read music at Huddersfield which has an excellent music course. I was able to specialise in musicology, however there were plenty of performance opportunities and performance was my minor subject area (not that I didn't take it seriously). V. is correct look at other unis, if you want to read music find a course that suits you where you are. York, for example, is strong on composition.

The one thing I have experienced with Cambridge Undergrads though is a tendency to think just because they've got in, that the towns folk no nothing about the university. This is very untrue, many of the people who live in Cambridge are Members of the University, and others are children of Members of the university.
At one point when encountering a particularly arrogant bunch, I had to point out that I already had my degree, and both my parents had good Cambridge Degrees and PhDs from the university.

Now I'm not saying that contributers to this forum are like this, but there has been friction between town and gown due to this reason. Now whether this is students in general, or peculiar to Cambridge I don't know.

I wouldn't want to read Music at Cambridge as an undergrad, the course would not have suited me. However, their MPhil in Musicology is extrememly tempting, not that I have the energy at the moment with teaching, scraps of performance and a family to look after.

Ditto for psychology.

I don't really understand the appeal of these elitist institutions. But hey, whatever floats people's boats, I guess...

Horses for courses.

I'm glad I went to look - the only way I could have truly gone "hmmm! this ain't for me!"

I know plenty of people who are at Oxbridge and loving it. I know plenty of others who would've hated it.

The thing that bothers me most is when people want to go there BECAUSE it's Oxbridge - not because of course, college, etc, but because of prestige. I think that's rather sad.

When I was in Russia I met two people from Oxbridge who were in the same boat - ab initio linguists in Russia for the first time. The guy from Oxford was an incredible linguist, intelligent to a scary degree, really good. The chap from Cambridge spent most of his time excusing himself from knowing basic stuff (like how to ask for directions, basic meet and greet stuff, etc ) on the grounds that they went through that stuff quickly and spent all their time on more advanced things(!)...

Moral of the story - being at Oxbridge does not a genius make, and the courses won't suit everyone. If a course suits you, go for it. It it doesn't, don't be blinded by "Oh but it's Oxbridge".

I think the one thing you can't beat Oxbridge for are organ and choral scholarships. I don't think you have to read music (certainly for the latter) and the standards many of the colleges (not just the "big boys") achieve is astonishing really.

Otherwise, I'd agree with others and say go for the course that's right for you. Don't just say "Oxbridge" because it sounds good to be there. The wrong course anywhere is an unhappy disaster - as I know to my cost having made several decisions I regret now in my past.

Good luck whatever you decide though.

There are two stereotypical-types of Oxonians, I think:
There are the people who introduce themselves with "Hello I'm Charles Charmondley-Smythe and I read Greats at House". These are the people we all want to punch.
Then there's the people who don't even mention it.

I'm one of the latter - in a number of cases, people who've known me ages have subsequently found out I'm an Oxonian and it's inevitably followed with 'So why are you working here?' or 'So what are you doing this for?' I find this irritating, why does where I studied make my current job less?
One person who found out quite soon after we met that I was an Oxonian thought (and later told me) that it was a shame as I seemed normal. She had only met Oxonians of the former type before - people who were Oxbridge=worth it; Anywhere else=not worth it. She couldn't reconcile that with the reasonable human being who sat next to her in the office

So:
a] Don't be blinded by "Oh but it's Oxbridge"
but also
b] Don't assume that anyone who did go to Oxbridge is a certain "type"

PS To add - I didn't study music, but biology (well, originally biochemistry but I switched). I wasn't involved in any music when I was there so I can't comment ont hat. I went because it seemed like a good idea at the time (it was Oxford or Nottingham in the final choice, one of the things that swung it was that Oxford had a direct bus route back to 2 miles away from my boyfriend's house [he's now my husband so it wasn't a completely frivolous decision!])

My teachers wanted me to apply for Oxbridge during A-levels as I was doing well academically. However, in the end I decided that I wanted to read music at York University. There was a lot of pressure on me to apply to Oxbridge (the old 'it will stand you in good stead' etc), however, the course just didn't appeal. Personally I wasn't too interested in the amount of academia in the course - although I'm sure other people relished it. At York, the course was modular - you chose your module, be it 'Improvisation and non-notated music'; 'Music and film', 'Performance Practice' etc, and you could do a final recital as a module. The work was continually assessed with no finals at the end of the 3rd year (and I get VERY stressed in exams).

It was definitely the right move for me, however, if you DO relish the academic side of music, then you must go for it.

Maizie - I agree - no one likes to be type cast (in Durham it's the Oxbridge reject thing ) - and if it came out that way then I do apologise. My point was to encourage people to look at the course and apply/go *if it suited them* rather than assume it "must" be the best, being Oxbridge. No slight or judgement on the people there (one of my best friends and another good friend are both at Oxford and they're both lovely/loving it!).

Just looked at her profile on facebook - definitely straight music if that's anything to go by

Apart from looking at the Academic side, make sure you look at the social side too. Extremely important!

Yes, other unis have good music courses, good to have backups. Kings College London have a great course, and you get instrumental lessons at Royal Academy of Music.

No it didn't come out that way - I was just pointing out that there are reasons other than 'because it's Oxbridge' to go there, but going there can still haunt you even if you're not a Charmondley-Smythe-type
I was agreeing with you but wandering and rambling in my explanations

Incidentally, my cousin went to Durham; she was an Oxford reject!!

Seriously, to echo what everybody else has said - look at the course, its content, the social / pastoral background. Work out what's right for you and follow that. Don't be afraid to change your mind once you get there (I did). Don't do anything because other people think it would be best. Don't be swayed by reputation (where you got your degree may influence you getting your first job; after that, it won't matter).

Phew! That's OK then!


^ Wise words!

Whether we like it or not, having an Oxbridge degree does stand you in good stead for certain jobs, like working at the BBC for example. However, the social life may not be to everybody's taste - I know people who were perfectly miserable at both; I also know people who were very happy at both.

My partner's from Cambridge (the town not the university) and tells me there was a lot of friction between town and gown when he was growing up; however that was the 50's and 60's so things may have changed since then.

We're still a very class-ridden society whether we recognise it or not, and in some circles an Oxbridge degree counts for a lot - it's just a fact of life. An Oxbridge English degree seems to open a lot of doors in publishing for example. Cambridge is probably a good place to be if you want to get headhunted for the upper echelons of MI6! A lot of MPs were Oxbridge educated.

I wouldn't blame anyone for aspiring to go there if they liked the look of the course, but if they just wanted to go for the advantages bestowed, and they were privately educated as well, I'd say they were helping to perpetuate our godawful class system.

Oh for no monarchy and a true meritocracy in this country!

To be honbest I can't stand it when people boast about their Oxbridge credentials. Nice people are modest about it and only mention it if asked.

Violinia, the reason an Oxbridge degree stands you in good stead for certain jobs is that those jobs need a modicum of diligence and intelligence.

And, surprisingly enough, those are qualities you need to get into either Oxford or Cambridge, and need to continue to display to come out at the other end with a degree.

Therefore, seeing that someone has such a degree is a shorthand for any recruiter that this candidate has those qualities.

That's not class. It's not connections. It's actually the meritocracy you claim you want to see.

So can we stop the inverted snobbery now, please?

So, if you don't get into Oxbridge that means you're not intelligent?

That's not what I said.

I didn't say it's what you said, I was merely asking a question, because that was the impression I got.

Ahem, are you telling me that nobody's ever got into Oxbridge primarily because they went to the right school? Like Eton or Harrow? Yes a lot of people get into Oxbridge purely because of their brains, but because of the preponderance of private schools we have in this country, and a tendency of top universities to favour students who have been to those private schools, there have also been a lot of students accepted into Oxbridge because of those connections, not purely because of their brains or academic aptitude. It may not be so true now but I suspect it still goes on, and it would be very unrealistic to say it has never gone on.

That's not inverted snobbery - it's an unfortunate reality.

Intelligence isn't limited to Oxbridge graduates. But you certainly can't become an Oxbridge graduate without it.



You know my history. You know my parents (who earned less than half what the local factory workers earned) sacrificed every penny they had to send me to an independent school rather than to the local sink comprehensive. You know that from that independent school I got a place at Oxford.

Believe me, my place at Oxford was on the basis of my brains, not the basis of the school I went to. And I resent the suggestion that it could be anything else.

And I wasn't unique. There are a lot of very poor parents putting their children through schools that will give them the challenge they need rather than leaving them in our defective state school system. And those kids are able, and will get the Oxbridge places, and, in time, the good jobs. Because of their abilities.

No but you were justifying the slightly dodgy practice of 'just assuming' someone from oxbridge has unusual levels of intelligence. I know some real dolts with oxbridge degrees. I know some intelligent people from the same institution. I have a student at the dodgy old poly where I teach who'd wipe the floor with most oxbridge graduates. The practice of assuming that people from oxbridge have better qualifications systematically disadvantages people like him. That's not meritocracy.

So instead it's justifiable to assume that anyone who got into Oxbridge, and who had a good career afterwards did so purely on the basis of an "old school tie"?

Hi Violinia

I went through he process with my son last September at both Oxford and Cambridge. I was surprised to find that both universities seemed completely unconcerned about which school he went to, who his teachers were, what his parents did or anything else other than could he do the course and would he benefit from the experience.

I really saw no evidence whatsoever of the kind of prejudices and bias they are routinely presumed to have.

I cannot speak for whatever happened in the past, nor can I tell you what actually happens now. I can tell you that both universities give a very compelling impression of being places that don't care tuppence whether you went to Eton College or Slough Comprehensive. They couldn't have come across any more egalitarian if they'd tried.

Best wishes

barry

Could you show us where anyone said that?

Posts 25 and 30.

I am not going to continue this further. I don't like inverted snobbery and am not going to stay around to read more of it.

Yep mine was - plus acoustics and analysis plus interpretation of early music manuscripts etc, but the performance was an option in final year......

I don't think anyone's demonstrated 'inverted snobbery', though, have they? Which comments in particular do you think exhibit this quality?

With respect, I think you've rather overstated this point. You certainly jumped on my post as *if* I'd suggested that we could just assume that everyone had got where they had on the old tie. NOBODY has said that. I think perhaps you need to re-read the thread.

I chose Cambridge because the music course suited me down to the ground.....

Katyjay, just because you went to private school followed by Oxford doesn't mean I'm questioning your intelligence - I'm absolutely not doing that. But not every family can even manage to scrape the money to send a child to private school - I know many people for whom it would be completely out of the question no matter what they did.

And what about that state-educated girl a couple of years ago who was turned down by Oxbridge despite her excellent academic record, and was then accepted by Harvard?

To be fair I would imagine both Oxford and Cambridge have to turn down many excellent candidates purely because they don't have enough places available, but there has always been an impression that Oxbridge tends to favour privately educated pupils and not just because their education was superior. And I'm not implying that this was the case with yourself!!!

Like meercat I've met some right idiots who got into Oxbridge (way back) simply because they went to Eton or because of who their parents were. And they went on to squander their education, of course, because they didn't have the brains in the first place. You cannot possibly say this hasn't gone on in the past - it's called nepotism and it always goes on where people are in positions of power and want to share that power with their own kind.

Thankfully Oxford and Cambridge have been exposed for this and have been asked to clean up their act - and not before time.

But please accept that I'm not doubting for a moment that you got in because you deserved a place, Katy.

Which is really the only reason anyone should choose a course.

There's a big difference between being a bright kid and therefore feeling that you *have to* apply to these places, and actively choosing them because what they offer fits your needs.

Yep - I seem to have spent my years since uni avoiding telling people where I studied music because of the stigma attached to it - there is definitely the view that to have studied there means you're either a swot or a snob or both.........I loved it when I was there - so I'm ashamed of being ashamed of it......(if you know what I mean!!!)

Yes and no.......when I went for interview at Cambridge, there was a chap there who was applying 7th term from one of the big public schools.....his father had gone to St John's (my college), his grandfather had gone to St.John's, his uncle had gone to St.John's........I truly believed I would be looked over and rejected in favour of someone like him.........nope - I got in, he didn't.......and I DIDN'T go to a big public school, my school DIDN'T have any prior contacts with the college, I'm NOT from the so-called upper-class and as far as I am aware none of my relatives had been to Cambridge............and my closest friend at SJC came from a comprehensive school in the Birmingham area........so to say that people get in because of their school connections is not fair......it may well be true that those schools are more geared up to preparing their candidates and pro rata maybe more candidates apply from those schools than the comprehensives because people are put off by the stereotypical images of Oxbridge students and there may be this myth that it is too difficult to get in anyway, but there are far more things taken into account than just which school someone went to.............


And Oxbridge are not required to take someone just because they've got good academic results - they also look for character/hobbies/how someone might fit into the college/uni etc.......hence why I was not surprised when that girl was rejected by Oxford and later got accepted by Harvard - there are limited places and they may have decided in favour of someone else purely on personality if there was nothing between them academically...........

There certainly was a lot of angst between town and gown in the 50s and 60s, it has reduced somewhat. My mother an stepfather both got into Cambridge from their Grammar Schools. Mum who was on a state-scholarship had no problems from the ladies from Cheltenham or Roedean, she was there on merit, and got a 2.i to boot.

The people the caliber of my Step-father who go and get a first in mathematics don't do it due to the colour of their school tie, they do it due to a combination of brilliance and diligence.

Now living near Cambridge I know a lot of Cambridge Graduates, some have that brilliance, others leave you wondering how on earth they got there in the first place.

My hubby was a Cambridge reject. So he went and got a 1st at Nottingham in Physics then worked as a research assistant as a post doc at the University.

I'm glad I studied where and what I did. At the end of the day I have a good degree from a centre of excellence in music.

All of our Cambridge Graduate friends respect our degrees for the work we did and the achievements we have achieved.

However my mother's wisest words is be careful who you boast to in Cambridge, you'll probabaly find they have a Nobel Prize in their subject... puts things in perspective.

There are plenty of good degrees out there from other univesities too its a case of each to their own.

I imagine that at most places you can find a quiet corner to hide in with like-minded people. I can honestly say I've never been to a ball, I slept through every May Morning, never threw myself in the river, I went to the bar about three times, and went on a punt once. My last (and only) visit to a nightclub was when I was 17
OK, I was ill for a lot of the time I was at uni, but I wasn't the only one who wasn't doing 'uni' things.

Actually, that was one of the most annoying things when I went on an OU summer school - every evening people were off to the student union to drink, dance and listen to loud music - taking the chance to be a "real student".
I just sat in my room and read a book, and I was far happier that way - just like I was a "real student".

Sorry, going totally

Yes, I think social life is what you make of it. One of the nice things at uni is that most people seem to be able to find at least one or two like minded souls for whatever they enjoy - music making, getting plastered, talking till 3am, going clubbing... whatever. Which is nice

I'd say Cambridge...

<tries not to get too offended at Violinia's post>

Violinia, Husband went to Cambridge and now works for the BBC. He studied engineering and now works in their engineering research department. Oxbridge is over-represented there, but it's by no means an exclusive club - for example, a number of his colleagues went to Imperial College or Nottingham (and probably a few other institutions with strong engineering and physics departments). The recruitment policy isn't "Oh, you went to Oxbridge, come and work for us", rather "you are an outstanding applicant, we don't care that you went to Snotrags Polytechnic, come and work for us"; in fact, one of the research engineers started at the bottom and has worked his way up without ever actually having gone to university. Sounds like meritocracy to me...

When I was considering where to go to university, I look at the prospecti for both Oxford and Cambridge, and the Cambridge course did seem to be extremely academic (although this was back last century!). That said, there's plenty of music happening there (at least, there was in the mid-1980s): Husband sang in the chapel and CUMS choirs, and played in the college orchestra; in fact, he did something musical six evenings out of seven.

But I digress. Various people have advised the original poster to go where she likes best and not get hung up on the fact that it's Oxbridge, which seems by far the best advice in this thread. Music degrees vary from institution to institution, so do your research properly - do you want to be assessed on performance? would you cry if you couldn't study composition? Think about location as well - do you want to be near a large city? the seaside? near your parents' home?

University is very much what you make it - if you want to spend three years in a quiet corner reading, do it; if you want to spend three years partying, do that instead.

Oh God I started quite a discussion here. Thanks for all the replies guys I realise I should look at the course etc [It's been brought up and yes I will be applying for Kings College London + York and obviously some other places when I look into it more].

The reason I made the thread was to get stories from people of their own experience rather than just the course content and I appreciate the people who've contributed. It's difficult, a person said that "southampton's course is better" but that's ignoring the fact that Oxford and Cambridge are extremely good university, not only will the degree put in me good stead as a hard working intelligent person I'll also be surrounded by hard working intelligent people for duration of my course. The atmosphere there will be different, there is an issue of me not fitting, I won't pretend to be working class but the elitism associated with the universities is something that irks me. Then again it most probably won't make that much of a difference. Anyway I can always turn down the offer.



Edit: And I'm a he btw. Jaunty Angle not Angel

Edit2: And thanks for the advice Deborah, you're right.

The same is true of many other universities though

Without wanting to join the discussion, but just as a matter of record, the former Director General of the BBC, Greg Dyke, went to York University.