Forget rankings and instead go to the university where you'll be happy.
You'll probably be happiest being a big fish in the pond.

I reckon high grades are required to get into some of these ancient universities at undergraduate level so as to compensate for the teaching being so poor.

johnny, Kent,

My Oxford, My Cambridge: when it comes right down to making a choice, I'd rather go for Cambridge. It is more serene and ethereal

Lumun Ato, Victoria, BC, Canada

The rankings are done on broad measures that aim to point to an overall 'hierarchy' of 'goodness'. As such it's rather varied, and in not a few cases rather irrelevant to the purposes of a significant number of persons or what really is of concern. E.g. Having a copyright library is a great asset at Oxbridge, however, in London there is the BL and other facilities accessible. Furthermore, one cannot do many important courses at some of the top ranked institutions here, that are world renowned at less ranked universites according to this list and its ciriteria. I agree re. number of 2.1.'s etc, and drop-out rates. That is a very broad criterion where other measures would be better. Pinch of salt. Harvard has grade inflation and has done for years, moreover even though it is 'ranked highly' for it's teaching, much of this is done by PHD cand. rather than contact with Profs. That make a very large difference to one's eduction and experience, asone who has done several degrees.

Jim, London, UK

Personally, i feel that the academic score differences between Oxford and Cambridge are negligible. When it comes to choosing between the two, most Oxbridge applicants have enough sense not to simply pick the one that appears to have the best score.
As a Cambridge hopeful for 2008, i can say that choosing between the two is a very individual thing and can often be swung by very slight perceptions of either university, none of which appear upon any official ranking.
While the rankings show Oxford at the top, I feel that Cambridge is a much better choice for me. I don't think that this should brand me as a certain type of person, and so it is sometimes disappointing to learn that some people do have such stereotypes, either against the two specific institutions or Oxbridge as a whole.
It is true that Oxbridge appears consistently on top of national and often international rankings. However, shouldn't this be a celebrated fact for Britain, rather than something to be ashamed of?

Mark P, Singapore, Singapore

Here is my take on this matter, and it is quite simple and emphatic: it is a virtual tie between these two powerhouses; both Oxford and Cambridge have always been #1's, and will forever remain number 1, while other universities in the world will continue to play "follow the leader." Like Ted Turner use to say, "You either lead, follow or get out of the way."

Lumun Ato, Victoria, BC, Canada

i really don't understand the rankings. Cambrige is rated as the best in the uk and europe on webometrics world rankings at the 21st postion in the world and Oxford 2nd at 40th position in the world. Also cambridge came as top for most coursesin the uk. why then should Oxford top Cambridge in the rankings.

Well expenditure does not mean quality.

Times you need to improve

Joseph, Accra, Ghana

"maybe that explains why employers seem to rate Cambridge higher"

Is that a joke?

Cambridge = more nerdy hard workers
Oxford = people with more genuine intelligence and flair

Cambridge produces people far more people who cannot adapt academic skills to a working environment.

Bob, London,

Having studied at both Oxford and Cambridge, I would place Oxford first, Cambridge second and somewhere like Hull last. Because a lot of brilliant and sensitive people attend Oxbridge, there is a fairly high attrition rate in the form of nervous breakdowns, alcoholism, drug addiction etc but 'far better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied' as my philosophy tutor used to say.

Simon R. Gladdish, Swansea, Wales

Agree with Tamsin.

Stani, Coventry,

Danilo, how can you say that graduates from Oxford and Cambridge never do anything 'great' or 'unique? It depends what you consider to be 'great' and 'unique' but almost everyone I know who has graduated from these two universities has gone on to be extremely successful. This includes people who have gone into politics and the civil service, become human rights lawyers, worked for charities and NGOs, achieved highly in the armed forces, and written influential academic works. Whilst it's true that many Oxbridge graduates go into faceless City careers, many others don't, and in my experience they have gone on to achieve great things throughout their careers because they are highly motivated and extremely talented.

Tamsin, London,

Danilo, how can you say that graduates from Oxford and Cambridge never do anything 'great' or 'unique? It depends what you consider to be 'great' and 'unique' but almost everyone I know who has graduated from these two universities has gone on to be extremely successful. This includes people who have gone into politics and the civil service, become human rights lawyers, worked for charities and NGOs, achieved highly in the armed forces, and written influential academic works. Whilst it's true that many Oxbridge graduates go into faceless City careers, many others don't, and in my experience they have gone on to achieve great things throughout their careers because they are highly motivated and extremely talented.

Tamsin, London,

this list with Cambridge and Oxford at the top is a lot of rubbish...never seen yet anybody doing something great and unique from these places...instead plenty from the so called second class university...

danilo, uk,

i really feel that this ranking thing is more of a hindrance than a help to excellent, academically or otherwise, students who do not know what they want from their universities. do they want it to provide a good environment for living or a solid qualification to get them top jobs after graduatation?

i mean of course, places like Oxford and Cambridge are undoubtedly good in almost every repect (without any rankings), but what about other places? for example, Manchester is ranked among the top 50th universities in the world by Shanghai JiaoTong Uni and Sunday Times (for its relatively large size of student body and having 25 Nobel Prize Winner in the PAST)but it's graduate prospect is just over 60%which is disgusting low in my opinion. whereas, Robert Gordon, which has got a world ranking at all, has a graduate prospect of 100% for its law students, higher than ANY uni in the UK.

so i guess for those interested in Law, Robert Gordon is The place? how does that work!!!

HL, London, UK

According to the TESS annual review on standards in universities across the globe, Cambridge is second only to Harvard so how does it finish second in the guide on top UK based universities.

Jamie , Glasgow ,

Of course it is ludicrous that Oxford should be esteemed for granting more 2.1 degrees than Cambridge. But what really grates is that these league table actually encourage the relaxation of standards across the board: universities are so keen to appear 'excellent' that they lean on staff to mark for the 'full range' (meaning mark up) and to massage marks over classification boundaries. On another matter, it really amuses me the way the press fetishises academic excellence, only to turn around at each dispute over academic pay and imply that academics aren't really worth that much. I mean, they get that long summer, don't they?!

Topsy Turvy, London,

Let me get this straight: Oxford tops Cambridge because it spends a bit more on books and computers and makes it easier for its students to get good grades, despite the fact that Cambridge "dominated the guide's 32 subject tables." Ridiculous. I can only assume that the Table was put together by Oxford graduates.

nad eloc, Indianapolis, USA

As the Research Quality was sourced from the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise, you can't use that data in 2007. I could understand if the data was 2/3 years old but from 2001?

Dhirendra, Ottawa, Canada

Sorry, but I don't understand this "ranking". How is the total score compiled & what weight given to different factors? It's striking that Oxford is only 10th for career prospects - below such hallowed halls as Surrey and Bath and one place above Nottingham Trent. And now students pay fees, why is it a good thing for a university to spend more per student if that does not translate into academic success?

Odd also how Cambridge is said has higher entrance standards and better teaching, but awards fewer "good" degrees than Oxford...maybe that explains why employers seem to rate Cambridge higher!

DJD, London,