Cambridge vs Imperial

[tggzzz]

I had some very good lecturers, Eric Laithwaite (famous for making the  linear induction motor practical and MagLev) taught me 'Machines'. Eric was a great lecturer.
Barry Williams taught me 'Power Electronics' and Hugh Bolton taught me small machines. The others have faded away 
...
I think the most important thing we were taught, was how solve problems that we hadn't seen before.

I never knew Laithwaite, other than from TV, but I still really like one of his tactics...

In his exams he would give

• a question that everybody ought to be able to answer, and they would get a pass mark
• a question that able students could answer, and get a first
• a question that could not be well answered in the available time. He expected his engineers to be able to spot and avoid answering that question

That appears to challenge the "I'm entitled to X..." snowflakes. Good thing too.

[KJDS]

Cambridge ( and arguably Oxford ) would look better for Numskull HR departs that do CV Filtering. 

There's not a HR department in the country that would filter between any of the Russel group universities.

[AndyC_772]

I've found a useful way of "explaining" their misapprehensions is the "both doctors and nurses are necessary, vive la difference" argument. If they persist, I note that when I need a needle inserted into a vein, a nurse is probably better at it than a doctor - but when I want an internal pain diagnosed and treatment chosen, I want a doctor to do it. Some continue to persist and/or cannot see the point, sigh.

Agreed. The example I tend to use is rebuilding an engine vs redesigning that engine to not need rebuilding so often in the first place, and to be 10% more powerful and 20% more efficient at the same time.

[NivagSwerdna]

I'm comparing Cambridge and Imperial as universities to study undergrad electronics engineering at.

Either.  Or possibly either if they made you an offer.   These places are fiercely competitive so you're not going to find it easy obtaining a place.  If you did get an offer at both then the choice would remain either, since either of these would be a good start.
As has been mentioned by others there are lots of other great EE courses in the UK too.
(I notice that this is FluxMOSFET's first post)

[mrpackethead]

I went to Cambridge. (Disclaimer: I graduated about 20 years ago, some things may have changed!)
Both universities are highly regarded. If you're just concerned about how they'll look on your CV, both will get you through the door to an interview, and the rest is up to you.

If that is the case, then you should seriously consider if you want to work for the said employer.  If they think their university, is a ticket to having good staff, then chances are your teams will be filled with people you wont' want to work with as well as good ones.

When you graduate, you'll still have to put up with idiots who say "I knew a graduate from <wherever> who couldn't even do <insert practical task that takes 5 minutes to learn here>", and you'll still have to work your way up the chain from the bottom. The real benefit of the degree is that you're climbing the right chain, not the short one that starts and ends on the workshop floor.

And those 'idiots' are probably right.   Graduates lack real world practical experience, which is worth more than your flash degree.  And saying its the 'right chain' just shows the arrogance that reinforces those perceptions.    Those so called 'workshop floor' workers are the ones who will actually implement your projects.  And my bit of advice to you is, that if they get it wrong, its because you failed.  You failed to give them the right information to get it done right.

   

[tggzzz]

I went to Cambridge. (Disclaimer: I graduated about 20 years ago, some things may have changed!)
Both universities are highly regarded. If you're just concerned about how they'll look on your CV, both will get you through the door to an interview, and the rest is up to you.

If that is the case, then you should seriously consider if you want to work for the said employer.  If they think their university, is a ticket to having good staff, then chances are your teams will be filled with people you wont' want to work with as well as good ones.

When you graduate, you'll still have to put up with idiots who say "I knew a graduate from <wherever> who couldn't even do <insert practical task that takes 5 minutes to learn here>", and you'll still have to work your way up the chain from the bottom. The real benefit of the degree is that you're climbing the right chain, not the short one that starts and ends on the workshop floor.

And those 'idiots' are probably right.   Graduates lack real world practical experience, which is worth more than your flash degree.  And saying its the 'right chain' just shows the arrogance that reinforces those perceptions.    Those so called 'workshop floor' workers are the ones who will actually implement your projects.  And my bit of advice to you is, that if they get it wrong, its because you failed.  You failed to give them the right information to get it done right.

For one counter example, take AndyC_772's example of the engine, and research Stanley Hooker and the supercharger for the Merlin engine. You will see that if your belief was correct, WW2 would have been shorter and the outcome different.

I've seen too many examples where people lacking relevant theoretical knowledge have wasted years of companies' time, and in one case sunk the company trying to do the impossible!

[mrpackethead]

I've seen too many examples where people lacking relevant theoretical knowledge have wasted years of companies' time, and in one case sunk the company trying to do the impossible!

In deed.   What you need is a balance of experience, and knowldege. That makes you formiddable.  And to be sucessful, you need to appreciate the 'shop floor'.

[tggzzz]

I've seen too many examples where people lacking relevant theoretical knowledge have wasted years of companies' time, and in one case sunk the company trying to do the impossible!

In deed.   What you need is a balance of experience, and knowldege. That makes you formiddable.  And to be sucessful, you need to appreciate the 'shop floor'.

Just so. Of course you are unlikely to find both attributes in a single person; that and personality differences, are the reason for team building theory (e.g. Belbin).

That balance was missing from your statement that provoked my response.

Good engineers and technicians - wherever educated and trained - appreciate and understand what each party brings to the game. And in my experience that is specifically true with Cambridge and Imperial graduates.

[FluxMOSFET]

Thank you to everyone for your replies.

I'm comparing Cambridge and Imperial as universities to study undergrad electronics engineering at.

Either.  Or possibly either if they made you an offer.   These places are fiercely competitive so you're not going to find it easy obtaining a place.  If you did get an offer at both then the choice would remain either, since either of these would be a good start.
As has been mentioned by others there are lots of other great EE courses in the UK too.
(I notice that this is FluxMOSFET's first post)

Just to add some background, I have already received offers from the 2 universities, and I'm trying to choose between the 2. Both offers require the same grades, so I will likely not be selecting either as my insurance (for those of you familiar with the UCAS process).
I didn't like the general atmosphere of Cambridge when I went for the open day and the interview. I'd also hate to be living in an environment where I'm surrounded by historic architecture. The purpose of my original question is to ascertain whether Cambridge is better than Imperial, and if so, whether the difference is big enough to justify studying at Cambridge despite my feelings about it.

Thanks once again

[IanB]

I didn't like the general atmosphere of Cambridge when I went for the open day and the interview.

What was it about the atmosphere you didn't like? Was it "stuffy"? Cambridge does of course have a high percentage of public school entrants, and the "Hooray Henry" element may be greater than you would like. On the other hand I have met and worked with people who studied engineering at Cambridge and they enjoyed their time there.

I worked in Cambridge for ten years and I found it a very attractive city. I regret not moving to live in Cambridge at the time. I still like to visit when I get the chance. Remember all those old buildings are full of living people, and it's the people who make a place what it is.

Also the atmosphere might depend a bit on which college you choose?

[tggzzz]

Just to add some background, I have already received offers from the 2 universities, and I'm trying to choose between the 2. Both offers require the same grades, so I will likely not be selecting either as my insurance (for those of you familiar with the UCAS process).

Congratulations.

I didn't like the general atmosphere of Cambridge when I went for the open day and the interview. I'd also hate to be living in an environment where I'm surrounded by historic architecture.

I suspect there's not much of a "campus atmosphere" in central London. Do take the time to research what it is like from the non-course aspects; they are important too. I believe "The Student Room" has much information, but I suspect it will require you to quickly develop the skill of working out why X said Y, whether it is true and whether it is valid for you.

The purpose of my original question is to ascertain whether Cambridge is better than Imperial,

Yes it is. To repeat, no it isn't. Both statements are simultaneously true

and if so, whether the difference is big enough to justify studying at Cambridge despite my feelings about it.

Probably not, provided you are making a choice for "the right reasons". It is, of course, up to you to choose the right reasons. (I must admit to being a little concerned that the architecture isn't a sufficient reason.)

FWIW, much to my headmaster's annoyance, I chose not to go to Cambridge, and chose Southampton instead. I'll never know whether that was the better decision, and I wouldn't presume that my reasons then apply to you now.

I later worked in Cambridge and thoroughly enjoyed it, but eventually the lack of trees and contours became oppressive!

Good luck with your choice and career.

[AndyC_772]

I didn't like the general atmosphere of Cambridge when I went for the open day and the interview. I'd also hate to be living in an environment where I'm surrounded by historic architecture. The purpose of my original question is to ascertain whether Cambridge is better than Imperial, and if so, whether the difference is big enough to justify studying at Cambridge despite my feelings about it.

I don't think you'll find anyone who is able to compare experiences of the two first hand to determine which is "better" in some sense. You can always ask about the course content in both cases, but ultimately the decision as to where you'd rather be for the next four years is one you'll have to make - and probably with incomplete information.

I was always conscious that I was being taught by people who were very, very clever indeed... often, so much so that they didn't really appreciate the extent to which their own understanding of a subject exceeded mine. It often felt like the first few lectures' worth of material had been condensed into the first one, and by the last few, I was lost.

(I wasn't alone by any means, but I was grateful that my final year project counted for half the course marks, and was relatively light on maths).

[IanB]

I was always conscious that I was being taught by people who were very, very clever indeed... often, so much so that they didn't really appreciate the extent to which their own understanding of a subject exceeded mine. It often felt like the first few lectures' worth of material had been condensed into the first one, and by the last few, I was lost.

I think that won't only happen at Cambridge. I had the same experience where I went. After cruising through A Levels, I suddenly felt like someone had turned on a fire hose and it was a real struggle to digest everything and keep up. Ironically, the modern A1/A2 system may leave students better prepared for this than the old system.

[NivagSwerdna]

I didn't like the general atmosphere of Cambridge when I went for the open day and the interview. I'd also hate to be living in an environment where I'm surrounded by historic architecture.

Sounds like you would be happier at Imperial.

[Jay_Diddy_B]

Hi,

I think the obvious solution is a undergraduate program at Imperial and postgraduate degree in Cambridge, or vice versa?

Regards,

Jay_Diddy_B

[Howardlong]

I didn't like the general atmosphere of Cambridge when I went for the open day and the interview. I'd also hate to be living in an environment where I'm surrounded by historic architecture.

Sounds like you would be happier at Imperial.

The main South Kensington campus is nestled bang in the middle of Albertopolis, a nod to Queen Victoria's hubby, an area that was first developed directly after the Great Exhibition of 1851. The campus is directly sandwiched between three major museums to the south (Natural History, V&A and Science Museums) and the Royal Albert Hall to the North, and is dominated by the Queen's Tower built at the end of the 19th C. Much of today's campus includes 1960s style buildings, with the main entrance having a new modern façade added only about five years or so ago, but the building itself is 1960s. In about 2008 the brutalist student residences in Princes Gardens were rebuilt into rather more pleasant (and I am sure more expensive) student lodgings. Predominantly though the buildings are from about the 1960s.