Cambridge or Warwick ?

Andrew S. Thompson athompso at JAGUAR1.USOUTHAL.EDU
Fri Jan 31 12:49:08 EST 1997

> > Hi, I am 16 years old and about to start my A Levels. I know it is a
> > bit early to be asking such questions but - In the microbiology
> > industries, is it considered better to have a Degree from Cambridge
> > (Natural Sciences faculty) or one from Waraick (I have been told has
> > the best microbiology faculty in the Country) ? Bob
> > 
For B.Sc., I don't think it makes much difference in the long run. There 
are certain employers discriminating (reportedly) against graduates from 
certain universities because of the perceived low quality of their 
programs, but these do not include the "traditional" unis. Warwick (I did 
my PhD there, so maybe I'm biased) has a good molecular biology course, 
and pretty good course structure. Plus it has an extremely comprehensive 
set of skills in the faculty, from pure cell biology through to 
biotransformations and environmental microbiology. The campus is pretty 
nice, being on a green belt site, plus accomodation in Coventry or 
Leamington Spa is probably cheaper than Cambridge. Personally, I think 
you should find a course which is pretty well rounded and up to date 
(there are dozens of places up and down the country offering perfectly 
good microbiology courses) and then look at where it is; ask yourself do 
you want to live there for 3 or 4 years. I did my B.Sc. at Strathclyde 
Uni in Glasgow, which was fine. Maybe at P/graduate level, you may be a 
bit more discriminating about where you go, who you work for and 
facilities, but right now for you thats a fair way off yet, and your 
priorities will change.

Dr. Andy Thompson, PhD
Dauphin Island Sea Lab
Dauphin Island
Alabama, 36528

More information about the Microbio mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net