Here is some revealing story by Scholars from Oxford which i found in LLMguide

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=517274#comment-5622418

It was published in 2007... Is this true even now in 2009 ?

"There are no breaks for Rhodes scholars; in Oxford, youll be a dime per dozen. If youre a Harvard Rhodes, expect the H-bomb to blow up in your face..."

"Reconsider that year working for an non-governmental organization abroad or writing a novel..."

This must be a joke. No-one could seriously be this pretentious. Funny stuff.

It could be somewhat true too...There are many essays, periodical reports, promotional stuff, etc. that these guys have to do (as do Felix and other scholars)..

Plus the fact that two universities and one organisation have put their stakes, it is bound to be hard... Plus they have to file monthly financial status accounts, manage in the very little money that they get, perform really hard because continuation of scholarship is contingent upon adequate performance (which expectedly high)...

However, one has to pay this much price.. Not everyone is able to enjoy the luxuries of Oxbridge free of cost with a promise of a wonderful future...

There are many truths in this article e.g., reduced LexisNexis access, lack of materials, slow responses to emails and lack of regular office hours, outdated academic systems, poor supervision etc. However, the authors' blinkered views miss out two obvious points a. these criticisms can be thrown at just about any British university, and b. British universities are (for the most part) publically funded, and don't and never will have the resources afforded to Yale or Harvard.

Reading between the lines, I would imagine the authors came down to earth with a bump when their Oxford reality didn't match their Oxford dreams.

I agree with some of the substantive complaints made by the authors. But I think they did more than simply display a blinkered view.

First, they neglected to mention some of the many advantages Oxford has over Harvard (I studied at both institutions, so have at least some knowledge about this): more demanding, theoretically sophisticated work (at least at the law school); much more interesting history; a much much more beautiful campus. I could go on.

Second, the point about Rhodes scholars being "dime a dozen" and the "H-bomb" proving useless is quite possibly the most arrogant thing I've ever heard. Why on earth would Oxford professors or students treat a Rhodes scholar any differently from anyone else?!

And third, the remark about "working for an NGO or writing a novel" is absurd. First, because those two aren't nearly equivalent (and I dare to say could only be considered so by someone who does not value working for an NGO) and second because I imagine for most graduates of Harvard the immediate priority is to get a job! The presumption that we all have the option to dither (writing a novel) is stunningly narrow-minded.

I'll stop ranting now :-)

I have studied at Oxford and Harvard.

I am sure that that Oxford is no less than Harvard in term of academic excellence.

(i) Although intended as serious, this article was widely ridiculed at the time of its publication. And deservedly so - it came across as exceedingly and naively pretentious.

(ii) American Rhodes Scholars almost never take the BCL (it is too difficult to complete an American BA and JD prior to reaching the Rhodes' age limit), and so any use of the article in relation to law school or masters programs is virtually nill. Oxford has a great variety of graduate programs in many different disciplines, and some are better than others. The BCL/Mjur is better than others.

Laugh at the article, but don't treat it as persuasive in terms of the quality of the BCL/Mjur degrees or the Ox experience for law students.