<p>Although not by much. Oxbridge (everything we're talking about applies to Cambridge as well, of course) generally have HYPSMC ahead of them in the rankings and pretty much no one else. One might argue that they "ought to" be up with Harvard in terms of research produced, or whatever, but I'm not sure if that's really true or not--the US has been ascendant for awhile now, so it only makes sense that our universities would be as well.</p>
<p>Well, I suppose I just see the problems that the Economist and other British papers report, as well as experiences of grad students at Oxbridge and other great British unis and say that much could be done with the resources at hand. Efficiency could be improved.</p>
<p>Then again, that would only further embarrass the Continentals. :rolleyes: :p</p>
<p>(I'm a grad student at Oxbridge, by the way. And I also read the Economist, of course.)</p>
<p>Yes, more could be done with the resources at hand, but the resources at hand (and the fact that there still is some reform) are still at least sufficient to top all but the very top 5 or 6 US unis, so they would seem to be quite substantial. And British higher education is light years ahead of the continent in terms of reform. There's no instant tenure here, etc.</p>
<p>What really makes Oxbridge inefficient is the fact that they are essentially confederations--it's extremely hard for top-down leadership to accomplish much of anything in terms of changing "the way things have always been done."</p>
<p>Frankly, even reformers in American academia don't always have a great deal of success and quite often meet very hostile resistance--look at what happened to Larry Summers (the women-in-science furore was a red herring, which as an Economist reader I'm sure you realize; the more militant faculty members were going to push him out no matter what, because they were upset that he was doing things like insisting on research productivity and bold enough to point out that rap CDs aren't really "scholarly").</p>
<p>Joe,</p>
<p>I pretty much agree 100%. </p>
<p>Whatcha doin' over there at Oxford, anyway?</p>
<p>Two-year research master's in engineering, probably back to Caltech to do the PhD after.</p>
<p>Being a Rhodes scholar is what Mr. Joe is doing ;-)</p>
<p>Ben, you're as big a cheerleader as my grandparents. ;-)</p>
<p>Joe, chinese students are statistically better, at least in science and math.</p>
<p>When American students visit Chinese universities they always create easier classes for them with easier material. In classes where everyone goes they always have easier tests made just for american students.</p>
<p>I don't know a single person after seing chinese and american students who say that american students are better. The reason is the american high school system doesn't teach, they just do stupid crap. It's the better universities that allow american students to win out in the end, cuz like I said, chinese universities suck.</p>
<p>I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I have no doubt that the Chinese students score better on standardized tests, but there's a lot more to learning than that--particularly in science.</p>
<p>ehh....</p>
<p>compare the science scores for high schoolers then :D.</p>
<p>I agree that American students eventually come out on top, but that's because of the universitites. As a member of american secondary education, I can honestly say it's a complete waste of my time.</p>
<p>This is a little off-topic, but if your secondary education is a waste of your time, do something about it and make it worth your while.</p>
<p>To reiterate regarding "checking the science scores": I have no doubt that the Chinese students score better on standardized tests, but there's a lot more to learning than that--particularly in science.</p>
<p>"the american high school system doesn't teach, they just do stupid crap."
True. However, I fail to see how rote memorization and practicing test skills since the 8th grade is actually "teaching" either.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Joe, chinese students are statistically better, at least in science and math.</p>
<p>When American students visit Chinese universities they always create easier classes for them with easier material. In classes where everyone goes they always have easier tests made just for american students.</p>
<p>I don't know a single person after seing chinese and american students who say that american students are better. The reason is the american high school system doesn't teach, they just do stupid crap. It's the better universities that allow american students to win out in the end, cuz like I said, chinese universities suck.
[/quote]
How much of this is survivor bias?</p>
<p>"I don't know a single person after seing chinese and american students who say that american students are better. The reason is the american high school system doesn't teach, they just do stupid crap."</p>
<p>How about The Economist? From the August 5 issue, p. 51:</p>
<p>"Another huge obstacle [to moving China beyond its dependence on natural resources and cheap labor] is the nature of China's educational system, which stresses conformity and does little to foster independent teaching. Confucian philosophy reveres the teacher above all. More innovative Western economies operate under Aristotle's maxim: 'I love my teacher Plato greatly, but I love truth more.'"</p>
<p>The Economist also notes that China only provides an 8th-grade education in large swaths of the country, and not even that in many places. I find it very, very hard to believe that this is a superior system to the American one.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When American students visit Chinese universities they always create easier classes for them with easier material. In classes where everyone goes they always have easier tests made just for american students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you have a source for this claim?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The reason is the american high school system doesn't teach, they just do stupid crap.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Describe "stupid crap."</p>
<p>Oh, and if Chinese secondary schools are anything like what they have in Japan...I'm not worried.</p>