American's views on Oxford! Cambridge...

Applying to College
101

<p>saragon, all your statements are false. You have not corroborated them with any sources and some of them are completely incorrect. </p>

<p>First, Oxford's endowment, although it is a publicly funded university, is said to be at $3.7bn excluding the Oxford Printing Press which is now a separately listed firm. Compare this to $10bn at Stanford and $23bn at Harvard and you can see the difference in resources. </p>

<p>Secondly, you stated that Oxford "gets the best students in Europe and Commonwealth if not worldwide," also an unjustified and, in reality, incorrect statement. Oxford's own vice-chancellor John A. Hood has admitted to losing out on top undergraduate students and Oxford's inability to win students in one-on-one battles with US colleges saying in response to an interview question:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Q: Do you compete with the U.S. schools for undergrads from there and around the world? And can you compete in the U.S. for undergraduates?</p>

<p>Hood: We don't actively go out and seek [undergrads], but we do get a lot of applications. As we go to broaden the base of our undergraduate students, and to really try to find the most talented students out there, we're going to have to try to find more financial support for these students. At the graduate level, we do that -- we have the Clarendon Trust and the Rhodes. But at the undergraduate level, we haven't been able to.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Thirdly, regarding your comment on undergraduate versus graduate experiences, you have got it completely wrong. If anything, UK universities' strength lies in their graduate programs which receive the most attention by faculty and are given the greatest access to university resources. Undergraduates are largely ignored in UK universities and this trend has been of national concern. Again, Oxford's own vice chancellor admits to this:</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think Oxford is a preeminent international university. If you take the research aspect, it is an international enterprise with many, many transnational collaborations. Forty percent of our graduate students are international. It is highly competitive internationally to get into Oxford's graduate programs.</p>

<p>At the undergraduate level, only 7% to 8% of our undergraduates are from outside the U.K. or the E.U. In that area, we have an international challenge.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Lastly, where is the evidence for this figure 3 out of 3000? I feel that it is hideously incorrect. Considering that Cambridge's overall acceptance rate for 2004-2005 was 25% an acceptance rate of 0.1% seems very, very unlikely. Additionally, Cambridge received 14585 applications for 2004-2005, so I doubt that 3000 students from America applied as this would represent a fifth of all applications. Your figure is also wrong in reference to the number of A-level/IB candidates that applied. 3065 candidates applied without doing A-levels, the vast majority of which applied with IBs. Out of these 3065 candidates, 556 were accepted, a rate of 28%, which is higher than the average acceptance rate at Cambridge for 2004-2005. This means that students that applied with IBs or other qualifications (including those from US high schools) are more likely to be admitted than British students, proving you wrong yet again. </p>

<p>Please do not post blatantly incorrect statements on CC. It is meant to be a legitimate resource for students.</p>

<p>Sources:</p>

<p><a href="http://givingtostanford.stanford.edu/wp/wp-suendowment.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://givingtostanford.stanford.edu/wp/wp-suendowment.html&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/110498.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/110498.html&lt;/a>
<a href="http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/050207/244/fbzai.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/050207/244/fbzai.html&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/camdata/ug/all.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/camdata/ug/all.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

102

<p>Go inuendo!</p>

103

<p>I have found that saragon has posted similar, false remarks on another thread in this discussion forum, thereby misguiding a prospective Oxbridge applicant. </p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=813121#post813121%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=813121#post813121&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

104

<p>The irony of this discussion is that there is only one ranking service in the U.S. that combines ratings for both universities and liberal arts colleges and looks for overall undergraduate education quality without reference to prestige, etc.</p>

<p>None of the U.S. universities aforementioned rank in the top 5, and only two (Dartmouth and Princeton) rank in the top 10.</p>

105

<p>excellent post inuendo!</p>

106

<p>Mini, could you please direct me to this ranking service?</p>

107

<p>Does anyone honestly believe that if your pet dies, you will get extra marks without proving you were in a 'bad state of mind' and would thus have gotten higher marks in normal circumstances? </p>

<p>Does anyone honestly believe that it is so easy to get a doctor to 'prove' your case for you?</p>

<p>It is up to you to believe whichever way you want.</p>

<p>What I see some posters do here is putting up many facts/articles, but no reasonable analysis whatsoever. I suppose readers can interpret the facts/articles whatever and however they like.</p>

<p>The worst that can happen is to post statistical data and not understand at all what it means, giving absurb interpretations. I will quote just 3 very simple example: </p>

<p>Data/fact: 7% or 8% undergraduates are from outside UK
Interpretation: Undergraduates are largely ignored in UK universities and this trend has been of national concern</p>

<p>Data/fact: 40% graduates are from outside UK
Interpretation: UK universities' strength therefore lies in their graduate programs which receive the most attention by faculty and are given the greatest access to university resources.</p>

<p>---> It is amazing that you can infer so many things from a mere few figures and percentages. Inferences are fine, but they need to be at least logical.</p>

<p>Hood: We don't actively go out and seek [undergrads], but we do get a lot of applications
Intepretation: Hood has admitted to losing out on top undergraduate students and Oxford's inability to win students in one-on-one battles with US colleges </p>

<p>---> If you don't actively go out and seek, you don't actually lose anything since you were not seeking for them anyway. The correct way to interpret this statement is: Oxford gets alot of applications although they did not actively try to boost that number.</p>

<p>Clearly, there are posters who are good with providing data/facts here but their comments/interpretations have no analytical value at all.</p>

<p>I urge readers to read inuendo's posts very carefully. From my personal experience, many of his posts contain far too many illogical statements. The only thing I agree with his post here is:</p>

<p>"Please do not post blatantly incorrect statements on CC. It is meant to be a legitimate resource for students."</p>

<p>It is fine and well you are not with Oxbridge. I think everyone who has read your posts before got this point well and clear. No need to ramble on.</p>

108

<p>There really seems to be an anti-oxbridge vendetta going on. Ill try to calmly show that what I said was not false and adress some of the false statements others made.</p>

<p>1.</p>

<p>"First, Oxford's endowment, although it is a publicly funded university, is said to be at $3.7bn excluding the Oxford Printing Press which is now a separately listed firm. Compare this to $10bn at Stanford and $23bn at Harvard and you can see the difference in resources."</p>

<p>Yes thats true, but you are conceding my point: ALTHOUGH IT IS A PUBLIC UNIVERSITY, etc. The point is that it is public and so gets everything it needs paid for by the state, i.e. tuition, research, EVERYTHING. The lousy 4 billion dollars are just a nest egg, they dont really need it. You cant really compare endowments between public and private universities and it seems you realize that.</p>

<p>here's a list of the endowments <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/02/07/mitnews_atwood20702.asp?p=0%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/02/07/mitnews_atwood20702.asp?p=0&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>oxbridge has a endowment fairly similar to mit even though its public. Oh and we all know how horrible mit's research is, terrible.
(besides the fact that money isnt everything, i.e. emory isnt better than columbia because it has a bigger endowment) </p>

<p>Now here are a few things you said that you have "proved" by quoting oxfords chancellor saying something...</p>

<ol>
<li>"Oxford's own vice-chancellor John A. Hood has admitted to losing out on top undergraduate students and Oxford's inability to win students in one-on-one battles with US colleges saying in response to an interview question:</li>
</ol>

<p>Quote:
Q: Do you compete with the U.S. schools for undergrads from there and around the world? And can you compete in the U.S. for undergraduates?</p>

<p>Hood: We don't actively go out and seek [undergrads], but we do get a lot of applications. As we go to broaden the base of our undergraduate students, and to really try to find the most talented students out there, we're going to have to try to find more financial support for these students. At the graduate level, we do that -- we have the Clarendon Trust and the Rhodes. But at the undergraduate level, we haven't been able to.""</p>

<p>All he is saying is that they need more scholarships for US ugrads .
The "havent been able to" is referring to organizing fin aid for them. incidentally, ivies dont offer full fin. aid to internationals either.</p>

<p>Oxbridge can more than compete for the best students. </p>

<p>dont put words in his mouth, and read carefully.</p>

<ol>
<li>But you do the same thing again, a wonderfull "proof by misrepresentation":</li>
</ol>

<p>"Thirdly, regarding your comment on undergraduate versus graduate experiences, you have got it completely wrong. If anything, UK universities' strength lies in their graduate programs which receive the most attention by faculty and are given the greatest access to university resources. Undergraduates are largely ignored in UK universities and this trend has been of national concern. Again, Oxford's own vice chancellor admits to this:</p>

<p>Quote:
I think Oxford is a preeminent international university. If you take the research aspect, it is an international enterprise with many, many transnational collaborations. Forty percent of our graduate students are international. It is highly competitive internationally to get into Oxford's graduate programs.</p>

<p>At the undergraduate level, only 7% to 8% of our undergraduates are from outside the U.K. or the E.U. In that area, we have an international challenge."</p>

<p>Now wait a second - where is he saying that undergraduate study is worse than grad? what he is saying is that there are more internationals doing grad, something that is true. Now does this disprove the fact that it is harder for us high school diploma students / other internationals to get in? Ill let you figure that one out yourself...</p>

<p>This is in fact your weakest argument. It is clear that not only is oxbridge undergrad better than its grad, it is much better than us undergrad. The reasons for this are</p>

<p>i) the higher level of the classes - A -levels are much more advanced than a high school diploma, so oxbridge can expand on that. the first year of us college is basically a-level. ( there are of course difficulties comparing specialist systems with liberal arts though)</p>

<p>ii) VERY VERY important:
The TUTORIALS/SUPERVISIONS. this is what makes oxbridge undergrad a unique experience. You have meetings with an actual professor 4 times a week, and have an intellectual sparring session about all kinds of material. This is why oxbridge ugrads are so good at their subject and able to argue incredibly well . Just compare Tony Blair and George Bush and youll know what I mean (just kidding). Ask anyone in the know and theyll tell you that oxbridge is renowned for undergrad.</p>

<p>It also seems that my 3000 comment was misunderstood. Of the 3000 offers made in cambridge, 3 were made to us students coming from a normal american high school. The source is <a href="http://www.pem.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/overseas.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.pem.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/overseas.html&lt;/a>
What it says is that very few americans can get in with a high school diploma ( yes IB and alevels are different) as this is not advanced enough too succeed in interviews. Also, you cant compare us and uk admission stats - it is a completely different system for admissions, up to 4 day interviews/ academic grillings etc, which dissuades applicants, and you can only apply to one or other. As I said in my other post:</p>

<p>However, if you are doing A-Levels, of course it is much easier to get in to oxbridge than HYP. It is always much more difficult to switch systems. Thats why there is such a variety of opinion ( ask someone doing hong kong a-levels whats harder to get in , and theyll definitely say ivy league) . But for americans that's not true - unless youre doing IB (about equal) than its much harder to get into oxbridge, esp. cambridge.</p>

<p>The best universities of Europe-oxbridge - arent overall any harder or easier to get in than US best. But its always easier to get into your own system.</p>

<p>P.S.
it seems that innuendo mainly posts when its about attacking oxbridge. Does seem a bit strange...</p>

109

<p>P.P.S.</p>

<p>Oh yes and the three admits were out of 120 applicants I remember reading, but I cant find the relevant page so I assume you wont believe me :(</p>

110

<p>Typical of you to attack personally rather than respond with something that can justify your position. </p>

<p>You clearly have not read the article from which these quotations have been taken, nor have you read the quotations themselves. Hood clearly says in the quote above that Oxford has not been able to compete successfuly with eltie US colleges "But at the undergraduate level, we haven't been able to." The fact that he specifies "undergraduate level," implies that he feels that Oxford, and other top UK institutions, can compete successfully at the graduate level, reiterated by his comment "It is highly competitive internationally to get into Oxford's graduate programs." Therefore, Hood is clearly saying that he thinks that Oxford is a top global institution for graduate studies but perhaps not for undergraduate studies, again indicated by his final comment "At the undergraduate level, only 7% to 8% of our undergraduates are from outside the U.K. or the E.U. In that area, we have an international challenge." You, quite deliberately, did not include the last sentence of the quote in your post so as to make it out that I had made an illogical inclusion. The evidence is there for you to read. </p>

<p>Speaking of illogical, I think your analogy is an embodiment of poor logic.</p>

111

<p>"it seems that innuendo mainly posts when its about attacking oxbridge. Does seem a bit strange..."</p>

<p>I suspect he is a bitter Oxbridge reject LOL :D</p>

<p>Ok I take that back. No personal attacks here. I don't care who applied where and got rejected anyway.</p>

112

<p>yay go jkh - tell the oxbridge haters.</p>

113

<p>or hes someone who got in and went to states and is regretting it and tries to put them down because of it. Take this back as well, no personal stuff.</p>

<p>@ inunendo: the omission was an honest mistake, but doesnt change anything. read what me and jkh wrote again and youll see im right. "...international challenge" means they need to get more international undergrads. Seriously, beyond interpreting every little word he said (which we are right about, anyway), what about my arguments? oxbridge is much more renowned for ugrad, ask anyone you want. But if you want to concede that oxford grad is great, thats fine with me. PLEASE TELL ME WHY YOU THINK OXBRIDGE UGRAD IS BAD, with real arguments.</p>

<p>Oh yeah, "Been able to" refers to offering fin aid to them.</p>

114

<p>and what about your omission of the first part of the quote before "But at the undergrad.."? now thats a deliberate omission if i ever saw one. Read the statements in full, inform yourself, dont compare unlike things. Oxbridge/ Hypsm are all great unis, the best on their continent. Now i need to go do some work for finals...</p>

115

<p>ppps </p>

<p>but oxbridge is a bit better ;)</p>

116

<p>Firstly, I am not an Oxbirdge reject who is bitter and so is deliberately belittling the university. </p>

<p>Secondly, the majority os my posts have not been addressed to issues regarding Oxbridge or UK universities. You can confirm this by doing a search of my posts and seeing the thread on which I have posted.</p>

<p>Saragon, why do you continue to lie? </p>

<p>
[quote]
"incidentally, ivies dont offer full fin. aid to internationals either."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Where did you get this from? All the Ivy's offer financial aid for international students which could include full tuition, housing and boarding, commonly refered to as a "full ride." Three Ivy's offer need-blind financial aid for internationals, in which candidates are given aid regardless of their ability, which, again, could include a "full ride." One of these universities is Harvard, "Harvard is strongly committed to making educational opportunity accessible to all. All financial aid is awarded on the basis of financial need, and Harvard meets 100% of each family's demonstrated need. About 70% of Harvard undergraduates receive financial aid. </p>

<p>The financial aid policies for foreign citizens are exactly the same as those for U.S. citizens. All aid is need-based, and admissions decisions are made without regard to whether or not an applicant needs financial assistance." - <a href="http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/prospective/applying/international/financial_aid/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/prospective/applying/international/financial_aid/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Also, the link that you have provided is for Pembroke College, which is just a part of Cambridge university and there is no data provided on this website. Seeing that 54 US educated students out of 270 were admitted to Oxford, I seriously doubt that Cambridge only admitted 3 students. All the data provided suggests that you are incredibly wrong. </p>

<p>You are accusing me of "illogical" statements or drawing incorrect conclusions from quotations yet you invent figures and pull statistics out of thin air!</p>

117

<p>Having experienced Oxford and a U.S. LAC as an undergraduate, I think Oxford can compete quite successfully with the Ivies in terms of educational quality. Whether Oxford is better than PR's best in U.S. undergraduate overall quality - Carleton, Pomona, Smith, Amherst, and Haverford - I find more doubtful.</p>

118

<p>Now I regret to see that some people above have resorted to personal attacks on a fellow contributor because that contributor dares to criticise Oxbridge. Oxbridge, like every other human institution, is less than perfect and is a valid subject for criticism in a free (non-feudal) society. Oxbridge is big enough to take care of itself. </p>

<p>Oxford and Cambridge are major institutions but we must live in the real world, a real world in which no public institution is exempt from scrutiny and in which everybody has to learn to take a bit of flak: that is after all why we had an American Revolution in 1776: not everybody wants to bow and scrape to organisations that are supposed to be above the common herd.</p>

<p>Some of these worshippers of the British establishment also seem incapable of checking simple data: anything that does not fit their thesis is immediately categorised as speculation, even when it is factually verifiable - the story about grades given for pet fatalities today is available on the BBC News website and is also reported in the Times (of London), for instance, yet these people try to dismiss the data out of hand.</p>

<p>Nobody says that grade inflation is unique to the UK - just that we should get away from the opposing idea -that Britain in general and Oxbridge in particular are a cordon sanitaire when it comes to this sort of corruption. </p>

<p>On that topic and the related one of general academic surrealism the London Evening Standard tonight carries a front page story about how Prince Harry's work for his art A Level was done by some of his teachers at Eton. The story has been aired before in the British media. The UK has incredibly strict libel laws, and the newspapers concerned in running this story, some of which are sympathetic to the Royal family, would have to be pretty sure of its validity before disseminating it. No doubt the Oxbridge acolytes who have infiltrated this website will now refuse to believe this without even checking the source and will blandly imply that I am indulging in fantasy...no wonder that apparently one definition of spin (a la the Oxford graduateTony Blair), according to Americans, is 'to do an English'.</p>

119

<p>Fair enough to say everyone is entitled to criticise Oxbridge, the UK or whatever they don't fancy.</p>

<p>In the same breath, everyone is also entitled to disagree and rebuke an argument, especially if there are statements not agreeable with a poster, or if a poster think the statements are not true.</p>

<p>Simply put, when we point a finger at something, we have 3 other fingers pointing back to ourselves. If we criticise something, we should always expect that there will be some rebouncing around.</p>

<p>I guess we all agree on this.</p>

120

<p>Ok, in case some people were unable to click the north american applicant link
<a href="http://www.pem.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/north-american.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.pem.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/north-american.html&lt;/a>
it says:</p>

<p>"Candidates should be aware of a possible mismatch between the broad liberal arts curriculum of the North American high school and the specialist emphasis of British degree courses. Very few students enter a Cambridge College directly from a US High School: last year only three offers (out of 3000) were made conditional on SAT and Advanced Placement scores. Entry to Cambridge is at least as competitive as for Harvard, Yale etc and we would expect two or three APs in addition to a combined SAT score of at least 1300.</p>

<p>For students applying for technical subjects such as Mathematics, Engineering or Natural Sciences we need to ensure that they have a sufficient level of background knowledge to cope well with the course offered: there is no provision for "back-up" teaching in the first year. We would, for these subjects, require three APs at the 5,5,5 or 5,5,4 level in relevant subjects, and a series of technical interviews. Candidates who cannot come to Cambridge for interview may be set an additional written technical examination to be taken in the U.S."
it then goes on to say that it is a bit easier for arts subjects, you can read on, though...</p>

<p>Please note that I am sure that the 3 are out of 120 applicants - I just cant find proof on the web - so if you must dont believe me on that.</p>

<p>Pembroke is one of the cambridge colleges (not a special one either). Why would it lie about the general admissions requirement?
It is quite possible that oxford is more interested in US applicants, what with the rhodes scholarship etc. they have more links. Also cam is more science-based, so the mismatch is prob. worse...</p>

<p>Yes only three ivies offer need blind financial aid to international undergrads. What about the others then?</p>

<p>Is that all you could find to criticise in my last few posts? I still haven't heard from you why you consider an undergrad education at oxbridge any worse than top us undergrad...</p>

<p>And to those who complain about personal attacks - if your "fellow contributor" goes around calling people he doesnt know liers and being generally belligerent and offensive then he shouldn't complain if people get a bit annoyed at him. If everyone will agree to have a civil discourse then of course I will support that.</p>

<p>I still dont see the flaws in my points-</p>

<ol>
<li><p>oxbridge undergrad is at least as good if not better than US ivies (because of higher level/ benefit of tutorials/supervisions)</p></li>
<li><p>It appears to be harder to get in to Cambridge with an American High School (non IB) education than into top ivies, especially in science subjects.</p></li>
<li><p>It is at least as hard for Europeans to get into Oxbridge as for Americans to get into HYP. (very involved academic interviews - admissions rates not comparable i.e. LSE 10% acceptances even though not as good os oxbridge - only able to apply to one or the other)</p></li>
<li><p>For many - especially middle class - people oxbridge is far cheaper as they only charge nominal tuition fees.</p></li>
<li><p>Both top US schools and oxbridge are very good schools.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Please tell me what is wrong with these points , esp. 1-4.</p>

<p>@parforthecourse
I also never said anything about a-levels-/pet stuff/prince harry dont know if thats true. Please dont generalize about me.</p>