<p>and please inuendo if you do agree at least partially then dont always say how horrible oxbridge is whenever it comes up.</p>
<p>i find that getting into oxford and cambridge is not as hard as harvard, etc. I'm not sure why..but it might have something to do with how the universities accept people. obviously, international students pay more for any school - that could be a factor. interviews & how they view academics can be another. i've known plenty who have gotten into oxford or cambridge but not yale or harvard or princeton. i think therefore its a common conception that oxford and cambridge are awfully hard schools to get into and harder than harvard, etc., but it simply is not always true.</p>
<p>Saragon, my attacks are not of a personal nature because you have actually lied, and on more than one occasion. You said in your earlier that post that "incidentally, ivies dont offer full fin. aid to internationals either," implying that all Ivy League schools do not offer full financial aid to internationals, that is, that they do not meed the need of students who cannot afford to pay for their education. This is completely incorrect. Every single Ivy League school meets the full need of students it admits as do a large number of private universities in the US. The "need-blind" schools such as Harvard, Princeton and Yale (there are other non-Ivy schools as well) meet the full need of students without regard to the probability of admittance. The "non need-blind" schools will only admit if a student if they are willing to meet the full need of that student, therefore a student who requires a large amount of adi may not be accepted, but, if he/she is accepted then his/her financial need will be met to its fullest extent. Columbia, a "non-need blind" for international students states </p>
<p>
[quote]
At this time, financial aid for foreign students at Columbia College and The Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Sciences is limited. However, each year several foreign students are admitted to Columbia with a financial aid package which covers the educational expenses that student and family are unable to cover.</p>
<p>Columbia has limited funding for foreign students applying either as first-years or transfers, and competition for these funds is very keen. If you are a foreign student admitted to Columbia with financial aid, you will continue to receive aid for each year that you demonstrate need; if you are a foreign student admitted without aid, you will not be eligible for aid at any time during your undergraduate studies.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There are severe gaps on your knowledge of the college admissions process which weakens the validity of anything you say. Regarding the undergrad vs. grad question, I have answered that in an earlier post.</p>
<p>i totally totally agree with misscompetent!!!!
trust me ppl, it was much much easier to get in oxford/cambridge than hypms/caltech..... i have total regrets not applyin to uk and have seen so many kids get in top uk colleges i nvr expected and they were rejected by most of the top us colleges....</p>
<p>as i say, it probably seems much harder for you to get in to hyp because you are doing alevels (i assume). its much harder to switch systems, so of course it seems that way. its the other way round for high school diploma students. Look at the link - no one seems to be disputing that - 3 getting offers (out of 120, if you believe me)</p>
<p>I still dont see how it is not true that the full fin. aid package is not offered to itnls by all ivies. As you say, Columbia only has a few internationals who get a free ride, but many get admitted without fin. aid. I did not get fin. aid and I know many who didnt either, so dont call people liers.</p>
<p>STILL NO SERIOUS REBUTTALS OF MY 5 POINTS OR EXPLANATIONS WHY OXBRIDGE UGRAD IS ANY WORSE. Please let me know any real arguments- just misquoting john hood doesnt count.</p>
<p>"i find that getting into oxford and cambridge is not as hard as harvard etc"</p>
<p>As I mentioned in another post, if everyone is allowed to apply to both Oxford and Cambridge, everyone else would, and the acceptance rate would drop as much as half ie. ~10%. HYPSM only 'seem' harder because even if you did not get 1500+ for your SAT, there is a chance that you may still be accepted, which is why even someone with 1200 will apply, and hence the huge number of applicants.</p>
<p>Secondly, if everyone is allowed to apply to only ONE of HYPSM, the acceptance rate will drop. By how much is anyone's guess here though.</p>
<p>But look at Oxbridge - anyone with less than AAB can just forget about applying. And how many people get at least AAB? </p>
<p>neha1 - just because many people in singapore you know got into Oxbridge and not HYP doesn't necessarily mean it is 'easier'. Isn't there a sort of 'quota' system in HYP, where they only take in some number from a country every year? And like if you are from a minority group, your chances increase etc? So, for HYP, it matters which country you are from, and whether you are in a minority group etc. Your grades count for just one of the factors.</p>
<p>Oxbridge doesn't care who or where you are from. You can be disabled, from a poor family, lost a finger or a toe - they don't care. If you apply, and if you are deemed suitable for their rigourous programs, you are in. It is as 'simple' as that. </p>
<p>Question: Why should getting a good-quality education be made harder to someone just because he is from a certain country or is of a certain representative group? In some threads I have read here, there appear to be highly qualified Americans who got denied to HYP because they are white? Ok, seriously NOT trying to start another 'war thread' here. Just pointing out something that I've read on these forum pages here.</p>
<p>So, grades are a pre-requisite for Oxbridge, and all applicants will have met that criteria. More importantly, they assess how suitable you are for their rigourous program. Sargon made a very valid point - Singapore uses the A levels system, so obviously the match is closer than for A levels applicants applying to Ivies. The reverse is true. It is indeed much harder for US applicants with high school qualifications to get in to Oxbridge, or at least at Cambridge since Oxford historically has closer ties with America, especially since Bill Clinton, and later Chelsea Clinton went there.</p>
<p>1/The legendary one on one Oxbridge tutorials are gradually being phased out -money and resources are dictating this. In fact many people prefer the much more lively tutorial atmosphere of group debate and discussion that is found elsewhere.</p>
<p>2/The Oxbridge superiority complex and disparaging slap downs of other elite universities, expressed by contributors here: LSE for instance ranks far above Oxbridge in its field of the social sciences (as acknowledged by the Times, a typical British establishment newspaper which has a sponsorship deal with Oxford -its world ranking puts LSE second for social sciences, just behind Harvard, well ahead of Oxbridge in points scored in its table). Even just in economics, only one of LSE's subjects (despite the acronym) the leading American research journals always place LSE ahead of Oxbridge. Likewise no academic or well informed blue chip employer would accept that Imperial lags behind Oxbridge for technology and engineering.</p>
<p>3/Or take undergraduate entry: again LSE has average entry grades slightly behind Oxbridge, but only because it chooses to take more disadvantaged and mature students than Oxbridge (for reasons of equality and social justice) -if it wanted to it could fill every place twice over with straight A students- it has far more applicants than Oxbridge, from all over the world (this goes for postgraduate entry as well).</p>
<p>4/The main point: Oxbridge is part of an elite grouping of universities, but it does not stand on its own above everybody else - it never did, even historically (for instance in the 18th and 19th centuries Oxbridge was in massive decline compared to the Scots universities and then the radical and innovatory London university). </p>
<p>5/If you look at the beginning of this thread you will see comments from somebody called uWarwick, who would have been more accurately described as Uriah Heep: now these are positively surrealist in their crawling, lickspittle, Oxbridge sycophancy (they are also insanely funny in the most unintentional manner): this feeble, cap-doffing obsequiousness is typical of the British website the Student Room, which gives far more space to Oxbridge than to other leading British universities. We don't need that type of thing here. America is a very different place to the UK which boasts the world's biggest class system, a monarchy , an unelected second chamber, an unwritten constitution and so on: on this website the preference is for critical engagement, not fantasies based on a caste system. I don't think the Oxbridge illusionistas will have quite such a free run on College Confidential as they enjoy on some of their home turf.</p>
<p>6/One other factor:behind the inflated claims lies terrible insecurity-the bopwing and scraping Oxbridge slave class know in their hearts that the real world just isn't like that: Oxbridge is not a glimpse of paradise, it is two old universities that for a long time have resented the fact that they have plenty of competitors both at home and abroad. Oxbridge is interesting, Oxbridge is classy, but Oxbridge does not have a monopoly on these attributes, domestically or internationally.</p>
<p>7/It's a soppy, over-rich confection, a bit like those Ferrero Rocher chocolates that people buy for gaga old ladies, the Oxbridge mirage: leaves yellowing on green lawns, floppy haired Hugh Grant lookalikes prancing around reading poetry, genteel but inspired old dons muttering to themselves in libraries, boy geniuses in wheelchairs discovering wonderful cures for HIV in pristine laboratories: it's all strong stuff if your idea of the world is a cross between Lord of the Rings and Lassie, but it has one big flaw: it's not real, it doesn't exist, and it never did, and I don't think that people on this website are naive enough to be seduced by this Oxbridge wet dream....</p>
<p>Yet another poster with an anti-Oxbridge/UK mentality. I think it's quite clear for all to see, using emotional language to try and brain-wash people.</p>
<p>A healthy discussion should be one where people learn to accept and respect other's opinions, and realise that there will always be people who disagree with you. If you disagree, the least you can do is disagree politely. </p>
<p>In fact, this is the first thread that I have seen anyone so vehemently against a system. Suffice to say Oxbridge/UK has not won you over. That is ok, because neither us, Oxbridge nor UK will care. And in case you don't realise it yet, be assured that none of the posters here are trying to convince you otherwise. We were merely disagreeing with some of statements which were not true, just as other posters who disagree on other topics do. Take whatever views you like, but name-calling is probably not the best way forward.</p>
<p>The world does not just consist of America: there are other countries on other continents with real people, real lives, and real opinions.</p>
<p>I shall not response to any more of your posts on this topic thereafter, since you are apparently upset/affected.</p>
<p>Now this last post does not change anything as it basically does not address my 5 points at all. I will still briefly adress the more serious - and less ferrero rocher based - arguments.</p>
<p>I
[I was talking about comparing ivies to oxbridge - parforthecourse seems to have taken offence on my disparaging lse. While LSE is no doubt a great university and is better than oxbridge in some subjects (as is imperial), OVERALL it is still slightly behind, as can be seen from this overview of rankings. I never said that it "stands on its own, above anything else", only that it was very good - and there are other good schools in Uk. But you quoted rankings, so dont complain:
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/graphics/2003/06/27/unibigpic.jpg;sessionid=PJ1GBSGFBKRSJQFIQMGCNAGAVCBQUJVC%5B/url%5D">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/graphics/2003/06/27/unibigpic.jpg;sessionid=PJ1GBSGFBKRSJQFIQMGCNAGAVCBQUJVC</a>
However, I will take back the LSE analogy, but please grant me that admission rates are hardly comparable from system to system.
As UWarwick explained (someone who doesnt have an unjustified, bitter hatred of oxbridge despite going to warwick):
"Americans dont understand that in England, 9/10 of the interview/filtration process is done by the school itself.
Whereas in america a lot of people would apply for harvard/yale etc... just "in case", in england generally the people who apply to oxford are people with the best grades anyway,
even in the best high schools theres a lot of people who dont apply to oxbridge, because they are filtered out by their teachers.
Teachers only [let] certain people apply."</p>
<p>On the contrary it is you who have an anachronistic view of oxbridge. Far from being hugh grant- infested snob hangouts, they are modern, meritocratic, excellent institutions, with amazing undergrad teaching. And at oxbridge everyone still has supervisions/tutorials. Dont know of anyone who doesnt. If you dont like the idea then the place isnt for you - i think its great - but dont try to judge a place you know very little indeed about.]</p>
<p>II. So everything I said still seems true - no serious / rational (non-emotional) objections have been raised. I repeat:</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. see <a href="http://www.pem.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/north-american.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.pem.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/north-american.html</a>
***(reverse true for people with A-Levels)</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 - only able to apply to one or the other)</p></li>
<li><p>Both top US schools and oxbridge are very good schools.</p></li>
<li><p>For many - especially middle class - people oxbridge is far cheaper as they only charge nominal tuition fees.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>III.
Hopefully I have given everyone enough time to respond, but I think that none of my major points were seriously and rationally rebutted. I do not wish to continue this conversation ad nauseam; I have a lot of work to do and dont have time to keep writing detailed responses - you will not see me on this forum anytime soon. Hopefully this case is then settled, and jkh or uwarwick can defend me if anyone comes - but it would be fairer if you would stop attacking the posts, as I cant defend myself (gave you enough time). If you agree even slightly with my points, please dont go around knocking places you havent been - I have been there and can say that Oxbridge is a great place to study.</p>
<p>Bye then - SARGON OF AKKAD</p>
<hr>
<p>*** or in case you are too lazy to check:
"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."</p>
<p>A very eloquent and well-written post Parforthecourse.</p>
<p>In response to the posts by misscompetent and neha1, I couldn't agree with you more. There is no nebulous reason for the lower degree of selectivity at Oxford and Cambridge; the evidence is in their admissions data. Both universities accept almost double the number of students of comparable US universities whilst receiving significantly fewer applications. The overall acceptance rate for Cambridge for 2004-2005 was 25%, a record low, and 28% for Oxford over the same period. Certain courses at Oxford, Chemistry for example, have acceptance rates of over 40%. If tabulated with US colleges, Oxford and Cambridge would be placed somewhere between the 30th and 50th placed university, in terms of selectivity. </p>
<p>In addition, jkh's point regarding high admissions rate due to applicants only being able to apply to either Oxford or Cambridge is incorrect. I have responded to this assertion in the following thread: <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com...?t=61443&page=3%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com...?t=61443&page=3</a></p>
<p>Saragon, I think you have problem reading. It clearly says in the extract from Columbia Universitys financial aid website that they meet full aid to any student who is admitted and requests financial aid. The difference between need-blind universities and those that are not need-blind, is that non need-blind, universities may not admit you if you request for a significant amount of aid since it is limited. However, if you are admitted then you will receive all the aid that is required for you to attend 4 years at the university. Therefore no student will be admitted to an Ivy League university without need based aid if, and only if, he did not apply for financial aid in the first place. So, Ivy League universities, and numerous other private universities, do provide admitted students with financial aid that covers their entire need. </p>
<p>Regarding the undergraduate versus graduate comment, as I wrote in my earlier post, I felt that I had already responded to that in previous posts. Nevertheless, I can address this issue again, in a more structured format. </p>
<p>First, the number of acceptances provides some evidence of the likely focus put on undergraduate education at Oxbridge and at elite US universities. Oxbridge accept, in some cases, double the number of students that elite US universities accept, and Oxford and Cambridges class sizes are significantly larger than their US counterparts (refer to table in previous post). This means that Oxbridge undergraduates have to share resources with more of their fellow students, thereby receiving a smaller share themselves. Undergraduate law at Oxford, for example, has a student to faculty ratio of 10:1 with 839 students being taught by 80 professors. This is far from the one-on-one tutorial world that you envision. Similarly, Merton College, one of the most prestigious colleges at Oxford (verified by its position atop the Norrington Table), has a student to faculty ratio of 9:1 for chemistry. Compare that will Caltech, which has a 4:1 student ratio. </p>
<p>Regarding the more in depth education gained by students in their chosen field at Oxbridge, I agree. But I would say that this is true for the UK higher educational system as a whole. In America, the focus is on a broad-based, liberal arts curriculum whereby students can gain knowledge and awareness in a number of areas of interest rather than focus only on a specific area. The idea is to create an undergraduate experience that transcends academia and produces a more interesting and unique individual (a reason why extra-curricula achievements are taken into account in the American admissions process). The extent to which this is achieved, I am in no place to comment on. I am also in no place to comment on which of the two systems is superior; it really depends on the needs and desires of the student. So, although a higher level of understanding is achieved by UK students in fields of their choice, this is not necessarily better than achieving some understanding in a variety of fields. </p>
<p>Lastly, your comments on admissions data have been incorrect from the beginning. There is no evidence for your assertion that 3 out of 120 US educated students were admitted to Cambridge and, until you provide hard evidence, I see no reason to believe this statistic. On the other hand, I have provided data from Cambridges own website indicating that 556 students were accepted without GCE A-Level qualifications. This is likely to include US educated students who have been admitted with both IB qualifications and GPA/SAT type results. Additionally, these students were admitted at a higher rate than students with A-Level qualifications, as I have stated repeatedly, proving your assertion 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, wrong. The reason why it is more difficult to get into HYPSM and other elite US universities is that they are more selective because they receive a more talented student body. </p>
<p>Yes, HYPSM and Oxbridge are both amazing universities. However, I believe that HYPSM and other elite US universities are still significantly superior than their British counterparts and the gap between the two is getting larger, constantly. </p>
<p>Jkh and Saragon, are either of you affiliated with Oxford and Cambridge in any way?</p>
<p>Just to add my own 2 cents:
from the fairly substantial number of people I know who have either gotten into hyp or oxbridge, it really isn't harder to get into one or the other. It's just very different, and they are looking for different things. Everyone I do know who goes there has gotten accepted at one, and rejected at the other. Oxbridge: doesn't care about school grades, but does care, very much, about the interview, and exam grades and how knowledgable you are in your subject. Also, WHAT you apply for is very important. It's easier if you apply for a less popular subject (something with a language, or classics, for instance). Hyp: extracurricular activities, all grades and exams you've taken, less emphasis on interview.</p>
<p>Since you are so insistent and obsessed with your 'so-called' logic by using numbers:</p>
<p>Or let's look at real numbers:</p>
<p>Number of applications:
Cambridge - 14585
Oxford - 12278
TOTAL: 26863 - this is the number assuming everyone can apply to BOTH oxford and cambridge. </p>
<p>Number of acceptances:
Cambridge - 3646
Oxford - 3176</p>
<p>So the acceptance rate:
Cambridge - 13.5% vs. the old 25.0%
Oxford - 11.8% vs. the old 25.8%</p>
<p>Compare the new acceptance rates with:
Harvard - 9.9%
Stanford - 12.5%
Yale - 11.3%
Princeton - 10.1%
Brown - 16.1%
Columbia - 11.2%
Dartmouth - 18.1%
MIT - 16.4%</p>
<p>If you STILL can't see the logic, I don't know what else to say.</p>
<p>p.s excellent posts anastasia + jkh. </p>
<p>"Seeing that 54 US educated students out of 270 were admitted to Oxford" - if 270 applied to oxford, how many do you think applied to cambridge for the 3 that got in? All I said was about us high school, not I.B.</p>
<p>undergrad focus- what about tutorials? there is nothing that really adresses my points and arguments.</p>
<p>very very last post . never again.</p>
<p>pps. @jkh and remember that those accept. rates are with the very dissuasive interview ordeal which prevents people from applying
About me I got into a two ivies (and stanford, btw) last year but decided to go to cambridge for pure science - I stated the reasons above. but read the arguments, dont judge the people and get personal.</p>
<p>very very very... last ultimate final post. And its Sargon not Saragon. Look him up in a history book...</p>
<p>Thank you for your contributions Sargon, it was interesting to debate this topic with you. I applied and was admitted to Balliol College, Oxford for PPE as well as several universities in the US. I have ultimately decided to go to Stanford, as jkh disparagingly alluded to in his post above. Cambridge is outstanding for natural sciences and I am sure you have a successful future ahead of you. </p>
<p>jkh, there is so much wrong with what you have said in your previous post, that it is difficult for me to begin my rebuttal. First, as stated above, I was admitted to Balliol College Oxford, meaning that I visited the university and had several interviews as well as my written test. Additionally, I have studied in a British Curriculum school that is very focused on getting students into Oxbridge so I have had access to a wealth of information on the universities, including a very knowledgeable guidance counselor. </p>
<p>So in response to your itemized attack on me, I can say that:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I do have first hand knowledge of the current student body as I visited the university, stayed there for 3 days and met several students at Balliol and other colleges. </p></li>
<li><p>I do have first hand knowledge of the teaching as I was invited to some seminars held by tutors whilst visiting for my interview. </p></li>
<li><p>I have done 4 essays for Oxford tutors. 2 were required pieces of written work that are a part of the application and 2 were part of the PPE written test. Seeing that I was admitted I would assume that I did relatively well. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>I have nothing against Oxbridge; several of my friends are or are going to attend these universities. Nevertheless, I strongly believe that elite US colleges such as HYPSM are superior for a variety of reasons that have already been discussed. </p>
<p>Regarding your calculation of what Oxbridge admission rates would be if students were allowed to apply to both, I have stated in another thread that you model is too simplistic and, in fact, grossly incorrect. You cannot simply add and divide the numbers like that because in reality admissions are not static as you are assuming them to be and with students applying to both Oxford and Cambridge there will be many cross-admits and so, lower yields for both universities which will affect the number of students accepted.</p>
<p>Like Sargon, I feel that this discussion has been exhausted and there is no more value to add.</p>
<p>Just 3 days and you call yourself having 'first hand knowledge'? I used to live very near Purdue for 1.5 years - almost like a stone's throw away and having met lots of Purdue people, I still won't call myself having first hand knowledge because I was never a student there.</p>
<p>Just because you attend some seminars does not mean you have first hand knowledge of 'teaching'. Seminars are just seminars.</p>
<p>Application essays are what, like 6th form essays? You call that essays at the proper Oxbridge standard?</p>
<p>And you still continue to avoid acknowledging the acceptance rates I provided with the numbers and data YOU provided.</p>
<p>"there is so much wrong with what you have said in your previous post, that it is difficult for me to begin my rebuttal." Yeah right, why don't you get real?!</p>
<p>"I feel that this discussion has been exhausted and there is no more value to add."
You have never added any values anyway!</p>
<p>Seriously, no one is going to believe you have "nothing against Oxbridge". </p>
<p>Sargon is a CURRENT student at Cambridge, so he has lots more first hand knowledge than you. Just like you rejected Oxford for Stanford, he has his reasons for rejecting Stanford for Cambridge.</p>
<p>As for me, I am a current student at Oxford, and have friends from Cambridge and London, so I would say I know more about the University than a 3-day guest of a College.</p>
<p>I don't like using strong language, but you asked for it.</p>
<p>inuendo</p>
<p>Despite your profession of Oxbridge knowledge, I am still wary of your claims and your information. More specifically, your usage of faculty to student ratio to attack one-on-one tutorials and the claim that you can apply both to Oxford and Cambridge. One-on-one tutorials just mean that the tutor and the pupil get together for one session on an one-on-one basis. One tutor can take on multiple pupils and tutor them at different times seperately.....and you can't apply as an undergrad to both oxford and cambridge</p>
<p>I think Inuendo is really on track with his comments. The Oxbridge Luvvies here are getting above themselves: as for the idea that you have superior comment rights if you have actualy studied/are studying somewhere, this is sophistry. I call it locationism: ie somebody who was a guard in one of Hitler's camps could use it to silence people who complained about the Holocaust: ie 'I was there and you weren't' etc. It just does not wash as a real world argument, people.</p>
<p>I've posted elsewhere on this site how there are plenty of rankings which put Oxbridge below London in quality, not least the German journal Die Wirtscheftswoche (Yes, when you google it you'll probably find I got the spelling wrong), which provides the latest rankings, based on a huge survey of business people. Even the massively pro -OxbridgeTimes puts LSE ahead of Oxford for social sciences (which covers a huge area of studies, from economics to politics to business to social philosophy etc). </p>
<p>In fact the further you get away from the UK the more the Oxbridge thing diminishes: the views of the six billion people in the world about university quality are pretty different from those of the Oxbridge networkers who run the incestuous handful of newspapers that do college rankings in Britain. If the recruitment practices of these newspapers changed then Oxbridge's rankings inside Britain would move down and closer to the reality perceived in the world as a whole: ie Oxbridge is good but not that good.</p>
<p>Keep posting, Inuendo.</p>
<p>I agree that Oxbridge students shouldnt have superior comment rights. That is a claim though shared by most Oxbridge posters on this site. The question at stake isnt superior comment rights but accurate comments. Please note the errors I pointed to above. LSE is a great school in the social sciences and I wouldnt disparage it in anyway.</p>
<p>Frankly I do agree that Oxbridge seems easier to get in as compared to HYP, or maybe that's just because we follow the British system and UK universities are more likely to accept us.</p>
<p>An almost equal number of people from my school apply to oxbridge/HYP every year and from what I gathered, a much smaller number of people actually get into the US universities. Perhaps because US unis place such importance on ECs while grades are the primary criteria for admission for oxbridge. Most better students in my school have no problem getting 4 As in A level and get >1500 for SAT 1, so US universities do seem harder to get in since grades are important but so are ECs.</p>
<p>Of course all this are only in my opinion based on what I gather from school seniors. And cambridge does seem slightly more prestigious than oxford to us by the way, at least to the science students.</p>