<p>rayyy, which jc are u from?? all u said is soo true for all the jcs here...
ya the perception persists thats for sc/enggi go to cambridge.....
did u apply uk??
me from vj..wat abt u?? and do post at the singaporean connection!! :)</p>
<p>I'm from hc :) and i already posted on the singapore connection, but thanks for the invitation anyway!</p>
<p>I'm in J2 now so yeah I guess I'll apply for cambridge in oct but i've no idea which other uk universities to apply to.. Any advice? Kind of set on going US though. Of course there's still the last resort to not go anywhere and stay in S'pore. sighh</p>
<p>" 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." </p>
<p>The above comment by Inuendo seems to be a perfectly fair assessment of a statistical reality: it doesn't mean that Oxbridge is rubbish, it just means that these universities are not as stellar are as some of their slavish devotees maintain- they are part of a group of world class universities -they don't stand on their own above everybody else(the world class group would include 4-5 British universities, each with their own strengths and weaknesses, and about 15 from the US). </p>
<p>Nobody's anti-Oxbridge, on the other hand more than a few of us are opposed to an attempt to export, from the rotting Noddy Land of the English home counties, the notion that Oxbridge is the academic equivalent of heaven on earth: it isn't.</p>
<p>If you want to see what I mean read uWarwick's earlier posts in this thread expressing his sheer knee trembling adoration for Oxbridge: no sane person could read that stuff without vomiting...</p>
<p>I cant believe some of you people are still posting this stuff after all the things that have been said. </p>
<p>As explained, If you are doing A-Levels it is much easier to get into Oxbridge than HYP. Thats cause you know the material, have a fairly advanced education, and will probably do well at interview. Addtionally if you are from overseas with alevels/IB you are likely to seem more committed and interesting for the admissions officers.</p>
<p>HOWEVER, as was proved by Saragon, if you are from an American High School you are extremely unlikely to be admitted to Oxbridge, especially for subjects that require prior knowledge.</p>
<p>There seem to be many many posts from people doing Hong Kong alevels/ from singapore/ india/ at boarding school in UK etc. saying how much easier it is to get into oxbridge. This is true ONLY for people who have similar backgrounds to you. It is often the case that A-Level schooled people are not pushed as hard to do lots of ECs as High Schoolers in US, or do not have a general , well rounded education. This is why, despite their good subject knowledge which eases oxbridge entry, they always find it incredibly hard to get into HYP - there just not well matched with the universities. It is much easier for american Highschoolers to get in then for them to.</p>
<p>For most americans - myself included - it seems much harder to have to do horrible technical interviews that the US paper apps. Please if you are doing UK/other A-Levels do not post how oxbridge admission is easier than ivies as while it may be true for you , it may instill false hopes in american High Schoolers.</p>
<p>The reason people are still posting is because they simply cannot believe the outrageous claims that are made for Oxbridge in this thread, claims made by the Student Room exiles who have started waving their tacky Oxbridge Superiority flag on this forum.</p>
<p>We don't need class system stuff about dreaming spires and how Oxbridge, even in the teeth of evidence to the contrary, is always and everywhere best. Sure, Oxford and Cambridge are hot tickets, but in the new, real world of global universities they're gonna have to jostle for position with 20 or so other international universities.</p>
<p>Incidentally, Bigmo, Inuendo's statistical point still stands, despite your attempts to move the goal posts and change the criteria of the discussion. Regardless of all the subjective factors that you attempt to introduce, if Oxbridge really were so superior it would always be much much harder to get into it than anywhere else, regardless of other factors: but this just ain't so , especially right now with the UK's dumbed down grade inflation A Levels and students getting extra marks because their pet parakeet died (check out the news stories, guy).</p>
<p>to anyone who can read the quote it was clearly not worth rebutting - this had already been done many times. clearly the hassle of technical interviews and the abiltiy to apply to only one or the other were already made more than clear. Your hatred of oxbridge seems to go beyond the reasonable...</p>
<p>"That report is not quite accurate. The students were from Oxford Brookes Uni.
Plus, after drinking away all night, I doubt the alcohol-induced people knew what they were really doing ..."</p>
<p>It was an accurate report:many if not most of the students jumping into this damn water were from Oxford University, not Oxford Brookes, it's an old and dumb Oxford tradition.</p>
<p>GradStudent, I don't think you had read my preceding posts which is why you assumed I thought that undergraduates can apply to both Oxford and Cambridge. I was stating a hypothetical situation in response to a post by jkh, "Regarding your calculation of what Oxbridge admission rates would be if students were allowed to apply to both." Notice the word "if" in that sentence.</p>
<p>Secondly, I was mentioning student to faculty to ratio to highlight the lack of undergraduate focus at Oxbridge compared to elite US colleges which have lower student to faculty ratios. It had nothing to do with Oxford not having one-on-one tuition with dons. The two points are independent. </p>
<p>bigmo, I think you should refer to my earlier posts where I provided statistics from Cambridge's website that indicate that the admissions rate for students without A-Levels is higher than students with A-Levels. Here is a link to the site: <a href="http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/camdata/ug/all.html#admissions%5B/url%5D">http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/camdata/ug/all.html#admissions</a></p>
<p>It had data which can be used to calculate the rate at which students without A-levels are accepted at, which was 28%. The overall admissions rate at Cambridge for that year was 25%. I don't see how it can still be stated that it is much easier to get into Cambridge with A-levels since their own statistics show that it doesn't really matter. So, I continue to state that Oxbridge admission is indeed easier than Ivy League admission. </p>
<p>Additionally, Oxbridge admission is far from being the most competitive in the UK itself; forget comparing it to the US. The L101 course at LSE, for example, has an acceptance rate of 9% and there are several courses at LSE with acceptance rates of between 4%-6%, significantly lower than any course at Oxford or Cambridge. Even Cambridge's renowned Mathematics course accepts 22% of its applicants. </p>
<p>Inuendo, although Cambridge accepts 22% of its mathematicians, they are set extremely tough conditions on the grades they need to get on the STEP maths paper.</p>
<p>Something like 40% of the accepted applicants are not able to meet the conditions of their offer, which is why Cambridge has to make the relatively high number of offers in the first place.</p>
<p>"Additionally, Oxbridge admission is far from being the most competitive in the UK itself; forget comparing it to the US. The L101 course at LSE, for example, has an acceptance rate of 9% and there are several courses at LSE with acceptance rates of between 4%-6%, significantly lower than any course at Oxford or Cambridge. "</p>
<p>I knew somebody would fall into this trap. Simply put: The number of applications per place is not necessarily an indicator of competitiveness.</p>
<p>I could name you hundreds of unis and courses which statistically admit a lower proportion of applicants. </p>
<p>The thing is, Oxbridge applicants are simply the highest quality applicants in the country. Other universities recieve applications typically from lower quality applicants.</p>
<p>Rarely does a student who is truly good enough to get into LSE not get in (despite what the stats say). Since with the UCAS system it takes virtually no effort to apply to an additional uni, A LOT of poor applicants simply add LSE to their application list as a crapshoot. </p>
<p>If we all followed your theory of applications per place = competitiveness of school, then brunel university would be more competitive than Oxford. Haha.</p>
<p>Just like poor applicants don't apply to Oxbridge - good applicants don't apply to poor universities. Remember that.</p>
<p>After so many posts later, I can only conclude that there are still many people in US or worldwide who think Oxbridge is still somewhere at the top of the game, if not at the top at the moment. The truth is, it is not just Oxbridge's determination to stay at the top. Many European and Asian universities are fast catching up, and the reality is American universities are going to find it much tougher to fight off competition. People who think American universities will always be 'far better' will be forced to rethink a few things sooner or later. Reality check! Bill Gates himself criticised the college system for not attracting enough international talent to keep up the pace in the computing industry. He saw the strength and opportunity in Cambridge and set up the Gates scholarship and the Microsoft Research Lab there just a few years ago - in 2001 I believe.</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"</p>
<p>Thank you GradStudent. It is understandably frustrating when trying to provide accurate comments, only to get people who are not even in the know within the universities and claim its falsehood.</p>
<p>"Just like poor applicants don't apply to Oxbridge - good applicants don't apply to poor universities. Remember that."</p>
<p>Also, if applicants are allowed to apply to both Oxford and Cambridge, the majority would do so, if not all.</p>
<p>If you read what I wrote :"if you are from overseas with alevels/IB..." I was referring to A-Levels/IB/other equally advanced european qualifications. If you are international but have good qualifications (i.e. ib /abitur /bac) then of course it is only to your advantage -hence slightly higher admit rates. No one has yet disproved the fact stated before that a miniscule percentage of US high school applicants get into cambridge. 3 admitted - with the number of high school applications almost certainly in the hundreds (i believe 120 was mentioned earlier but that seems a bit conservative to me). oxford has 250 applicants. Fact is, almost no american High schooler could cope with the standards of an oxbridge interview. </p>
<p>A number of points have been made which show that an Oxford/Cambridge education is probably one of the best if not the best in the world.</p>
<p>Most of the posters disparaging oxbridge seem to be one of the following:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Well intentioned UK-Educated (alevel) people, often from Hong Kong /Singapore etc. who falsely believe that their observation that for them HYP is harder to get into is valid in general (see above)</p></li>
<li><p>Jealous Oxbridge rejects at other UK schools who out of resentment have a vicious pathological hatred of oxbridge and spew prejudice about upper class snobbism etc.</p></li>
<li><p>People who have decided to go to US universities and are trying to justify their choice by putting down oxbridge to absurd extents.</p></li>
<li><p>Honest People who are impartial and have something to contribute.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Which one fits you best?</p>
<p>"I cant believe some of you people are still posting this stuff after all the things that have been said. "</p>
<p>The reason is there are people who cannot believe there are still many Oxbridge supporters, even in CC, and they have a dying need to tell them they think it is merely a "silly obsession", which of course many disagree.</p>
<p>Very accurate summation there bigmo. I think that on CC, numbers 1 and 3 apply to the greatest extent.</p>
<p>jkh said:</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>jkh - that is simply not true. There are absolutely no quotas for international students. International students are placed into the same pool as domestic students. Although it is harder to get into HYP as an international student than domestic, it is not because of any quotas but because of the insane number of international students who apply each year. </p>
<p>jkh also said:
"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>I wish it was as simple as that. The truth is, only rich or well-off international students can afford Oxbridge. Oxbridge's hefty tuitions and the fact that they don't offer any sort of financial aid to international students (no matter how gifted) mean that only the very well-off students would be able to attend Oxbridge.</p>
<p>HYP, on the other hand, are need-blind to international students AND they meet the full demonstrated need of their accepted students. This is probably the main reason why I applied to HYP and not Oxbridge.</p>
<p>"Oxbridges hefty tuition". For all europeans tuition is around 1500 dollars -yes 1500- a year currently (set to rise a bit with top up fees, though). Compare with 30000 dollars tuition in the states - yes you get financial aid but most normal middle class people wont get a free ride and will still have to pay a significant fraction " expected family contribution". Remember that "full demonstrated need" is decided by the college - many end up not attending ivies as they cant afford the efc. Generally, middle class americans thus generally pay many times more towards college than europeans do towards oxbridge. (if your poor you get fin. aid, if your rich you dont need it, and if your middle class youre in trouble.). even though some people can get good deals, Financial aid generally still implies that you and your family will pay ridiculous amounts of money (>oxbridge).</p>
<p>while it is true that oxbridge do not extend these amazing benefits to non european intnls this is because they are public universities and mainly represent their european taxpayers. there are however many scholarships available - just look into it, im sure youll find some. but even for many international people full oxbridge international fees are still cheaper then HYP with financial aid.</p>
<p>As I said, for most of european students Oxbridge and UK in general is a much better deal than the us is for americans.</p>
<p>cncm - sorry about the quota thing. To be honest, I am not 100% familiar with the US admission system, so yes I'm probably wrong on that point.</p>
<p>As for the other point, I was mainly thinking of UK students. You are right of course, that international students pay alot more money (but not EU students though as bigmo pointed out). However, it is still true that you will be offered a place if you are deemed suitable and qualified, even if you are disabled or poor, although accepting the offer meant that you need to show you have the means to cover your fees and expenses through scholarships or private resources.</p>
<p>As John Hood said - it is an "international challenge" to find more funding for well qualified international undergrads.</p>
<p>Oh and by the way, GREAT posts bigmo!</p>
<p>hash, I assume you did not go to the link that I provided. The 22% acceptance rate at Cambridge was the actual number admitted to the course divided by the number that applied, therefore adjusting for those that did not meet their offers. So, the number of offers given out by Cambridge for their mathematics course is an even greater percentage.</p>
<p>Secondly, your implication that LSE is of a lower standard than Oxbridge is simply idiotic and typical of the arrogance of an Oxbridge supporter. Additionally, the majority of courses at UCL and LSE, Economics and Government for example, require students to send in additional responses to essay questions set by the universitiy so applying is not as simple as sending out a UCAS application. Also, UCAS only allows for 6 application to be made, which is likely to deter a number of marginal admits to universities such as UCL and LSE. </p>
<p>It is a fact that LSE is more competitive than Oxford or Cambridge as the acceptance rate for almost every single course is significantly lower. The days when an Oxbridge admit could get into any university in the UK are long gone and there are now a number of Oxbridge admits that get rejected by the likes of LSE and UCL.</p>