<p>I'd say Cambridge but then I'm UK based so I'd be biased. However, if you want a life whilst you are qualifying go princeton</p>
<p>On the whole, I'd say that Cambridge takes in more academically talented students than Princeton. In a typical Cambridge interview (which either makes or breaks your application), academic questions pertaining to the applicant's chosen major are asked. For instance, I have an acquaintance who is a prospective physics major. During his interview, he was asked to describe how the laser works. To me, it seems that the purpose of the Cambridge interview is solely to sift out the academic cream of the crop. All else about the applicant holds little importance in the admissions process.</p>
<p>In a Princeton interview, on the other hand, the interviewer is not so much interested in what you already know (after all, you are going to college to be educated. If you already know so much, then why bother to go to college in the first place) as he is in you as a person. Princeton knows that it is admitting a person, not merely an uber-genius study machine. The University also understands that extraordinarily academically talented students (such as those often admitted to Cambridge) usually come from well-off families and had a lot of opportunities when they were younger. So it wants to benefit those who, despite their circumstances, can still demonstrate a respectable level of achievement. </p>
<p>Unlike Cambridge, Princeton doesn't just want to fill up its intake with a group of uber-geniuses. While academics is an important factor, it is by no means the only factor that is taken into account in the admissions process. Princeton values other things that an applicant can bring to campus like life experiences, good character etc. From what I gather from friends who applied to Oxbridge, Cambridge simply cares little for these things. </p>
<p>All in all, I'd not be surprised that Cambridge has more academically talented students than Princeton. What each university looks for in an applicant is simply different. Cambridge : purely academic ones. Princeton : different types of people who can contribute to campus in different ways.</p>
<p>I agree to albert and LadyLou and mostly everybody else :). I've gone to the admission process of both Princeton and Cambridge. When I look back, I must say that - for me - getting into Cambridge seemed harder: the interviews were really challenging. On the other hand, I know that Princeton admitted only 7%, so it's hard to get into, too - in another way.</p>
<p>I also agree with what albert says about what Cambridge and Princeton look for in an applicant. I must say say that the Cambridge way resembles more the way graduate schools pick their students.
Just one thing, albert: </p>
<p>
[quote]
n a Princeton interview, on the other hand, the interviewer is not so much interested in what you already know (after all, you are going to college to be educated. If you already know so much, then why bother to go to college in the first place)
[/quote]
Cambridge interviewers don't care so much about your knowledge, either (precisely because of what you said). Their questions are aimed to see <em>how</em> you think.</p>
<p>"In a typical Cambridge interview (which either makes or breaks your application), academic questions pertaining to the applicant's chosen major are asked."</p>
<p>Mostly, but not always. They don't ask you any econ question if you haven't studied it before and are an econ applicant. They'll stick to game theory and maths questions. Also, they usually walk you through questions, give you enough info to figure out a solution. It's really just a way to see how you think. The biggest problem I see with Oxbridge is the money. They're way under funded and they simply need more money. Unfortunatley, I'm getting the feeling that int. students who pay higher fees are sometimes getting an advantage.</p>
<p>It's true that Oxbridge has less money than HYP (even Cambridge has I think still the largest endowment in Europe). However, I don't think that money issues are that important for undergraduate education.</p>
<p>I think sometimes people forget that oxbridge don't just want uber-geniuses.Unlike Pton where the people who deal with admissions are quite separate from the academics, the people who interview you are the same ones who will be teaching you, therefore you want them to actually like you to a certain extent. There have been a few of 'mysterious' rejections where the student body at my school has been suprised that one super academic superstar with 10 billion As has been rejected. To those in the know for oxbridge applications it is quite clear that they lack the personal skills to really thrive in a 1:1 teaching environment because they lacked that 'spark.'</p>
<p>Also, the importance of interviews is decreasing.Mine for example,were really not all that taxing (still academic and challenging though), more of just a general chat to test my interest/aptitude in economics and to find out if it was really what I wanted to study. I feel that the reason for this was firstly that not everyone had studied econ A Level but also because they used a 90 minute TSA test, which judged 'intelligence' much more fairly than an interview. To the poster who said oxbridge favoured private school students in their interview the TSA (and other similar tests) eradicated that problem, as it is a difficult test that discriminates between the candidates very well, and shows little bias towards any form of education.</p>
<p>aw5k, money issues ARE important for undergraduate education. An ultra well-off university like Princeton can afford to give away financial aid like candy (I'm a beneficiary of their finaid program and cannot rave enough about it). However, if an international student wants to attend Cambridge, he has to either be very wealthy, or ultra smart so he could qualify for a scholarship. Personally, I'm neither wealthy nor ultra smart, so the thought of applying to Cambridge never even crossed my mind. Yet, Princeton saw something that they liked in me as an applicant (beyond my test scores and grades) and accepted me on full financial aid. God knows how much I (and many others) appreciate Princeton for giving me this life-changing opportunity. On the other hand, Cambridge would never have done the same thing for me (perhaps because they are just not as well-off). </p>
<p>In this context, I think the two universities have very different admissions philosophies. As far as I know, all those people whom I know have been admitted to Cambridge come from more or less wealthy families. These people had a lot of opportunities when they were younger and growing up in such a conducive environment has obviously given them an edge over their peers, both academically and socially. As the cream of the crop, they easily gained admission into Cambridge. I feel that this admissions system only serves to benefit those who are already well off. </p>
<p>On the other hand, Princeton(and many other US colleges for that matter) understands that it has an important social responsibility to fulfill. Each applicant is treated as a person, not merely as a sum aggregate of his test scores. If he comes from a poor/less fortunate community, he is evaluated based on how well he has performed in that environment. He is not pitched against the rich kids who grew up in the city and attended elite private schools (which is the case with Cambridge admissions). Princeton wants economic diversity, meaning it doesn't just want to admit rich kids, it actually WANTS to admit poor kids who have done well in their own communities. Princeton wants to give these people a chance to improve their lives. </p>
<p>Pton could have easily filled its class with rich, smart kids but what we know for a fact is that thousands of these are rejected every year because Princeton wants to admit those who are from less fortunate backgrounds and though not very smart, have displayed strengths of character etc. Cambridge, however, only takes in the academically inclined. This may explain why the academic caliber of students at Cambridge seems to be higher than that of students at Princeton. </p>
<p>And I agree that Cambridge has more international recognition than Princeton.</p>
<p>Hi albert,</p>
<p>I agree that money issues are important when it comes to financial aid. You are absolutely right with what you said, and I think Princeton is wonderful in being so generous. I think it's the only university to do so (even the need-blinds like MIT, Harvard, etc. will require you to take loans). However, I was talking about the money when it comes to the actual undergraduate education. Here, I don't think it's so important. For graduate school, you'll need money in order to get the best resources because you're doing research. In undergraduate school, however, your priority is to <em>learn</em>, not to research. I hope you see what I was aiming at.</p>
<p>Regarding your second issue:
I agree once more that Princeton looks for personality much more than Cambridge does. You are right in saying that Cambridge wants to see your academic ability. I'm not sure, however, whether Cambridge admits really come from wealthy families. I don't think this applies for EU or UK applicants; maybe for internationals since they have to pay much.</p>
<p>On a side note, I, too, think that Princeton is great for those who do not have that much money. Their alternative would probably be a cheap, but low quality education. With Princeton, they have the possibility to thrive intellectually and benefit from a world class education.</p>
<p>As a bottom line, and for anybody who is facing the same choice as me, I would say that you'd need to consider what you really want. I think the most important difference is that Princeton will give you a liberal arts education and Cambridge will give you an education in a certain subject. Some people prefer the one, some people the other. Either way, it's going to be great :)</p>
<p>"I think sometimes people forget that oxbridge don't just want uber-geniuses.Unlike Pton where the people who deal with admissions are quite separate from the academics, the people who interview you are the same ones who will be teaching you, therefore you want them to actually like you to a certain extent. There have been a few of 'mysterious' rejections where the student body at my school has been suprised that one super academic superstar with 10 billion As has been rejected. To those in the know for oxbridge applications it is quite clear that they lack the personal skills to really thrive in a 1:1 teaching environment because they lacked that 'spark.'"</p>
<p>Gosh, do you always have to say what I wanted to say, :p? But on a more serious note: money is still important for undergrad. Check out some of the poorer Oxbridge colleges, and you'll quickly realise why money is important. At some Oxford colleges, the common room was in a mess. The furniture was ancient and had a funny smell. Heaters didn't work, this didn't work and that didn't work. The salaries are lower, the amount of money for research is lower. Frankly, money is hugely important. Most nobel prize winners teach at American institutions, which indicates the **** from Oxbridge to HYPSMC etc.</p>
<p>Thank you aw5k. </p>
<p>"I'm not sure, however, whether Cambridge admits really come from wealthy families"</p>
<p>I'm saying that if you're smart enough to get into Cambridge, chances are that you also come from a wealthy family. Those of you who did A level sociology would have known this for a fact, that studies have shown there is a high correlation between intelligence and family wealth.</p>
<p>The financial situation is, of course, very different for EU and international applicants, the former being eligible for bursaries to cover the pretty measly ?3000 ($5000) fees a year, as well as loans, or often in the case of oxbridge, grants to cover living expenses.</p>
<p>I do accept that their attitude to international students is somewhat different, and I think this is just a reality of higher education in the UK being state-run, that scholarships are not offered to internationals.</p>
<p>Money is important a Oxbridge and is one thing I though about when choosing a college. At some of the most wealthy colleges I wouldn't be suprised if the endowment per student was similar to that at the top ivies. I know that certain wealthy colleges wil happily give away huge travel grants to their students, and the academic prizes are of considerable value.</p>
<p>Cambridge, no doubt. Princeton's best program is in physics, and still Cambridge beats Princeton. Only for fields in computer programming, software engineering, and other computer-related fields do I recommend Princeton.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm saying that if you're smart enough to get into Cambridge, chances are that you also come from a wealthy family. Those of you who did A level sociology would have known this for a fact, that studies have shown there is a high correlation between intelligence and family wealth.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Crock of ****. In UK universities, poorer students with the same A-levels outperform richer students massively. A privately schooled student is a third less likely to get a first (top GPA) at a British university than their state schooled counterpart. Ibred rich thickies are not welcome in this country.</p>
<p>Furthermore, I don't buy this 'most Nobel Prize winners teach at US universities'. Cambridge has almost three times as many Nobel Laureates as Princeton.</p>