<p>Hi there!</p>
<p>I have been admitted to some universities in the UK (Cambridge & LSE), but I need to meet some conditions (38 IB points, 776 at higher level). </p>
<p>I was wondering whether US universities also only make conditional offers, meaning that universities rescing their offer of admission if the conditions are not met...</p>
<p>Thanks for your help!</p>
<p>No. US doesn't give conditionals. I got into Warwick last year for Econ, conditional to getting 3 4s and 1 3 minimum in 4 AP Tests, but the US asks for nothing of that sort.</p>
<p>Ok, thanks a lot.</p>
<p>btw big big congrats on Cambridge and LSE!</p>
<p>thank you! :)</p>
<p>But getting into Cambridge is hardly comparable to getting into HYP, is it?
I mean in terms of difficulty...</p>
<p>Not quite. I got a likely letter from Yale and rejected from Emma. Meanwhile I know many people who got into Cambridge who were rejected from all the top US schools. Really, it all depends on the individual person since the admission's styles are so different. British schools go wild over grades and test scores and mine are decent, but not the best by any stretch (plus I applied for NatSci and couldn't get an interview so they probably thought I didn't have enough preparation for the course anyway! hehe). American schools like to see passion, extracurriculars, etc., which I would imagine is why Yale was more excited about me. A 2380 SAT and a bunch of AP 5s will get you into Cambridge. Curing cancer will get you into the Ivy League. To simplify things :p</p>
<p>Whoa...did Yale mail out likely letters already? Congrats on that, Guitar!</p>
<p>Yes, thats really amazing, guitar. Congratulations!!!!!!!!!!</p>
<p>Coquettish--I guess?? I don't know, I figured they can't have looked at all the apps yet so maybe they read them as they go. But my friend from Siemens also got one from them the same day lol so there's reason to think they might all have gone out, I guess...</p>
<p>And yeah, it's reallllllly exciting :D Thanks!</p>
<p>People love to insert in the middle of a sentence anywhere they can that they got a likely letter from an Ivy League school just so people will know.</p>
<p>Um, that wasn't out of arrogance, it was important to the point I was trying to make, that it's impossible to say "Cambridge is easier/harder to get into than HYP". If that were out of self-absorbance, would I write that I got rejected from one of the best schools in the world? There's a big difference between needlessly flaunting something and mentioning it when it's beneficial to the conversation.</p>
<p>Ok 2 things. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Only a total idiot would come to this site to brag. </p></li>
<li><p>Cambridge has an equal footing with the Ivy League. So does Oxford. Actually, Cambridge and Oxford are equal to HYP(MS) and more prestigious than most of the Ivy League. I would choose Cambridge over Cornell any day. I mean comon! James Bond went to Cambridge! (In the movies anyways)</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Well, it's a bit more complex than that. In terms of prestige and name recognition, I would personally put Oxbridge on the same level as HYP. In terms of difficulty to get into, I would put it either higher or lower than HYP depending on the individual applicant. But Eurasian/Australian schools, and especially Oxbridge, are much different than your average American school, especially the Ivies. The quality of the education at an Oxbridge school is unquestionable but they specialize heavily from Day 1. While Harvard and others have a strict core, and then allow you to take many electives in fields outside your major/concentration, you can NOT do this at Oxford or Cambridge. So while Oxford or Cambridge will train you better in your field of choice (this is why you'll graduate in three years there instead of four; if you want to do a fourth year, you get a Masters at the end, the equivalent of a year or two of American grad school), you can't get the well-roundedness you would in the States. Apples and oranges, IMO...</p>
<p>Congratulations Guitarman... hopefully you'll join the dark side and become a bulldog. But I know your heart is for Harvard.</p>
<p>This board is really funny. You people are strange.</p>
<p>if you have no idea about the eurasian/australian uni system you should just keep your mouth quite.</p>
<p>Also, the level of difficulty depends on which deparment you want to get into.</p>
<p>Actually a 2380 SAT and a bunch of AP 5s won't get you into Cambridge or Oxford. What they will hopefully get you is an invitation to an interview where you will be competing against a load of other applicants all of whom will have the same sort of marks. There will be academic interviews (sometimes 3 or 4 or more) where they will want to see you demonstrate your passion and aptitude for your chosen subject as well further academic tests for some subjects.</p>
<p>As you say, you will be specialising heavily from day 1; there is no point letting in someone who will struggle from day 1.</p>
<p>Oldspc, yeah, the scores alone won't get you in ;) But the Cambridge/Oxford do have a greater focus on the pure numbers (as opposed to "intangibles"--that's why those schools only have brief personal statements as opposed to American-style essays, and their interviews focus on academics, not personality) than American schools, no? That's the point I was trying to make.</p>
<p>By the way, looking for a Brit's perspective on this--which system do you prefer? Do you want to specialize heavily early on, or would you rather have the opportunity to take some courses in a variety of other topics that interest you?</p>
<br>
<p>I was wondering whether US universities also only make conditional offers, meaning that universities rescing their offer of admission if the conditions are not met...</p>
<br>
<p>I'd say that offers of admission are almost always conditioned on completing high school successfully. If you flunk everything senior spring after you're admitted, any US college is likely to give you a very hard time.</p>
<p>The specialisation is the root cause for much of the differences. My understanding is that at an American university they are looking to admit you simply to the student body as a whole so striving for a balance is possible. At UK universities academics are admitting students to study the subjects for which they are responsible. But there's more about personality and non-academics at Oxbridge interviews than you would think: I was asked about Bach's organ music because I played the organ. After all, being able to get on with the students is more important in tutorial than lecture instruction. And the student bodies do turn out to be remarkably well-balanced.</p>
<p>For myself, I prefer specialisation, but that may just be me, and it's partly a case of dropping the subjects you really don't like! And bear in mind we have been specialising at school since age 16, and even more since age 17 with an average of 3-4 subjects in the last year of school (I just studied history, geography and economics). So further specialisation at university is just a continuation of the same process which is already engrained in our mind-set. (On the other hand, given the experiences in American and UK schools, one might think that you might like the chance of a bit of specialisation and we might like the chance to spread ourselves a bit.)</p>
<p>In the end I think there is a different philosophical understanding of the purpose of undergraduate university education either side of the pond. Breadth v. depth. Here the purpose is to immerse ourselves in the subject and become as expert as possible in the 3-4 years. The liberal arts curriculum can strike us as a bit dilettante or jack-of-all-trades - nice for a bit of interest on the side, but not the stuff of serious academic study.</p>
<p>This isn't intended as a put-down (honest!) but when the question of studying in the UK comes up on these boards there can be a sense that the US standpoint is the obvious default position.</p>