<p>Facinating... and rather inapplicable since I will a. never get into Harvard, b. never get the Rhodes. On the whole, I think it's rahter informative though</p>
<p>I read the article - and I feel that these two students had expectations that were off kilter. Rhodes scholars have a mixed reputation at Oxford - according to the local student populace, having observed them over the years, some are very bright, equal to the best UK graduate students, most are like average UK grad students, and some appear to be under-educated and under-prepared, scholarship or no.</p>
<p>As for their studies, it appears that these two had a sense of entitlement about how they should have been treated versus other graduate students. Oxford really walks the walk about being egalitarian, everyone treated equally - just a tiny example, the fact that my son, who pays 6 times the tuition of a UK student, ended up nearly last in the room lottery last year - I sure would have liked some recognition of the hefty tuition we're paying in the form of a privileged room choice slot! :)</p>
<p>Oxford also does expect a very high degree of independence from their students - even the undergraduate education is more like the way graduate schools are typically run over here. You are expected to read all of the texts, articles, etc. and produce quality essays every week on your own, ready to debate. No hand-holding, no baby-sitting, infrequent praise. Even more independence is expected as a graduate student - there are very few classes, mostly tutor-guided independent work, experiments, labs, and/or publications, depending on the subject. It sounds to me that these two didn't adjust very well, and that they had insufficient initiative to go out and get what they needed. And some of their more trivial complaints just comes across like petty *****ing - the way I did about the tiny sink that didn't have mixed hot and cold faucets on my first trip to the UK. Different country - adjust, and appreciate it for what it offers, which is considerable.</p>
<p>As for Oxford itself, the quality and numbers of the faculty instructing graduate students may depend on the subject to some degree, just as in any other university - it is rated 5* in many departments. For example, I doubt that you could find a better faculty for Philosophy, English, or Experimental Psych anywhere in the world.</p>
<p>This article is factually inaccurate or misleading on a number of issues:</p>
<p>"The university's trimester system means students are out of school more than in."</p>
<p>Yes, at Oxford and Cambridge you have three 8-week terms per year. This means that you have 24 weeks of scheduled teaching and rather a lot of vacation time. However, this only applies to undergrads, not postgrads. The authors also neglect to explain that you're expected to do a lot of catch-up work over the vacations, since the teaching is rather more intense than at American unis, out of necessity. Indeed, as an undergrad I spent nearly all of my vacations revising what we learnt in the past term and writing essays to hand in after the break.</p>
<p>"In contrast to Harvard professors? regular office hours, Oxford advisors spend more time avoiding emails than supervising students. Here, where D.Phil. students struggle to have supervisors read their dissertations before submission, poor supervision is the rule, not the exception."</p>
<p>Rhodes scholars don't take DPhils at Oxford, so this can hardly be speaking from experience. They usually take a second bachelors or a masters (usually one that doesn't require much work, so they can go travelling). Regarding the level of supervision, it's well known that you get better access to academics at Oxbridge than at Harvard, certainly at undergrad. I'm not a grad student so I'm not sure what things are like at that level, although I would expect that it depends totally on who your research supervisor happens to be. Perhaps the authors were unlucky. More likely they are just naive.</p>
<p>"The ancient walls of the Bodleian Library house a less than inspiring collection. Last year, some departmental libraries had to cancel their LexisNexis subscriptions due to budget shortfalls." </p>
<p>Were these students really expecting Oxford to compete with the richest private university in the world on journal subscriptions? It's probably true that Oxford spends less money on journals, but access is generally very good. Furthermore, the Bod is a national copyright library, meaning that it keeps a copy of every book ever published in the UK. Sorry if that isn't good enough!</p>
<p>"And if you have visions of debates with famous Nobel Prize winners, expect instead to be taught in a lecture hall by an apathetic post-doc."</p>
<p>Don't throw stones from glass houses, anyone? I've had some amazing lecturers at Cambridge; generally it's the rule that they're quite senior in the department. This is one of the benefits of attending a university that takes its teaching very seriously. I've also had tutorials with famous scientists who are world renowned - not a Nobel Prize winner yet, although a couple of Fellows of the Royal Society. It's Harvard that gives you lectures by apathetic post-docs, since all the big names are busy doing their research and ignoring students.</p>
<p>"Faculty rosters at Oxford face high attrition, as top-notch professors such as Niall Ferguson leave for more lucrative posts in the United States."</p>
<p>This has always been a problem, but the brain drain works both ways nowadays. Indeed, a number of top stem cell researchers have migrated to the UK. </p>
<p>"There are no breaks for Rhodes scholars; in Oxford, you?ll be a dime per dozen. If you?re a Harvard Rhodes, expect the H-bomb to blow up in your face. Your undergrad alma mater can stigmatize you in your department and Rhodes House alike."</p>
<p>Perhaps if the authors were less arrogant and didn't expect special breaks for being a Harvard alumnus there wouldn't be a problem. They shouldn't expect to be treated as royalty when they're at an institution full of students as bright and ambitious as themselves.</p>
<p>"Activities you might be engaging in include foraging for edible food and getting berated by customer service representatives, but never after five p.m., when everything?including coffee shops and pharmacies?closes. Don?t expect urban respite from Oxford. London is a two hour bus ride away."</p>
<p>Indeed, Britain is not America. Well done. For what it's worth, not everything closes after 5pm. The supermarkets are open until about 11pm in the city centre, and in other UK cities they are often open 24 hours. It also makes me laugh that they would want to seek "urban respite" from a city that many people, including myself, consider to be too urban already. It's absolutely full of buses and tourists, and there are plenty of shops. I guess it lacks skyscrapers...</p>
<p>"Before the Rhodes interview, the focus was on winning the scholarship, not on evaluating if Oxford was the right place for us."</p>
<p>One of the few comments I don't want to criticise.</p>
<p>Yulsie:</p>
<p>We pay full fare. One of my S's suitemates is on full ride. Its'a $45k difference per year. Exactly same housing conditions, same treatment by profs, TFs, same access. I would not expect anything more, or less. American colleges ARE egalitarian. </p>
<p>What I see is two students who had experience at two different places and wrote about it. Few if any undergraduates have such a basis for comparison. Were their complaints overblown? Very likely. Was there not quite a bit of truth? That, too. If you are used to the largest private university library in the world as well as an amazing interlibrary loan system (I heard of a book that was loaned from Beijing University library to a Harvard student!), it may be quite an adjustment to be using the Bodleian, however fabled it is.
I lived in England for five years and had friends who were graduate students at Oxford.One friend did his Ph.D. under John Bailey. In some fields, Oxford was superb. In others, not so much.
As for student quality, it's good to remember that undergraduate education in the US and the UK are very different. While Brits have greater breadth in their chosen field and can therefore seem better prepared than an American undergrad, graduate students from Britain appreciate not only the better funding but also the greater breadth that is expected of them. </p>
<p>Students at Harvard are used to a certain level of resources both on and off-campus (even in Cambridge, where restaurants close down early, there are some fast food places that stay open until 2-3am). They don't know any different. It's a good idea to let them know what's in store. It will prevent more belly-aching down the road.</p>
<p>Lots of Americans are blinded by the prestige of Oxford and Cambridge, just as lots of Americans and foreign students are blinded by the prestige of Harvard. They don't stop to think that these universities may not be the best fit for them. And that is really what the article comes down to. It could have been written in a different tone, but as the Rhodes spokesman (Harvard class of 74) acknowledged, some of the criticisms are legitimate. As for the rest, it's a matter of taste.</p>
<p>Marite, I agree with you that these Rhodes scholars are in the privileged position of being able to compare Oxford with Harvard. As such, they are in a good position to provide a balanced comparison, although a certain degree of bias is to be expected. The problem is that they haven't even attempted to give a fair and balanced account of what it's like to study at Oxford. Instead, they have chosen to focus on the negatives and blow them out of all proportion. It just comes across as a couple of Harvardians who didn't want to like Oxford in the first place, and as such it's hard to take anything they say seriously.</p>
<p>
Speaking of factually inaccurate and spoken by someone that doesn't know...My D had Harvey Mansfield and Jamaica Kincaid as a freshman, among others. She hasn't had a class without a Phd yet, other than Expos with a NY Times writer. Sections are not the lecture. Why do people insist on continuing this myth when they don't know the facts?</p>
<p>Brits don't like to be criticized yet they bash Americans every chance they get in a cutting but subtle way. I noticed right away that the British professors overseas spend entirely too much time drinking. I think whatever "was" at Oxbridge no longer exists. I suppose if you like the accent and that is enough for you then you will enjoy the experience. I found the constant America bashing and rampant anti-semitism to be extremely annoying and couldn't wait to leave. I also thought the article was pretty accurate. Americans are very kind and work hard at being accepted overseas unfortunately you find out soon enough that most of the Professors find this to be a pathetic weakness that they enjoy exploiting.</p>
<p>Fair enough, the article is by no means balanced. But there's already so much starriness about Oxford and the Rhodes scholarship and so little actual knowledge of what life at Oxford might be like. Harvard students complain that restaurants close down at around 2am that the T (subway) shuts down at 1am. They have not experienced restaurants closing at 11pm. Since last year, the undergraduate library is open 24 /7 and there's a cafe there. Are Harvard students spolied? Most probably. And that's why they need to know that life at Oxford won't be the same.</p>
<p>As for classes, the TFs are advanced graduate students (3rd year and beyond); they lead sections, they do not lecture. There are two Nobel prize winners (Dudley Herschbach and Roy Glauber) offering freshman seminars, I believe. These seminars are limited to 12 students each.</p>
<p>On funding, there is less available, at least through the departments. However, there is funding provided by companies and research institutions for funded research, some of it substantial - you have to work with the individual departments to research all the options. The EP faculty discussed graduate funding options with the undergrads recently, and some were external.</p>
<p>I can say that my son has not yet met an unhappy grad student, and he knows quite a few in various subjects through his ECs, from many countries including the US. What he has noticed is that a number of undergraduates want to stay right where they are, even if they ultimately plan to complete their terminal degree elsewhere. Example: B. Phil. Philosophy, excellent reputation worldwide, very tempting to some (like my son, and ME, gosh darn it, if only I could!). Perhaps this is because three years there isn't enough time, with the intense terms versus all there is to do. On my last visit, a graduate student told me that the saying is: "One should attend Oxford three times - once for the academics, once for the arts, and once for the social life."</p>
<p>He hasn't encountered any anti-American sentiment, except the occasional jibe at Bush (in general, they don't like Bush or Blair, or US international policies - but many US citizens are in the same boat). The visiting American students he's met, and the few US full-course undergrads, haven't complained about it either. After almost two years, you'd think he would have run across it if it were truly pervasive. </p>
<p>I do think that for graduate work in most subjects, the wise student should attempt to choose the university based on 1) the faculty member(s) doing the work he/she wants to do, and then on 2) the national/international reputation of the department, regardless of the university, or country, in it which it resides. Experts in the field will be well aware of the quality of departments, and the student's initial prospects will be better if the department is well-regarded.</p>
<p>But - the restaurants DO close early, as I found out to my sorrow when I tried to take my son out for a late meal after a play. However, there are lovely kebab vans out late - hummus and chips with salad, anyone?</p>
<p>Well, I hope the restaurants have improved. A friend of mine did his Ph.D, dissertation under John Bailey. To celebrate the completion of the dissertation, John Bailey and Iris Murdoch took my friend out to the local Chinese restaurant (the friend was Chinese). My friend reported that it the food was atrocious. Bailey and Murdoch seemed oblivious. :)</p>
<p>My S and friends tend to stay up quite late at night and do a midnight or 1am run to the local taqueria.</p>
<p>This article discloses how ignorant and incompetent Americans are. I will be attending Oxford next year, and I am so glad I did not opt for an idiotic education at Harvard. Oxford undergrad >> Harvard undergrad.
Honestly, in Europe we know about the shortcomings of American: only speak one language, narrow-minded attitude, imperialistic ideology, and freaking puritan attitude. Yet this article just proves my point further. I hope I will not be meeting spoiled brats like the two ill-educated people who authered this articel.</p>
<p>Honestly, if your president is as idiotic as students from the supposedly best university in the world, that means I am staying away from the states.</p>
<p>^oh dear. what a stupid post. for all americans reading this, don't think that this guy is representative of all british feeling, or indeed of their ability to reason cogently.</p>
<p>I'm also attending Oxford next year (I'm British), and I think I can see where the authors are coming from...I guess it depends how you choose to read the article. I see it as a warning to all prospective rhodies that life won't necessarily be as comfortable as they might imagine - there are tons of classes like at harvard, just because rhodies are worshipped in the US doesn't mean it'll happen in the UK, etc etc....of course, if you're british and thus don't particularly think there's any reason why a rhodie would be treated differently, what is probably a widely-held sentiment in america just sounds naive and arrogant.</p>
<p>the problem is that the authors had a bad time, but they are refusing to blame anyone but themselves. they blame harvard, rhodes house, the interview process, oxford university, oxford as a city...remember, these people are 24/25, and its pretty pathetic that they can't cope by themselves a bit better by now. reading the comments on the article, it seems that the authors made little attempt to integrate, and spent all their time with other rhodies in oxford (no doubt *****ing about the library), and as such its not really suprising that they haven't had a proper 'oxford experience'.</p>
<p>there are a lot of things in the article which are either pedantic in the extreme (shops closing at 5...if in your 2 years you can't find the time to go clothes shopping earlier in the day, you're a complete waste of space), or are pretty subjective - they experienced bad things which most other people never would, i'd imagine. on the whole their disillusionment seems to spring from the fact that oxford isn't harvard. its a publicly funded uni with one sixth of the resources of harvard that teaches in a vastly different way - and every way that oxford is different, the authors took exception to - which is really their fault, not the fault of the uni.</p>
<p>obviously, oxford does have some faults (some major ones), and i think its fairly commendable to warn rhodies that its not the dreamland they might imagine, and that, more importantly, its not "just like harvard". the article's execution is ridiculous though. it casts around blaming everyone but themselves, and basically laying into a scheme they were incredibly privileged to get on, despite the fact that they will undoubtedly build their careers back in the US on the coat-tails of the scheme they despise so much.</p>
<p>rodin123: Amusing how the self proclaimed epitome of British intelligence cannot spell "authered this articel" :) C'mon, lighten up. Sure the authors were largely negative, but that supported the point they wished to claim and made the article more interesting to read. Relax. Oh, and for the record, I speak three languages fluently and can survive with a fourth if mimicry is permitted. :D
xedx: I agree.</p>
<p>I really really liked the comments on the article. Excellent stuff.</p>
<p>
Sorry, that came across more scathing than I intended. I just thought it was ironic that the authors were attacking Oxford's undergrad teaching, since this is widely seen as being Oxford's great strength. On the other hand, Harvard is respected for its faculty and its amazing grad programs, but undergrad teaching is often criticised. It's almost like these Rhodies were trying to create a new myth, which no doubt would appeal to many of their readership. As you quite rightly pointed out, I can't make a direct comparison between Oxford and Harvard. Nevertheless, my own experience of Oxford and Cambridge has been that we get lectured by the top people in the university, not just anyone. At the very least, I can dispute the authors' conclusion about the quality of Oxford's lecturers. Perhaps I should have left it there. As for your D not having had a class without a PhD yet, I never said otherwise - in fact, re-read my post and you'll see I did specifically say that you get taught by postdocs at Harvard. I then said that at Oxbridge you get heads of research groups delivering your lectures, which is rather better than any old postdoc. You can also have one-on-one teaching with these people. It'll take a lot to convince me that you get better access to academics at Harvard.</p>
<p>
I actually grew up in the Middle East, so I don't think I'm your typical "Brit". For your information, American bashing happens the world over, so you better get used to it. It's partly down to jealousy, but a large part of the problem is that some Americans assume that everyone else should do things their way, and that the best example of something is always to be found on their own soil. It's not an uncommon attitude, and people do get fed up with it. This article is a brilliant example of such arrogance. I think it's fair to say we Brits aren't much better on this score, but there's an added dash of realism because we know we we're not the most powerful country in the world, and that is one less thing to go to our heads. </p>
<p>As for anti-semitism... what the hell?! Britain isn't anti-semitic at all.</p>
<p>Inaina: Rodin never said he was Brit. In fact, for a Brit he sounds far too pro-Europe. :p</p>
<p>Actually the UK postings sound a bit arrogant. Americans I know bend over backwards to be PC and " when in Rome do as the Romans do" The American reputation has been on the receiving end of an unfair euro smear campaign. I studied abroad and went out of my way always and despite my efforts found the Profs in particular to be punishing alcoholics who do not know their boundaries. I think there is too much alcohol in the culture to get much done and this would be a problem by the way in any situation but over there it seems to be the rule.... drink drink drink! Talk about denial-</p>
<p>^ Says the American. Just for the record, your president is a former alcoholic.
I find American hypocrisy quite amusing. Which country advocates intelligent design in favour of the theory of evolution? Which country strongly advocates sexual abstinence yet has a much higher pregnancy rate?
When these two spoiled, narrow-minded female "scholars" dare to critice Oxford in such an unfounded way, I feel it is in my right to ***** a little back.</p>
<p>hedoya, that is the problem with Americans. Your hypocritical puritanism. "Oh alcohol is so dangerous" while your society is a major consumer of drugs from for instance Latin America.
And should I use a historical argument? The Contra scandal, operation ORTSAC, Gulf of Tonkin incident... to mention but a few examples of your hypocritical attitude.</p>