<p>
[QUOTE]
I have a question:
Why doesn't Oxford value extracurriculars to the same extent as Harvard does, and doesn't that convey something about the undergraduate body as well?
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>oxford doesn't consider extra-curriculars in the same way harvard does because it is primarily an academic institution, and has been for 800 years. To look at extra-curriculars with greater depth would be to move away from what makes the student body so interesting-they are all passionate, and exceptionally able at their subjects, something which the US system does not place so much emphasis on.
You raise a valid issue about the student body, and i can see that to some you could assume that it is a homogenate group of people who are obsession with academics, which is not true. The people they select are passionate, interesting and interested people, so naturally they will have interests beyond their academic syllabi, it's just that there is no need for them to flaunt this on their applications. In my opinion, because of how the US system works, the weight in the US is not so much on what you have done, but how you have managed to sell this over a few pieces of paper.</p>
<p>There will almost certainly be less people who have climbed mount everest at the age of 14 to raise money for cancer research (or done other such amazing things) at Cambridge because such an achievement is not evaluated in the admissions procedure but, is this necessarily a bad thing for institutions whose purpose is fundamentally academic?</p>