<p>Just wondering. I heard they're easier to get into 'cause they don't really care about ecs.</p>
<p>What makes you think they're easier to get into just because they don't take into consideration extracurricular activities? There's a much higher emphasis placed upon testing and scores. Sometimes, you get a provisional acceptance, that is, you'll only be admitted if you score certain numbers on your AP and/or IB exams. (But perhaps you're a great test-taker?)</p>
<p>And you actually have to be smart. People can get great test scores and do a ton of great ECs and get into Harvard without being smart. Real intelligence can be measured at interview, which is Oxbridge's greatest focus.</p>
<p>Kilini, I would compare Oxford and Cambridge to H,P,S and Y. </p>
<p>I would also compare schools Imperial to Cornell or Carnegie Mellon, UCL to Penn or Duke and LSE to Chicago or Columbia. So the top English schools are on part with the Ivies (and other comparable institutions). </p>
<p>To get an offer from Cambridge or Oxford, one must get a bunch of As on the O Level exams (equavalent to being a 4.0 student though High School) and even then, most offers to the top schools listed above require students to get 3 As on the A Level exams, which is like getting six 5s on AP exams...and not any AP. A Level Math is equivalent to AP Calculus AB, BC and even a little more. Same with A Level Chemistry. I took both the A Level and the APs and let me tell you, the APs are a walk in the park compared to the A Level exams. So you can bet the students at the top British universities are every bit as capable and academically inclined as their US counterparts.</p>
<p>As TimR mentioned, the interview stage at Cambridge and Oxford is very important and required ingredient in the application process and is usually rather taxing on a person. They really try to get a sense of how well rounded you are as an individual.</p>
<p>and one bonus is that in 3 years you get the equivalent of a masters degree!</p>
<p>I was looking at those schools but I decided not to apply when I ofund out that you could only major in one subject.</p>
<p>That is not quite correct sempitern. It takes 3 years to get a BA/BS. To get a masters degree actually takes an extra year, but at most British universities, assuming to perform well, that year is automatic if you chose to pursue it. So it actually takes 4 years to get a masters degree from most British universities.</p>
<p>Like you, I chose the US system over the British system because I found the British system to be too limiting and inflexible. I also felt that US universities have a better, more collegiate lifestyle and that suited me more.</p>
<p>thanks for the correction</p>
<p>also, I dont think I could have dealt with the weather.</p>
<p>coming from southern CA. dreary wet britain would have been quite a letdown. eh, I think I'll do study abroad there to get away from the North Carolina summers :)</p>
<p>Well, I'll probably do study abroad during college to see how it's like anyhow. :) </p>
<p>If undergraduate is that hard, what about going for a masters and/or PhD?</p>
<p>Alexandre, you say, with reference to top UK universities that 'one must get a bunch of As on the O Level exams'.</p>
<p>Er, Alexandre, O Levels were abandoned many years ago: people now take things called GCSEs..</p>
<p>As for comparable status Oxbridge is often ranked on its own, and often with the big London colleges (ie 'The Golden Triangle' -London plus Oxbridge, or the 'G5' -Oxbridge, LSE, Imperial, UCL). </p>
<p>Exact comparisons with HYPS are difficult because LSE and Imperial are specialist -as you may know even The Times of London places LSE as second best in the world, after Harvard, and well ahead of Oxford in its score, in its central area of social sciences (ie economics, politics, sociology, international relations, anthropology,management, social policy, social philosophy etc ).</p>
<p>And of course there's a gulf between international and domestic perceptions. Look at Berkeley for instance...it's far better known outside the USA than Stanford or Princeton. And MIT is better known than anybody except Harvard and Berkeley..again, however, quantifying such things is a nightmare..</p>
<br>
<p>Er, Alexandre, O Levels were abandoned many years ago: people now take things called GCSEs.. Hey, some old-folk still call them O-Levels. :P And I've heard people from other countries (like Trinidad) call them that.</p>
<br>
<p>Anyway, I'm really considering applying to Cambridge... but you have to fly to New York for an interview, and then if I got in I don't know if I'd choose it over some American school, so it might not be worth it. Plus they don't give scholarships (do they?) or aid, and it's so expensive, and I'd be so far away from home, and yet I'd really love to go blah blah blah.</p>
<p>Whenever I ask about undergraduate/graduate study in the U.S. and U.K., there are disagreements ('UK is better for undergrad! Best education!' 'NUH UH YOU LIE' &c.). I know it depends on learning style and all that, but I'd really like to attend Oxbridge sometime, but I don't know if I should even bother with undergraduate considering the opportunities in America.</p>
<p>O level do exist.. in Singapore..</p>
<p>"I heard they're easier to get into 'cause they don't really care about ecs."</p>
<p>It is "easy" if you are at least in the top 2% nationwide, and can show and prove real intelligence at the Interview. You will of course have also convinced the interviewer that you are really passionate about your chosen subject, and has the potential for academic success.</p>
<p>It is also "easy" in the sense that it doesn't matter who you are and where you apply from, or if your ECs are not that great. These factors have no real bearings on why you should be offered/denied a place.</p>