<p>It depends on the college at Oxford. Some are really well-funded and others are too new to attract the top students.</p>
<p>I chose Stanford over MIT and Caltech.</p>
<p>"Mmm, I read an article in the Economist about how Oxbridge's quality has declined to the point where top US schools are really a lot better. And I don't see why the Economist would have a vested interest in trashing their country's top schools, so I tend to trust them on that...."</p>
<p>you could not be more wrong. the economists vested interests are:</p>
<p>private>public, state run = inefficient, us style capitalism is best. hence the economist is obsessed with trashing state-funded oxbridge and idealising private us unis in order to promote their ideology.</p>
<p>Not so. The Economist was quick to praise the UC system when the opportunity arose.</p>
<p>because uc charges much higher fees and is more in the direction the economist thinks oxbridge should be going. if you read economist regularly this bias becomes obvious. </p>
<p>also: dont believe inuendo he has done alevels and so for him it is obviously much harder to get into stanford than oxbridge, as it is a different system, so he is biased. for most americans it would be much harder to get into cambridge , say , than stanford. but weve had the discussion oxbridge vs. hypms before, so lets just leave this post to its purpose.</p>
<p>for a second BA degree in Modern History. Here are the following 2 colleges of the Oxford University System that interest me:</p>
<p>University College
Exeter College</p>
<p>I've always admired the educational tradition that Oxford provides. I've always hoped to attend the University in the near future.....at least for the experience of being a student and to maximize the oportunities that they have.</p>