<p>Yeah I think the trend is that most internationals would rather go to top U.S. schools instead of schools in Europe. France's Sorbournne (sp?) and England's Cambridge/Ox just don't have the fame that they had in their former days of glory. It used to be that Europeans schools were the best in the world, but now American schools are the best. I don't think Oxford, Cambridge, or Sorbournne can compete with schools like MIT, Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. All the cutting edge research is being done at schools like Stanford. I mean they have a huge endowment, famous professors, intelligent students, academic flexibility, amazing facilities like the Stanford Linear Accelerator, top sports teams, great weather, an immaculate campus, etc. They have everything a top college could ask for, and then some. I don't know how Oxford could possibly compete.</p>
<p>I know a very avearge girl that did her undergrad (architecture) in Cambridge. How did I meet her? I took this GRE review course (Kaplan) in Hong Kong and she was way too slow on those easy math. She had difficulties solving some of them. I was simply perplexed. Thought one would be at least semi-decent in geometry to do architecture? The only reason I was in the class was to up my verbal score. I can tell you she wasn't gonna get into top architecture grad schools like MIT/Berkeley. </p>
<p>I came from Hong Kong and Cambridge/Oxford (half dozen guaranteed spots per year for each + some more admitted through regular application process) are definitely easier to get in than Stanford (average of only 1 or 2 per year) for people from Hong Kong. My high school was a pretty good one there and consistently sent someone to Oxford/Cambridge/Imperial but would be lucky to get just one to Harvard/Stanford every few years. Stanford definitely has better reputation than Oxford in Asia. People definitely know Oxford by name and that it's OLD but don't really know anything further about it. But people know about Stanford's tie with Silicon Valley and it's great in science/engineering. As technology becomes increasingly important, institutions like Stanford is gonna be even more prestigious. As far as science goes, England almost never crack into top 10 in international math/science olympiads while the US is almost always in the top 10 and top 3 in some years. Even the tiny Hong Kong had been ranked higher than England in IMO in some years. The best talents are clearly not in UK. I don't even know what Oxford/Cambridge are really known for these days.</p>
<p>ubermensch, Oxford is rich, but not rich enough to provide finaid to internationals (only HYPS are able to do this anyway, Stanford is very limited on its funds for international students).</p>
<p>The major difference between HYPS and Oxbridge is that of the undergraduate degrees.</p>
<p>Oxbridge unquestionably provide the best undergraduate education in the World (probably even better than Harvard). The reason for this is the tutorial system, which ensures that each undergraduate is taught personally by their professor on very regular basis (once or twice a week). HYPS are not able to offer this. As a result, Oxbridge undergrad students undoubtedly receive a better education.</p>
<p>Also, the degrees in Britain are far more professional and single subject oriented, so a student is really able to get a focussed education. This can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on personal preference. However if a student really wants to concentrate on English (as an example), then an Oxbridge degree in English is far more valuable than a HYPS "Major" in English.</p>
<p>I don't understand how anyone can claim that HYPS admissions is completely meritocratic when legacy plays such a large role. Oxbridge don't even ask about legacy. </p>
<p>The Oxbridge admissions process, which includes VERY academic interviews, is also a lot fairer. The professors are able to find the brightest minds from all the extremely competitive candidates. Personally, I find that getting into Oxbridge (undergrad) is more of an achievement.</p>
<p>Gurtrade, perhaps it is easier for internationals to get into Oxford than for the British students, but it is still damn hard. It's as hard for British students to get into Oxford as it is for Americans to get into Harvard.</p>
<p>Oh, and guess what, many have never heard of YPS in my school. But the ones who know about HYPS generally think you can pay to get in, and don't have to be very smart. </p>
<p>But I admit, USA is probably better for graduate studies :). Sorry about the ridiculously long post...</p>
<p>Sam Lee: "As far as science goes, England almost never crack into top 10..."</p>
<p>That is completely, categorically incorrect. Cambridge and Oxford are ranked 1 and 2 respectively in the World's top 100 Science Universities, published by The Times Higher Educational Supplement. </p>
<p>Top 20:</p>
<p>Rank Name Country Weighted
score Citation
impact
1 Cambridge University UK 200 12.7
2 Oxford University UK 169.8 12.1
3 Harvard University US 159.8 20.5
4 California University, Berkeley US 159 15.6
5 Massachusetts Inst of Tech US 135.1 16.2
6 Stanford University US 118.7 17.3
7 Tokyo University Japan 118.5 9.1
8 Princeton University US 115.6 17.4
9 California Institute of Technology US 99.3 17.7
10 Imperial College London UK 89.8 10.3
11 Beijing University China 85.6 0
12 Cornell University US 73.3 12.5
13 ETH Zurich Switzerland 71.5 13.6
14 Yale University US 69.1 16.7
15 Kyoto University Japan 68.8 7.7
16 Paris VI, Pierre et Marie Curie France 64.6 8.4
17 University of Chicago US 62.6 16.1
18 Australian National University Australia 61.7 11.6
19 Ecole Normale Sup</p>
<p>Oxbridge ranked 1st and 2nd on a British ranking? That's not surprising!</p>
<p>Haha, the British are funny. But yeah, Oxford better than Stanford in SCIENCE? Whoa, some of the editors must have been smoking something REAL GOOD :)</p>
<p>Oxford is so not more prestigious than Stanford. I don't get why a bunch of lower tiered schools are always trying to say they are better than Stanford. First there's Berkeley, and now there is Oxford. Did Stanford do something to **** those guys off? </p>
<p>Anyway, I heard tons of rumors about how Oxford is practically open-admissions if you can pay for the tuition. They are only good at fluff subjects like english or shakespeare studies. Stanford totally creams the European schools in science and engineering. All over the world, Stanford is way more respected than Oxford. And besides, even if Oxford was more prestigious than Stanford among some misinformed British people, it wouldn't matter for the majority of people on collegeconfidential. Most of us want to stay in America because all the money and political power is in this country. Who wants to move to an island nation that just wants to become the 51st state anyway? There's no money in England, just mad cow disease. </p>
<p>In summation, Stanford >>>>>>> Oxford. Case closed. </p>
<p>P.S. Gutrade, I think I know what the British editors were smoking. They were smoking hash. :)</p>
<p>"Most people in my school do not apply to Oxford, and many have never heard of it. But the ones who do know about Oxford generally think of it as a school where you can pay to get into, and don't have to be very smart. "</p>
<p>this makes sense if youve ever read the adrian mole diaries, given the character julian tyweslton fife... your average useless semi aristocrat who's just farting around oxford for fun. i know nothing about the school, but it seemed as if that character served as a caricature of oxford students.</p>
<p>rooster08, wtf? Since when is Oxford a low-tier school?</p>
<p>hash,</p>
<p>Please don't deliberately misquote what I said. I don't appreciate that. It's crystal clear that I wasn't talking about college ranking and definitely not that ridiculously biased Times ranking. I specificly referred to International Math/Science Olympiad where England has been mediocre, esp on IMO, considering how well-established their secondary educational system is supposed to be. If you don't even know what that is, please look it up yourself. England was 20th (2004), 10th (2003; best showing in quite a while), 27th (2002), and THIRTY-FIRST (2001). US is almost always in the top 5. In any given year, Harvard/MIT/Stanford would have a few gold medalists from the US itself; then countries, esp from Asia like China, which almost always finish 1st in the IMO or IPhO, have a habit of sending their medalist to top US schools. Oxbridge simply don't have the talents, at least not from UK (they would be lucky to get just one gold in some years) itself, unless they are from other countries.</p>
<p>Oxbridge has faaaaaaar more nobel prizes than any american schools...that's why it ranks higher in the science list.</p>
<p>HYPSM is considered to be first tier. Since Oxford is not at the same level as HYPSM, and is measurably lower, then Oxford is by default a lower tier school. What would you rather have me say? That Oxford is a "not-on-the-same-level-as-HYPSMC" school? Well alright then. I'll say it.</p>
<p>Announcement: Oxford is a "not-on-the-same-level-as-HYPSMC" school. </p>
<p>Happy now?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because there are plenty examples showing it's easier for internationals to get into Oxford than HYPSM?? I think the British would be infurious if they knew their institutions actually gave special treatment to foreigers. LOL! I got friends that went to UK's top schools and they were always some of the better students in their classes. If it's easier for them to get in, they should struggle in those classes instead. </p>
<p>The top British students are really not that sharp. International competition shows UK almost never finish among the top. UK's A-level/O-level are pretty easy; my friend got 3A out of 9 subjects on O-level (Hong Kong version) got ALL As in A level in England two years later. Had he stayed and sat the one in Hong Kong, he would probably get no A. It shows getting straight As on A-level isn't difficult in UK. When I practiced O-level problems from the past exams in Hong Kong, the ones from the UK were always considerably easier than the ones from Hong Kong and I would wonder why.</p>
<p>Same Lee, just because Oxbridge are the top 2 in science it suddenly becomes biased? The Times "top 200 universities" survey placed Harvard, MIT, Caltech and Berkely ahead of Oxbridge (overall), but that obviously wouldn't seem biased to you. Btw, who the hell cares about imo.</p>
<p>How can you say that the top British students are not that sharp? You seem to basing your point completely on a few isolated examples of "friends from your school", which is neither evidence nor an indicator of how sharp British students are. If the UK's A Level/O level system is so easy, why did your friend only get 3As? that's abysmal. If as you claim the papers in the UK are easier, the curve is adjusted accordingly so that only the top students get As. Again your claims are based on personal speculation with no supporting evidence.</p>
<p>filmxoxo17, Adrian Mole diaries are FICTION, got it? Fiction is not true, (just in case you didn't get that)</p>
<p>rooster, Oxford haven't said anything about being them being better than stanford. This is an internet forum, and not some kind of official university correspondence area. </p>
<p>Your information on what the rest of the World thinks comes from where exactly? Statistically, it is probably the case that you haven't even left the state you live in, let alone the country. I'm sorry, but your post stinks of typical, uninformed, ignorant American arrogance. HYPSM are only considered to be on a higher level in some graduate courses. As explained before, an undergraduate British education is far far better.</p>
<p>England doesn't want to be a "51st state". Most of the British public think that Americans are stupid for some reason (you can thank GWB for that)</p>
<p>i know the damn books are fiction you pompous loser. i was pointing out something that i found amusing. if you carefully read the post you would see that i also said that it was a caricature of oxford students. why dont you calm down and let people think what they want to think. my parents are english, and i know that a levels are harder than SATs and that oxford still ranks above US universities, so dont include me in your unintellible diatribe, okay?</p>
<p>Okay! Though it seems you need to take some of your own advice and calm down.</p>
<p>hash,</p>
<p>Read my post carefully. My friend got 3As on O-level IN HONG KONG. Then he went to England and did A-level over there and got straight As! That's what I meant by how easy to get As in England. Students get Bs/Cs in Hong Kong and regarded as just "decent/okay" get As in England and regarded as "bright". LOL! Go figure!</p>
<p>What curve? Over 20% of the grades are "A" in UK's A-level. </p>
<p>By the way, top US schools care about IMOs. Especially for international applicants, the difference is huge between an applicant with IMO and one without. In MIT, most people at least have heard about it. Maybe the Oxford science students don't hear about it because almost none is at that caliber. Just becaue you don't know about it doesn't mean "who cares?". :)</p>
<p>Sam, It is not unusual to do better in A levels than in O levels. It is more than likely he did A levels in the subjects which he got the 3 As in at O level, so in effect he was continuing the subjects he was good at. This says nothing at all about the difficulty of A levels in England. I'm sorry but you came to a very stupid conclusion. Also, a lot of students pull their socks up for A levels, which are more important than O Levels.I can also provide many examples where my peers have not done so well at O level, but achieved excellent grades at A level (and vice versa). This does not have anything to do with the difficulty of the British system.</p>
<p>You seem to be implying that a B/C in HK = an A in the UK. If you really think this, then I'm afraid you are foolish as well as arrogant. HK students are not special - they do not differ in intelligence to UK students. </p>
<p>20% grades maybe A at A level, but it doesn't mean that 20% of students have All As! Statistically very few students get all As. Grades are irrelevant since Oxbridge request module marks now anyway.</p>
<p>I know all about Maths Olympiads, as do Universities here. Obviously doing well in them strengthens your Uni app here. Of course Oxford students are of the caliber to do these kind of Olympiads, and a vast number have done. </p>
<p>The fact is that A-Levels are at a very advanced level (it's in the name!), and are a very good indicator as it is. All questions asked at Oxbridge interview are at least of Olympiad level anyway, so it doesn't make a huge difference in the end. For example, my further maths A level course is at the standard of 1st year uni maths in America.</p>
<p>American universities give more weighting to Olympiads because the SATIs and IIs are not a good enough differentiator between equally qualified candidates.</p>
<p>That reminds me, Oxbridge require candidates to sit tests at interview. For example, I had to sit a 2.5 hr maths test at my interview to study computer science. These questions were more difficult than a lot of olympiad questions I have looked at. This coupled with the academic interviews = tougher entry procedures than HYPSM...</p>