<p>why can't you just be happy that oxford is better and leave the rest to their state of ignorance induced bliss? why do you care so much?</p>
<p>Jesus, everyone thinks HYPSM is far superior to Oxford except for hash. And hash probably goes to Oxford because he was rejected by HYPSM. LOL!</p>
<p>filmxoxo17, you're right I should probably do that. I find it quite humorous to be honest, but I'll try and stop it now :)</p>
<p>Gutrade!! lol!! You're so funny, I think you should join the circus.</p>
<p>Yeah, hash, leave the idiots to their idiocy.</p>
<p>back to the original point of this board... MY answer is stanford, because i got deffered from there, and I WILL get into Harvard. but THE answer is Harvard. But I'm still going to get in. It happens.</p>
<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>
<p>Hash, it's apparent to me that you don't know what IMO questions look like. I don't really know who are you trying to fool on this board. If Oxford does ask the type of question like those on IMO, you know what 99% of you guys get? Zip! That's what most of the contestants chosen (the top 6 individuals) by your country got for many of those questions (that's why UK had done so mediocre). IMO is not about how many years of math you take but how ingenious and creative you are. You can have a math degree and still can't do any of them or you can solve all of them with only background up to O-level (i.e. no calculus). In America, the college version is the William Lowell Putnam Math Competition which you technicly only need up to 1st year Calculus to participate. Famous Mathematician and economics Nobel Prize winner John Nash failed to crack into top 5 in the US when he was an undergrad. Decades later, he hinted in his Nobel autobiography that the Putnam still rankled and implied that the failure played an important role in his graduate career. </p>
<p>Anyway, it'd be nice if you don't make stuffs up; excuse me for bursting your bubble. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Wow, sometimes the most intelligent people in the world can be concerned with the most inconsequential of things. I'd like to echo the universal sentiment of reason and rationality and stamp a big "WHO CARES" on this thread and general debate.</p>
<p>Like others have said on this board, but have been brushed aside in the heat of argument, these are the best schools in the world, but apparently the most arrogant schools in the world as well. If you attend a school like Harvard, like Stanford, like Oxford, why must there be this constant strain to defend your school's prestige using arbitrary rankings and anecdotal evidence -- especially while insulting others schools of absolute equal caliber? What do you gain from it? A temporary ego boost perhaps, but if such is necessary, then it's definitely not the cure for your insecurity. What do you go to college for, folks? A name on a bumper sticker or an education? In terms of education, you can probably clump 100 of the world's top schoos together and find little difference. If anything, I would believe small liberal-arts style colleges focused on undergrads, such as Dartmouth or Williams, would provide a better college education than even (gasp) Harvard.</p>
<p>For what reason does "prestige" exist anyways? And don't say jobs, because it has already been proven that students who were ACCEPTED into "HYPSM" but opted not to go ended up just as "successful" (mean income most likely) as those who actually attended the schools.</p>
<p>Personal preferences rank these top colleges, not formulas.</p>
<p>Well said pebbles, I agree 100%.</p>
<p>blankspace, why are you so confident you will get into harvard?</p>
<p>i didn't think i sounded TOO confident. i'm just being optimistic. i have a good essay and VERY good recs. i'm hoping that will be my ticket in. do you think you'll get in?</p>
<p>uhhh...no lol sorry!</p>
<p>blankspace:</p>
<p>hash: where abt in london are you? studying sumwhr?</p>
<p>dreamer9: whoa! im so glad i have sum1 to share my crisis wit, hmm..iv been thinking, 1 advantage of oxford is that ure done wit ure undergrad in 3 years :p ..also oxford terms are short, thr are three terms of 2 months each, eg october and nov so u basically study around 6.5 months a year and r off for the rest.....well, from wat friends hv told me u study mr in ure hols then durin the terms, but still u hv time for other stuff (like workin a bit too pay the killer fees) ecs n all</p>
<p>Yeah salsa, currently I live in an area of greater London called Kingston upon Thames. </p>
<p>I am in my 13th yr of schooling (i would be in 1st yr uni if I was on American system), and will be starting uni in 2005. I have an offer to read Computer Science at Oxford, and I probably will take it :).</p>
<p>salsa: yeh the oxford terms are amazing! I talked to some friends there and they were telling me that most college students will write about 2 essays a month, and in oxford, they write 2 essays a week! Hmm... dunno if that's good or bad. I suppose it comes with the short terms! What did you apply to study at Oxford?</p>
<p>so ure doing ure alevels rite hash, but from ive figured doing alevels actually gives u a edge over other internationals wen applying to us colleges.. i applied w/o sat 2s and got into stanford, and i feel that my as grades counted a lot for tht...</p>
<p>dreamer9: i applied for art</p>
<p>yup I'm doing A levels. Salsa, what did you get in your A levels and GCSEs? It's quite impressive that stanford let you in w/out sat II.</p>
<p>Penn is not more "prestigious" than Stanford!</p>