Let's take a look over the Atlantic Ocean, if you really want to be objective

Applying to College
1

<p>I was inspired by the "Objective vs Subjective" college admissions thread.</p>

<p>Instead of speculating, why not take a look over at the other side, where they have a relatively objective system, and compare it to our relatively subjective system?</p>

<p>I'm not TOO familiar with the UK, but it goes something like this:</p>

<p>Admissions are based on
1. VERY HEAVY on standardized test scores, that are administered throughout high school and middle school
2. one teacher rec (usually be the omniscient English teacher, just to verify that you're an able student, ie: nothing spectacular expected here)
3. one "personal statement" (one page long max) that is extremely straightforward by our standards, usually 50% about why you want to pursue your major and 50% about your EC's
4. interview (not sure how much this counts)</p>

<p>As such, it is very much more numbers-oriented, and students are only allowed to apply to 5 schools... because they only need to apply to 5 schools. Their scores will give each and every one of them a rough approximation of what level of schools they should be shooting for. There is much less uncertainty and subjectivity; and legacies, URMs, and athletic recruitments are pretty much unheard of. The quirky essay writer, the passionate volunteer, the expert viola player, and the class president are not only removed from the running, but they might not exist in the first place - due to a selection process that removes any incentive to perform beyond tests.</p>

<p>So now my question is: why haven't the subjectivists' most mild predictions come true? Why isn't Oxford known for an obnoxiously pedantic student body that doesn't have the social skills or creativity to succeed in the modern job market? Why isn't Cambridge relegated to a second-rate status in accordance with the fact that they don't recruit kids who show innovation or leadership potential?</p>

<p>I'll stop here and let more knowledgeable people discuss this, please. I'm interested to know :)</p>

2

<p>some places have to go objective b/c w/ subjective theres too many qualified applicant & too much room for underhanded business like bribery. over here, subjective gives admissions more of a chance to "promote diversity" (by admitting ppl based on factors such as gender + race + legacy) & then u cant really contest their decisions b/c its based on ambiguous subjective factors.
i'm not saying 1 system is better than the other, obviously both have their pro's & con's.</p>

3

<p>I'm curious as to why this wasn't just posted in the original thread, but I digress.</p>

<p>I'm no expert, but I think that in order to make a fair comparison, you would also have to evaluate cultural differences in hiring college grads. Do employers in the UK generally want to see top grades in college over anything else, or do they want to see participation in internships and leadership activities on campus? What about U.S. employers?</p>

<p>Universities want to accept students that they think will be successful after graduation, either with getting good jobs or getting accepted to top grad schools. It's possible that in the U.S. and the U.K., if the qualifications needed to find success post-graduation are different, then so are the admissions requirements to top schools in said countries. Just a thought.</p>

4

<p>The interview is very important at Oxbridge as far as I know.</p>

<p>At the end of the day most of the kids with the high stats are the most driven and ambitious. In the UK these kids strive to do well in tests. In the US they have to strive to do well in school, in their EC's and so on. I know most of people on CC claim that they are passionate about their EC's. In reality most kids just do EC's to get into college.</p>

5

<p>Good point tanveer:</p>

<p>I think that, up to a point, it is fair to say that it doesn't matter what the college admission system is like: those who would succeed in one environment most likely has the drive to succeed in any environment. It's those at the margins that depend heavily on such factors.</p>

<p>So can we say that all those EC's in the US aren't really incurring any significant benefit on our students? I mean Cambridge/Oxford are more prestigious than all of our Ivies except Harvard, and that's in a country that's a fraction of our size, with an economy that's a fraction of ours</p>

6

<p>
[quote]
I mean Cambridge/Oxford are more prestigious than all of our Ivies except Harvard, and that's in a country that's a fraction of our size, with an economy that's a fraction of ours

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If that was a question, here's your answer why:</p>

<p>Oxford University: Established in 1096</p>

<p>Cambridge University: Established in 1209</p>

<p>kthnksbye.</p>

7

<p>I think it also has to be taken into account that in the uK education system many students opt to finish school at 16. They go into the work force or to technical schools, or training of some kind. Last two years ( A levels) are optional only for those students who do well on the lower year exams...anyone who knows more feel free to correct me...but i believe students can apply to colleges ( not necessarily universities) after they finish year 11 ( which is comparable to 10th grade)</p>

8

<p>Not that this adds much to the discussion, but uh, college prestige has nothing to do with when the college was founded. Otherwise tell me why the College of William and Mary isn't more prestigious than MIT.</p>

9

<p>I disagree. I don't know much about the College of William and Mary, but I'm guessing it took a wrong turn somewhere. My point was that older universities(Harvard,Oxford,Cambridge), have had centuries to develop and grow and prosper, so comparing the prestige of relatively new American universities to some of the oldest in the world isn't a good argument for the OP</p>

10

<p>beefs: By "prestige", I mean stats-focused rankings that do not take age or reputation into account</p>

11

<p>You might look at the Laura Spence affair if you think Oxford admission is objective.</p>

12

<p>I'm actually impressed that something like that sparked a national outrage.</p>

<p>I can imagine subjective quips like "does not show potential" being used all the time behind closed doors at the Harvard admissions office. In fact, it's taken for granted!</p>

13

<p>
[quote]
As such, it is very much more numbers-oriented, and students are only allowed to apply to 5 schools... because they only need to apply to 5 schools. Their scores will give each and every one of them a rough approximation of what level of schools they should be shooting for. There is much less uncertainty and subjectivity; and legacies, URMs, and athletic recruitments are pretty much unheard of. The quirky essay writer, the passionate volunteer, the expert viola player, and the class president are not only removed from the running, but they might not exist in the first place - due to a selection process that removes any incentive to perform beyond tests.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Last I checked, the US had slipped in secondary school comparisons, but their colleges and universities are the envy of the world and unparalled as a country. Also in abundance in those schools that are the envy of the world, consist of URM's, legacies, jocks, violin players, passionate volunteers and those quirky writers you alluded to. Interesting that you have to go to the whole continent of Europe and beyond to seek a comparison. I'll cast my lot with the US system for now, thank you.</p>

14

<p>If not Europe, with whom would we compare ourselves?</p>

<p>The fact remains that all of Europe has a smaller GDP than the US, half the continent is recovering from the effects of Communism and the other half could be said to be mired in socialism, and their college admissions process is almost ludicrously one-sided - yet they seem to be doing alright.</p>

<p>I'm not trying to take sides, but I am curious as to whether this "well-rounded holistic child" obsession is nothing but a placebo effect.</p>

15

<p>
[quote]
If not Europe, with whom would we compare ourselves?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You help me make my point. There is no comparison.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The fact remains that all of Europe has a smaller GDP than the US, half the continent is recovering from the effects of Communism and the other half could be said to be mired in socialism, and their college admissions process is almost ludicrously one-sided - yet they seem to be doing alright.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You could arguably tie that GDP disparity to the educational advantage the US has held for some time. They, Europe, do alright but there is far less opportunity for upward mobility via education than the opportunities presented here in the US. The US system isn't without it faults as in any human institution, but it still remains the "gold standard". And by a far margin.</p>

16

<p>Our supremacy doesn't help you prove your point; much more convincing geopolitical factors are at play. There's no point in arguing this question further, but I don't think that our ascendancy is sufficient proof of the superiority of our higher education system.</p>

<p>You are right that our system is the Gold Standard (though is it because other nations are trying to emulate our country verbatim?)</p>

<p>However, I think it should be noted that the majority of our Gold Standard system does not play the subjectivity game to any significant degree. </p>

<p>It's only the top tier that does. And it's only the top tier that I'm referring to; how is Cambridge ranked #2 in the world if it uses an antiquated and obsolete system that every elite US university has abandoned?</p>

<p>If the rankings are biased, how is the campus atmosphere? The vitality of the student body? The success of its graduates?</p>

<p>I'm just curious to know</p>

17

<p>I have never attended a US college so I can't compare this from my experience, but I can answer</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Admissions are based on
1. VERY HEAVY on standardized test scores, that are administered throughout high school and middle school

[/QUOTE]

Well they're really based on A-levels, which are not just one exam (which they are in some Asian countries) but exams and classwork throughout the last two years of school, ages 16-18 (years 12-13). As someone pointed out, you can leave school aged 16 in the UK. Students have to take lots of subjects up to this age, then age 16 (year 11) they take exams in all these subjects called GCSEs. To continue to to do A-levels a student must get at least 5 grade Cs at GCSE, and usually these must include maths and English (there are a whole load of compulsory subjects, plus optional ones). Only about 50% of people do. The word "college" at this point is a bit confusing. In many places "college" or "6th form college" is the place where students do their A-levels. It's not a university. There are also vocational colleges which students can attend from age 16. In some places students who do A-levels stay at the same school to continue. But in the town where I studied A-levels, there were 3 "secondary schools" for ages 11-16, and just one "6th form college" where all students from the 3 schools had to go if they wanted to continue.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
2. one teacher rec (usually be the omniscient English teacher, just to verify that you're an able student, ie: nothing spectacular expected here)

[/QUOTE]

yes

[QUOTE]
3. one "personal statement" (one page long max) that is extremely straightforward by our standards, usually 50% about why you want to pursue your major and 50% about your EC's

[/QUOTE]

Usually pretty much 0% about ECs. Because UK university education is all about focus on one subject, most people write their personal statement along the lines of "I would like to study subject X because....." Oxford uni website, for example, explicitly states that ECs will not be taken into account in admissions, so why bother writi ng about them?

[QUOTE]
4. interview (not sure how much this counts)

[/QUOTE]

MASSIVELY! In the case of Oxbridge at least. The number of students who get the required grades of 3 A's at A-level is huge. Something like 30,000 or more. But Oxford and Cambridge only have about 6000 places to offer combined each year. They don't offer then automatically to everyone who gets the grades. That became impossible decades ago. It's the interview that makes the difference between acceptance or not, since nearly everyone who applies has perfect grades, either from the UK system or the system of their country.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Their scores will give each and every one of them a rough approximation of what level of schools they should be shooting for.

[/QUOTE]

This is true but getting in to Oxbridge, and other top schools for specific subjects (eg medicine. Admits rates are very uneven across the subjects) can seem pretty random, as HYP admissions. What you find is that, unlike the US, it;s not the top schools that get the most applications. Since you can only apply to 6 schools at the most (5 for some subjects) it would be a waste of the application to apply to those you will never get in. The schools which get billions of applications are those which ask for slightly lower grades and are in the middle of the country. Usually somewhere like Nottingham will get about 20 apps per place , compared to Oxford's 5. This varies daramatically depending on subject applied for of course (apply for Physics, no-one else does).</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
The quirky essay writer, the passionate volunteer, the expert viola player, and the class president are not only removed from the running, but they might not exist in the first place - due to a selection process that removes any incentive to perform beyond tests.

[/QUOTE]

What you have to understand is that in the UK, and Europe in general, ECs are usually not anything to do with school (unless you're at a boarding school and hence trapped there 24/7). (High) schools are there to educate you formally in reading, writing, social sciences, science etc. What you do in your free time for fun is your own affair. I learnt to play the horn at school, but the orchestra I played in was part of the community and nothing to do with school. Ditto the girl guides (same a girl scouts) that I was in. Most schools do have sports teams in a limited number of sports, but school and life in general is hugely less competitive than in the USA, so it's not taken that seriously (if you want to train to be an elite athlete in the UK, generally people train outside of high school. There are a couple of universities which specialise in this sort of stuff. Loughborough being the main place. It's amazing how many Olympic rowers get into Oxbridge though....). People don't develop this huge loyalty to their (high) school as they do the USA. That is seen as strange. School reunions are rare things. School is not part of social life really. </p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
So now my question is: why haven't the subjectivists' most mild predictions come true? Why isn't Oxford known for an obnoxiously pedantic student body that doesn't have the social skills or creativity to succeed in the modern job market? Why isn't Cambridge relegated to a second-rate status in accordance with the fact that they don't recruit kids who show innovation or leadership potential?

[/QUOTE]

It isn't that UK students don't do ECs. It's just that they don't mention them and rarely do them competitively. In the first week even UK university (not just Oxbridge) has a "fresher's fair". This consists of all the university social societies setting up stalls in a hall for a couple of days, so new students can come along and join/sign up on the e-mail list, of any society they want to join. The societies can be about sports, music, religion, nationality. Anything really (I believe there is an Oxford against George W. Bush society somewhere!). I am in the Australian society and I'm not Australian! I just like going to their barbeques. Anyone can set up a society and if they form a comimittee and the university will give them a small amount of money towards it. Then it's up to the members to raise any extra cash they need. Some societies (mainly rowing - oh soooo boring!) have pots of cash from industrial sponsors. The university also has sports facilities, meeting rooms, chapels etc that everyone can use. But the university doesn't provide activites as such. It's up to the students to organise them. They see students as adults responsible for their own entertainment. Some things are free and some are all night balls costing £125 a ticket. It's really variable.</p>

<p>UK employers so do like students who have done some ECs. There is always a space on the application forms for positions of leadership etc. I am not sure if they are really interested in the same stuff as in the US (I haven't applied for a job in the US. You tell me). Work experience is really important. I volunteered in Bulgaria through an Oxford-based charity and employers seems to like that. I also have loads of music stuff, but that isn't unusual.</p>