<p>Snobbery has nothing to with corruption, my dear.
and what makes me a snob?</p>
<p>And difficulty of a schooling system (academic level) does not mean people are less intelligent it means the high school system is just less demanding of them.</p>
<p>If americans did A-levels there would still be the same Normal distribution of results, it would just be asking them to do more difficult work thats all.</p>
<p>That wasn't the point. You were exemplifying snobbery by pontificating the British school system and trashing American students.</p>
<p>What makes you a snob is you imply that British students are more intelligent than American students.</p>
<p>My dear.</p>
<p>you british sure smells funny...haha</p>
<p>anyways... have a blue future bluefuture</p>
<p>less demanding education does not imply less intelligent.</p>
<p>Wes lets not forget was it not a British Cambridge don who founded Harvard?</p>
<p>I think this thread is getting ridiculous. I initially thought the topic was interesting as I am in the same position. I am accepted to Oxford for Economics and Management but would prefer Harvard if I get in.</p>
<p>May be I'm a little less biased as I'm neither British nor American. I have to agree that the SAT's are pretty easy, which by no means means it is easy to get a perfect score. Questions are asked in a way that makes you easily jump to wrong conclusions. Especially SAT II's require a lot of knowledge on the subject.</p>
<p>The admission processes are completely different, but applicants/places ration is nearly the same, about 10% are accepted. The interviews are much more challenging as they are only about academics and you mostly get questions on topics you never even heard of.
On the other hand the paper application is quite easy, you only have to write ONE personal statement you can send to all unis you apply to and the additions for Oxford are two graded essays from homework assignments or exams (which are easy to get as you have them already ;-) - nothing compared to the Harvard essay marathon -</p>
<p>Which is better depends on the student, either four years of a broader education or three years in-depth of one subject (or two if doing joint honors)</p>
<p>A question, bluefuture, if you're doing astrophysics...why did you pick Oxford over Cambridge?</p>
<p>Cambridge do not do a single Physics course. They do a course called the natural science tripos, which is essentially for the first two years a mix of physics, chemistry, biology and metallurgy. I have no real interest in chemistry or metallurgy. </p>
<p>whereas in oxford physics we can study a huge range of physics topics instead including things like complex analysis, financial physics
the standard of both degrees is similar, but Cambridges course is slightly more difficult in that it requires a broader range of study at still an amzingly high level. </p>
<p>At Oxford we also have a relationship with princeton university and do fourth year exchanges between undergraduates.</p>
<p>By the way...before you trash the American school system, realize why British A-levels are so much more advanced than APs. From the last few years of high school and on through university, you're specializing completely in one subject, no? It's very difficult to get to such a high level in a subject when you are studying other things. The American system is not inherently worse than the British system for not achieving the same levels. Actually, I'd like to think a student is better served by having a breadth. Besides all the standard rhetoric about making a person well-rounded (specialist in one area and capable in all areas, etc.), most people have interests in more than one thing (when in the British system may you indulge those interests?), and even more people can't possibly be expected to know what they want to do in life by age 16. The American thinking is you take a wide range of courses in the first couple of years in university so you know where your passions lie, then specialize more in that subject the last couple of years. Even for those of us who are fairly certain in our passions (mine, if you're curious, are in the same field as yours seem to be :)), there is plenty of time--such as graduate school and, you know, the rest of your life--to specialize, so there is the feeling that you should take advantage of the undergraduate years to study linguistics, Hindi, philosophy, architecture, and the like. That's why I'd personally rather go to HYP than, say, Caltech or MIT (or Cambridge).</p>
<p>And since you're in physics, if you plan to go into research, don't think for a second that you'll be a better, more prepared, or more productive scientist than an American simply on virtue of your education.</p>
<p>EDIT: This was typed, by the way, before I read your response to my last post. Thanks! Would you happen to know which of the two is stronger in astro, in particular? I always figured Cambridge, but...</p>
<p>"well, it's like saying iit(indian it) is the most difficult school in the world because of its low acceptance rate (much lower than those of harvard, mit or yale).. i'd say it's all about quality of applicants... those applying to iit are just numbers...if you know what i mean.. i'm sure everyone in india applies to iit. harvard, on the other hand, has application fee of almost $100 so that gets rid of most dumps who shouldn't even be applying there... and i'm sure everyone in uk applies to oxbridge...so..."</p>
<p>This is quite possibly the biggest load of **** I have ever heard. The application fee of $100 puts people OFF applying and hence you are LESS LIKELY to attract ALL the top candidates, and the Harvard fees are phenomenal compared to what you pay for Oxbridge, hence acting as a further disincentive for prospective students (and no I'm not talking about people from low-income families who can get some kind of financial aid from the 'needs-blind' admissions policy), I'm talking rich and poor alike). </p>
<p>I'm glad Harvard turns away strings of people with top SAT grades, because that is only to be expected of a top university - GRADES ARE NOT THE BE ALL AND END ALL. I don't really see how this adds anything to Harvard's admissions standards in comparison with Oxbridge - Oxbridge equally turn away many candidates who go on to get AAB or AAA at A-Level (Cambridge turned away roughly 5000 last year I believe), exams which are far more demanding than most American high school equivalents. The SATs are a complete joke and mainly test people's ability to do multiple choice exam papers (ie technique) as well as their ability to speak their own language to a vaguely decent standard and do some basic maths. </p>
<p>The interviews are not questions like 'Why Harvard' or 'Tell me about yourself', they are almost entirely academic and extremely demanding, singling out the top students from the lesser mortals and they are, I would imagine, the toughest interviews for any undergraduate entrance in the world (certainly in comparison with American Ivy Leagues who place little to no emphasis on the interview - at Oxbridge this makes or breaks your application). </p>
<p>If Ivy Leagues want to compare with Harvard in terms of their academic admissions policies, they need to realise soon that candidates who look extremely strong on paper can often be extremely weak in reality, and need to start making their interviews far more rigorous and far more important.</p>
<p>In terms of general attributes (ECs, essays - personality etc.) Harvard admissions is certainly much tougher. I think this is sensible and definitely helps them to single out truly talented individuals, but too little emphasis is, I feel, placed on academia. It is also ridiculous that people can pay their way in (heard about someone getting in to Princeton this way recently) or be favoured as a result of being born into the right family, and that 'recruited athletes' are favoured at an institution which exists primarily for academic studies. I think it is this emphasis on ECs and in particular sports in their admissions policies which make Harvard alumni mostly extremely successful, but in terms of academics Ivy League applications are noway near as rigorous as Oxbridge ones. Kindly don't spout such crap about Oxbridge admissions being a 'joke' in future.</p>
<p>well done! Economics and Management is the most competitive course at Oxford!</p>
<p>I can understand why you might prefer Harvard, with the Business school there and all.</p>
<p>Ace is Back--Harvard fees cost more than Oxbridge. Also, the typical interview question is NOT "Why _____?". While they're not academic--a result of the lack of specialization--they aren't just jokes like you seem to be making them out to be. That being said, Oxbridge admissions are definitely not jokes and just as rigorous at Ivy admissions. But of course, they judge different things. I know people who have gotten in at HYP and rejected from Oxbridge, and others who got in at Oxbridge and rejected not just from HYP but other top (but less rigorous) US schools--Williams, etc.</p>
<p>My cavalry have arrived!!! Ace is Back! </p>
<p>By the way, GUitarman, we study up to 14 subjects until 16 years of age
we study on average 4 subjects up to 17
and finally 3 to 18 years of age.</p>
<p>however the good students take 4-5 subjects up unitl 18 years of age
the best take up to 10!</p>
<p>we have a very varied education, thank you. Where do you get your info from?</p>
<p>OK, first of all, define what you mean by a "subject". Like, exactly what kind of things do you study before university? What courses have you taken?</p>
<p>Your education is not varied past age 17/18 when you go to university. Of course, how good/bad of a thing that is depends partially on what courses you're taking before then, and at what age/level. My assumption--and correct me if I'm wrong--is that with so many high schools in the nation (relative to the number of universities), university is the first opportunity you'll have to truly sample anything, at a high level with professionals.</p>
<p>"I never knew the British were infinitely smarter than Americans. ;)"</p>
<p>Well now you do ;)</p>
<p>"Harvard fees cost more than Oxbridge"</p>
<p>Gutiarman, that was my point.</p>
<p>See? We're just not intelligent enough to know that :p</p>
<p>@bluefuture: thanx, you too ;-) It's not even the business school that attracts me (I think that's a grad thing anyway), it's more the possibility to try more things, e.g. I love sciences, have done a lot of physics and biology in school and would like to do more but to study Economics and Management at the same time</p>
<p>" It is also ridiculous that people can pay their way in (heard about someone getting in to Princeton this way recently) or be favored as a result of being born into the right family" </p>
<ul>
<li>Although I have to agree with you I doubt that Oxbridge's policy on this is different</li>
</ul>
<p>"The SATs are a complete joke and mainly test people's ability to do multiple choice exam papers (ie technique) as well as their ability to speak their own language to a vaguely decent standard and do some basic maths. "</p>
<ul>
<li>Again, I think you are basically right, but learning to apply the necessary techniques isn't a cakewalk either</li>
</ul>
<p>Regarding the SAT I's I have to say that I was slightly shocked to see that I was in the 88 percentile in the verbal part, I don't really see how I should have done better than 88% of the rest (English is NOT my native language and I am not some kind genius)</p>
<p>Btw...I love quoting ;-)</p>
<p>"By the way...before you trash the American school system, realize why British A-levels are so much more advanced than APs. From the last few years of high school and on through university, you're specializing completely in one subject, no? It's very difficult to get to such a high level in a subject when you are studying other things."</p>
<p>-> This is absolutely true; the school system in my home country is similar to both the British and the American. It is much harder to have great grades if you have a load of subjects! On one hand I have to do a lot more than 3 or 4 subjects and cover a wide range of fields (10 subjects at the moment), but at the same time specialize in four of them - and those four can't be all science or all humanities</p>
<p>"What makes you a snob is you imply that British students are more intelligent than American students."</p>
<p>No he doesn't, he implies that British education teaches to higher standards at high school levels. Intelligence doesn't equate to amount of knowledge acquired, intelligence is how you use that knowledge.</p>
<p>astrophysics is roughly equal between the two same rating 5*.
Oxford has the largest Physics department in the UK but i would say it is better for more applied physics.
Cambridge is stronger for theoretical Physics/ mathematics.
check out the website!</p>