<p>"- Although I have to agree with you I doubt that Oxbridge's policy on this is different"</p>
<p>I believe it is, but whether it is or isn't, it certainly doesn't happen as much at Oxbridge compared to Ivy Leagues.</p>
<p>bluefuture--What do you mean by 5* rating? Never seen that used before.</p>
<p>This thread is such a load of rubbish! Firstly, theres no point arguing about the less of competition between oxbridge and harvard - theyre about the same. in terms of school systems - im really sorry guitar man but im gona have to back in the brits in this thread. the english education system is one of the broadest and most academically rigorous - i'm taking 7 subjects to a level that most americans study at university. and so are hundreds of my friends. england and america gear their students up in different ways - and at uni american students branch out with their study before concentrating, unlike we do in england. and in reply to the british guy at oxford who started this thread - if i were him i'd stay at oxford and finish the physics degree and maybe do a masters at an ivy league - big mistake to transfer after getting in. and the british guys weren't exactly insulting the intelligence of americans, but merely highlighting the fact they favour the british schooling system</p>
<p>Oh Jesus Christ I just have to reply to this one... Here we go (this could take a while :) )...</p>
<p>"In Britain ONLY THE BEST can apply for Oxford or Cambridge. It requires a special application form seperate to the normal university applications system"</p>
<p>Not true, anyone can apply... just most unreasonable applicants are discouraged as they are in the American system. Students with any predicted grades can technically apply... read the prospectus. Of course it requires a different application... Just like applying to H or P requires a different application. </p>
<p>"Oxbridge has the most demanding application system in the world! I had 2x40 minute interviews with proffessors from the college with one being with the head of Astrophysics at Oxford! being asked nothing but Academic questions on stuff like deriving potential energy at the edge of a black hole, on drawing from scratch sinx/x, the implications of general relativity. forget silly questions like why Oxford which any idiot can memorise an answer for! Then there was the 1 hour maths test! check it out on Oxford site and have a go"</p>
<p>Alright, but these things are all graded on a scale against other students. You do not have to pass an exam, you just have to beat other students in terms of impressing the interviewer and doing well on the test. This doesn't really mean anything. We have established that all applicants (and if we haven't I'll try to fit it in somewhere ;) ) to top British and American Unis are basically equal, so the only real measure of how hard the application process is is bare-bones acceptance percentages, which Oxbridge has 2.5x higher than Harvard. You are making the fatal mistake of forgetting that you are always in competition with a pool of applicants, and simply put Harvard accepts less top applicants than Oxbridge. Basically, people think that the admit system is a joke compared to HPYSM (could add a few more on here) because it accepts about 25% of students. I do not think that it is a joke, but I do think that it is far less competitive than elite US institutions. </p>
<p>"[can't find a great quote, but someone implied that uncompetitive students apply to HPYSM]"</p>
<p>Simply not true, look at the range of SAT scores for applicants of these schools, you will find that they are well within the top 5% that applicants to Oxbridge are in. The vast majority of applicants are highly competitive, and that tiny minority do not bring down the admission percentage very much. </p>
<p>"What i most dislike about American Ivy League universities is the corruption that being private institutions instills. The donations rich parents give to get their kid a place is disgusting (George Bush), it is no wonder harvard is so rich...
2 years ago there was a girl called laura spence in England with 5 A-grade a-levels who was rejected from Oxford, guess who accepted her... Harvard? Every year Oxford rejects thousands of candidates with exceptional grades and extracturriculars, infact its like a national obsession with the media involved. i know a girl rejected with a prediction of 7 A-grade a-levels!"</p>
<p>Erm, okay, I am going to really try to keep this response respectful, but to be honest your complete igorance is really going to make that difficult (slipped already, sorry buddy). Honestly, you really couldn't have given me a better set-up for my argument than that quote, so I really hope for the sake of Oxford and England that you are joking somehow. You claim that American institutions are corrupt because some students are accepted due to donations from their fathers. You point to the example of George Bush. This example really isn't worth going into, but I might as well. Yale (not Harvard, man, get your facts straight) in 1964 (when Dubbya was admitted) is not the place it is today. Admissions were much less strict and Bush may have gotten in even without his dad being a famed alum. It is very unlikely that GW could have gotten in today. Also, for a physics major, your math is horrible. Harvard's endowment is 30bil. You really think that 30 THOUSAND rich daddies are willing to pay 1mil a piece to get their kids in... I know you were kidding but still. The more important point is that Oxbridge is in every way the elitist hell you describe the Iveys as being. Oxbridge admittance is far, far more biased towards the upper classes than Iveys and Ivey-levels. Just look at the relative demographics. You could also look at Oxbridge's admittance policy, which does not make any allowances for lower-class applicants so that they are judged on exactly the same scale as upper-class applicants. Oxbridge does not take into account minority status either. A prime example of this bias towards upper class admittance is... you guessed it... Laura Spence. The reason Laura Spence was rejected from Oxford was not because of poor grades or a lack of extracurriculars - tonnes of Oxford apps that year got in with worse - It was because of Oxford's bias against lower class applicants. She got passed up over much less qualified applicants from higher-income families, and when this was exposed the press went wild and Oxford has been shamed-faced over the incident ever since. Ironically enough, 'corrupt mercenary sham of a university' Harvard accepted her, proving that H's admittance system is far, far less biased against the lower classes than Oxbridge (Again, thank you for that example). Last but not least, if you think only Oxbridge rejects exceptional applicants, think again. It only takes a look in the papers (or even right here on CC) to prove otherwise. </p>
<p>"Oxbridge is about academics first and foremost. Whereas American univerities want a balance with extracurriculars"</p>
<p>Fundamentally true, at least in the applications process, but the truth is that American universities also have better academics (look at rankings, nobel prizes etc) than Oxbridge</p>
<p>"I never knew the British were infinitely smarter than Americans." </p>
<p>Trust me Merlin, they aren't. I have spent about half of my life in each country (I have lived in many regions of each country) and I honestly think that, if anything, Americans have the upper hand. If you need less subjective opinions... just look at the relative number of top universities in each country, nobel prizes, r + d progress etc. </p>
<p>"It is not that the standard of Ivy league universities is low, its that the standard of high school education leading up to it is"</p>
<p>Again, counting should come before advanced physics in my opinion. English school goes up until year 13 while US high school stops at 12. This extra year could account for some of the gap (which I don't think is really that big to begin with, and an American education trades expertise in one area for overall balance, which has its positives)</p>
<p>Appologies if my points came across as a bit of a US flag-wave, I appreciate that Oxbridge are great schools.</p>
<p>Sorry if I have come across as a bit of a wanker there, Blue, best of luck w/ the transfer (hopefully your dad's donation cheque will clear right away (Just kidding :P ) ) </p>
<p>I like your way of thinking (on this thread anyway, not lovin' your logic on the personal qualities thread :) ), Ace Is Back, I agree with a lot of your points, I might respond tomorrow or sometime. Congrats on E+M at Oxford.</p>
<p>again GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!!!!!!! Please</p>
<p>'Bush went to Yale'</p>
<p>1) George Bush went to Harvard Business School as a graduate after Yale!</p>
<p>2) 'American universities also have better academics (look at rankings, nobel prizes etc) than Oxbridge', </p>
<p>Infact Cambridge University has highest number of Nobel prizes for any institution in the world at 80!!!!</p>
<p>3) Harvard took Laura Spence as a PUBLICITY stunt there was alot of publicity about her rejection. It is Harvards official policy for applicants to take SATs, she did not have any. Hundreds of poor students get rejected every year with 5 A grades from Oxford yet Harvard have never offered out of the blue to take 1 more, not 1 more!
She was rejected for medicine because she was quite timid, tutors were afraid she would not take to the stressful enviroment of hospital ward (probably drop out).</p>
<p>America has plenty enough rich daddies to make a mere 1 million dollar donation! Not that the endowment is composed of these however.</p>
<p>4) 'Oxbridge does not take into account minority status either',` does not make any allowances for lower-class applicants so that they are judged on exactly the same scale as upper-class applicants'</p>
<p>heard of the Oxford and Cambridge special access schemes? These are for both these purposes. Do your research mate before making wild comments.</p>
<p>So far you have not showed one factual error in any of my statements!</p>
<p>"1)George Bush went to Harvard Business School as a graduate!"</p>
<p>So what? Business school admissions are NOT the same as undergraduate admissions and George H. W. (Bush Senior) wasn't even a Harvard alum. If you're going to make the case that George W.'s daddy got him in you can do that for Yale, not Harvard. Unless the current thinking is "anywhere George Bush went must be bad."</p>
<p>Also...</p>
<p>"Hundreds of poor students get rejected every year with 5 A grades from Oxford yet Harvard have never offered out of the blue to take 1 more, not 1 more!"</p>
<p>Really? Did you get this statistic from your omnipresence at Oxbridge and Harvard admissions decisions, or did you just interview all of those hundreds of poor Oxbridge rejectees yourself?</p>
<p>"4) 'Oxbridge does not take into account minority status either'</p>
<p>heard of the Oxford and Cambridge special access schemes? Do your research mate before making wild comments."</p>
<p>From the Cambridge admissions site: <a href="http://www.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/apply/gettingin.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/apply/gettingin.html</a></p>
<p>" All Colleges support the Cambridge Special Access Scheme (CSAS). You are eligible for the Scheme if either of the following apply:</p>
<pre><code>* Very few people from your school/college proceed to higher education AND your family has little or no tradition of studying for a degree.
* Your education has been significantly disrupted or disadvantaged through health or personal problems, disability or difficulties with schooling."
</code></pre>
<p>This will help some disadvantaged students but CERTAINLY not all.</p>
<p>If harvard did try to become father christmas again, and from across the Atlantic as if from nowhere offer a place to a rejectee, i think it would appear in the papers.</p>
<p>why are business school admissions different? a bribe is a bribe</p>
<p>No, it really wouldn't. Poor student rejected from Oxbridge and accepted to Harvard does not equal instant news story. Both because there's no reason for that to be particularly interesting and because when that happens news outlets don't really find out anyway. People understand that these admissions are very competitive and can be almost random at times, and there will be students who get in at one top school and rejected from another. I was accepted to Yale and rejected from Cambridge, should I go write CNN?</p>
<p>And please offer evidence GWB was "bribed" into the business school before making such claims. Note that most always when a student gets in to a school because of a donation from their parents, that parent is an alumnus of that school. Bush Senior has no affiliation with Harvard. But this is really a minor point :p</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Yes... and we were talking about undergrad education. GW would probably have gotten into the business program without his dad's help anyway, as he was running businesses by that time (or expected to, anyway). The same points remain, though - the business school was a far less competitive program then than it is now, and he probably would not have gotten into it nowadays)</p></li>
<li><p>Lol, and how many of those were won in the past 20 years I wonder. What's next... are you going to throw Iaasic Newton in our face ;) Look at rankings, then.</p></li>
<li><p>'Hundreds of poor students get rejected every year w/ 5 A grades' Great argument there, buddy. I wonder how many rich students get rejected with those grades? So Harvard broke some red tape to get Laura Spence in? So what? Are they to be criticised for their charity? </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Anyway, don't delude yourself. The reason Laura Spence was rejected was because the system was and is biased against lower-class applicants. She didn't seem so timid when she was arguing her case in front of the international media lol. </p>
<p>'America has plenty enough rich daddies to make a mere 1 million dollar donation!'</p>
<p>Not really following the logic of this comment, but it's not the first time. Just because America has enough people to make this donation doesn't mean that they all will (total top-school endowment would mean a lot more rich daddies anyway)... derr</p>
<p>'Not that the endowment is composed of [donations] however.'</p>
<p>The endowment is actually largely composed of alumni donations, oddly enough. Point of fact. </p>
<ol>
<li>Yes I have heard of the special access schemes, smartarse. These are just put in place to encourage minority applications to Oxbridge, and in the actual application process there is still no preference given to minority or lower-class students (at least not anywhere near on the same scale as top American schools)</li>
</ol>
<p>So, actually, get YOUR facts straight (and don't yell so much :) ). Keep the arguments coming though, it's pretty amusing that I'm beating an Oxford physicist so soundly in a debate.</p>
<p>P.S. - I'm liking your points as well, Guitarman.</p>
<p>MadStressed--To be fair, the Nobel Prize is a relatively recent phenomenon, established long after Harvard was (as in, 200-300 years after). Of course, he's referring to the number of people who were affiliated with Cambridge when winning Nobels (81), not the number of Cambridge graduates who won them. Those stats I would be interested to see.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Older, more history. founded 1296, Harvard 1765?<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Just to correct one minor factual error earlier in this thread, Harvard was founded in 1636 - only 16 years after the English colonists first landed at the Plymouth colony.</p>
<p>My own opinion on the larger argument is that the top British schools and the top US schools are all great, and choosing between them is largely a matter of personal taste - whichever one makes you most comfortable and offers the most of what you are looking for in a school.</p>
<p>However, having said that, I always find it somewhat puzzling when foreign hopefuls or applicants to US universities come on CC and start trashing US schools or the US itself. Not that anyone is in any way required to like these institutions, but gosh - why would you want to pack up and move thousands of miles to a place you don't like/respect very much, especially if everything is so much better back home?</p>
<p>If I were an American wanting to transfer to Oxbridge, I'd find it rather foolish, or at least inconsistent, to spend time arguing how much better my current US school was.</p>
<p>Still, look how many nobel prizes were won in the last 10 or 20 years by affiliates of American schools compared to British schools - you'll be suprised. All I am saying is what happened before then is not terribly relevant to prospective undergrads nowadays.</p>
<p>Your not beating me soundly in this debate so keep kidding yourself..</p>
<p>'Hundreds of poor students get rejected every year w/ 5 A grades' Great argument there, buddy.' - what wrong with the argument then?</p>
<p>If you could learn to read you might see the actual statement reads: </p>
<p>'Hundreds of poor students get rejected every year with 5 A grades from Oxford yet Harvard have never offered out of the blue to take 1 more, not 1 more'. IE Meaning Harvard did this as a publicity stunt and have never done it again.</p>
<p>Just because America has enough people to make this donation doesn't mean that they all will (total top-school endowment would mean a lot more rich daddies anyway)... derr</p>
<p>sarcasm is lost to maddstressed i see</p>
<p>GuitarMans may disagree with me on some points but i do see the logic behind what you say.</p>
<p>we in britain think everybody should have an equal chance for admission, that is why we have a tough academic interview system.
we dont believe in quotas IE we need ten blacks, two hispanics.</p>
<p>At oxford your brain decides whether your gettin in purely, not your colour</p>
<p>MAdd stressed have you got into harvard yet?</p>
<p>bluefuture, you drastically misunderstand the aim of AA. Minorities are often subject to less resources and less pristine learning conditions. If you are in a big NYC school and have to get a job to help take care of your family, then it will be very difficult to compete academically with the rich white kid. AA isn't just about the color of your skin-it is about your socioeconomic background as a whole (and many URMs fit this description). Besides, diversity can only be good for a school.</p>
<p>The 1765? has a question mark to show i am not sure.</p>
<p>If you look at my initial post it was to ask my chances as a transfer student.
but then somebody said I have a very poor chance as 'everybody knows getting into oxbridge is a joke' and it does not compare to Ivy league. So this whole debate erupted. </p>
<p>To be honest with you guys from the welcome I have had on this forum I am seriously reconsidering an application to Harvard.</p>
<p>Nobody has even answered my original question yet! Just trashed Oxford.</p>
<p>I dont think there is a right answer to this issue.</p>
<p>my own view is that it is not the job of a university to socially engineer.
A black student at an inner city school does have less of a chance to show potential, but if they get lets say 650 SAT verbal and a white wealthy student gets a 780 with the white guy being rejected. what would you say to him?
sorry you got better scores but we think some other guy may have more potential. </p>
<p>in my view it is the job of the government to level the standards of schooling so everybody gets an equal chance, not the university to try and make up for it. The government, in the UK anyway, is trying to pass the blame of poor high schooling in the public sector to the universities saying they are biased.
the government should worry more about the standard of schooling</p>
<p>lets agree to disagree.</p>
<p>im straightup american but i have to agree with bluefire that european/british standards are generally higher than american academic standards. scoring a 5 on an AP doesn't guarantee that you will def get an A at teh equivalent level class in a top university. sure, it means that you have a better shot at an A that maybe someone with a 3, but its not a powerful indicator. sat's are another test that, particularly in math, are based off of very low standards. im of indian descent and i know that in india, which had its educational system restructured during british dominion, it used to be very rare [and sometimes still is] to score 80% on exams. it doesnt mean that indian people are stupid, it just means that the tests are harder with higher standards.</p>
<p>similarly mystic merlin, i don't think bluefire's saying american students are less intelligent. he's just sayng that the high school standards are lower and thus easier to excel at.</p>
<p>but i do have to disagree with bluefire abotu teh whole corruption thing. money, connections, and legacy have universal importance. elitism started in european aristocracies and yeah sure, it's definitely apart of some top american colleges. but it's non-unique</p>
<p>That's not the point. The schools AREN'T equal, which is why AA for college admissions exists. It sucks for kids that are left out, but how would it be fair to the URM who had far less opportunities? The SAT doesn't measure potential, only an aptitude of expected required ability in high school. </p>
<p>I mean, if you went merely by scores and ignored URM status, you would homogenuous school. Diversity is very important in fostering a great academic environment. If a school existed primarily of wealthy people, it would make for a very provincial environment. College is about personal growth as well as academic growth, and exposure to new ideas and perespectives is key to this.</p>
<p>Actually, I have to agree with bluefuture on the race issue. I completely agree that poorer students with less opportunity should be given a bit of a boost in whatever way is appropriate, but you can't seriously use that as an excuse to support race-based AA. Not every rich person is white, not every poor person is a minority, so why attack this issue through race when you can very easily loko directly at socioeconomic status?</p>
<p>That being said, if the schools are not equal then I think it's unethical for the university to punish poor students for being unlucky enough to live in a time before the government steps up and improves their schools. AA should not be taken to an extreme but reasonable corrections (and I can't say, personally, what "reasonable" means...) should certainly be made.</p>
<p>I didnt say SAT are an indictator of potential i said if the black student got lower and he had other undefinable qualities that Harvard thought might mean he could achieve more academically than the white guy, it might be difficult to explain to the white guy since there is no numerical evidence of it. </p>
<p>We have different opinions, but i prefer the british system of the smarter you are in the oxbridge interviews the better chance youve got of getting in. You should not be biased against for being white.</p>
<p>the questions asked in the interviews are not ones you can prepare for, they are thinking outside the box questions....simple concepts in a unfamiliar setting.</p>