My chances as a transfer student from Oxford?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvard University
81

<p>it may seem straightforward to you but.....</p>

<p>applicants are POOLED so if 60 apply DIRECTLY to Magdalen (10 spaces) and 10 to st peters (6 spaces) which is what the 1.4 refers to, then Magdalen will send 30 or so students to other colleges around oxford including maybe 5 to St peters (which is how many we recieved i think) to be interviewed. Many of the more popular colleges do this also every year.</p>

<p>the point being to even out the numbers so each college can interview a more manageable amount (magdalen a more popular college do not have the infrastructure to interview this many candidates).</p>

<p>this system means that 1/5 students who get an offer get one at a different college to the one they applied to.</p>

<p>then there are open applications which make up 1/5 applications, i believe,
which are not included in the 1.4 since are not DIRECT and are sent to any low appliction college in that year (application numbers to colleges vary year to year)</p>

<p>then there are all the students from abroad, which are not included in the 1.4.</p>

<p>Therefore in reality your chances are equal whatever college you apply to.
so roughly 2.8-3. that is the purpose of the pool. </p>

<p>Thus, this year 35-40 ENDED UP interviewing at St Peters, whether they applied there or not. </p>

<p>There is no preference for direct applicants like you presume.</p>

82

<p>Why dont you lecture me about Oxford or harvard, when you get into a university yourself. madd stressed, </p>

<p>At the moment i think your heading for Alabama State.......correctional facility!</p>

83

<p>Being accepted to a university doesn't magically give you authority to discuss college admissions.</p>

84

<p>Being an international student (who have been through the British system all my life), I think I can be kinda objective in this interesting discussion. </p>

<p>Personally, I find the A levels much more demanding (and we have only 12 years of schooling like the Americans... instead of 13 years) and seriously, bluefuture, your O/A levels results arent exactly top notch either to call yourself "smart" or "the best". 50% of students in my school score either 3/4As at A levels and at the top school in Singapore, ~75% score 3/4As at the A levels and each school has a cohort of ~800 students taking A levels in a year... Ok so back to my point, A levels is so demanding that you dont need to study for your SAT IIs and you can basically score at least a 750 in all the subjects that you are doing if you are doing fine in your school work.</p>

<p>But then, what I dislike about the British system is that it is way too focused on just a few subjects (but very very intensely). For me and perhaps many of my schoolmates, many are well versed in only a few subjects. Ask them any things outside perhaps Physics, Chemistry, Maths, Biology (or subjects that they took in high school) and many will have very limited knowledge of it. Yep, and that's a reason why I wanted to go to a Liberal Arts College, because I realised that I lack that breath in me. An American education often leads students to ask the big metaphysical questions... which I think is lacking at the British system.</p>

<p>And also another reason for me to go to the States is that I find British people increasingly rude (there's an increasingly large presence of such people in Britain...). It seems to me that the whole culture and importance of mannerism has been lost for the British and it's kinda scary as to how people can walk up to you and slap you on your face (yeah... I read it somewhere on the newspaper).</p>

<p>And the most important reason will have to do with American Institution's admissions policy. Kenyon is able to provide me with funds for my higher education (~ 34000 USD for the whole cost of attendance!!) (which is sorely lacking at British universities). And British universities charge exhorbitantly high prices for international students in comparison with the domestic students (4 or 5 more times... so essentially they are treating international students as a source of revenue, which defeats the whole point of an higher education...). Whereas over at America, many institutions charges a flat fee which makes it more equitable (mostly privates) because the rich pay more while the poor are assisted in a way. And US colleges do take into account whether you are a first generation college applicant or a minority (which I am and I can tell you that if I wasnt that resourceful, I wouldnt have known about the existing opportunities that exist in LACs or America). In fact, from what I garnered, most people (international students) who end up at Oxbridge are either geniuses/poor with a scholarship (small minority), geniuses/rich (large presence of it and this can be attributed to parents who are rich/highly educated). This is also somewhat the same at HYP, albeit less common. In addition, Oxbridge is more financially restraied... and thus, in recent years, they have take in more international students than before and this makes places at Oxbridge less coverted compared to places at HYP calibre school.</p>

<p>American institutions also look at the applicant's quality and character, which I think is very important. I reckon that although my future classmates may be less "stellar" as compared to Oxbridge students, but I am pretty sure I wouldnt be among "jerks, snobs and similar types of students...". Yes, trust me, I've seen some very disgusting students although at the same time, I've seen nice, wonderful students at Oxbridge. But with the admissions policy of Oxbridge, it's hard to differentiate the students' character. And thus, if you go to Oxford, you are sort of playing a "guessing game", i.e. you wouldnt know how's your peers are like other than they are excellent in their academic pursuits.</p>

<p>Btw, I've gotten 7A1s and 2A2s for my O levels and I am predicted 4As at my A level... but seriously that doesnt mean I am good or what. It can only mean that I am good (and not exactly very good either, considering students with olympiads/RSI...) at certain subjects. But when it comes to writing/arguing/expressing my self clearly/adequately, I thought I am pretty bad at it... And that's also a reason why I choose Kenyon over other LACs, although my not-exactly-impressive SAT Verbal score plays a major part too, since Kenyon is renowned for producing excellent writers and prides itself on being a literary powerhouse. I have already some idea on what I want to do in life, i.e. Economics... but at the same time, I also want to be able to relate to people from fields outside Economics. Like what my sister had said about her supervisor who is a Dartmouth graduate, "he can talk about anything under the sun..." and I think that the British education doesnt educate you that well for that purpose.</p>

85

<p>I haven't read the rest so my points may have been made already, but:</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>You just destroyed your own argument here by saying that students with the PREDICTED GRADES (ie not anyone) can apply.. already placing applicants in pretty much the top X percent of the country. This is technically as good as saying that people without those grades can't apply - it's known from the beginning that they won't make it.</p>

<p>"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>Please, please, don't say anymore before you embarass yourself further. If Oxbridge were an 'elitist hell', why is it that state-private ratios are roughly 50/50, and why is it that they automatically allow a state school candidate in over an equivalent private school candidate, and often 'worse' state school candidates in who show potential as a result of having overcome greater odds to get there? The very fact that Laura Spence got rejected from Oxford and not Harvard really says something about the academic rigour of the two undergraduate places - the reason she was rejected from Oxford might not be understood by Americans who only understand grades and paper applications, but nevertheless it is because the interviewers didn't think she was smart or tough enough to handle the work. End of. Oxbridge are judged on academic results and talent, not on the class or background of their students.</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's called money...</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>No-one's blaming the American system, nor looking for an explanation, merely pointing out the facts. </p>

<p>And now after reading the last bit of your post I no longer hate you ;)</p>

86

<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>Nowhere is perfect - I criticise England the whole time, and I live here! The advantages of American universities obviously outweigh the disadvantages for people applying who can also find fault with them..</p>

87

<p>"No, your brain doesn't decide whether or not you get into Oxford, because the system is heavily favoured towards private school students who know the rules of the game. For example, look at the classics program, could many of those students get into oxford if they didn't know 'the rules'?"</p>

<p>The reason more private schoolers get in (proportionate to the number of private schoolers in the country) is because they are better educated, hence, perform better at interview and obtain higher grades. 'Spoon-feeding' cannot make you a quick thinker in an interview.</p>

88

<p>I find it very interesting why Harvard do not publish statistics on the number of private schoolers admitted in comparsion to state schools.
they said 'it is not relevant' or something pathetic like that. At least oxbridge are above board and say 50/50.</p>

<p>I get the feeling harvard probably have a very similar statistic.</p>

89

<p>Frankly, Blue, your views on the Oxford application system are incorrect.</p>

<p>When a more popular and prestigious college like Magdalen gets 60 applications, it looks through each and every one of them and allocates its ten places to the candidates it sees as most deserving. It then sends some applicants that it finds worthy into the common pool where they can be offered a place by less popular and prestigous colleges (like St. Peters). It does not, as you suggest, put a certain number of applicants into the common pool without even looking at them. </p>

<p>Not that this is at all relevant to the ratio that we are talking about. The ratio that we are looking at looks at the number of direct applicants to the college to the total number of offers made to THOSE direct applicants. Open pool applicants and internation applicants are meaningless in the ratio, as is clearly stated in the prospectus. The ratio basically tells you how likely you are to get into the school if you apply as a direct applicant, which in St Peters case is an Alabama State-esque 71% (How ironic).</p>

<p>Of course direct applicants have an advantage when applying to a college. Since they express interest in a college, they will be more likely to matriculate there and thus colleges will be more likely to offer a place to direct applicants. </p>

<p>Just because I have not yet gone through the college admissions process does not mean that I am ignorant about it. Also, I would not be so arrogant if I were you, as I am predicted to get far better grades than you... even without the luxury of a private education. I will stop getting personal when you do.</p>

90

<p>where did i say magdalen 'dont look at the them'? again you are making things up. Also having spoken to one of the admissions tutors while at oxford, i was told that St peters phoned other colleges and asked for more people (although not this year).</p>

<p>THE RATIO IN THE PROSPECTUS DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING!!!!!!
any adviser on an Oxbridge student forum will tell you that!</p>

<p>The figures fluctuate hugely every year. This year a lot of people looked at that statistic and applied to St Peters thus raising the number of applicants. Also the numbers are increasing every year.</p>

<p>face it mate i am goin to world class university, as yet, you aint goin nowhere!</p>

<p>How are you predicted far better grades? do you do A-levels? If not your APs (i downloaded the pathetic syllabus) are hardly a comparsion</p>

91

<p>Harvard '09 class profile</p>

<p><a href="http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/counselors/stats/index.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/counselors/stats/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>proportion from private schools: 34%.</p>

<p>Interesting how the OP began this thread as a query about the OP's chances of transferring into Harvard but seems to be turning it into a bash-Harvard one.</p>

92

<p>I didnt start this argument.</p>

<p>WES CALI did! look at page 1. knockin Oxbridge.</p>

<p>So i was not far off, 34% is still pretty much elitist.</p>

93

<p>hmmm. There is a difference between 50/50 (Oxford) and 66/34 (Harvard). </p>

<p>Why exactly do you want to transfer to Harvard?</p>

94

<p>I dont know really?</p>

<p>I am interested in modern and classical architecture, and art to a certain degree. So it would be nice studying these also.</p>

<p>however the paradox is that by studying at Oxford (worlds oldest english speaking university) you have access to a living history and evolution of 800-900 years of architecture with every western style in existence, but yet cannot study it academically! you are also only an 30 minute plane flght from Paris, and 90 minutes from Florence and Rome (flights now cost only about £30-50).</p>

<p>Oxford and Princeton do have a relationship, and do a lot of exchanges between fourth year students, i would also not have to pay anything for that year with Oxford giving me a $5000 bursary to go there! I am now thinking this is more sensible option.</p>

95

<p>Most American colleges do not teach architecture as an undergraduate major. Harvard has a major in the History of Art and Architecture, which may suit your needs.
It looks like staying at Oxford and attending Princeton for a year is your best option, especially in terms of finances. It is very difficult to transfer into Harvard (or Princeton or Yale) as very few slots are reserved for transfers. You would also have to contend with fulfilling both general education and concentration (major) requirements within a shorter time than American students.
If you are more interested in Harvard than Princeton, I think there may be some exchange program between Oxford and Harvard as well. There are certainly visiting students from different universities every year, engaged in their own study abroad program.</p>

96

<p>Whenever i am in Oxford i see a lot of Ivy league students (as said on other thread-they are wearing harvard-princeton sweaters and have american accents) so although i dont have a statistic over the number of IVY leaguer at Oxford i presume there are a-lot (including RHodes scholars?) and vice-versa.</p>

<p>At the moment on a gap year with a lot of free time. should i take the SAT1 now? would this give me the edge even 3 years down the line?</p>

97

<p>Americans studying in Oxford will fall into three basic categories: 1) those fully matriculated as Oxford undergraduates (including some Rhodes scholars); 2) those fully matriculated on Oxford graduate courses (again including some Rhodes); 3) visiting/exchanges/study abroad students who remain part of their US universities - the extent to which these are affiliated to an Oxford college varies. </p>

<p>There are lots in category 3), certainly much more than the number of Oxford exchange students in American universities. The reason for this is pretty obvious if you think about it. For a US university where a degree requires accumulation of credits, it is easy enough to accommodate a semester of study abroad into that system. Whereas for an Oxford undergrad it is much more difficult to account for 2-3 terms abroad when the degree is awarded overwhelmingly on performance at Finals at the end of the 3rd year. I assume this is why the Princeton scheme - which is pretty new, small, and maybe unique - is for 4th years, after they've taken their Finals.</p>

98

<p>yes i believe this is why it is done in the 4th year.</p>

99

<p>Bluefuture:</p>

<p>You certainly should take the SAT and 3 SAT-IIs. While you will likely find them easy, they are a component of the application if you should wish to transfer. The SAT can be tricky. It is not aligned with specific curricula and some questions are calculated to trip up students. It is wise to prepare for it. The same goes for the SAT-IIs but to a lesser extent.</p>

100

<p>'THE RATIO IN THE PROSPECTUS DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING!!!!!!
any adviser on an Oxbridge student forum will tell you that!
The figures fluctuate hugely every year. This year a lot of people looked at that statistic and applied to St Peters thus raising the number of applicants. Also the numbers are increasing every year.'</p>

<p>The Harvard website claims that being from North Dakota will not give you an advantage in the admissions system. This is false. Universities often say such things on the record to hide possible inadequecies with their systems. </p>

<p>Yes, I imagine that the figure does fluctuate somewhat year to year. However, the ratio is an average of 3 years ('02-04'), so it at least partially cancels out fluctuation. Harvard's admission is about 12% averaged over the last 3 years. The type of students that would deliberately apply to a less competitive program would be likely to be less competitive students, so the rigour of application would not increase greatly even with increased numbers of students. And even if the ratio does go down 'every year' (or, accounting for fluctuation, every three years on average), which I concede is likely true, it would still take quite a few years to get down to the selectivity levels of US schools.</p>

<p>'How are you predicted far better grades? do you do A-levels? If not your APs (i downloaded the pathetic syllabus) are hardly a comparsion'</p>

<p>As I have already told you, I do live in England and thus do A-Levels. I wouldn't be so quick to put down APs, though, as many competitive American students do 5 or 6 in your Lower 6th year, while still doing other subjects 'on the side'. </p>

<p>'face it mate i am goin to world class university, as yet, you aint goin nowhere!'</p>

<p>Congrats - you got into a program with a 71% admittance rate. Really. Good job. You sure do know how to stick it to a 16 year old. </p>

<p>Look, to be honest I am really getting tired of this. What started out as a quasi-interesting debate has now deteriorated into a petty squabble. I'll stop if you do. Good luck with Harvard, or with Oxford if you decide to stay on.</p>