My chances as a transfer student from Oxford?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvard University
101

<p>to Madd Stressed: Sorry, but bluefuture is right about the applicant shuffle thing. Someone I know applied to Balliol for PPE this year, but cos they had too many applicants, he got interviewed at Mansfield instead, as they had fewer applicants (and got in). This is quite a common occurrence in the more popular colleges. And teh actaul figures at interview are very different from the prospectus. At the college I applied to for maths this year( Wadham), the prospectus says something like 2.5 applicants per place, but when I got there there were 40 applicants for 8 places staying at Wadham, and then the next day another 40 applicants from other colleges came for interviews at Wadham. This has little bearing on the argument, just that bluefuture's odds of getting in were a lot less than 71%, and that the prospectus information is misleading.</p>

<p>To Bluefuture, I'd go for the 4th year exchange thing, Oxford undergraduate with 1:2 tutorials from world leaders in my opinion beats being taught by Grad students anyday. And if you want to study 'other subjects, theres nothing stopping you walking into other subjects' lectures in Oxford, or reading up on the subject in some of the best equipped libraries in the World.</p>

<p>Also I was just wondering, has anyone on here heard of Sarah Lawrence college in New York, is it any good? Wadham offer a small exchange there, and was wondering if it was worth going for.</p>

<p>Oh, and without wanting to start another flame war about the whole positive discrimination thing, I think there is certainly an element of it in Oxford, as in my interview the tutor specifically picked up on the fact that I'd got 14% of the A*s in my school, and came from a fairly crappy comprehensive surrounded by council flats in the country's official worst LEA (though the interviewer is a governor of Eton as it happens -for the Americans, Eton is the country's poshest private school). But I think theositive discrimination comes more from the school you come from rather than your socioeconomic background (which are often related I agree) or your race (which from what I gather is nowhere near as related as in America, though I may be wrong, Im basing this stuff on the New Orleans disaster), and I think this is maybe a better way of doing it.</p>

<p>BTW I'm not saying the british University/Educational system is better than the American one, I personally prefer the depth but I can see why a lot of people would prefer the breadth.</p>

102

<p>Dom, what you are saying fits in perfectly with what I was saying. The ratio in place does not take into account these pool applicants and thus is skewed (as your friend must have been dismayed to find out) when applied to pool applicants. </p>

<p>Never heard of Sarah Lawrence, sorry. Just from the name I'm guessing it is a cool lib arts college and sounds like fun.</p>

103

<p>Right, sorry, it jsut seemed as though you were suggesting bluefuture had an easy ride, which I assure you he/she probably didnt. Sorry for confusion</p>

104

<p>Sorry if this seems a bit off topic, but what exactly is the difference between a BA from for instance Harvard obtained after 4 years and one from Cambridge (after 3 years)?</p>

<p>Are they identical or is there a difference in the respect that the Cambridge tripos course is far more subject focused??
And what effect would a possible difference have on the admission to graduate programmes?</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

105

<p>Now to respond to you, Ace. I'll try to keep this one bit more classy eh ;) </p>

<p>" 'Not true, anyone can apply...' 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>Yes, it is technically the same thing, I agree. However, I originally posted that in response to a post stating that not everyone can technically apply to Oxbridge, while anyone can apply to Harvard, which the poster suggested led to Harvard's higher selectivity. All I was saying here is that technically anyone (even straight D students) can apply to Oxbridge and anyone can apply to Ivy Schools, so roughly the same amount of uncompetitive applicants would apply to each school (probably less to Harvard because of its application fee). Of course I realise that in the vast majority of cases, only top applicants apply to these schools and I'm sorry if I made this unclear with my ramblings :) .</p>

<p>' "The more important point ... " 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>Again this post was meant to put Oxbridge in comparison with comparable American universities, and in that sense I stand firmly behind my comments. Although Oxbridge is getting better with its admissions and independent - maintained ratio, it is still far behind the comparable US institutions. A college in Oxbridge does (normally, and it's getting better) give preference to a lower-income candidate over a higher-income candidate with identical qualifications (rightly so), but the truth is that higher class candidates often know these 'rules of the game' and can manipulate the intricacies of Oxbridge admissions to gain admittance (e.g. In the classics program). This leads to such scenarios with identical students being directly compared being much rarer than they should be. With American institutions, it is much harder to manipulate the system, reducing the advantage for higher-income applicants. Afirmative action is also far, far more prevalent in American universities. Whereas in Harvard admissions there would be no doubt about which of these two hypothetical applicants would get in, there might still be some in Oxbridge. Percentagewise, Harvard accepts 32% more state-funded school applicants than Oxford, and since it is more difficult to get into Harvard from a private school than Oxbridge, this number should realistically be even higher to reflect Oxbridge's true preference towards private schools. Again, Oxbridge is improving in this area but it still has a long way to go to catch up with top American institutions. You are deluding yourself to think that Laura Spence got rejected based on a lack of brains or tenacity. To get the grades she did from the background she came from shows a considerable amount of both. The truth of the matter is that many less qualified applicants who showed less brains and toughness (from higher-class backgrounds, oddly enough) got accepted while she did not. I find your 'Oxbridge [applicants] are judged on academic results and talent, not on their class or background' comment to be very hypocritical. If applicants are judged on their talent, that is their raw intellect, then surely the admissions process must take into account their background, as a student who was able to get 3 Bs from a background with much less educational opportunity would have more academic talent than a student who was educated at Eaton, provided with every educational opportunity and still only managed to get 1 A and 2 Bs. It is a catchy slogan, I agree :) , but your golden philosophy is fundamentally self-contradictory. </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>Fair enough, this one wasn't really meant to be taken super-seriously. I don't know, it raises an interesting question about how you can quantify (or accurately measure in another way) intelligence (I think IQ tests are a load of crap). Maybe you could tackle this one at Oxford. I came up with this approach the other day... look at each country's television. It seems pretty good because it reflects what a country wants to watch (except in some places government regulates television more than others... ergh!). I guess it would still be very hard to quantify, but it does give a good overall crude impression. I dunno... It's completely off topic I guess - but I'm pretty interested in the topic. Post back if you have any thoughts on the matter.</p>

106

<p>Madd Stressed, with all respect I think you are completely wrong about Oxford favoring rich people. Laura Spence was rejected, as were many others with similar grades from many backgrounds, because she simply was not good enough. Every year this happens to thousands, because places are competitive, and being good on paper does not necessarily equate to being good enough. It is precisely for this reason that the interview system exists, to prevent unsuitable candidates who stand out on paper from getting place of a more deserving candidate. From my not so great comprehensive school, my friend who is predicted 6As was rejected, but even he doesnt believe it has anything to do with prejudice, the fact is he simply wasnt the best there (the Eton boy who also applied to his college for his subject was also rejected btw, and I know that at least one of teh 2 places when to a state schooler). Whether the better candidate was privately schooled or state schooled doesnt affect things ( I also know a few well off people from top local private schools who were rejeceted with predictions of 5As if that helps).</p>

<p>EDIT: woops, reread your post, realise you were saying they favour state over private, its jsut easier for private. Ignore first paragraph</p>

<p>As for taking a candidates background into account, it is utterly irrelevent, as Oxbridge do not guage someone's potential and brains on the paper application alone. The questions asked at interviews are of a level which is accessible to all candidates regardless of background or coaching (the actual maths required for my interviews only once went beyond GCSE), but they are questions which guage directly a candidate's ability to think through a problem. For example I was given the question: if I had an equilateral triangle of sidelength 1 and place 5 points at random within it, prove that there will be two points which are at most 0.5 apart. Would you care to explain to me how a privately schooled candidate has any advantage over a comper in a question such as that? They are specially designed to remove the differences in education, and to look at your thought processes. I agree that if a lot of weight was put on grades then background should be considered, but grades only get you an interview. Also I can assure you a boy who got AAB from Eton would certainly have their application looked at suspiciously.</p>

107

<p>No maddstressed you are wrong. harvard accept 66% state school students. </p>

<p>Oxford accept 50% (look on page 5 of this thread it has a link to this statistic) therefore it is 16% not 32% as you say. dude can you count!</p>

108

<p>Wes cali:</p>

<p>
[quote]
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

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What are you trying to say? That people who can't afford the application fee, shouldn't be going there in the first place? That poor people shouldn't be applying to Harvard. Let me tell you, my parents make around 30,000 a year and they sent 2 children to harvard and 1 to yale. Income has NOTHING to do with whether or not one should applying to these colleges you ***hole.</p>

109

<p>Many applicants request and receive a filing fee waiver.</p>

110

<p>Well that's obvious, how else could my parent's have afforded it. But Wes_cali is implying that they shouldn't even be applying there.</p>

111

<p>Hmm...why can't you just say you're predicted to score tops in every test?</p>

112

<p>Venus calm down, you are misinterpreting Wes Cali's quote. When he posted we were discussing uncompetetive students applying to Harvard on the tiny, tiny chance that they would get in. All he was saying is that that application fee would make people less likely to apply as a joke. He was not referring to lower income applicants as being jokes at all, and I think everyone on this site (besides Blue, perhaps) can recognise that lower-income applicants are among the most competitive in the application pool. </p>

<p>Dom,
'As for taking a candidates background into account, it is utterly irrelevent, as Oxbridge do not guage someone's potential and brains on the paper application alone. The questions asked at interviews are of a level which is accessible to all candidates regardless of background or coaching (the actual maths required for my interviews only once went beyond GCSE), but they are questions which guage directly a candidate's ability to think through a problem ... [etc.] ' </p>

<p>You are right about the interview gauging these things well, but you are forgetting that in order to be realistically asked to interview, the student must be predicted to acheive virtually all As, which are far easier to get with a private education, so state school groups lose out from even before the interview stage as they are less likely to acheive the prerequisite grades.</p>

<p>Bluestar,
If 50 out of 100 students from Oxford are from state schools, and 66 out of 100 students from Harvard are from state schools (that is all that percentages mean, afterall) then there are 16 more state school students at Harvard than Oxford as
66 - 50 = 16.
16 is 32% of 50. I am looking at the difference in terms of the percentage of the total amount of Oxford students, as that is more relevant in this case than basic percentages.</p>

<p>I appologise if I didn't phrase this clearly in my original post, but yes, I can count. 1...2...3...71...</p>

113

<p>Guitarman: I don't know about in America, but in England predicted grades form part of the school reference, so you can't just make up them up yourself, and the school reference gets sent straight to the universtities from them, so no chance to change it or anything like that. Of course, you could get them to lie for you, but thats not really very likely to happen.</p>

114

<p>Mad Stressed: That's a fair point about it being easier to acheive A grades at private schools, and certainly brings about problems with fairness in admissions at some universities. However, from my experience it is my belief that anyone of Oxbridge caliber will be capable of obtaining AAB/AAA regardless of their schooling (acheiving these results is not as difficult as some seem to make out when comparing UK/American education systems. All it takes is a little memory and maybe some work). I think the only real difference it makes is that more people from private schools who are not of natural Oxbridge caliber acheive these grades, but these people (hopefully) tend to get weeded out by the interview process. I would say therefore that the high grades being asked for do not disadvantage suitable state school candidates, but just mean that more people from private schools who possibly wouldn't cope at oxbridge have a chance of applying.</p>

115

<p>Dom, Sarah Lawrence is quite famous and it is mentioned in movies and programs. It seems to be seen as being a haven for WASP girls.</p>

<p>have you seen American Psycho? For some reason i think the guys there have somewhat of a feminine side to them.</p>

<p>Dont know if these strories are true though.</p>

116

<p>Generally speaking, movies are not your best source for information on a college :)</p>

117

<p>How true! Have you heard of a programme called Inspector Morse?</p>

<p>It is about a police detective in Oxford (a former student) who nearly every episode solves a murder involving an Oxford don, tutor or student! If true Oxford would have the highest murder rate of any town in the world!</p>

<p>However this programme inspired my love for Oxford, it romanticises it hugely, and makes the ocassional stab at Cambridge!</p>

<p>life imitating art imitating life!</p>

118

<p>I <em>sort</em> of agree with wes<em>cali. Except that I believe the converse of wes</em>cali's assertion: it's hard to get into Oxford, sure. But is the education at Oxford all that great? To me, an Oxford education is becoming less and less relevant today. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's the best.</p>

119

<p>"I <em>sort</em> of agree with wes<em>cali. Except that I believe the converse of wes</em>cali's assertion: it's hard to get into Oxford, sure. But is the education at Oxford all that great? To me, an Oxford education is becoming less and less relevant today. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's the best."</p>

<p>Haha. Fool.</p>

120

<p>
[quote]
Posted by masamune:
But is the education at Oxford all that great? To me, an Oxford education is becoming less and less relevant today. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's the best.

[/quote]

Would you care to unpack that comment for us? I.e. what you mean by "becoming less and less relevant", and justifying why you think it, including what sources have led you to that opinion? Then we will be in a position to judge whether The Ace is Back is right to call you a fool.</p>