<p>theGame, I don't know how much of a drawback that really is since in the US a lot of students simply get involved in ECs for the transcript, which defeats the purpose. In general, community service and leadership roles are not really done for the good of society, but rather as boosters in the frantic college race. I guess the English schools are trying to sort through all this and get to what's real about the student (their grades and their passion and knowledgeableness - if that's a word - as shown in the personal statement and interview). Either way, I'm sure LSE and Oxbridge are fantastic schools that provide plenty of ECs to do on campus (and in college, you can do them for the sake of society and not just for a resume). I think the culture that London and Oxford/Cambridge cities offer is a factor to consider in these apps, as well as the amazing tutorial system and the international prestige of those schools.
That's just my opinion, tho:)</p>
<p>Here's a radical thought: in the UK, you participate in ECs if you actually like them. I know, that's incredibly backward compared to the American version, but what can you do?</p>
<p>I wouldn't way thats backwards...its just constructive thinking!</p>
<p>Offer from LSE, to do environmental policy + economics.
BSc</a> Environmental Policy with Economics - Environment - Subjects and courses - Undergraduate Prospectus - Programmes and courses - LSE</p>
<p>Offer: 37 IB points. 6,6,6 at HL.</p>
<p>Stats:</p>
<p>Predicted 45 + 7 in IB</p>
<p>A<em>A</em>A<em>A</em>AA at IGCSE
A at AS</p>
<p>2300 SAT1, 2400 SAT2, although not sent.</p>
<p>did LSE answer yet? I didn't receive anything</p>
<p>I haven't received a response yet from LSE too andreeab so don't worry. In any case, you guys already know what I'll do if I get one :) </p>
<p>Coming back to ECs. Even if someone is engineering his/her application to LACs by participating in a few "high profile" or "right" ECs, it still serves him/her better than participating in nothing at all (as is usually the case with applicants to UK unis). I have a lot of experience in aiding my fellow mates apply to the UK (even seniors) and I have gained one significant insight. If you're a nerd, you'll get in Oxford. However, you won't have anywhere near a good shot at Middlebury. And Middlebury is not even a university.</p>
<p>I value American education because Americans know education is not merely that of the mind. It is also of the body.</p>
<p>Hey theGame, for what course did you apply?</p>
<p>Yes, well, if I wanted to receive an education "of the body," I could easily run around in circles all day. However, when I applied to college, I was aiming for an education of the mind -- something that Oxford provides far better than any American university. Personally, I'm not one to miss all the athletic (or otherwise EC-rich) dolts that populate many American schools, and I've seen plenty.</p>
<p>andreeab: I applied for BSc Economics and BSc Economics with Economic History. Don't laugh your pants, for I am really interested in either of these :)</p>
<p>begoner: You said exactly what I expected you to say. People who have never participated in ECs tend to have a over-glamorous view of the academic environment of any British university. Nerds at Oxford like to elbow aside their Ivy league "EC-rich" fellows by saying the same things.</p>
<p>You can't just say one system is better than the other based on their admission criteria. The top UK and US universities rival each other and the only reason I would choose one over the other is the fact that US top unis provide financial aid. UK doesn't.</p>
<p>There is no other basis for comparison other than entry requirements - be it of firms, universities or other industries. Let me ask you two simple Qs. Why is PwC the best accounting firm in the world? Partly becasue of its rigorous hiring process. It has an extensive hiring method spanning 6 weeks which comprises of interviews, group discussions and even written assessments. That's how it gets the best human capital to produce the best product. Similarly, why is Harvard the best university of the world? It admission criteria is so broad-based. 3 SATs, 1 SAT, good HS GPA etc won't do. There has to be a collective wholeness to a student to make it to Harvard. Through such a process, Harvard manages to egt the best talent and uses that talent to propel it ahead of all other universities. Education systems can too be judged on their admission criteria.</p>
<p>The UK education system sees ability to pay as an admission criteria. And does not recognize ECs. How can it be better than the internationals-and-locals-pay-the-same-rate and "EC rich" American education system? Never.</p>
<p>Does PwC choose employees based on their ability to ride a unicycle? Or on the basis of their football prowess? Do they care how fluently an applicant speaks Spanish? I shouldn't think so -- rather, they select people who conform to their requirements (namely, having the capacity to be a good accountant). Similarly, Oxbridge selects people due to their academic talent. On the other hand, Harvard selects people based on a compendium of factors, including whether or not their parents attended Harvard (a process that would be seen as unbelievably corrupt in the UK) and how accomplished they are at underwater basket weaving (something that would be seen as utterly irrelevant in the UK).</p>
<p>But you do have to realise that many people who get in to good American schools on the strength of a particular EC, or because of some tremendous talent, would not make the cut academically at Oxbridge. I'm not saying that means American schools are inferior, but that they focus on different things. How much value you, the student, place on each of those things affects which type of university you see as the "better" one.</p>
<p>And I don't think it's fair to assume the "nerds" at Oxbridge are all EC-less floating brains - think Boat Race. Also, the British public school tradition maintains a strong emphasis on sports. I can't speak for other countries, but for Singapore, if you need to land a scholarship to go to Oxbridge or one of the UoL schools, the scholarship boards also put a lot of emphasis on ECs, community involvement and volunteering. So at least for Singaporean students looking to apply overseas, you don't see an EC/no-EC divide.</p>
<p>As an international, can I also point out that financial aid policies in the US do not often favour internationals.</p>
<p>I'm not knocking the US schools - I'm only applying to US schools and not UK ones, and the US schools are definitely a better fit for me. Of course you're entitled to your own opinion, but I don't think it's necessary to dismiss another system because it values different aspects of a potential student.</p>
<p>"underwater basket weaving"</p>
<p>LOL, MIT online application? :D</p>
<p>and "As an international, can I also point out that financial aid policies in the US do not often favour internationals."</p>
<p>UK unis don't even have finaid for internationals!</p>
<p>IMO, the American education system is the best in the world - way better than that of the UK. Why? ECs.</p>
<p>Begoner: You seem to miss my point. My point is that a broad-based criteria invariably enriches the institute. PwC and Harvard are two cases in point. There are many more; they may even be exceptions. I believe the more holistic the process of evaluating a student, the better the institute becasue the entry standards are reflective of the quality of the institute. Witness the success of LACs in America.</p>
<p>phantompong: Thanks for a level-headed assessment of my comments. I am just saying that people who take ECs and get 3.2 GPA are better than those who don't participate in ECs and get a 4.0 GPA. So the universities prepared to take up the former bunch should be better than those who value the latter bunch. Or maybe not. An important thing to note: People who take ECs usually outperform people who don't - at least that has been my observation so far. So ECs maketh a better student.</p>
<p>Flibb: You are absolutely right. But..some uk unis (e.g. Loughborough, Nottingham) do give finaid but it very limited in amount (2k, 6k). Then there are others like LSE (LSE Support Scheme meets full need).</p>
<p>American unis do give aid but most are need sensitive so the more aid you want the less likely you are to get in. Unfair - like many things in life.</p>
<p>If an institute is dedicated to one particular purpose, it would most be "enriched" by selecting individuals who are the most adept at furthering that purpose. For example, if I were the manager of a professional basketball team, I wouldn't be concerned about academic aptitude, race, football ability, etc. Instead, I would focus upon recruiting the best basketball players possible; this strategy would optimize the quality of my team as concerns basketball. </p>
<p>Now, there are valid arguments to be made for incorporating ECs into the admissions process; however, these are unrelated to the academic characteristics of a university. I believe that a university primarily serves to educate its students and that anything else is extraneous or incidental. Others believe that universities should only be partly about academics and partly about sports, diversity, a well-rounded student body, an active social scene, etc. I'm not saying that one view is more "correct" than the other, since the objectives obviously differ; rather, I am saying that I prefer the former over the latter as it yields better academic results.</p>
<p>I think that many (maybe even most) high school students participate in ECs simply to boost their transcript, which defeats the purpose. It only proves that they are more "nerdy" and solely concerned with college as their future. I don't think we can define "nerdy" as someone who doesn't do ECs at all either.
I think the admissions criteria are not a way to judge the university - I understand Oxbridge is a fantastic place where you can get a great international education and enjoy the tutorial system (which seems very personalized and productive). I haven't heard as much about LSE, so I can't say...
Either way, let's not turn this thread too much into a comparative debate about English and American schools and scare away the posters with quantitative results :)
Please keep posting your decisions as they come...</p>
<p>member2008: Nerd has a different meaning for everyone. In this argument, it stands for "EC-less students". Yeah you're right, this thread's title can't be changed to "UK Vs USA education system" and the discussion is pretty much useless in any case. No Nobel prizes up for grabs. So lets stick to the decisions. Agreed.</p>
<p>Wait a minute.</p>
<p>Begoner: Harvard produces better academic results than Oxford so how can you say that ECs don't help the academic experience? I feel ECs are a vital learning tool and they complement academics.</p>
<p>I got an offer for Government @ LSE over a month ago. Just received their offer pack a few days back :D</p>
<p>Anyway, there's no point arguing about the quality of education between the US and the UK really. They're just different, so it's a matter of personal preference. If you applied to UK universities, you'll realize that the process is much more systematic, some would say rigid. For instance, you only have ONE reference letter, 4000 characters only (about 600 words), from one single referee in your school who's also submitting it via an electronic system for every other applicant from your HS. Your personal essay must be strictly 4000 characters or 47 lines, whichever is shorter, and must be academic. It must explain why and how you are interested in your intended major (yes you have to pick one and be committed to it prior to applying). ECAs can be mentioned but must be limited to those relevant to your major, and personal fluffs are an absolute no-no, no matter how creative or brilliant you think they are. The bottom line is, the adcom don't give a crap. Another thing, if your predicted A level grades don't make their lowest offer for your course, you need not apply. Which is like saying that anyone who scores below 2120 for SAT I need not apply to Harvard because there's no chance in hell you're getting an offer, albeit a conditional one which can be revoked ultra swiftly should your actual grades not make the cut.</p>
<p>Competition for certain courses at certain universities in the UK might appear even fiercer than for top universities in the US. Take Government (Political Science) @ LSE for instance, there are 30 places but over 600 applicants, making the admittance rate about 5%. Harvard's is >7%. I reckon this is because there are not that many 17, 18 year olds THAT passionate about and committed to PolSci, or any other field for that matter. One month after submitting my application I thought about changing my major to Econs + Government instead :D</p>
<p>So that's it, grades, predicted grades, 1 essay and 1 reference letter completes your application package to a maximum number of 5 UK universities. </p>
<p>You CAN throw ECs into your essay and reference, but like I said you must only include those that somehow boost your level of passion towards the subject (like an internship with a certain member of parliament for me) and you have to write HOW that influences your love for the subject. It's all very focused. I did mention my other ECs (just listed them out in my teacher's reference letter which I drafted) just to show that i'm not all bookworm but i doubt it mattered a whole lot. Seriously they're only interested to know how committed you are to the major, not how well you run or play tennis or sing. And it's not like everything you do in high school is very high-level. Mostly, its just for fun. Those that aren't would very likely be linked to what you intend to do in the future (think journalism and school newspaper). I think that's the rationale behind the whole UK application. This is a good thing in the sense that you get a class full of people who really love and know a lot of things about the subject, so you'll have meaningful major-related debates which US college students only start to have after they declare their majors in their second year. UK is all about the sole academic focus and US champions the holistic education, one might say. And lets face it college degrees mean nothing much in the states. If you want to make it big you either drop out of college or go all the way til PhD, JD or MD. You can pursue law school whatever your college major. In the UK it's not the same. That's why the duration of undergrad+master study in the UK is much shorter (4 years) because they expect you to know and learn a lot more.</p>
<p>Oh one last thing, the A level system is MUCH harder and more demanding than the US education system (thus A level grades A & B are taken as equivalent to an AP score of 5 if i'm not wrong), so students under this system are very unlikely to undertake a whole bunch of ECAs like their American counterparts. Our exam papers are 6 hours each (!), and we have about 3 exam periods a year for a grand total of 8 to 10 subjects. If you want to get like three As (which is the minimum requirement for most top schools like Oxbridge or LSE), be prepared to study until you want to hang yourself and die. It's very intensive even for a slacker like me. In Singapore, most students only do one, at most two ECAs plus some community service during the holidays. It's not like we don't do anything beside studying, but what we do might not amount to intimidatingly long lists that are so rampant on CC.</p>
<p>Anyway, my college acceptances so far include 4 UK universities and Yale, so i'm looking forward to the post-apply season analysis :D</p>