<p>Hi, just trying to get some adult perspectives. Say, for example, you're at dinner with a large group of people and you overhear two other individuals across the table discussing where their children go to school. One says a HYP school, the other says Oxford. Which are you most impressed by?</p>
<p>I've asked several people in person and they all seemed to be equally enamoured of the two, but for different reasons. HYP seems to be impressive because it's where you go if you're brilliant. Oxford seems to be impressive because it's (presumed to be) where you go if you're a British peer or part of a rich American family who wants their kid to travel Europe. Basically, HYP appears to be consequential in the way meeting Einstein would be, whereas Oxford seems to be consequential in the way meeting Liz Taylor would be. Am I correct in this assumption? Is this how most Americans would view the two? Any parents from Europe, by chance, that could comment on if this role is reversed across the pond?</p>
<p>No, the assumptions aren’t correct. If there is a difference, it’s that the Oxford grads have a deeper understanding of their particular field (because they usually study just one subject), while the American schools teach an awareness of the major field in connection with other subjects.</p>
<p>It depends on where you live. In my midwestern town the only Ivies that would impress someone would be HPY (the others mean NOTHING) As for Oxford…well, 99% of the folks around here have never heard of it. </p>
<p>My personal opinion is that I would view them equally. However, I might be more in awe of an Oxford degree in that someone would take the initiative to apply.</p>
<p>I have some sense of how difficult it is for American students to get accepted at Oxbridge out of high school, and what type of kid is successful. On that basis, like the other adults here, I view it as almost exactly equivalent to HYP.</p>
<p>Now, good American college + Oxbridge MA = very, very nice, especially if it came with brand-name financing.</p>
<p>Agree with SmithieandProud and JHS that prestige should not be an issue.<br>
However, your image of Oxford is many years out of date–it’s at least pre WWII.
Good luck to the rich American family who wants their kid to go to Europe in having the kid get into Oxford. And good luck to the student, in graduating with anything better than a third-class degree.
Oxford admits on academics. EC’s do not impress them.</p>
<p>I’m with “Smithie” and I doubt my response would be that one or the other was “more impressive” necessarily. I’d be more “curious” about the Oxford just because I’d be curious about the logistics and the decision to attend a non-US university for more than a semester or year assuming the student being discussed was an undergrad. I’m always curious how a friend’s son is doing who is at McGill for the same reasons and that is just Canada probably closer than California to us. What are the differences, how are the logistics…those sorts of things.</p>
<p>It’s a very high-school or young-college mentality to assume that the reaction would be to assess which one “impresses” me more. An adult would presumably be pleased for each young person for choosing a school that meets his or her needs and interests. I’d say “Good for you!” to both students. The Oxford one would strike me as a student who is a bit more of an out-of-the-box thinker. But an adult would be focused on wishing both students well in their endeavors, not “being impressed.”</p>
<p>They are equally prestigious to a world audience, but it isn’t a good way to choose a college. And, as an aside, I think only Americans put Oxford above Cambridge.</p>
<p>If you had posed the question somewhat differently - “You’re looking at two resumes - one from an Ivy grad, one from an Oxbridge grad - which impresses you more?” - the comparison would seem more significant. In the situation you pose, even if the Oxford (or Harvard) degree impressed me more, what difference would it make, to me or to the folks having the conversation?</p>
<p>Even so - the college is one line on the resume. I’d be looking at other things on the resume - grade point, honors, coursework, and potentially job experience / internships that related to the job at hand. Even other qualifications – such as being able to speak a language fluently if our office is in need of or could use a speaker in a given language. Anyway, if there were two intriguing resumes, then I’d do two interviews and go from there.</p>
<p>Thanks for the replies. I’m not necessarily looking for validation, but rather am just curious about what the perceptive differences are between the different schools. It appears that there aren’t that many, so it looks like my question in that regard is settled.</p>
<p>However, another poster raised the point of comparing the two on resumes. Could some posters elaborate on the how they would be viewed in that setting?</p>
<p>Edit: Also, JHS, would you consider an Oxford BA + a HYP MA to be just as enticing as the reverse, or is the prestigious funding the kicker?</p>
<p>Prestigious funding is the kicker. Also, there aren’t many terminal MA programs at HYP and they aren’t necessarily impressive, so there would be a negative aspect to that.</p>
<p>Just as I said above. Contrary to the opinions of many college students on CC, employers are NOT parsing out the differences between schools nor do they care about USNWR rankings. In the case of larger companies who do college recruiting on campus, they may select X number of schools but then within the resumes that emerge from those schools, they are all treated as equal. The reasons for selecting those schools are not necessarily “We want USNWR #1, #2, #3, and #4.” They may be because the college is located in an area where the company is or where their graduates tend to want to relocate to the company’s place of business. They may be because the HR people or various Powers That Be within the company have relationships with those schools. They may be because it’s easier to get alum of a certain school back to those campuses for recruiting. They may be because the college offers a special program / major related to their field. Often you might find some elite schools and then some not-as-elite-but-well-regarded state flagships. </p>
<p>But it is not because employers are dispassionately looking for The Very Best Schools or making a statement that they believe students not at those schools Just Don’t Have What It Takes. They just need some way of sorting through many schools to find a manageable number (say, 6 - 8) to recruit at. And “we’ve always gone there” or “their grads seem to do well” or “people from that area are willing to come work in our city” are as good of reasons as any.</p>
<p>Re: Oxford or Cambridge on a resume – yes, those would stand out as “hmmm, that’s interesting.” Not necessarily because of a dispassioned, reasoned assessment of how smart Oxbridge grads are, or what it took to got in, but that it stands out from the norm. But, the same could be said of a particularly unusual or relevant internship.</p>
<p>^^Absolutely correct. If you saw the list of colleges where my company recruits (Fortune 50) there would be much head scratching as it appears absolutely random. A couple years ago they dropped one school from the recruiting list because the recruiters absolutely hated traveling to that town and it was considered a hardship trip. Frankly if a resume came in from a student at Oxford our recruiters would assume the parents were expats, not that the student “decided” to travel overseas for the degree.</p>