<p>Hey guys,which is the superior varsity between oxford and Stanford.Note,academic merit should be considered important when submitting your opinion,but not too important.What I really want to know,is which university is apt to mold you into a multi-gifted,all round individual who is open to life and well versed in enjoying it.</p>
<p>If you’re looking for well-roundedness, definitely go with an American university (in this case Stanford). At Oxford or any other European university you basically choose one subject and that’s all you study in college, while at US colleges you are allowed (or more like are expected) to take courses in multiple subjects.</p>
<p>“What I really want to know,is which university is apt to mold you into a multi-gifted,all round individual who is open to life and well versed in enjoying it.”</p>
<p>I’ve got news for you pal: no university will do this for you. If you don’t have it by now, you won’t find it at some institution.</p>
<p>Thank you guys for your posts.Hattricky,I think you do have a point,but in order to have the right combination of qualities,you have to learn and refine them at some point right?What better place is there to refine them than in a high profile institution?Please do reply Hattricky when you see this.</p>
<p>As things stand today, I think the English universities are excellent in producing traditional scholars, while the American ones are better at producing leaders, businessmen, etc… Just a generalization, though, as obviously Hawking would still be Hawking had he gone to an American school instead, for example.</p>
<p>No university will make you ‘multi-gifted’. American schools are generally more flexible and provide a wider education. They offer scientists the option of learning to appreciate great books, and poets the option of understanding the basics of science. Of course, this can also be side-stepped. Even great schools have less than great courses that let students sneak through requirements without a great deal of deep thought. English universities let those who know what they want plunge in more deeply, more quickly. Both can produce greatness and depth.</p>
<p>No university will make you ‘multi-gifted’.</p>
<p>I differ. Some educational systems can make you multigifted and show you the possibilities of merging two different fields. For example, the fact that science students are made to take humanities classes in the US, would make them better writers as a whole and able to express scientific material in a more articulate way</p>
<p>I’m not saying that American universities will TURN you multi-gifted. American schools LOOK for multi-gifted people and subject them to a liberal arts education, so naturally they produce such graduates. British schools look for the academically-inclined, and then make they study the same thing for 3 years, so naturally they produce narrower scholars.</p>
<p>All in all,some of the best students in uni history in the extracurriculars were not handpicked as a result of their prowess in them in the first place.They kind of stumbled into them,then realised they had potential in them.Anybody who differs should consider this:
Philadelphia 76ers former star player Dikembe Mutombo was given a scholarship to do medicine,but he opted for basketball after he was already admitted.I then believe that even though the chance are that universities will look for the multigifteds,sometimes they go traditional and craft them instead from seemingly nondescript individuals.</p>
<p>American universities provide you with a more appropriate environment to become creative thinkers and leaders.
A lot of undergrads at Oxbridge have Stanford GSB and Stanford Law as their top choices for grad school, while almost no undergrads at Stanford has a llm or mba from Oxford as his or her top choice or top 10 choices (PhDs at Oxford aren’t their first choice either since programs at Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, and UChicago usually come out on top).</p>
<p>They are both great universities and they both provide great education and superb undergraduate experience. </p>
<p>I personally prefer Oxford to Stanford. The collegiate system is unique to Oxbridge (Oxford and Cambridge), the Oxbridge tutorial system is enriching to one’s individual learning and growth, and Oxford (as well as Cambridge) as – a university town – is enchanting. Whilst at Oxford, you will live in a palace, and will have classmates and life-long friends from all over the world; many of them are sons and daughters of wealthy tycoons, European and Asian royalties, middle-eastern oil magnates, American millionaires/billionaires, as well as, sons and daughters of ordinary citizens with superb academic credentials.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t buy this. There are a lot of American students at Oxbridge totalling to more than 4 thousand and many of them are from America’s top schools like Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, MIT, Berkeley, Caltech, Ivies, Duke, Michigan, UVa, Williams, Amherst, etc. Oxbridge are not short of top students from top American schools. In fact, many top grads from top American schools are rejected at Oxbridge. As for MBA, the American schools are better options. Only LBS is as competitive as the top 8 US business schools.</p>
<p>I agree with RML.I think oxfords tutorial system is way more superb in comparison to Stanford’s.It makes all the difference in the world.</p>
<p>RML-I think I know my school better than you do. None of the top students in my year (top 10%) went to Oxford (very few in previous years went for Rhodes, which is something that’s very different from just going to Oxford). Most of the top students (in almost all fields) ended up at top PE firms, hedge funds, investment banks, consulting firms, top medical schools, and top law schools, with a minority going into PhD programs at schools like Harvard, Stanford, and Princeton (I know all this from Phi Beta Kappa). Of the students I know who ended up going to Oxford for grad schools were no where near the top, their GPA’s ranged from 3.4 to 3.83. I clearly remember discussing with friends about why Oxford’s admissions standards were so low for Americans compared to other top schools in our seniori year. LSE’s admssions standards were even lower, so low that it was hard to believe that it was a good school.</p>
<p>Learning facts isn’t important. What’s important in college is being expose to an environment that stimulates you to reason better and innovate more. Maybe that’s why Stanford is one of the universities that contributed the most to the IT revolution. What has Oxford done lately, meaning after creating and maintaining the British empire (an achievement that may be glorious or morally wrong depending on how you look at it), other than making the news now and then for needing more funding.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You will find that a lot at top universities and ivies in the US too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Money. I have witnessed similarly. I had a lot of friends head over for their masters with a 3.3. Not shabby but a 3.3 requires a significant effort towards being lazy. They are topping it up with likely graduating with distinctions. LSE is still a good school though and I think this agrees with my general philosophy that at a certain point most schools are not really that intense for anyone. The average 1400 scorer can do quite well at Harvard with no sweat. Its not just Oxford or LSE, but other schools like UCL, Warwick, Durham, Edinburgh, e.t.c. They generally just accept people with a 3.3. I am surprised that these students can survive a masters program since a 3.3 is not that great. However, to be fair, I have seen people with similar grades get into Columbia, e.t.c too usually for a terminal masters though</p>
<p>Also LSE is prestige conscious for their graduate programs. They are quite knowledgeable about the top US universities and LACs so might automatically assume that a student with a 3.3 from this school is a good student. Usually LSE would not admit anyone with less than a 3.8 if its a run of the mill school. So yes, ivy leaguers would be admitted with low stats even though a 3.3 at an ivy is easy to get.</p>
<p>IvyPBear, I think you have confused Oxford with a 2nd-tier UK uni. Oxford is quite selective be it for undergrad, grad or postgrad. A 3.4GPA from Dartmouth, for instance, would hardly cut it. The minimum GPA requirement for any grad/postgrad entry at Oxford - any program at any college - is 3.5. Again, that is just the minimum requirement and I have seen several applicants with 3.8GPA from a top US school being rejected. The vast majority, if not all, of Oxbridge postgrad students were at least cum laude or upper second-class honors. I have seen summa cum laude grads being turned down. </p>
<p>And, IvyPBear, there are over 100 top colleges and universities in the US, so by saying that only quite a few from your school have applied to Oxford makes it a less popular or less selective uni is irrelevant. Maybe there are quite a few from your school at Oxford indeed, but you do not have data from all the other 100 or so top schools in the US to be able to fully justify your claim.</p>
<p>
Yes; but quite less so, as most US schools are generous with aid so students coming from middle-class families are absorbed, something that I could not say for Oxbridge as a generality. Most foreign students at Oxbridge aren’t dependent on aid and are there paying the full fees, something that their parents can easily afford. And, living in Oxford or Cambridge is quite expensive, maybe even more expensive than living in Palo Alto. At least, that is true for Cambridge as I have lived both in Cambridge and Palo Alto as a student.</p>
<p>sefago, LSE isn’t Oxford and they’re not interchangeable. LSE is more lenient than Oxford when it comes to admissions. Oxford and Cambridge are in a league above any UK uni, and there is a considerable gap that separates Oxbridge and LSE – the same wide gap that separates HYP and Dartmouth/Brown. </p>
<p>Let’s take Politics & International Relations at Oxford as a case in point.</p>
<p>*Entry Requirements
Applicants should normally have completed an undergraduate degree in Politics, International Relations or a related discipline with a first- or upper second-class honours or its international equivalent. A GPA of 3.7 or above would be expected from students who have studied at a university that uses the US grading system.</p>
<p>Number of Applicants
Research degrees: 379
Taught degrees: 634</p>
<p>Number of Places Available
Research degrees: 52
Taught degrees: 74*</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/postgraduate_courses/course_guide/politics_and.html[/url]”>http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/postgraduate_courses/course_guide/politics_and.html</a></p>
<p>
Very sensible advice. I don’t think anyone can really add much of substance to that response.</p>
<p>You dont need a 3.7 to get into oxford. Just because it says it on their website doesn’t mean they dont take less. They take a lot of people with just 3.6+</p>