<p>I have been diligently researching The University of Oxford and have come to find that the university only looks at AP testing, EC's and SAT scores excluding GPA from the mix. As stated by the Oxford Admissions Board,
"Successful candidates would typically have SAT Reasoning Test scores of at least 700 in Critical Reading, Mathematics and the Writing Paper, or ACT with a score of at least 32 out of 36. We would also expect Grade 5 in three or more Advanced Placement tests in appropriate subjects or SAT Subject Tests in three appropriate subjects at 700 or better."</p>
<p>Due to the exclusion of GPA and other factors that top american schools consider, would you presume that it is significantly easier to get into Oxford as an american then the Ivy League and other top schools? The admissions process consists of selecting a handful of students to be be interviewed after applying followed by accepting a handful of those students to attend the university. After looking at numerous, "Chance Me" threads, I have come to find that applicants with a solid amount of 5's are frequently selected to the interview. After being selected for an interview, the students will talk about themselves as people along with awards and obstacles they have overcome. If you are selected to be interviewed by the university and destroy your interview, you have a solid shot at being admitted. What do you guys think? I'm guessing money helps as well?</p>
<p>The students I know who have been offered places at Oxford in recent years have also been accepted at Harvard or similar U.S. colleges. I don’t think money matters at all (except that, since there is no or limited financial aid for U.S. students, people who can’t afford the cost don’t apply). The interview isn’t a tell-me-all-about-yourself American-style college interview where you subtly brag about your accomplishments and abilities; it’s closer to a substantive oral examination by faculty in the field you have chosen to study.</p>
<p>JHS is correct- money makes no difference, and the interview is an in-depth exercise in the subject to which you are applying. So, if you are applying to do Math, you will be given a series of problems to solve that are designed to go beyond what you have learned, so that the tutors can see how your mind works- how you approach an unfamiliar problem. In history for one part of the interview you might be given an essay to read on an obscure topic (ie, something you are unlikely to know anything about) and then in engage in an analysis of the essay with tutors. The primary teaching method at Oxford is through tutorials- one or two students with a professor (called a tutor). So, it is important that students are not only intellectually able for the material, but are suited to the tutorial system. Sometimes you have 1 interview, more often two, and I know people who have had 3, 4, even 5 interviews, with up to 4 interviewers at a time (though more often there are just 2). It is not common to come out of an interview confident that you have ‘destroyed’ the interview.</p>
<p>One other thing- many courses have aptitude tests, which carry a lot of weight in interview selection. </p>
<p>Having said that, depending on the course, if you get to the interview you have as much as a 1 in 3 chance of getting an offer.</p>
<p>And yes, if you are a student who has a strong interest in a given course (ie, you know what you want to study, and you have developed that interest beyond the classroom) I think it probably is “easier” <em>for you</em> to get into Oxford than Harvard. It is depth vs breadth- there is a great quote on one of the Oxford Admissions iTunes pieces in which a history tutor says something like ’ we don’t actually care if an applicant is well-rounded- we want to teach people who are as passionate about our subject as we are '. Harvard wants breadth, Oxford depth. I know people who would not have had a shot at Harvard who are currently at Oxford- and people currently at Princeton, UPenn, Yale and Stanford who didn’t get into Oxford.</p>
<p>I interviewed a young woman for my second tier Ivy (not HYP). She didn’t get in but did get into Oxford, which did not surprise me in the least. She ended up at Oxford in part because she didn’t get into any of the top US colleges to which she applied.</p>
<p>It’s not easier or harder to get in–the process is simply different. She was the most impressive interviewee I’ve ever interviewed. I felt as I were talking with someone 25 rather than 17. However, interviews don’t matter much in admission to my alma mater. Her grades overall didn’t put her near the top of her class at a NYC public magnet. She was National Merit commended–at a school with lots of NMSFs. Her ECs were average at best. However, she had high scores in her area of interest and was remarkably well read in it. Her ECs were all related to that area.</p>
<p>If you were going to pick someone who would excel in her chosen subject, I think you’d pick her. Under the normal US process, you wouldn’t.</p>
<p>Oxford is definitely not easier to get in and the application process is (and should be) just as hard as the application process of the Ivies. Unlike the Ivies, I would say that Oxford focuses much more on the interviews since the interviews are only offered after the application has been reviewed by the admissions officers. I also presume that Oxford would be looking for international students who have studied particular subjects in depth since the A levels are significantly harder than SATs. </p>
<p>I have met plenty of people who have been accepted into the top schools in Britain and have been rejected from the Ivies and vice-versa. You never really know.</p>
You may get one interview where you can talk about yourself, often with someone from the college not in the specific department you are applying to … that is the least important interview.</p>