<p>Costs and time: British Us are straightly 3 yrs for undergraduate, US programs are generally 4 yrs (some students less, some more). Reason: 13 yrs of primary-secondary schooling before application for British Us vs. 12-yr in the US. Since you have been admitted, you must have finished 13 yrs so the choice seems a no-brainer!</p>
<p>Toughness: my cousin is attending 2nd yr engineering (I think civil) at Cambridge. Several of her peers, including her roommate, already quitted after the first yr because the program is so tough and competitive. Grade marks (or class standing?) are posted in descending order on the bulletin boards…it’s not hard to imagine how you’d feel if you’re among the bottom ones.</p>
<p>Interviews: Congrats to those admitted…in-person on-campus interview with faculty is a must and key to admission (yes, no matter where you are)…I heard they’re torturing…would love to hear about the experience from those admitted.</p>
<p>It is exceptional that Oxford releases the decision at this time…you must be exceptional. Congrats again.</p>
<p>fungal: British universities, including Oxford, will admit Americans who have completed grade 12 only. They will accept APs as substitutes for A-levels. They do (extensive) telephone interviews rather than requiring the candidate to come for an in-person interview. I don’t know exactly what the nuances of releasing decisions are, but all the kids I know who applied to UK universities in the past few years have heard yes or no before the American universities release their RD round decisions.</p>
<p>S1 is an EA admit to Chicago. He was interviewed and then rejected by Oxford biological sciences just before Christmas. They told him afterward he was one of the top 8 candidates, but they only had room for 4. Had he been accepted to Oxford, he would consider going there only if he receives no FA from Chicago.</p>
<p>I was pooled then rejected from Cambridge for PhysNatSci, but I’m really happy about UChicago. First, graduates and professors from both are generally very good, and they both have just as many Nobel laureates (Cambridge has more undergraduates going on to win a Nobel prize, but Chicago takes in about a third of the students Cambridge does, and on top of that, this is without 700 extra years of experience in being a university). Second, Chicago seemed a little more student-open (at least to me; the reality might be drastically different, of course): it seemed to be very easy for even undergraduates to participate in research (with professors etc). And, I think most importantly, I CAN DOUBLE MAJOR AT CHICAGO! WOOHOO! Of course, that’s irrelevant if you’re sure you’re going to specialize only in what you applied for. But anyway…</p>
<p>I like to look at Cambridge’s rejection as a way of having my choice made for me :P. I liked the atmosphere of Cambridge (I loved Cambridge/London, and the weather was perfect), the fact that you are basically having a 2-on-1 with people who are actually doing stuff in the field you’re interested in and the general architecture (try looking at pictures and imaging how good it would feel to be there; it’s actually 100x better when you’re actually there).</p>
<p>JHS. I didn’t notice that the thread is 3 yrs old…</p>
<p>The question was about Oxford vs Chicago. Both r great schools. I was talking about time and costs in general: three yrs Oxford vs. 4 yrs US. On interview, my cousin lives in Singapore, she did not have much of a choice for an in-person interview. In fact, they interviewed the parents too. Taking this back, she did have a choice for an “international” interview arrangement, but was greatly discouraged by the local rep.</p>
<p>From what I understand, many acceptance decisions, at least for Oxbridge, are conditional on the applicant achieving the highest scores from whatever specified core courses/standardized tests (like A levels) related to their major taken AFTER the decision, usually in April or May or June or something. It is never a sure thing until the applicant receives the actual scores (no re-take) becos the school WILL reject non-achievers. Though many US colleges said that too, it seems to me Oxbridge are much stricter on this. I was suggesting to the enquirer to keep that in mind.</p>
<p>I’ve never heard of parents being interviewed at any British university (in fact I think that would probably be illegal discrimination). Also never heard of anyone having a room mate over hear aside from exceptional rare circumsyances. In short, you are making things up due to some personal agenda.</p>
<p>what you never heard of doesn’t mean it never happened. There are many things I found out now about college applications that I did not even think of AFTER I submitted my apps. There’re still many things I don’t know and will never know. I have no intention to find out them either. Do colleges, US and UK alike, evaluate all applicants as complete equals in practice? What would I gain by making up something to ghosts on the internet?</p>
<p>Lulz, I’m facing Cambridge vs. UChicago (vs. MIT vs. Georgetown vs. possible RD acceptances). I never thought I would see a thread about Oxbridge vs. UofC.</p>
<p>I just got the conditions of my offer on Friday and they aren’t too bad, but now that I have my conditions, I’ve suddenly become terrified of Cambridge.</p>
<p>I am a UChicago student. I will not pretend to know much about Oxbridge; I never considered any British universities in my college search.</p>
<p>I can tell you, however, that despite the undeniable differences between the US and the British university systems, Chicago is certainly a close American approximation to how I have heard Oxbridge described. That is, I spend very little time in class compared to my peers at other American universities, I spend many more hours studying alone, I read 300 or more pages a week by myself, and I have never had a class where a textbook was used (besides the calculus core). We read all primary source materials and the classes are heavily based on discussion, not a professor’s reading of the text. If this is what you are looking for in your college experience, you can find it right here in the US. It also helps that the UofC campus is like a little replica of Oxbridge; Mitchell Tower is a small-scale copy of Oxford’s Magdalen Tower, and the university recently repaved all the walkways with the same type of stone Cambridge uses for their walkways.</p>
<p>That being said, you can’t really go wrong among such great universities. You might consider, however, logistical issues such as distance from home, cost of plane tickets, and homesickness. It may be the furthest thing from your mind right now, but homesickness is real and painful and strikes most of us at some point or other. It is a great comfort knowing that home is but a four-hour flight away for me.</p>
<p>I seriously think that the US educational system is generally better than the British’. Having said that, Oxbridge is an exception. I’d prefer Oxford to Chicago. But I’d prefer HYPSM for undergrad and Caltech/Berkeley for science, engineering and computer science.</p>
<p>How can one compare two completely different approaches to higher ed:</p>
<p>Oxford with its tutorial system vs. chicago with its core and lecture/discussion approach?</p>
<p>There are some advantages to the tutorial system but also disadvantages.
your degree is specialized. No general education courses. This is fine if you are absolutely sure of what you want to study, not so good if you decide to change your direction.
everything is based on comprehensive exams at the end of the year. Talk about high stakes testing!<br>
You don’t actually apply to Oxford as much as you apply to a college within Oxford. Some colleges are better (i.e. more resourced) than others. Some colleges will have better tutors in a specific field than others.<br>
Library resources at Oxford are not the best. Stuff is hard to find at the 'Bod compared to a US university library. Most things don’t circulate and on-line resources are much more limited. </p>
<p>FYI, my D has been at Oxford as a grad student the past two years. Although grad school is different from undergrad, of course, the resource issues are the same. </p>
<p>And, to extend elgordo’s comments, not only is resource allocation a problem, the overall funding level at Oxford is a problem. They spend far less per student than Chicago does. Oxford itself has little endowment. Some colleges have decent endowments but many don’t. Funding is a real issue.</p>