<p>Oxford and Cambridge went down the toilet in recent years. They were good before, but with their endowments smaller than the GDP of my backyard, they are TTTs. There is no competing against any top US Schools.</p>
<p>although oxbridge still draw some of the world's top scholars</p>
<p>"Oxford and Cambridge went down the toilet in recent years. They were good before, but with their endowments smaller than the GDP of my backyard, they are TTTs. There is no competing against any top US Schools"</p>
<p>Yes, in terms of endowment, publications per professor, Nobel prizes etc. in RECENT years, Oxbridge are worse than any Ivy. But in terms of prestige and PAST performance, they're still up there.</p>
<ol>
<li>Oxford</li>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Cambridge</li>
<li>IIT, Yale, Stanford, MIT and co.</li>
</ol>
<p>IIT probably ranks 1st in terms of competition for places though.</p>
<p>ubermensch, you seem to have some kind of unjustified hatred for Oxbridge. What happened, did an Oxford student beat you up? Did you apply and not get in?</p>
<p>Everytime a thread like this pops up, you're the first to regurgitate all this s*** about Oxbridge being crap....</p>
<p>"Oxford and Cambridge went down the toilet in recent years. They were good before, but with their endowments smaller than the GDP of my backyard, they are TTTs. There is no competing against any top US Schools."</p>
<p>Endowments maketh not a university...</p>
<p>Throwing money all over the place doesn't make things better, I think you should realise this :-p</p>
<p>In any case, Oxbridge have huge endowments. I don't think you know what you're saying.</p>
<p>Actually Oxford is having REALLY huge financial woes right now. It's endowment is in the millions while places like Harvard and Stanford have upwards of 9 billion to spend as they wish. In addition, the prestige of Oxford is waning, and more people know about top US schools than they do about Oxbridge. Overall, I guess you could classify Oxford as a "has-been" that had its former glory but is now just a semi-fancy college with no real actual substance.</p>
<p>My rank of world universities:</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Yale/Stanford</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Caltech</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Dartmouth</li>
</ol>
<p>Columbia UNIVERSITY I would say is gaining on Yale.</p>
<p>Undergrad: Yale
Business (MBA): Columbia
Law: Yale
Medical: Tie
Education: Columbia
Engineering: Columbia
Graduate Departments Overall: Tie</p>
<p>I must admit I'm getting a little freaked about this ranking business, because I'm still up in the air about what my various choices have to offer. Now I read in the parents forum about how supposedly Chicago students are so superior, yadayadayada, to students elsewhere ("more academic," "more intellectual," on & on). Am I nuts? I thought being accepted early to an Ivy meant something, particularly bec. I'm not a URM or athlete, etc. Now supposedly only Chicago U people are the true intellectuals, whereas students at other top schools are more jocks, into fraternities, etc., or not really "intellectually curious" in the way Chicago students are. I'm not interested in bashing one partic. school over another, but I do want to be with other intellectually passionate students. Anyone have any feedback on this "type of student" business?
I visited several Ivies & found them all stimulating. Did not visit Chicago yet; haven't had the chance.</p>
<p>"Actually Oxford is having REALLY huge financial woes right now. It's endowment is in the millions while places like Harvard and Stanford have upwards of 9 billion to spend as they wish. In addition, the prestige of Oxford is waning, and more people know about top US schools than they do about Oxbridge. Overall, I guess you could classify Oxford as a "has-been" that had its former glory but is now just a semi-fancy college with no real actual substance."</p>
<p>Wow, I didn't know you people were so ill-informed. Oxford is not having "REALLY huge financial woes". It could do with more funding, but it's still a rich university.</p>
<p>The prestige of Oxford is waning? How can you make a judgement like that. You're definitely in no position to comment on which university the world knows more about. </p>
<p>The only reason that more international studens apply to US unis as opposed to Oxbridge is that HYPSM can provide financial aid. If Oxbridge provided the same level of financial aid to internationals, you can bet your bottom dollar that they would go to Oxbridge.</p>
<p>Oxford is not a has been. A significant number of students from HYPSM would not even be academically strong enough to get an offer from Oxford.</p>
<p>It's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. In future I suggest you actually find out the facts before writing your ignorant opinion based statements.</p>
<p>Oxford is effectively the same as a US state school. The majority of it's funding comes from the British government. So not having such a large endowment doesn't matter as much.</p>
<p>classicist, about the Chicago thing. This is only forum talk. You shouldn't take what is said on these forums seriously, as the people and their views on these forums represent a tiny minority (of the overall population). </p>
<p>I don't think a few people saying that Chicago students are better etc. can undermine your achievement. As long as a university is number 1 in your books, it is all that counts. Forget what everyone else says.</p>
<p>thank you, hash. However, there are also several students discussing Chicago on the Admissions or the Chicago board (I forget which), who make some similar claims that some of these parents do: namely, Chicago attracts more true intellectuals, etc. than the East Coast schools do. So there must be some kind of reputation out there supporting that, or is that just a myth, I'm wondering. The Ivies are less intellectual than Chicago? hmmmm.</p>
<p>Remember, folks, a few facts:</p>
<p>1) You can only apply to Either Oxford or Cambridge, not both. Super-bright students have to choose only one, although they can apply to up to five other UK unis via UCAS. Otherwise everyone would apply to both and overwhelm the admissions tutors.</p>
<p>2) Harvard's yield (last I looked) was 79% of admits - Oxford's is more like 95% - so by the Laissez-Faire methodology, it would be hard to beat.</p>
<p>3) Merit-based admissions only - versus 50% of the class earmarked for URMs, legacies, athletes, development, and spawn of the famous - so yes, maybe 40% or more of the admitted class of any of the Ivies would be REJECTED. Here's your American sense of "hard work and intelligence rewarded commensurately" - only it happens in the UK, not here. Must fill those football stadiums (big yawn).</p>
<p>4) Financial aid is a big issue - the cost is equal to HYP - about $42K this year with the current exchange rate for a science degree (that includes social sciences). S has an offer & I would love for him to attend - but it is a big chunk of dough and there is no financial aid whatsoever for non-EU internationals.</p>
<p>5) Some of the schools that achieve high rankings by various methods have tons of money in research grants - that's nice, but put it in perspective. For an undergraduate, the impact is negligible. Both the tutorial system and the pervasive intellectual climate of oxbridge, on the other hand, benefit undergraduates directly, every day.</p>
<p>As an adult, it would definitely be Oxbridge for me if I had it to do over again!</p>
<p>I don't see what the big deal about an "intellectual atmosphere" is. I think you could very easily have intellectual discussions at any top college when you want. I'm thinking that Chicago boosters are using this "intellectual" as a euphemism for "socially lacking"</p>
<p>2) Harvard's yield (last I looked) was 79% of admits - Oxford's is more like 95% - so by the Laissez-Faire methodology, it would be hard to beat.</p>
<p>This figure would be slashed dramatically if Oxford and Cambridge let people apply to both, and also didn't limit the number of universities that students could apply to. Harvard, Yale, MIT, whatever top colleges have to deal with students getting multiple acceptances at other good schools so their yield will obviously be lower. Imagine if you could apply to only one of HYPSMC</p>
<p>Oxford's graduation rate is around 97%, Cambridge's around 99%.</p>
<p>HYPSM graduation rate is in the 80s.....</p>
<p>In Oxbridge with the tutorial system, each undergraduate has personal 1-1 or 2-1 interaction with their professor, for a number of hours per week. In this time they are taught personally by their professor, and are able to have stimulating discussions with an expert in their field.</p>
<p>Now that's what I call a first class education.</p>
<p>Before you guys go about bashing/favoring Oxbridge, know some things. </p>
<ol>
<li> Ive been to both schools, and every Ivy league school and Stanford, MIT, etc. The UK schools arent like the US schools, most americans wouldnt enjoy it there. </li>
<li> What the people from England and the people from the US use as factors to decide are different. Thats just the way it is.<br></li>
<li> If your going for the "name" go to Oxford Or harvard, but as much as they want to deny it Oxford and Harvard offer NOTHING that Princeton can't give you. In fact in my opinion, Princeton is the best place you could probably go in the world. Theres a reson why Cornell West, etc left harvard. BEFORE YOUR FLAME ME, know that I am not biased. I am trying to give the most non biased answer here</li>
<li> Yes the UK school only admit on merit, but a University isnt about merit anymore. It is about graduating as a WELL ROUNDED INDIVIUAL. So maybe that means having an active participation in school athletic spirit, which means the ivies have to recruit athletes. Thats how you create diversity on a campus.</li>
</ol>