<p>I agree outburst. In terms of selectivity IIT is no.1.</p>
<p>Hash and other pro-Oxbridge supporters - I would just like to know what you think of that article? </p>
<p>That article basically explained what alot of people already knew - that Oxbridge is digressing. Or is it not? Just curious</p>
<p>There has been one glaring admission from this debate, which is that of the Oxbridge interview process.</p>
<p>Typically, the candidates given offers have spent about a week (7/8 days) at their college being interview individually by a panel of two or three, every day. I can tell you from experience (I didn't apply... I'm at LSE... but I know many people who did) and they <em>do not</em> accept people who are nerdy (in terms of the stereotype, at least). Oxbridge, it seems, wants to make as big an impact on the world as possible and so they tend to pick the most articulate and interesting people. Grades are not a consideration, since everyone has or is predicted three 'A's at A-level.</p>
<p>My friend just walked in and told me that when he went for his interview at Oxford, there were 30+ candidates going for two places, and he spent a week their full of interviews and essay-writing.</p>
<p>It is the most rigorous application proceedure that I have ever heard of. But, I don't know what goes on at Harvard etc.</p>
<p>My Cambridge interview lasted 30 minutes over the phone. Clearly not interviews are the same. (I recieved an unconditional offer)</p>
<p>Oxbridge is full nerds (most of whom are socially inept)....you cannot argue with that..yes they have lots of ECs and clubs but I dont think there is any quality </p>
<p>In their interview they ask you questions specifically about your subject....I thought that was just stupid..you basically have to recall what you learned in school (yes that really lets them know your ECS and personality)
They also make you take some sort "IQ" test at cambridge, where you have to answer questions similar that on the SAT </p>
<p>lol...Since when did they start having 7 day interviews..mine was 30 min? </p>
<p>Anyway in terms of prestige...Oxford and cambridge are on par with the ivy leauge...
In terms of quality..I cant really judge.. </p>
<p>I think the UK education system is flawed...how can you decide what you want to do for the rest of your life in 10th grade..
Most people change their careers 2 or 3 times in their life </p>
<p>however if you are an EU citizen and you get into oxbridge, LSE, warick or Imperial
You have got your self a hell of a deal....In terms of value for price there is no way in hell the ivys or any other private american school can even close (considering you dont get any financial aid)<br>
You literally pay about $3,000 (not including room and board) for a whole year...</p>
<p>dkm, why do you have to make such unfounded comments?</p>
<p>"Oxbridge is full nerds (most of whom are socially inept)....you cannot argue with that..yes they have lots of ECs and clubs but I dont think there is any quality "</p>
<p>So just because Oxbridge don't recruit athletes, everyone is a nerd? Oxbridge has some of the finest well rounded individuals in the country.</p>
<p>What do you mean there is no quality of ECs? Are you not aware that the Oxford Union is the most prestigious debating society in the world? </p>
<p>Oxbridge's collegiate system means that EACH of the 40 odd colleges has 2 or 3 teams EACH for AT LEAST 10 sports. I'll let you do the maths on how many sports teams they are. Each college will obviously have a very competitive team for each sport, and at least another 1 or 2 teams so that the mediocre athletes can get involved in inter-collegiate competitions.</p>
<p>And to top it off they have the university teams, which consist of the best athletes in the whole university.</p>
<p>I'd say that this system allows more students to get involved in competitively at every level than ANY Ivy league uni you can name.</p>
<p>"lol...Since when did they start having 7 day interviews..mine was 30 min? "</p>
<p>In most subjects, there is more than one 30 min interview. Personally, I was at Oxford for 5 days, in which time I had a 2.5 hour maths test, and 4 40min interviews.</p>
<p>Just because you didn't have a 7 day interview, doesn't mean they don't exist. </p>
<p>"I think the UK education system is flawed...how can you decide what you want to do for the rest of your life in 10th grade..
Most people change their careers 2 or 3 times in their life "</p>
<p>Actually, you decide in 12th grade, and there is some degree of flexibility if you want to change your course when you do get in (e.g. change from maths to engineering or something similar).</p>
<p>You will find that the vast majority of careers do not require a specific degree. So specialising early is not disadvantageous at all, all I can see are benefits. Besides, you gain "transferrable skills", which can be used in a variety of jobs.</p>
<p>"In their interview they ask you questions specifically about your subject....I thought that was just stupid..you basically have to recall what you learned in school (yes that really lets them know your ECS and personality)"</p>
<p>No, the interviews are designed specifcally to test your aptitude for the subject, NOT recall. The questions they ask are university difficulty level stuff, so unless you have been secretly studying university texts, it's not "recall". </p>
<p>The questions asked require you to have knowledge of your school courses, but it is applying that knowledge appropriately in complex situations that is the difficult part.</p>
<p>Take a look at these sample written tests that students take. There is no way that they are "recall".</p>
<p>In addition, the LNAT test is taken for Law, and BMAT for medicine.</p>
<p>my comments are not unfounded </p>
<p>I been there, I have friends and relatives who go there and I have talked to a lot of people who attend those universities
My comments are from personal expericence...</p>
<p>Oxford and cambridge take the people who have the highest marks (they dont look at ECs, personality, essays, leadership and all those other things that make you special)
Let me just use my school as an example...
People in my school who have gotten into oxford and cambridge where outright rejected by the top american schools because they spent all their time studying and getting extremely high grades (I go to an international school where the top students usually apply to both US and UK)
However the people who were involved in school, played sports, got good grades and who are not "social rejects" managed to get into top american schools like brown, upenn, stanford, cornell, etc. </p>
<p>u seem to be so biased....we dont live in the colonial times any more..when people actually respected the UK universities (americanization has taken place)</p>
<p>I do admit that I am also kind of biased against UK universities...but i still have a valid point</p>
<p>Just having a lot of sports teams doesnt mean anything...they can have 2000 teams and not have single team which is competative. </p>
<p>P.S i seen the cambridge people playing cricket and rugby....god they suck</p>
<p>I dont think oxbridge can compete with other universities like lobrough in inter-university sports</p>
<p>The links you posted are of the written tests...not interview (interview is where the guys asks you questions)</p>
<p>I mentioned that you have to do an sort of "IQ" test...the math one definately seems to be an advanced version of the SAT
The one i had to do definately was an IQ sort test..nothing to do with applying knowledge
yes there was also a subject specific test but it was just high school biology</p>
<p>anyway my point was that...they only look at how good you are at your chosed subject (not how well rounded you are)</p>
<p>Yes the links I posted were for written tests. However the questions they ask at interview are very similar, and in many interviews, the candidate's answers on the written tests are also discussed.</p>
<p>Interviewing all candidates is a phenomenal undertaking, in terms of time, cost and sheer effort. Do you really think that Oxbridge would interview applicants to simply test their memory recall? Of course not. </p>
<p>Oxbridge interview candidates to pick the genuinely enthusiastic and intelligent people from the one's who just revise like hell. The purpose of the interview is in fact the opposite of what you claim.</p>
<p>Of course Oxbridge look at personal qualities and ECs. That is what the UCAS personal statement is for. </p>
<p>I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Ivy league unis (and also Stanford, MIT etc) use "well roundedness" as a lame excuse to cover the fact that such a large proportion of places go to recruits/legacies/children of donors/potential donors.</p>
<p>I don't have a problem with that, I still believe that the american institutions are amongst the best in the world. </p>
<p>However it does not give you the right to go and accuse Oxbridge of not being well rounded.</p>
<p>dkm, Oxford UCCE is probably one of the best university cricket teams in the country. International teams often play warm up matches against Oxford UCCE when they tour England! I don't think you can question the quality of Oxford cricket.</p>
<p>The Oxbridge rowing crews consist of Olympians! How's that for quality eh.</p>
<p>Yes there are a huge number of sports teams in Oxbridge. The majority of the college 2nd tier teams may not be that great, but at least they allow a huge number of students to part in sport at a competitive level.</p>
<p>However, there are a vast number of high quality sports teams, and the university teams play at a very high standard. </p>
<p>the Oxbridge system allows students to play competitive sport at every level:</p>
<p>University teams - the superstars
College (top tier teams) - Very good athletes
College (2nd and third tier teams) - Mediocre athletes </p>
<p>We can't all be good enough to be recruited athletes, but encouraging competitive sport at all levels is a very positive thing.</p>
<p>"my comments are not unfounded </p>
<p>I been there, I have friends and relatives who go there and I have talked to a lot of people who attend those universities
My comments are from personal expericence..."</p>
<p>Using personal experiences (and those of a few others) to make judgements that stereotype 2 universities is, in my opinion, unfounded.</p>
<p>Now tell me, how can your personal experiences possibly even come close to stereotyping a combined student body of 33,000+ at any given time?</p>
<p>Hash - I asked before and Ill ask again....What do you think of that Economist article on Oxbridge and the UK system?</p>
<p>Also, you attack dkm for his "outlandish" comments but you also exerted questionable comments....statements without proof.</p>
<p>You said that American universities use "well-roundedness" to mask the recruitment of athletes, legacies etc but thats your personal opinion.</p>
<p>You can argue for Oxbridge as much as you want but one thing you HAVE to realize is that american universities desire "well-roundedness" much more than the UK, Canadian or Commonwealth schools, and thats the end of that.</p>
<p>aca, It was unfounded comments, not outlandish. There is a difference.</p>
<p>I was not attacking anyone, just having a straightforward debate. Why does everyone get so uptight and defensive over a debate? It's not a personal attack.</p>
<p>I would be very interested to know where I have "exerted questionable comments without proof"</p>
<p>I said that American universities use "well-roundedness" to mask the recruitment of athletes, legacies, donors etc, and I stand by that. Do you really believe that the huge number of students that get in because of their rich parents/alumni parents would have gotten in otherwise? Of course not. </p>
<p>"You can argue for Oxbridge as much as you want but one thing you HAVE to realize is that american universities desire "well-roundedness" much more than the UK, Canadian or Commonwealth schools, and thats the end of that."</p>
<p>Look, the reason that Oxbridge in particular invest huge time, money and effort in interviewing ALL candidates is to seek the best. If they just wanted people with the top grades, they could get that information from the application forms without having to bother with the interviews.</p>
<p>A candidate who has straight A+ grades will NOT get in over a candidate with many As and a few Bs but who is committed to the course and has done a number of ECs related to the course and otherwise.</p>
<p>Just like a 1600 doesn't ensure you a place at HYPS, neither do straight As ensure you a place at Oxbridge. FACT. Whether you like it or not, and that's the end of that.</p>
<p>P.S. With other British universities, you are correct. They will admit on the basis of grades alone (in most cases). However, this does not extend to Oxbridge.</p>
<p>"Hash - I asked before and Ill ask again....What do you think of that Economist article on Oxbridge and the UK system?"</p>
<p>The fundamental difference between Oxbridge and HYPS is that Oxford and Cambridge are public, and HYPS are private.</p>
<p>Where HYPS are run more like businesses (sad but true to a large extent), Oxbridge are run like true academic institutions.</p>
<p>To be honest, the British public are very critical of public serivces, facilities and everything in general (including the universities). This doesn't mean that Britain's public facilities etc are crap. Far from it! It is just the public's way of ensuring that standards remain high and everything is maintained. The culture here (UK) is very different to the culture in America, and you must realise that.</p>
<p>Can you even begin to imagine the absurdity of there being large scale student protests and marches when the university fees were introduced? They are only the equivalent of $2000 a year! </p>
<p>The higher education system here is different to, and run in a different manner to the one in the US. It does not make it any better or worse. As I have stated before, HYPS are more akin to businesses than academic institutions (relative to Oxbridge)</p>
<p>There is no point in accusing Oxbridge of falling standards etc, because they are not. In fact the competition for places is rising, and is fiercer than ever before.</p>
<p>1) MIT and IIT
2) Stanford and Berkeley
3) Harvard and Yale
4) Oxford and Princeton
5) Cambridge</p>
<p>Just my opinion....</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is no point in accusing Oxbridge of falling standards etc, because they are not. In fact the competition for places is rising, and is fiercer than ever before.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The number of acceptees is constant (or shrinking) and the population is growing. Ergo, the quality of the applicants is doubtless going up. But as to the quality of the education - well, when you cut entire departments (Architecture, Cambridge), shrink the number of UK students in favour of international ones or just shrink undergraduate numbers altogether (Oxford - the one-on-one tuition is expensive), I think a fair case can be made that Oxbridge, despite being the best funded and best-endowed of the UK universities, are feeling the squeeze. </p>
<p>And because of that, I would like to comment on the HYPS being run as businesses thing: Oxbridge cares more about the bottom line than HYPS, with multi-billion endowments and the ability to charge whatever they want. Take a look at Yale's operating statement. They made a profit of nearly a billion dollars for the 2003-2004 academic cycle - and their professors receive, by any standards, excellent compensation and unrivalled benefits (especially tenured faculty). Thus the somewhat ironic fact is: because America's best are so good at making money, they have more scope to act like academic institutions. At Oxbridge, on the other hand, relatively starved for cash as they are, they can't do anything without looking at how it will affect their bottom line.</p>
<p>Simply put - to pursue academic discovery, you need to be able to afford it. It's true that HYPS raise funds like businesses - they charge market rates, actively seek contributions and hire the best of Wall Street to manage their finances. But that means that the business of making money, so to speak, does not lie with the academics. Their faculty are left free to pursue the currency of academia: prestige.</p>
<p>Why is Berkeley so highly respected? I know its a good school for being public, but I cant see it being better than MIT, Caltech, Cambridge, Oxford, or Stanford???? Is it because of their grad school? But then again, is Berkeley grad school so much better than say Stanfords? I would appreciate it if some one could clarify this mystery.</p>
<p>Hash reminds me of a british sakky just a few notches more aggressive</p>
<p>indie boy...interesting rankings. Though I suppose at such a high level, any number of combinations could have been the top 5.</p>
<p>cevonia, how do you think HYPS got rich in the first place? The money didn't just appear on their doorstep! The fact is that they have been run like businesses since their inception. Children of potential donors and alumni are far likely to get in. </p>
<p>Do they get in on their merits? No.
.......Do they get in for the money their parents are likely to donate? Yes.</p>
<p>Of course, Oxbridge are strapped for cash relative to their rich American cousins. That's because Oxbridge are public universities! But at least Oxbridge still admit their students on the basis of merit rather than $$$, which says a lot.</p>
<p>Isn't it a wonder that Oxbridge can afford their undergraduates one to one tuition with top class professors! Of course, the undergraduates are taught in (small) classes as well. </p>
<p>On the other hand it's considered lucky to be taught in a class of 10 in an American university - and that would only happen if you were taking an unpopular course.</p>
<p>In that sense, you American students should ask yourself..."why am I not getting more bang for my buck?"</p>