<p>They’re not both Scandinavian, another ignorant assertion. For future reference; Finland is Nordic and Sweden is Scandinavian (would you like me to clarify the differences or do you know?)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You really are incredibly dense. Look back, you may be surprised to see it was you who brought Helsinki into the fold, not me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And like i said, i didn’t ask or expect you to know anything about others cultures, you boldly stated you did and i had to correct you. That isn’t rudeness. As for the British not understanding Americans, you’re not British so how would you know? Wait let me guess… you were told so by your friends? That seems to be your basis for everything in this thread.</p>
<p>“They’re not both Scandinavian, another ignorant assertion. For future reference; Finland is Nordic and Sweden is Scandinavian (would you like me to clarify the differences or do you know?)”</p>
<p>No need to, and not interested</p>
<p>“As for the British not understanding Americans, you’re not British so how would you know?”</p>
<p>LOL, No not british. Lived in the UK for some time. But You would be surprised at how much of my family live in the UK. Last time I checked 80%. I have 0 connection in the US and not biased just subjective. Also you could read British media outlets and stereotypes of Americans and they are funny and ignorant just like Americans.</p>
<p>“You really are incredibly dense. Look back, you may be surprised to see it was you who brought Helsinki into the fold, not me.”</p>
<p>And you highlighted it as proof of my ignorance. You cannot deny that Finland and Sweden are on the same side of the hemisphere. Mixing up Iran and Iraq is equally not terrible except you took Geography which is common in the British curriculum.</p>
<p>So basically what is this argument about? We have just been batting, but does Luthervan have anything to prove? Warwick right now is not in the same field as a top US school. Neither is KCL. Yes Warwick is getting close- does that make you happy?</p>
<p>Yes LSE/Cambridge/Imperial/Oxford/UCL are top schools. There student body is equivalent to the Top 25 if we assume that the IQ curve in Britain is slightly higher than that in the US so although US has more applicants, they are inferior to a large number of the British. I have no problem with that. The 18-20,000 students who attend these top british schools are as good as the 25,000+ in the top 25 school. Ignore also the students in the LACs.</p>
<p>Case closed. Lets not talk about academics or alumni or anything else. Its difficult to judge. </p>
<p>“Obviously the admissions officer would know better than the average American, dimstick. It is their job.” </p>
<p>How do you know- you have worked in admissions before? Where at again? God I get tired of this all the time. Another mistake graduate admissions is done mostly by professors and not admission officers. Admission officers is for undergraduate.</p>
<p>In most graduate programs, professors actually admit you not the admission committee of a university. And these professors usually are not knowledgeable about top schools in each country but they are willing to learn. They get a rubric that gives them an idea of the quality of student in his country and then try and compare him relative to people in his country. ITK</p>
<p>List of King’s College London alumni - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"</p>
<p>Interesting 80% all former British colonies. Of course KCL has been THE School for years. KCL was prestigious years ago and was a great school- we are talking of now, now now. Its still considered prestigious in former English colonies and England. However, Warwick has phased out KCL academically and I agree they are on their way to a top school but considering them equivalent to Brown is laughable. Possibly more rigorous.</p>
<p>Its just like me bringing the alumnia of US Universities such as senators and calling them famous Alumni. I would prefer people who have done world wide achievement. I would like to see a KCL graduate heading Latin America.</p>
<p>All the thread shows is the ignorant stance of if it is not done in the American way, then it is inferior.</p>
<p>In Oxbridge, students specialize, so ofcourse they would focus on grades and the interview would focus on your knowledge and interest in the field, not how many burgers you can eat in a hamburger competition as your EC. Why would they care about ECs like Harvard?</p>
<p>Also the OP stated that the peering was stated to him by a friend’s Dad that ahs been a professor in both UK and US. And the peering seems to match this.</p>
<p>so basically you are the one who came up with the peering that you are obsessed with right?</p>
<p>So everything the Americans do is ignorant right? And Warwick/KCL cannot produce or innovate anything but are still as good as the US schools because they are British and the british say so. The peering you gave shows no critical discussion, how the person got it and you want us to take it for face value.</p>
<p>That works in the UK, but in the US critical thinking is the game. You have to show me why Warwick graduates who get in with grade inflated A-levels and graduate with honors at over 85% are as good as you claim. Tell me why they are better than Brown who let in students based on a more clear and cut case (no time to argue about demerits of SAT) for thinking ability. If Brown has access to larger crust than Warwick how can the student body be the same?</p>
<p>Because Warwick/KCL/Bristol and Durham should be equivalent to Cornell, Dartmouth and Duke right?</p>
<p>if Warwick/Bristol and Durham people are not distinguishing themselves in the fields what makes them good?</p>
<p>Nothing in that post gave evidence for the A-levels being harder except claiming specialized knowledge. You do this like all the time. Claim anecdotes are true. I would never select any of the statements and claim they are true. </p>
<p>I meant the link you keep posting all over the place as an eefctive ranking. The one that places Durham/Cornell/Bristol/Warwick/KCL as equivalent schools.</p>
<p>I showed you raw statistics and newspaper articles form the Times, Guardian all Brit newspapers showing inflation on the A-level scale. I have agreed that the best are at Oxbridge and LSE and Imperial but what happens to those below? Can you distinguish quality when everyone has the same grades?</p>
<p>By the way British students at top Universities in the US have superb A-level grades. You could find some that dont who did well in the SATs maybe. You need Good A-levels as a british student to get into top US schools.</p>
<p>By the way a lot of people on those thread are international students which make things better and more balanced- although a lot of them are Brits which could affect the balance of the education a bit</p>
<p>Really, and you took it as the ultimate? LOL. You have been arguing using the same ranking as basis while ignoring the other discussions which would come up on google before the one you claimed and took it as your source? Another LOL. You have posted it on 6 sites without engaging in constructive discussion about them until now . So basically you googled something up and took it as the ultimate while complaining about someone’s Dad’s friends advising them.</p>
<p>Are you one of the inferior graduates from Warwick who think they are equal to the ivy league? My third LOL</p>
<p>“A-Levels are getting easier because of no variation, not grades being inflated.”</p>
<p>your view differs from academics. I would assume you are smarter than oxbridge academics right? Except you prolly attended neither. I can bring at least 100 articles on grade inflation in the A-levels and how easy it is for everyone. Also while these articles use data you you arm chair logic.</p>
<p>If you want I could dig out an old article in which top academics have advised the UK to replace the A-level system with American styled SATs.</p>
<p>Interesting most people on the thread were comparing the curriculum of MMath degrees in Oxford to Undergraduate degrees in the US. My Fourth LOL.</p>
<p>U get a lot of depth in the US education. It just depends on the student.</p>
<p>^ As an EU person- thanks for the clarification. Without experiencing either systems right? Or knowing their reputations or academic rigor. As an EU person you consider Rice/Vanderbilt/Notre Dame equivalent to Nottingham and Bath. </p>
<p>Another LOL</p>
<p>No from British academics advising the A-levels should be scrapped. I read it ages ago but there is nothing google cant find</p>
<p>"The league table on the link makes alot of sense as an EU person. "</p>
<p>Thats a league table- one based on “anecdotal observations” in which the OP did not state his sources or how he pulled the data. </p>
<p>Is that what passes as critical analysis in the EU?</p>
<p>Before you quote sources- use hard facts. Take a look at the international students on college confidential and their A-levels results and the equivalent SAT scores they got. Do that before you select claims that equate a B to an 800 in the SAT II or to claim how easy the SAT is while students who get into Oxbridge get below a 2200.</p>
<p>Speaking of ignorance- the person claims to know nothing about LACs but decides to take a step and rank the schools in the US. He claims they are high schools, and would fault Americans probably for thinking University of Bath and York are not quality schools. Talk about hypocrisy.</p>
<p>HYPSM+MIT+Stanford+Caltech {Equal to or less} than Oxbridge/LSE depending on the course and the tier of student you are looking at. Cornell engineering are strong students and some are in the same league as Cambridge students. You would never find a Warwick business student surviving the engineering work of Cornell.</p>
<p>Duke, Uchicago, Johns Hopkins, Washington U, Northwestern (other big privates) in the same tier as Imperial College/UCL. These schools have quality students and strong engineering programs too except for Uchicago.</p>
<p>Georgetown, Rice, CMU>>>>>Warwick/Bristol/Durham (For some courses. The engineering/science students at Rice and CMU would make the kids at Bristol/Warwick who take business majors and History look like ineffectual people). Neither Durham nor Bristol have notable engineering programs. I would however comment that Warwicks economics/Math program is very strong and would place it a tier above the rest of the school.</p>
<p>Apparently rich people enter Yale from the OP of the link Luthervan posted. Thats how Yale has stayed on top for so long. It just lets rich people in. This comes from the very knowledgeable EU citizen.</p>
<p>Why does the information on the link change as this discussion goes on?</p>
<p>Dionysus claims by the way that Finland is not Scandinavian which is 100% true but another point about honest mistakes: </p>
<p>“Scandinavia[1] is a region in northern Europe that includes at a minimum Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Finland is often considered a Scandinavian country in common English usage, and Iceland and the Faroe Islands are sometimes also included”</p>
<p>Attempts at Intelligence are welcome. But at least better received when they are correct and aptly applied. I use common English- I apologize. Seems you are quick to make people seem ignorant. Now that I know the difference between the two does not really add more value to my life.</p>