Rating top UK universities vs top US universities

College Search & Selection
201

<p>A-levels hard? i dont even want to comment form experience. But</p>

<p>[Conservatives</a> want to return to traditional A-level | Education | The Guardian](<a href=“http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/mar/24/a-levels-conservatives-michael-gove]Conservatives”>Conservatives want to return to traditional A-level | A-levels | The Guardian)</p>

<p>“Sykes’s review recommended that a Conservative government consult universities to see if they wanted students to take a standardised university admissions test, similar to the American Sat, to be taken as well as A-levels. It would measure language, maths and reasoning.”</p>

<p>So the Brits figured out they want to be like the Americans? Why though? Grade inflated A-levels which are easy. An Oxford Graduate is smart enough to figure out whats happening. Next thing you know people will claim no grade inflation in UK universities despite significant evidence that 85% of the students at Warwick get honors. At Georgia Tech you cannot see such blatant grade inflation.</p>

<p>This was not the article I read so dont get nit picky about the scrapping part. That article was in 2006. However, this is more recent.</p>

202

<p>[More</a> than half of A-level exams sat at private schools are graded A - Times Online](<a href=“The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines”>The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines)</p>

<p>Going to a private school could give you a leg up in admissions, just like the SATs lol</p>

203

<p>So are you saying Georgetown, Rice, CMU are better than Edinburgh, KCL and St Andrews?</p>

204

<p>What information on the link has changed?</p>

205

<p>A lot actually. The first time the OP posted he claimed that rich people enter Yale (LOL), then after schooling you, it changed and icluded it is easy for instate to get into their schools (Another Ignorant comment, one you would get by just reading and not experiencing).Then It stopped at US grade inflation (which I know why it was included in the first place LOL)- but proceeded to add a stream of ignorant comments later.</p>

<p>So are you saying Georgetown, Rice, CMU are better than Edinburgh, KCL and St Andrews?</p>

<p>Not necessary better. I would be conscious of saying better than Edinburgh and would unashamedly say all three schools are better than KCL and St Andrews. It depends on what you want: </p>

<p>In the THES ranking by a british newspaper you hold so dear - CMU is 27th and 9th in Engineering. While Imperial is ranked 7th in engineering. KCL is ranked 23rd in the whole ranking. See how the rankings dont make sense.]</p>

<p>However student quality is hard since these schools are a third of the population of both Edinburgh/St Andrews/ KCL. So let me go</p>

<p>CMU engineering students are peers of Imperial like Georgia Tech you cannot deny that. However not the same for all of CMU programs. CMU also has a strong business school-CMU Tepper. Also a strong economics program. Technically its a strong quantitative school and is closer to Imperial than to schools like Edinburgh/St Andrews schools that lack strong engineering departments.</p>

<p>Georgetown SFS is in a class of its own and the best I can compare it to is LSE for economics. I am not saying its equivalent to LSE- it is not. St Andrews and Edinburgh both do international relations they could be as good as Georgetown I don’t know. Georgetown CAS varies depending on the what subjects are being studied. Pretty an average school and on the level of the likes of KCL/Warwick. Has a lot of cross admits with KCL and Cornell. </p>

<p>Rice students are strong. Another very mathy school so not a good comparison with Edinburgh/kcl/st andrews which are not known for quantitative subjects. Considering the fact that Math/Engineering>>>Accounting/Finance/IR not much debate here. It has 3,300 students- thats like the total intake of Oxbridge. Highly selective. Takes 800 students a year and still does well. </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/education/01scotland.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/education/01scotland.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>St Andrews is 20% American. Enough said. I just finished talking to a friend who studied there last year and it laughed hysterically when I asked about the rigor of the school. I dont know much about the school though I admit- just heard about it from Americans. </p>

<p>Rice (Which are in the top 15 most selective schools in the US). Do not look at Rice’s rankings it a phenomenal school. They are quite comfortable at St Andrews though. Take a look at the schools most got into in the US not in the class of CMU/Rice/Gtown. Especially Hamilton/Skidmore and company.</p>

<p>Also KCL/Edinburgh and St Andrews and Warwick do not have the breadth of courses. Edinburgh really has no departments that appear on the world stage- good school for Scottish people. I like Edinburgh since its a solid school.</p>

206

<p>I dont know where Brits get the impression that NYU is a top school or selective. I once interned with an NYU student seemed to have a complex because he could not get into my undergrad after applying twice. Another ignorance that should be cleared up. Its like how Americans worship LSE.</p>

207

<p>It appears your stance is that once a school has a strong Eng/Math department and another does not, you conclude that the former is stronger. I think that is naive as you are saying people like Obama are automatically less intelligent than top Engineers and Mathematicians. That is just a low basis to sit on.</p>

<p>Also the report clearly states that St Andrews has a lower bar for international, the head admits it, so you are talking bum when you automatically equate the quality of the whole of St Andrews to the quality of the US students admitted. The EU students are of finer quality and they are majority.</p>

<p>Look at this statement: *“Before I came to the University of Edinburgh, I went to Hamilton College in upstate New York,” said Lucea Spinelli, a second-year politics and philosophy student. “It was very beautiful, and very fun, almost like summer camp, with all kinds of extra help available. It’s like they hand-feed you everything. I had one teacher who gave my paper back for revisions until I got an A-plus. That wouldn’t happen here. There’s not that kind of hand-holding.” *</p>

<p>This is the blatant grade inflation you would not get in the UK. In UK, you sink or swim. I hear it is only in a few top unis like Caltech that has the sink/swim approach.</p>

<p>And FYI, Edinburgh is generally regarded as weaker than Warwick and Bristol, but on par with KCL.</p>

<p>Warwick and Bristol are next to UCL.</p>

208

<p>“Warwick and Bristol are next to UCL.” </p>

<p>In what exactly?</p>

<p>“It appears your stance is that once a school has a strong Eng/Math department and another does not, you conclude that the former is stronger. I think that is naive as you are saying people like Obama are automatically less intelligent than top Engineers and Mathematicians. That is just a low basis to sit on.”</p>

<p>No it shows they have different strengths so they should not be compared. Obama is intelligent but he cannot crack math like an engineer. Obama is encouraging more students to enter STEM fields more. Its hard to believe that the history students at Warwick are as smart as the engineering students at CMU- maybe in History and cramming. I tend to be skeptical about people who study accounting/finance and business even more. Argue from day to night- Engineers/Mathematicians/scientisy are generally smaller in number that people who study business- there is a reason for this- the same reason that KCL closed their chemistry department and expanded to business. the same reason </p>

<p>“I hear it is only in a few top unis like Caltech that has the sink/swim approach.”</p>

<p>Again everything you do is hear, you never experience. How many people at Caltech-about a 1000 students and very grade deflated yes. </p>

<p>“And FYI, Edinburgh is generally regarded as weaker than Warwick and Bristol, but on par with KCL.”</p>

<p>Really by whom? The league tables? Or more anecdotes? I dont feel like arguing about the league tables but I would note that Warwick does not have the prestige level outside the UK yet that KCL and Edinburgh does. I still am aware that its academics and student body is higher in quality.</p>

<p>There are no clear cut answers- that’s why I ask again what is the aim of all these silly debate? If you think Warwick or Bristol is as good as an Ivy fine. Its your opinion- very few people do. If you think Warwick or Bristol is superior or as good as Georgetown/Northwestern/JHU fine. Dont worry about the students in this school, they are pushing their weight attending graduate schools at top research institutions, producing brilliant doctors and lawyers, world leaders and founders of hedge funds, creating contributions to science, technology and medicine. They are not worried about whats happening in those schools which lack distinguished students. You dont worry too much about those under you- you look at the sky.</p>

<p>Grade inflation in the UK is rampant- you always conveniently ignore this and give excuses. They also have like significantly less assessment so we cannot even be sure they are learning the material. All my friends at UCL and Imperial party a lot while I work day and night. Most importantly they would not have gotten into a school like Tufts not to talk of Cornell if they did not go to expensive boarding schools which tutored them for the grade-inflated A-levels.</p>

209

<p>I have a feeling that Luthervan just wants affirmation that his school is equivalent to an Ivy. You wish. Not in anyone mind. Very few schools are Ivy quality- claims could be made but thats just what it is a claim. Everyone insults the lower Ivies and makes claims about their inferiority just to soothe their ego.</p>

210

<p>just to comment on the difficulty of the A-levels, let me just say that they are **** easy. I lived my junior year in England and my school offered both the IB (international baccalaureate) and A-levels and of the almost 100 students, only 6 took the IB, why? because it is much harder. When we were getting our IB introduction we were mentioned that a study was made which said that 40 points in IB (max 45) is equivalent to 6 As in A-levels hahaha that is just sad because schools dont even allow students to take 6 A-levels.</p>

211

<p>

</p>

<p>That is such a wrong statement that it’s almost laughable. From what I’ve encountered, many of the top schools actually want to help their students succeed, and they have the resources to do so; you typically have good advising available to you should you need it. The universities that don’t have the resources? Well, you’re left on your own. Compared to GTech, Caltech and MIT flat-out coddle their students, because GTech just doesn’t care. Take a look at the four-year graduation rates:</p>

<p>Georgia Tech: ~30%
Caltech: ~80%
MIT: ~80%</p>

<p>And no, it can’t be that GTech students are just dumber than Caltech and MIT students. (If you’re at all familiar with the school, you’d know such an assertion would be absolutely wrong. There are many Caltech/MIT caliber students at GTech. Tech, after all, is a great school for a low price tag, esp. if you live in GA and have the HOPE scholarship available to you.) It’s simply that at MIT and Caltech, you have more support. Take a look at MIT’s policy for freshmen:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Taken from MIT’s admission website. See how nice they are compared to Tech, where your GPA absolutely tanks if you don’t stay on top of everything right from the get-go.</p>

212

<p>The material at MIT is hard- I have used some of their material to study for my undergrad exams- I think the material varies at different schools for one and how indepth you go. Georgia Tech/UMich and Rice also have very indepth engineering programs equivalent to Imperial. Dartmouth and Brown not so much. These schools have minimum requirements and lack the diversified study that Luthervan claims.</p>

<p>Thats why I dont compare engineering schools to others- they rarely have space for the liberal requirements at other colleges. The basic truth is that all you need to know in History/Psychology/Business/ can be taught in a two years so any additional liberal studies is not bad.</p>

<p>In the UK where they spend like 6-8 hrs in class as opposed to the 25 hours I used to spend a week in class minus assignments. That’s why they can spread courses in three years.</p>

213

<p>Just did a quick count on Imperial’s second year mech eng course.</p>

<p>First term ~26h of classes per week. Not to mention that there’s a lot of people adding at least 3-4h per day for self-study/assignments.</p>

<p>Yes there are some people who party a lot but they, usually, do not get high marks/fail.</p>

214

<p>Makes sense- second year is usually the hardest and most intense for British Universities which is the same for third year in the US.</p>

215

<p>Interesting thread. My sister wants to transfer to a US university from the UK but has been told by one of her lecturers that a US degree would be inferior. Obviously this seems ridiculous. The reason was that a UK degree would be more specialised, say for example doing Physiology in the UK means you would do Physiology and not other things like you would with liberal arts education.</p>

<p>I don’t know if the above is valid - since you do 4 years in the US and I suppose you would still be able to do the same courses/ modules as you would in the UK?
What do you think?</p>

216

<p>I should think you’d be doing about the same number of classes in one’s major in either country, because in addition to focusing on your major for the final two years, you would most likely be taking some other classes on the subject during your first two years–plus, you would be enriched by the classes on other subjects (is it really going to hurt an English major to learn more about history? Or to have a chemistry student learn more about biology or math?). I agree with you that it is ludicrous to think that a US degree would be inferior. Having said that, there are some lame US universities and great UK ones, so you’d have to compare apples to apples in terms of the quality of the individual institutions.</p>

217

<p>^ true- I started my major from the first day I started. It all depends on the student. I do think though that the lax requirement policies of American majors could be a problem if the student is not driven. If a student is driven, they can specialize way more than people in UK universities. They have the opportunity to take graduate classes, write a thesis, engage in research- things that are typically not allowed to undergraduates in the UK.</p>

<p>As endicott pointed out it depends on the school you go to- there is less rigor in most state schools than Ivies/top privates/Top LACs. </p>

<p>Not demeaning state schools just the ones I have seen because of the large student body making interactions more difficult.</p>

218

<p>double posts</p>

219

<p>[Yale</a> Daily News - What?s better: Oxford?s depth or Yale?s breadth?](<a href=“http://www.yaledailynews.com/scene/scene-cover/2010/04/23/whats-better-oxfords-depth-or-yales-breadth/]Yale”>http://www.yaledailynews.com/scene/scene-cover/2010/04/23/whats-better-oxfords-depth-or-yales-breadth/)</p>

<p>I cant remember who im indebted for this link, but it’s a very good article on the differences between Oxford and Yale, and more generally the UK and US.</p>

220

<p>Article was long- the only thing that caught my interest was that Oxford had 15 nightclubs.</p>

<p>What i drew from it though was that it made a lot of assumptions about the students at Yale. There are going to be a large number of nerds at Yale who dont partake in any extracurricular activity at all. In my undergrad (which is not an Ivy nor one of the big Stanford/MIT but a decent private), there are kids who engage in extracurricular and there are some who spent all their time delving into their particular major and gaining as much depth as a PhD student. I never saw these kids in any social event that did not involve studying or gaining honors and most would be enrolling at top PhDs which makes sense.</p>

<p>Also most importantly not everyone went to HYPSM+ other Ivies or Oxbridge so using them as examples is a little bit misleading. These are not the only universities in their countries I am interested in comparing student quality and academic rigor across the middle of the back- Not just the golden triangle in the UK of Oxbridge and the London universities of UCL,LSE or Imperial (some overzealous person mite remind me about KCL)- but the lower end solid schools like Warwick/Bristol/Durham/St Andrews/Edinburgh versus the various tiers in US.</p>