<p>I agree about the Byzantine studies. However, not really the same, they do it in preparation for further studies in their field. Not like a Physics student in the US taking Middle East History which is pretty common.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>These fields are intertwined. They are not exactly double majors but more like an interdisciplinary major. In a double major you need to meet the requirements of both fields and most schools prevent you from counting similar classes towards your major. </p>
<p>Also most UK schools have a professional fields- so students have to take âmodulesâ in various fields prepare them for more study but not in the true sense of breadth. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I think the issue here is that most people unfamiliar with the US system immediately assume that undergraduates are accepted solely on the SAT II. Most US students who enter with an interest in majoring in science have extensive preparation enough to find the further math A-levels a joke.</p>
<p>Most students attended elite high schools (both public and private) where they were their teachers went outside the textbook and taught them up too differential equations and multivariable calculus. Its very rare to find someone who plan to major in math to be taking calculus II except they want an easy A to boost their GPA.</p>
<p>The further math modules are pretty basic come on, you dont have to be that creative to answer the questions they all have a similar pattern. The ordinary differential equations is quite ordinary. A-level further maths is a joke and pretty formulaic to be honest. My experience with further math is that immediately you know the algorithm, you can solve the problems- which are repetitive.</p>
<p>Real Math gets significantly harder trust me. Especially mathematics proof and real analysis. Matrices, differential equations are just the basics of mathematics. The real essence of math is proof.</p>
<p>The issue with most standardized math exams is that they tend to be formulaic.So if you are good at learning a pattern, you are golden. Now if you were asked to derive that pattern on the other hand . . .</p>
<p>I would say that, excluding the obvious suspects like Harvard, Chicago, MIT, Berkeley, or Stanford, there are very few US institutions that can compare to the LSE in academic research in economics. BTW, a professor from LSE , Christopher Pis.sarides, just won the Nobel prize for Economics last year, raising the number of LSE alumni or former/current faculty who have been Nobel laureates to 16. That is quite impressive for a specialty university that does not offer degrees in physical sciences or medicine/biological sciences !</p>
<p>I agree with the previous posters though that, compared to US schools, UK universities are underfunded. Funding tends to be a more critical issue though in âexpensive researchâ areas like experimental physics, chemistry, biological sciences, engineering and medicine than in social sciences, humanities, (pure) mathematics, theoretical physics and law. Having said that, within the general shortage of funding (in relative terms compared to the US), the former are actually better funded in the UK than the latter.</p>
<p>Nearly every school does this, but I can of find it dodgy when people include visiting professors and affiliates as Nobel winners in their faculy. UChicago is notorious for this practise. A number of the people on LSE Nobel prize list did their undergraduates and graduate programs in the US lol. Some of them might have won nobel laureates for work they did not start at LSE.</p>
<p>IMO, the undergraduate school-the school that provided them the resources and intellectual encouragement to become academics should be credited.</p>
<p>hooo whooo but Bertrand Russell went to LSE. One up</p>
<p>hey all, just thought Iâd add my 2c.
Firstly, I remember a comedian describing the nature of AmericaâŠâAmerica sees themselves as No.1. The rest of the world sees them as No. 2.â
Iâve read this entire debate between sefago and LutherVan and itâs pretty hilarious. Not due to the lack of ignorance (albeit some) but mainly because of the level of commitment expressed to US vs. UK institutions. Now Iâm from Australia so Iâm Switzerland in this debate. You both had really good points. Harvard is Harvard. Enough said, but Oxbridge has 1760 odd years of education behind it, and Harvard doesnât come close to that. But Harvard has an unbelievable amount of goodwill and a HUGE amount of endowment which smashes Oxbridge out of the park. The debate isnât exactly an apples for apples comparison. Iâm sure if the top tier UK institutions (LSE, UCL, Oxbridge etc.) have the depth in the pockets as the US institutions do, and then there is more warrant for debate. And the reason Harvard, Yale, Stanford etc. are household names is the marking. Theyâre all in mainstream media (Harvard - Social Network, Yale - Gossip Girl, Stanford - The Office.)(Apologies for the 2nd referenceâŠterrible show i know.) When was the last time Americanâs were watching a film whereby Ricky Gervais or Ben Kinglsey playing Mahatma Gandi announce they are graduates of UCL? The UK just does not market the same way the US does internationally but that does not necessarily mean that the UK Collegeâs are inferior. Ford WAS the largest manufacturer in the worldâŠyou honestly think theyâre the BEST cars to buy? Harvard is the biggest institution but I bet you they are terrible in some areas. And they can attract all the Nobel winning PhDâs because they can afford paying them through a wazoo and offering them amazing facilities that theyâve been able to invest in from the huge sums of cash they have.<br>
Additionally, each institution will have their specialisations. My interest is in Real Estate, so naturally a few names might pop into mindâŠMIT, Columbia, USC etc. Sefago, Iâm sure you havenât heard of Henley Business School and their separated School of Real Estate & Planning? Probably not, but they are the oldest and most likely in the top 5 Real Estate courses in the world (the amount of research they do is ridiculous). Not saying itâs better than MIT/USC etc. but itâs still a great course. Just as Cass Business School has an excellent Real Estate for PG. People go there not necessarily for the name, but for the education theyâll receive. If it were me and had an offer from MIT, I wouldnât except it because despite the course involving the words âReal Estate Developmentâ, it really doesnât touch on much to do with development at all, thus would be inferior to Columbiaâs IMO.<br>
The other big issue is cost. US institutions are excessively expensive (again, another reason why they can afford such affluence). Iâm choosing the UK over the US because in this day and age I cannot justify spending US$60,000/yr for my PG which excludes the cost of living and in which the future salary would not cover such an investment. The UK is about ÂŒ of the price for the courses I am looking at. Australiaâs tertiary education does not have many restrictions (we have something called HECS which is a âloanâ from the Government which then gets deducted off our annual tax bill) and the total cost will be in the order of $60,000 max (this is for UG/PG med). Enterance is pretty easy and we donât have to fart ass around with stupid letters on how we plan to be some bozo Senator, or research into how moss can save the planet. Our system is much like the UK. You get in, start on your majors and you sink or swim. They do not care one iota if you get a A+ or a C+. Peopleâs ability is determined by the amount of effort they can put in. Does this lack of strict entrance mean Australia is far below the knowledge bar as the US? I think not and it would be extremely ignorant to suggest our education system is falling behind.<br>
My point being is that the UK and the US are two separate markets. This is a debate, so no doubt there will be differing opinions but letâs just reach common ground. LSE is brilliant, MIT is brilliant, UCL is brilliant, Stanford is brilliant, Oxbridge is brilliant. Theyâre all brilliant in their own fields, and the US in general shouldnât assume everything that isnât a product of the US is inferior â itâs just different and some open mindedness wouldnât be bad either. America has been No. 1 for a long timeâŠthey now have to get used to an idea of being No. 2.
Cheers</p>
<p>^ i doubt you would have any neutrality if you are going to study in the UK the same way I would have no neutrality anyways and not claim such</p>
<p>My debate was about undergraduate student body quality as opposed to well-funded research. Thats why i never gauged research much because its field specific anyways. My claim was that the Ivy league (excluding the non A&S of Cornell and the Engineering) were as good as Oxbridge with the top tier slightly better and is in no way equivalent to third to fourth tier british schools like Nottingham, St Andrews e.t.c. Even professors at oxbridge know this and thats why they love ivy league grads at the postgrad level (of course the fact that they are bringing international fees plays a role)</p>
<p>I would be honest that most of my points are based on observation. If I am impressed by a significant number of people from a certain place I am going to be very positive about the school. It has little to do with US vs UK as you interpret it. </p>
<p>That is why you see a small school like Amherst producing the same number of nobel laureates at the undergraduate level as LSE or Imperial. I still strongly believe that undergraduate quality is measured best by the strength of the student body and yes I will be hazy about hiring a University of Melbourne graduate when I am assured top quality from Williams or Amherst. Yes difficulty of a school plays a role in the learning environment.</p>
<p>For starters most US schools have a diverse number of research. Its difficult for you to be good at everything. And lots of US schools are good at everything. Oxford has been incapable fo producing revolutionary science in the past 35+ years and has been living on its history while a small unknown university such as Rice University is producing world class and revolutionary science consistently. Oxford and Cambridge can produce large volume research but even the only that large volume of research is not âqualityâ most of the time. Everyone with a pea brain in academia knows this. Infact only a crazy commonwealth nation person would claim that Oxford and cambridge is a match in quality research relative to princeton, harvard, MIT and Stanford, Chicago, Rice University et al.</p>
<p>Oxbridgeâs research quality peers are Duke, Minnesota, e.t.c</p>
<p>Stop comparing them to the megaweights. Its insulting to the hardworking researchers at Harvard, Princeton, MIT and Stanford to be compared to Oxbridge. Its just downright insulting. </p>
<p>Ahh dearâŠluckily, there are no academics living in your trolldom Rice produced 3 Nobel price winners, whereas Cambridge produced a bit more in the past decade </p>
<p>Anyway, if you feel happy because you always have to say something weird, and negative about Oxbridge, thatâs fine. Interestingly, 99% of the academia donât have pea brains⊠and of course, all the rankings lie, and Oxbridge is pretty crap actually. I never met any professors, who felt insulted by a comparison of their Ivy League institution and Oxbridge, but Iâm surely met just a tiny-little minority. You must have pretty bad memories from Oxbridge, like some aggressive fella pushed you into the river, when you visited the towns as a tourist? Poor youâŠ</p>
<p>Take your time. Relax. If it makes you feel better, I can copy-paste a hundred times, that Rice is superior to Cambridge, aright?</p>
<p>Cambridge isnât superior to Rice. Thatâs for sure. Saying that Cambridge is superior to Rice is kind of saying India is superior to Luxembourg. Very absurd.</p>
<p>So, the guy who is obsessed with spreading anti-Oxbridge stuff, and the user with an âIvyâ in his username are saying, that contrary to all the rankings and popular belief, Rice is superior to Cambridge (and, obviously, to Oxford). I will have hard times when I have to tell this to the many HYPSM graduates here, and propose, that it is better to do their masters or PhD at Rice, not Oxbridge. They will be thrilled, thatâs for sure, despite theyâre coming from your beloved institutions ;)</p>
<p>But Luxemburg and India was a good choice, frankly. I would say, youâre right, Rice is like Luxemburg. The weather is pretty good, they have some nice buildings, but somehow, the world cares much with India, and nobody is interested in Luxemburg.</p>
<p>I donât understand why you and sefago continue to post in these threads. Everybody by now is well aware not to place an ounce of substance upon anything you or he says with regard to Oxbridge or any other UK university. So why then do you waste your time trying (and failing) to belittle foreign universities?</p>
<p>I have great regard for Rice and I believe the US offers a greater number of excellent universities than the UK. However, to suggest that Rice and Cambridge are peer institutions is ridiculous. Cambridgeâ closest peer in the US is Princeton and Oxfordâs is Yale.</p>
<p>This said, there is a significant drop with the next level of universities. Other than Cambridge and Oxford, the UK does not have an answer for Cal, Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Northwestern and PennâŠto name a few.</p>
<p>In science research they are not that far off. I was not talking about undergraduate quality or even humanities and social science tbh. You know me well enough that I strongly distinguish between the the two. I was clearly talking about research and research alone. I do not conflate the two at anytime when I make personal judgements.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well of course as overall institutions. Love the way you always state your opinion as fact though. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you say so boss</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I doubt it. I personally believe that schools should be judged without respect to their perceived prestige. I feel I have the right to hold such views Mr Oxford on his location. If this isnt done schools could live on past glory for years.</p>
<p>Are you saying contrary to the article I posted by someone who has experience in academia- that I am wrong?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Its called prestige hounds. Does not mean one is better. i said the quality of research at Rice especially in the sciences is better judging by the amount of citations. This is not limited to Oxbridge actually but several institutions I would love to name such as Yale. </p>
<p>Its also a personal opinion. I kind of believe schools should be rewarded for good science.</p>
<p>IvyPbear has given a good reason why one cannot claim to be superior for research.</p>
<p>Sefago, my high opinion of Rice is well documented on CC. Anybody can run a history of my posting and it is clear that I think very highly of the school.</p>
<p>âIn science research they are not that far off.â</p>
<p>I donât know sefago, the number of Cambidge alums and faculty that have won the Nobel Prize in science is ourageous. In the last 30 years alone, over 30 Nobel Laureates have been affiliated with Cambridge. That tells me that in Scientific research, Cambridge is still a heavyweight.</p>
<p>Yeah true. Honestly Cambridge is not just a heavyweight in the sciences- its a mega heavy weight. However, affiliations (spending maybe one year max) does not mean much really. </p>
<p>I am actually talking of Oxford. And not just based on Nobel Laureates but just on research impact. Barring the biomedical sciences of course. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nah, not really I am actually in a very very good mood today. Probably one of the best days in my life. Thats why I am going to be nice today and say âWhats up?â</p>
<p>Anyways I believe this thread should die haha</p>
<p>However tbh, other schools should be given a chance to shine and not the already registered group of schools.</p>
<p>ââŠand the user with an âIvyâ in his username are saying, that contrary to all the rankings and popular belief, Rice is superior to Cambridge (and, obviously, to Oxford)âŠâ</p>
<p>GeraldM - I wrote: âCambridge isnât superior to Rice. Thatâs for sure. Saying that Cambridge is superior to Rice is kind of saying India is superior to Luxembourg. Very absurd.â Where did I say Rice is superior to Cambridge? Can you not read? I hope that you are not attending Oxford; the last time I checked, Oxford was teaching its students to avoid making unwarranted assumptions.</p>
<p>You said âCambridge isnât superior to Riceâ, which suggests does it not that you believe Rice to be superior to Cambridge or that theyâre somehow equal; either way youâd be wrong.</p>
Rice produced 3 Nobel price winners, whereas Cambridge produced a bit more in the past decade