<p>“Indeed Germany, the UK and France aren’t even the top runners in Europe; the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland and Finland are all I think way ahead.”</p>
<p>“Or you only visited Germany, the UK and France, and not Switzerland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland or Belgium.”</p>
<p>Apparently Ghostt and Dionysus58, like a lot of others on this board, can’t even read.</p>
<p>“This is exactly what I mean, does it really matter that you used projection monitors instead of LCD screens? Is it really going to impact on your education? No of course not.”</p>
<p>I don’t see how you can become a leader/innovator when your resources at your disposal are outdated and being laughed at by exchange students (granted, they are from wealthy families) from countries such as Colombia and Peru.</p>
<p>I think we can read perfectly well; you said “the only major European countries close to the US (with regards to wealth and standards of living) are Germany, the UK, and France” - I took issue with this, as it seems did Ghostt.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What you don’t see or understand could fill volumes I am sure. If all great inventors and innovators were used to the best of everything they would never of had to invent anything, would they. The truth of the matter is that facilities impact very little on ones education, at undergraduate level at least. Are you ever going to address the actual points I made, because these abstract concepts you’re using are largely irrelevant, and more than a little annoying.</p>
<p>“I think we can read perfectly well; you said “the only major European countries close to the US (with regards to wealth and standards of living) are Germany, the UK, and France” - I took issue with this, as it seems did Ghostt.”</p>
<p>You just proved my point. Since when did the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and wait for it … Iceland … become major European countries?</p>
<p>“The truth of the matter is that facilities impact very little on ones education, at undergraduate level at least.”</p>
<p>Perhaps the fact that you never attended an elite American school limits your view with regards to what college education really is. College (especially attending elite ones) is more about learning science, reading, writing, etc. It’s about growing into a confident leader, which requires always having top notch resources (gym, cafe, lab, 30" Apple monitors, etc.), having exposure to leaders (table discussions, not lectures, with top executives, government officials, etc), being able to take your professor out to lunch one-on-one (paid by the college) at a fancy restaurant, going to formals in limos (paid by the college) instead of on scooters or on the subway, etc. The quality of teaching and of professors are just two of many components. I’ve seen too many European students walk onto the trading floor being flabbergasted by the fact that each trader has four LCD monitors. I’ve met too many European students who get so nervous and don’t know what to say when being introduced to a VP at an investment bank. The American student I have met a much better overall and less awkward overall. You just can’t become a leader simply by attending classes. This is why the 4 year American liberal arts education is better than the 3 year learn-everything-about-a-single-discipline approach in Europe.</p>
<p>Nearly all European countries are small; the UK, France and Germany (together with Spain and Italy) are the exception, they aren’t the norm. It makes no sense to me at all why you’ve chosen to exclude the smaller European counties from this debate, which was let me remind you on whether or not European peoples (not just the British or French) enjoy a higher standard of living than Americans.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps you’re right, perhaps European universities are missing a trick and should start organising dinner dates for their students and profs, then again maybe not. </p>
<p>Why do you not understand the concept that the two systems are so inherently different, and cater to such opposing expeditions from society and employers that they can’t be compared or quantified, and one is not necessarily better or worse than the other. American colleges may well place more emphasis on the learning of life skills, but European universities don’t - that doesn’t make them worse, just different! There’s no point saying anything else until you understand that.</p>
<p>hi,
haha this is one of the best threads ive been through! i know this thread is old but i have a liitttlee question. As of 2012, how would you compare KCL to UCLA. Which one ranks better, is better academically, has greater prestige, and is more well known internationally? anyone?
Thank you soo much</p>
<p>Which course at King’s? Unless it’s Law then definitely UCLA. King’s is no longer even see as an elite UK university and is around 10-15 in the UK.</p>
<p>It is pretty meaningless to look for absolute single rankings. When you get into the really top tier, it depends on what the student wants and the course chosen. </p>
<p>If you want to live in Europe, oxbridge is at least as good as the US Ivies, though to live in the US the Ivies are better (for networks, etc.) </p>
<p>If you are looking for an intensely individual education to develop critical thinking skills, I don’t think you can beat the oxbridge tutoring systems.</p>
<p>It really depends what you want and expect.</p>
<p>Ugg, you have revived a really dumb years old thread, started in 2010,that deserved to die. Next time–before you reply, check if the date on the last post is over a year old and if it is leave it be.</p>
