<p>“Mediocre unis’ grade inflation in the US would be worse!”</p>
<p>Grade inflation is only a main phenomena in top schools. </p>
<p>Anyways bored with this inferiority complex debate. As time goes bye, excellent Universities would displace Oxbridge, and later in the future even Harvard- that is how life is. I have better things to do than schooling the Uneducated</p>
<p>The article gave 2 examples of people rejected by Oxford being accepted by Harvard. Read it again.</p>
<p>I think MIT and Cambridge are virtually on par, so I am not surprise someone with scholarship from MIT would prefer MIT.</p>
<p>You tell me, if you are offered Full scholarship to attend Princeton but only 30% to attend Harvard, which would you go for?</p>
<p>Err!</p>
<p>You are really ignorant.</p>
<p>Oxford just raised close to £1bn in endowment in the last 2 years.</p>
<p>From a Singaporean, Post 178:</p>
<p>"He was from Singapore too like me. He went to US for two years and ended up at these top schools. Actually I asked him over MSN a few times on what ground is he staying in the US but he refused to answer me, most probably because of the military service issue. (males must do NS before going to uni, skipping is a very serious offence and I have no idea how he would be coming back to Singapore). In short, I am not sure about his citizenship, resident rights or whatever. But I believe that by studying in a local school and applying thru the domestic route, the US universities must treat him fairly just like all his classmates. It must be, actually, because only a handful of people make it into Princeton from my country and they are really stellar people. I am 100% sure he couldn’t have gotten into Princeton and Columbia had he stayed in Singapore.</p>
<p>Ya then all the people come thinking that MIT is full of IMO IPhO people when in fact when an int’l is in MIT, he is more likely to be around a bunch of dim-bulbs! I mean, check the stats of those so call “Ivies”. Many students there don’t even have anything close to 800/800/800 for SAT II (MathII, phy, chem, whatever…) and you must know how easy it is to get a 800.</p>
<p>I suspect that the US universities really sell themselves too well when compare to Oxbridge, boasting that they have “exceptional” students and all. The average A-level for an Oxbridge student is AAAA, and having personally done both A-levels and SAT II, I can say that you can get a 800 for SATII even with a B for A-levels. Hence I strongly suspect that an average Cornell student is arguably much weaker academically than an average Imperial student (AAAA also). Seriously, I just want to snatch 5 students from each school and force them to sit for an exam and see how they fair. I strongly suspect that the Imperial ones would do better in maths, phy, chem and all other core subjects. No bias here, but there are people (I mean domestic ones) who get into Stanford with only 700+ for SATII Maths! and the lowest for MathII for my classmates is 780. Cornell appears to be slightly more selective than Imperial for my country, **but all the evidence so far suggest that the average Imperial student has a far higher academic standard than the average Cornell student.<a href=“For%20ECs,%20leadership,%20Cornell%20should%20win%20hands-down”>/b</a></p>
<p>I mean, Big Brother 1984, you could have gotten into Harvard or Stanford if you are a US student. Don’t you feel a bit short-charged or cheated?"</p>
<p>As I suspected- Georgia Tech is superior to Imperial in the ARWU ranking for Engineering and other fields. Georgia Tech is ranked 8th and Imperial 30th for Engineering, the field that Imperial claims to be the best in. </p>
<p>I retract my statement</p>
<p>Imperial= Texas A & M and University of Washington</p>
<p>I would point out that this ranking does not consider awards such as nobel laureates and field medals in this ranking. It only considers research quality concurrently- not who won the nobel laureate 50 years ago. Georgia Tech is doing more cutting edge work than Imperial.</p>
<p>Imperial’s research standing is with Texas A&M which is also an excellent engineering school. I would confidently wager that the engineering students at Texas A& M are quite excellent.</p>
<p>In the Natural Sciences and mathematics.</p>
<p>[ARWU</a> FIELD 2009 Natural Sciences and Mathematics](<a href=“http://www.arwu.org/FieldSCI2009.jsp]ARWU”>http://www.arwu.org/FieldSCI2009.jsp)</p>
<p>Georgia Tech= 42nd, Imperial= 27 and ETH Zurich=9th for research quality as Judged by ARWU. Imperial beats Georgia Tech in this field, but vastly inferior to ETH Zurich. This makes sense- academics consider ETH Zurich a superior school anyways. </p>
<p>In social science research, the 3 rd best school in the UK is LSE- its peers are UCSD, Chapel Hill and many others.</p>
<p>[ARWU</a> FIELD 2009 Social Sciences](<a href=“http://www.arwu.org/FieldSOC2009.jsp]ARWU”>http://www.arwu.org/FieldSOC2009.jsp)</p>
<p>Its research output is not equal to any of the top American schools</p>
<p>However, I have pointed out that this is biased towards research and not much on academics- you brought up the rankings though</p>
<p>That’s probably true - the SAT IIs are very easy, but they are also not a remotely significant part of admissions in the United States.</p>
<p>HYPSM > Oxbridge</p>
<p>Even British educators agree:</p>
<p>“Andrew Oswald has questioned the rankings on the basis that the respective league-table positions of the universities do not, at least in certain examples, correspond to the amount of Nobel Prizes they have recently won, arguing that “Stanford University in the United States, purportedly number 19 in the world, garnered three times as many Nobel Prizes over the past two decades as the universities of Oxford and Cambridge did combined.”[19]”</p>
<p>[Times</a> Higher Education-QS World University Rankings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Times Higher Education–QS World University Rankings - Wikipedia”>Times Higher Education–QS World University Rankings - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>More on the ARWU</p>
<p>LSE is ranked 17th in its field of economics on research and is the highest ranked British school</p>
<p>[ARWU</a> SUBJECT 2009 Economics / Business](<a href=“http://www.arwu.org/SubjectEcoBus2009.jsp]ARWU”>http://www.arwu.org/SubjectEcoBus2009.jsp)</p>
<p>All these are based on research and academic output. Has 0 correlation with Undergrad quality. Its peers in research are University of Maryland and University of Minnesota- basically it is likely that LSE academics are citing more and more American sources when publishing their economics papers.</p>
<p>In Computer Science, Imperial’s not ranked in the Top 50. Georgia Tech is 21st.</p>
<p>[ARWU</a> SUBJECT 2009 Computer Science](<a href=“http://www.arwu.org/SubjectCS2009.jsp]ARWU”>http://www.arwu.org/SubjectCS2009.jsp)</p>
<p>In Mathematics</p>
<p>Georgia Tech is 19th and Imperial is 46th after Warwick which is 40th</p>
<p>[ARWU</a> SUBJECT 2009 Mathematics](<a href=“http://www.arwu.org/SubjectMathematics2009.jsp]ARWU”>http://www.arwu.org/SubjectMathematics2009.jsp)</p>
<p>In Chemistry Imperial is 31st and Georgia Tech is 39th</p>
<p>[ARWU</a> SUBJECT 2009 Chemistry](<a href=“http://www.arwu.org/SubjectChemistry2009.jsp]ARWU”>http://www.arwu.org/SubjectChemistry2009.jsp) </p>
<p>In Physics Imperial is one of the best at 14th and UCSB is ranked higher than it at 13th. Georgia Tech is not ranked.</p>
<p>Let me point out that access to such research quality as a Georgia Tech student would be quite helpful too. Georgia Tech is a undoubtedly a top 10 engineering school in the world.</p>
<p>Obviously, as I have said repeatedly earlier, US universities have far more funds to spend on research, so obviously THEY WOULD SCORE HIGHLY ON RESEARCH.</p>
<p>It is no brainer that if you want to do a PG in research, the US is better.</p>
<p>But in regards to the academic rigour and ability of students at UG, the UK unis are as stated here.</p>
<p>[Rough</a> Guide Of The Best & Most Reputable Universities In The UK - Nairaland](<a href=“Rough Guide Of The Best & Most Reputable Universities In The UK - Education (5) - Nigeria”>Rough Guide Of The Best & Most Reputable Universities In The UK - Education (5) - Nigeria)</p>
<p>No LSE UGrad would go to Columbia and struggle.</p>
<p>No KCL UGrad would go to Brown and not smash their exams or struggle to get in if treated equaly as a local is treated.</p>
<p>An Imperial UG going to GeorgiaTech or UCSB would be a champion.</p>
<p>It is as ridiculous as saying because IIT and Tsinghua do not have so much to spend on research, their student output is not as good as UK or US unis. Hence they are in the class of LondonMET, Drexel or Utah State University which would have more funds.</p>
<p>Most IIT grads would floor the average Brown/Dartmouth/NYU grad.</p>
<p>THES Q ranking is not very Open- Peer review is approximately 40% of the rankings- that makes me a bit skeptical about the rankings. It does make sense why British schools perform well (Lets ignore the fact that Times is a British newspaper)- they are highly regarded in former British colonies and Europe. However regard and actual academic quality or student body have no correlation.</p>
<p>Regardless Georgia Tech is 12th while Imperial is 6th.</p>
<p>If someone is interested in academic quality only Oxford, LSE, Cambridge might come up. McGill not so much- maybe University of Toronto. However in the US, teh academics are solid if that is what you are looking for. If you are looking for prestige- then it might be a totally different ball game.</p>
<p>Even the prestige of schools ranked in Thes have no correlation. Ohio State being in the same class as Vanderbilt/Rice is at best laughable. </p>
<p>This brings me to the bulk of my thesis and what I noticed is largely ignored. A large number of the students in this Top US school are as capable as those at Oxbridge and could have gotten into Oxbridge. Unlike the UK, the difference in the student bodies of top schools is quite interesting. You could find oxbridge quality students at the Top 30 schools in the US. The only problem is that the numbers might vary- it is possible that 90% of the student at harvard are oxbridge quality, 70-80% in PrincetonYale/Stanford and MIT are oxbridge quality. You have some people like Bush who would have ended up in St Andrews if they were British but they are not the norm. You can also be sure that at least 5-30% of the students of the rest of the Top 25 schools are of Oxbridge quality depending on the strength of the student body.</p>
<p>People don’t turn down Oxbridge for Durham but people turn down Harvard for Williams/Amherst/Duke/Columbia/Cornell and occasionally Vandy/Rice/Gtown. Using Bush as an example of weak American admissions is at best laughable.</p>
<p>"No LSE UGrad would go to Columbia and struggle.</p>
<p>No KCL UGrad would go to Brown and not smash their exams or struggle to get in if treated equaly as a local is treated.</p>
<p>An Imperial UG going to GeorgiaTech or UCSB would be a champion."</p>
<p>Do you have any evidence to back up this obviously ignorant ranking? The average KCL student cannot get into a Carnegie Mellon talkless of Brow. I would bring real evidence in a few minutes from the academic experiences of students. The only Imperial College student who would be allowed to an engineering program at Georgia Tech would be a first class student while Georgia Tech is willing to take a 3.6 student from a supposed grade inflated American school like Rice with research experience. </p>
<p>“Most IIT grads would floor the average Brown/Dartmouth” </p>
<p>Haha-the students at Brown are one of the strongest you would find. IIT flooring the average Brown student exactly in what field?</p>
<p>NYU student body is not considered a top school in the US FYI. Maybe in Europe.</p>
<p>Bush without his father’s money would never get passed University of Essex. No way will he get into St. Andrews on merit. lol</p>
<p>I find it hard to believe anyone would turn down Harvard for Williams except for some scholarship reasons.</p>
<p>I am sure the academics in the top UK unis are robust, it is not like the US where one dabbles in different unrelated subjects. In the UK, you get stuck in immediately.</p>
<p>The US is superior in PG, this is even evident from how PG heavy the student body is. Those are the real ones that get involved in the top research not studying English Lit whilst gaining a course in Computer Science.</p>
<p>"Bush without his father’s money would never get passed University of Essex. No way will he get into St. Andrews on merit. lol</p>
<p>I find it hard to believe anyone would turn down Harvard for Williams except for some scholarship reasons.</p>
<p>I am sure the academics in the top UK unis are robust, it is not like the US where one dabbles in different unrelated subjects. In the UK, you get stuck in immediately."</p>
<p>Harvard offers more financial aid than Williams. There are so many examples on college confidential. Williams has brilliant academics, and the studnet body is at par with Oxbridge, and is preferred on wall street and top graduate schools than Oxbridge. Even Oxford at the other side of the Atlantic loves them a lot.</p>
<p>You still have not provided any evidence for such rankings except “I am sure” “I know” and other unsubstantiated statements. People have provided superior evidence that British schools are inferior academically. If you have no concrete evidence except pointing at grade inflation (In which I have proven that the UK offers firsts and 2:1 at a higher rate than the US) , the SATs (which are not inflated like the A-levels) </p>
<p>You also forget that Undergrad students at top schools are allowed to take graduate level classes and so finish an MS in 4 years. US schools are specialized and even moreso than British schools- it just depends on the individual.</p>
<p>I would like to ask- how you studied in both countries or just making random statements at a whim?</p>
<p>What more evidence do you want.</p>
<p>A high proportion of UK UGs get 2.1 and above, and there is no hint or shred of claim of grade inflation. A lower proportion in US get 3.4 and above, and their is still outcry of grade inflation, which means some are not good enough for the grade given. What more proof do you want?</p>
<p>The UK univeristy do well in both international rankings. So you still need more proof? </p>
<p>You are really a joker when you say US schools are MORE specialized than UK schools. lol</p>
<p>It shows you know nothing, as the whole world knows in the US UGs dabble mostly in a “liberal” setting whilst UK UGs immediately specialize. </p>
<p>You really know nothing and you are asking if one is making random statements on whims.</p>
<p>The problem is that (in addition to high school performance for both) UK universities select based on a knowledge test (A-levels), while US universities select based on an IQ test (SAT I), so it is hard to directly compare student bodies. UK students are likely more prepared on average, but also less intelligent. In terms of comparing the actual resources of the universities, though, there is no contest - US universities have far larger endowments, stronger professors, better research etc.</p>
<p>“A high proportion of UK UGs get 2.1 and above, and there is no hint or shred of claim of grade inflation. A lower proportion in US get 3.4 and above, and their is still outcry of grade inflation, which means some are not good enough for the grade given. What more proof do you want?”</p>
<p>That’s because American Academics are worried about the rise of grades in the previous years. This has nothing to do with University comparison. American academics complain of grade inflation, but British schools (Oxbridge) still take grade inflated grades as equivalent to their grades.</p>
<p>“The UK univeristy do well in both international rankings. So you still need more proof?” </p>
<p>They don’t- Thes-Q (Published by a british newspaper is not an international ranking). ARWU is based on international Research output in Which LSE and Imperial are second tier research institutions. However Imperial College gets a boost when you include the Field Medal awards and Nobel laureates- because of their past history.</p>
<p>“It shows you know nothing, as the whole world knows in the US UGs dabble mostly in a “liberal” setting whilst UK UGs immediately specialize.”</p>
<p>Really? The whole world- most who have not experienced these schools, and are talking from limited observations.</p>
<p>1) how many British schools require you to do a honors thesis before you graduate? This gives you an in depth knowledge of a particular field.
2) As an undergraduate in the US you are allowed to take classes freely for the most part. However, if you are studying the sciences and engineering it is likely you come in knowing what you can study. The only courses you can dabble with are like Business/Accounting/Psychology/English/economics because these courses could serious be taught in two years max. Like lets be sincere-one can get a Finance degree in a year- schools just let you stay for 3-4 years to take your money.</p>
<p>Also adding the liberal core to a tough science and engineering program makes the US what it is- A great place for creating world class institutions. Because you are allowed to complement your program does not mean other parts are diluted- thats where the ignorance of the Brits show, they asssume it would be impossible to complement both fields. However the US overworks their students as a way to make sure they meet both requirements.</p>
<p>So while students at London Universities can party hard, then cram 3 weeks before an exam, and have no other coursework component and miss their classes while in the US you are required to engage in discussions and perform , lab work, presentations, tutorials, seminars, homework, online assignments to ensure you know the material- you can understand why University of Tokyo would be equivalent to LSE and Imperial 
</p>
<p>At LSE in their Accounting and finance program, which you turn in material but its not graded. The only difficult thing is your final exams.You are required to do some reading outside class- which is very intense and you do need to learn material at a faster pace than a typical US school. But as long as you keep up with your reading then you are Ok. So the reason why UK schools are not supposedly grade inflated could be the low work ethic of their students.</p>
<p>Also look at LSE’s econ requirement</p>
<p>[BSc</a> Economics - Economics - Degree Programmes 2010 - Undergraduate - Study - Home](<a href=“http://www2.lse.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/degreeProgrammes2010/economics/L101_BSc_Econ.aspx]BSc”>http://www2.lse.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/degreeProgrammes2010/economics/L101_BSc_Econ.aspx)</p>
<p>compare their program to any top US school- you get the same amount of material covered. Except in the US, you can engage in research, do an internship in an IB or think thank, take graduate-level classes to increase your knowledge, and other stuff. </p>
<p>Lets be frank- Brit schools are ok. But after you leave LSE, Imperial and UCL- the academics at the rest are no different from GWU or University of Florida at best- not in the same class as Top Privates.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/international-students/904875-schools-uk.html?highlight=nairaland[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/international-students/904875-schools-uk.html?highlight=nairaland</a></p>
<p>One of the students from the past posts mentioned that he got waitlisted at:</p>
<p>Gettsburgh
Washington and Lee
Carleton
Lewis & Clark</p>
<p>But he actually got into KCL? Which you claim is as good as Brown. Brown’s student body is no way in the same class as any of those 4 schools.</p>
<p>Sefago, take a look at the admit % and test scores for Carleton and W&L… they are not that different from Brown’s.</p>
<p>Yeah Maybe the average test scores seem closely similar- but if you look closer at the statistics data- Kids having test scores in the top 5% would be higher at Brown. Admit rate at Brown is really low- one of the lowest in the Ivys. Washington & Lee has a very low selectivity now, but I dont know much about Carleton except they are a very good school and maybe the student body is a stepdown from Ivy but good school. </p>
<p>Also you would find more qualified students at Brown- kids with good higher class rank, more kids from prep schools which would have provided them stronger curriculum. What one has to understand is that the SAT is a complement to Grades/class rank for American students. A large number of students going to Brown will be high fliers in their high schools and this is what distinguishes them from the other people with even similar SAT scores. Brown will seek people who come from a challenging curriculum even though they might not have the SAT scores to get in typically.</p>
<p>Lots of the legacy/minority admits are at the top of their class, just that they dont have the SATs to get in. Or they might have deficiencies vice versa. The SAT and SAT II plays a role in admission but is not the only criteria. While the A-levels is grade inflated- which makes it difficult to distinguish the best students at the top level- the SAT despite its failings/complaints is still superior at distinguishing strong from weak students.</p>