Stanford v. Oxford for prestige?

<p>I want to edit my previous answer. I don’t think either university surpasses the other in prestige. They’re both at the top of top when it comes to higher education, and they’ll both really impress employers and pretty much everybody else.</p>

<p>To the poster above me, these forums are full of people who generalize and make assumptions based on little more than hearsay and info off the internet. It’s just kids and parents sharing their opinions, so sefago isn’t out of place (however negative he/she may be on certain subjects).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Seems you are confused between “academic study” of the humanities in the university and “research” in the humanities. I am arguing about the biases of research in the humanities. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I am not the first nor the last. 99% of the people on CC criticize Universities most of them cannot even get into. Check some recent threads. You would see people claiming Harvard is grade inflated and very easy, that American schools hand-hold their students (A statement you made in a previous post), that this school is more rigorous than the other, that this school’s department is better than that department. Infact, I could bring out posts of yours that comment on American universities if you want me to.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, you are correct, I do not have the qualifications to judge multiple schools anywhere. However, I can still make some value judgments based on discussing with
professors who have taught at a school, researched at a school and stuff like that. You dont have to study at a school to know whats going on- you can work there too or have colleagues to have an idea. People talk and share their experiences. Or you can have friends currently studying there. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yeah but isn’t that the same thing I am doing? Anyways also be aware-I have never said the way I view things is the correct way. For example, I place paramount importance of the strength of a student body in judging a school. So, I would draw my conclusions from selectivity. It might be foolish to you but I have my reasons for doing so. I do the same when judging American Universities. Of course the student body is heavily reliant on faculty strength and research. But its in a way like thermodynamics- one reason is a derivation of the other.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>As I said, I dont hold any system in contempt. I respect every system equally. That does not change the fact that from my subjective criteria Stanford is better than Oxford. Infact to make you feel better- yes, I think Stanford is even better than Princeton and Yale too. Its superb for science and engineering. That doesn’t mean I am right. Hint: The marker word is “I think”</p>

<p>I jumped from prestige towards quality because like you mentioned earlier prestige is a very nebulous term. Moreover, it is heavily dependent on combining the criteria of several people. It would be easier for me to judge a school based on my own criteria only.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I meant at the undergraduate level. Like apart from the tutorial system at Oxbridge, most universities would be teaching basically in the same style. Seminar classes would be less common. I think it would be fair to say that most schools would teach fairly the same material at a different pace albeit better schools having more rigorous assessments. </p>

<p>So three things make a school distinctive- the structure of the curriculum, the opportunity for faculty-student interaction, and the strength of the student body. Other things would derive from this. A school would have a “strength” if they have an innovative curriculum that could encourage their students to gain intellectual enrichment especially in coordination with faculty. This is what Oxbridge have. The opportunity for research experience at the undergraduate level is an example of intellectual enrichment. If not your whole school would be based on just the strength of student body .</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>True.</p>

<p>Oxford on an International level, for some parts of the US Oxford is still more pregistigious. I think Stanford would be more prestigious on the west coast for sure however, I think Oxford has more prestige overall, even though I like Stanford more…</p>

<p>It may be surprising to some people on the board, but Oxford is not considered to be a top tier school in terms of prestige in parts of the world. Oxford is one of the main instruments used by the UK to maintain it’s former empire. Stanford jumped started the information age. I think this difference can partly explain why Oxford is held in high regards in places like India, the US, the Middle East, etc., while Stanford is held in higher regards in tech savvy cultures of Asia and Europe. From what I’ve seen, people in former British colonies usually have extreme respect for Oxbridge, while people in places that has never been British colonies don’t have that respect for Oxbridge. So Oxford is more prestigious in some parts of the world, while Stanford is way more prestigious in other parts.</p>

<p>Stanford is not way more prestigious than Oxford anywhere. Oxford is the most prestigious university on the Earth. If we’re talking about selectivity as a gauge of prestige, Stanford is not quite HYP level and belongs more with Columbia and Duke. Although, to be fair, its academic programs and faculty are stronger.</p>

<p>^Harvard is the most prestigious university in the world and it has the rankings to back it up. Oxford is old and lifeless. Cambridge is the new Oxford. -.-</p>

<p>Lesdiablesbleus: Oxford is most definitely not the most prestigious university on earth. Some uninformed laymen living in the English-speaking world might think it is best, but for the informed, global-minded bunch who actually keep up with research discoveries will know that there are a dozen or more peer schools of Oxbridge around the world. If you look at strictly academic achievements, I don’t think Oxbridge ever really dominated academia as the top American schools do now. Even before the rise of the American institutions after WWII, there were the German and French universities like Heidelberg and Sorbonne. And if you want to go further, Oxford was established because Englishmen couldn’t go to the University of Paris to study due to some political situation. </p>

<p>And if you use selectivity to gauge prestige, Oxford will drop further down the scale.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Are you a freshman?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>How are u defining selectivity? SAT scores? top 10% if the class? Acceptance rates?</p>

<p>Lesdiableus: In every discipline that Stanford specializes in- It is either in the top 3 or at the worst ranked 5th (for very few disciplines). Its very very strong all round. Duke is not that strong and Columbia is a bit far away from stanford</p>

<p>If we’re using selectivity, people who actually intended to apply to Oxbridge know the two schools are really unselective. They’re nothing like US universities with their admittance rates above 30%. I’d compare the schools to Berkeley. Stanford is literally several times more difficult to get into than Oxford.</p>

<p>sentiment, the foremost reason why both Oxford and Cambridge have high admission rates is because you cannot apply to both universities simultaneously. But if the policy says you can, the admit rates for both universities would drop dramatically, making it as selective as the Ivies. The enrollment yield rates for both universities are significantly higher than any Ivy school.</p>

<p>RML: </p>

<p>Please stop and think for a moment: If people are allowed to apply to both Oxford and Cambridge, (as you claim) people probably would. But then why wouldn’t their yield rates go down significantly too if they engage in a cross-admit battle? </p>

<p>I hope your logic isn’t indicative of an Oxbridge education…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No its not.</p>

<p>RML, I was aware of those facts but am still unconvinced. Let me explain why.</p>

<ol>
<li>Even if we halved Oxford and Cambridge’s admittance rate to make up for the policy, it would still be over 15%, well above the Ivies.</li>
</ol>

<p>Furthermore, this is a very generous assumption because not all students would apply to both schools in reality given the choice. </p>

<p>Also, simply because both schools would have lower yield rates doesn’t mean they won’t admit all qualified applicants. This is because there is still no guarantee this smaller admitted pool would commit to the schools. </p>

<p>Admitting less students would only mean their enrollment would decrease. They have no means by which to discern who is truly interested.</p>

<p>The true admittance rate, therefore, won’t be much lower than it is now.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The Ivies ultimately suffer from their high tuition costs. Many students opt to go to Berkeley or Michigan or Virginia or even their no name state school over the Ivies simply because they can’t afford to pay. Oxbridge does not suffer this obstacle so in reality the yield of the Ivies would be much higher.</p></li>
<li><p>Finally, if you compare the percentage of students in the UK that fit into Oxbridge with the percentage of US students that fit into the top 20, you’ll find the two schools by themselves cater to many more lower tier students compared to the Ivies.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>rankingsaddict, </p>

<p>I don’t think you’ve understood what I was saying. I was simply saying that it’s senseless to compare the selectivity level of Oxbridge to Ivies simply because students can apply to some or all Ivies, which many of them actually do, but which is something that they can’t do to Oxbridge. As a result, the Ivies’ admission rates dropped but the yield rates dropped as well. If admission rates are solid bases for school selectivity then Imperial College, LSE and Warwick would come out more selective than both Oxford and Cambridge. But we all know that that isn’t actually true.</p>

<p>RML: Hold on, I think you are referring to the UCAS limitation of 5 schools rather than the fact that you can’t apply to both Oxford and Cambridge. That would put a lot more sense into your argument. Only if students were allowed to apply to more schools would the number of total Oxbridge applications increase while holding the yield the same.</p>

<p>sentimentGX4 </p>

<p>I still would not go far and compare the selectivity level of Oxbridge and Ivies+SMC until there would be an established law prohibiting all students to apply to 2 or more Ivy+SMC schools at the same time.</p>

<p>SMC = Stanford, MIT, Caltech</p>

<p>rankingsaddict,</p>

<p>I am saying that if all students can apply to both Oxford and Cambridge at the same time, the admission rates for both universities would drop dramatically – from something like 25% now to maybe 12% to 15%. Then there’s the UCAS policy which would disallow students to apply to more than 5 universities at the same time. That has added to the high admission rates of many UK unis too. (Thanks for bringing that up.)</p>

<p>

That limitation is hyped. How many students will honestly apply to more than 5 schools? Keep in mind there are a lot less universities to choose from in the United Kingdom. I mean, I don’t live in the UK and I can practically name every reputable UK school from the top of my head. -.-</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You are basically giving evidence to the opposition lol. So then it follows that at their current level Oxbridge are less selective because they do not allow cross-applicants. </p>

<p>However, assume that if cross application is possible and the UCAS limit is nonexistent, competition would be more intense because there would be more qualified students than spaces. Cambridge would have to increase its intake though since it would now be directly competing with oxford for students so this would make things difficult to model technically. Overall the net effect of even removing such barriers would not change the selectivity of Oxbridge even close to half since the class intake remains constant.</p>