<p>RML, I have taken A Level exams. AAA back in my day was very difficult to accomplish. I went to one of the best high schools in the Gulf and only 12 out of 80 or students at my school got such marks, and they all ended up at Cal, Cambridge, Caltech (2), Cornell, LSE (2), MIT (2), Princeton and Stanford (2). </p>
<p>I took 4 A Level classes and several corresping AP tests. Getting an A in Mathematics is tougher than getting a 5 on AP Calculus BC. Students from my schools typically got Bs and Cs on the A level but 5s in the AP Calculus BC tests. Getting an A Economics was much tougher than getting 5s in Macro and Micro combined. Getting an A in English was as tough as getting 5s in English Language AND English Lit etc…All in all, getting AAA was pretty much equivallent to AT LEAST six 5s on AP exams.</p>
<p>hippo, there may well be a bit of a California bias toward Stanford, but it’s nothing like the East Coast bias that presumes HYP superiority (or the perception of it elsewhere) over Stanford. The provincialism of the East Coast seems truly unrivaled, and it can distort one’s views of how other parts of the nation, and world, perceive things. Outside of the East Coast (which of course feeds disproportionately into HYP), people increasingly view Stanford on par with HYP, and some view it as poised to overtake those schools, since HYP likes to make much of their “oldness” (especially H), while Stanford is very much about what the future holds.</p>
<p>Alexandre, how far back was this? My link has distributions going back to 1993 and even then 13% of test takers received an A. Currently, 26% of students score an A or higher. As you can see, the A-levels have suffered massive grade inflation. The APs do not award nearly as many 5s, especially in critical subjects such as Chemistry.</p>
<p>Ap Calc BC is notable easier than most AP exams; though one should note that Math Further currently rewards an astonishing 59% of test takers A or higher.</p>
<p>Re: post 118 - LOL…well, by ‘century’ , I did mean the last 100 years, not merely since 1999/2000/2001 (take your pick there). And none of you called me on Wolsey who I put in for fun.</p>
<p>SentimentGX4 have you even taken A Levels? They are actually quite hard. The reason the percentage of AAA achievers is so high is because students taking them can take whatever subjects they like and have no obligation, as in the IB, to take a subject from each discipline. For example, a student who loves math could take maths, further maths and physics and therefore be more likely to achieve a high grade in all. Your childish analogy assumes universities and institutions deteriorate with age, which is of course ridiculous. I’m not going to comment on your pathetic insinuations on the relationship between Oxford and the former British Empire.</p>
<p>i think thats because most of us dont know who wolsey is, and to be frank dont care. I recognized of course schrodinger, hubble and huxley but I dont think schrodinger actually studied at Oxford. Hubble was a Rhodes scholar and UChicago grad ( You might as well call Bill Clinton a notable grad of Oxford, though i dont think he finished his Rhodes there). Infact this is a common theme- a significant number of notable alumni of these famous institutions never actually studied significantly at most of these universities instead attending less known universities. </p>
<p>As sentimentgx4 says- Stanford is all about the future and developing innovations of the future. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is so true. Everyone has been hammering on stanford drawing students from Cali. Well Princeton has the majority of its kids from new jersey and the NE, Yale is no more than a Northeast upper class club, and Harvard is (Sorry i cannot criticize this school lol)</p>
<p>Sefago, I take it you and your fellows have no use for history then.
Schrodinger was, of course, something of a nomad, but was a Fellow at Magdalena for some years.
Hubble claims both UChi and Oxford , having gotten degrees from both.
Of course, you are right that a fair number of ‘famous alum’ don’t have degrees or have only their first degree from a given institution. (So, I’d be willing to withdraw Shelley, for example.)
But Oxford certainly has some recent achievements as well.
I most deliberately didn’t put Bill Clinton down - he definitely did not earn an Oxford degree.</p>
<p>sentiment, my experience dates back to 1992. However, A Level results have always been relatively high, primarily because the quality of the students taking them has been very high. The British system of education forces students to drop out of high school after their GCSEs, leaving only above average-outstanding students with the option to pursue A Level curriculum. Typically, only the very top students will be granted the privilege of taking popular A Level courses such as Mathematics, English, Economics, Chemistry, Biology and Physics. Other students will be forced to take “lesser” courses such as Sociology, Psychology, Computers, Communications, Classics, Critical Thinking, General Studies and Business. As such, the main subjects are highly selective to start with, just as AP Calculus BC or SAT II Math II. That is why such a high percentage of students taking those A Level tests are getting As; not so much because the A Level has low standards but because only the top 20%-30% of students in a particular system end up taking those classes in the first place. </p>
<p>Furthermore, getting one A may not be extremely difficult, but getting one A* and two As in serious subjects is very difficult.</p>
<p>I will agree that grading has become easier over the years. But then again, getting a mere A at the A Level is not sufficient for most elite British universities. They now expect A* predictions on the A Level, and will generally have an A<em>AA or even A</em>A*A requirement for enrollment.</p>
<p>I agree that the A-levels are harder than the American tests. But if you compare them to public exams elsewhere, they are actually very easy. Just pick any paper (save the English language ones) from IB or the Singapore/Hong Kong A-levels and you’ll see the obvious difference. Yes, there is a weeding process at the GCSE level, but only about half are weeded out, and according to this news report ([A-level</a> results ? live blog | Education | guardian.co.uk](<a href=“http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/mortarboard/2010/aug/19/alevels-schools]A-level”>A-level results – live blog | Education | The Guardian)), the number of As stand at 27%, while A* is 8%. These numbers aren’t anything to be really proud of, if you wish to base your claim of the academic superiority of Oxbridge students on them.</p>
<p>The thing about A-levels is that they are typically prepared for during the 12th and 13th grades. Furthermore, students only take 3 (or 4 exams) and these are the subjects that the students primarily focus on in their two years of study.</p>
<p>It, therefore, makes sense that the A-levels may be more comprehensive than the APs given that the latter exams are prepared for in a single year when a student must balance 4 or 5 unrelated school subjects.</p>
<p>At the end of the day, I believe the A-levels are evidently easier than the APs given the circumstances and the scoring distributions.</p>
<p>EDIT: Feel free to correct me if I am wrong regarding the nature of A-level study Britons.</p>
<p>@Alexandre
Oxford is the only elite university in the United Kingdom that has been strictly presenting its view against A<em>. Furthermore, Oxford does not require A</em> for admission. Its admission requirement to most of the programs still is AAB.</p>
<p>Oxford is one of the oldest running educational institutions of the world. What Oxford has gained in past 800 years is hardly comparable to Stanford. I feel, Stanford is little bit over rated. And there are some truths about Oxford too. The prestige might be higher than that of Stanford’s but the actual interest in students seems to be way too low. Yes, Oxford might get a lot of A* students, world toppers of A levels, but finally, after graduation, Stanford pays a lot more than what Oxford does. Students from the UK itself seem to be interested in Stanford rather than Oxford.</p>
<p>@sentimentGX4
You are just guessing. You don’t have any evidence to say A Levels is actually easier than AP. If you take views of students who have taken both the tests, you can find out the real truth.</p>
<p>I personally find AP way more easier when compared to A Level. AP just runs on surface. There is no deep understanding in AP. A Level, on the other hand, goes deep into a topic. A Level students tend to perform very well in college too.
You must check out what the US government says about the performance of an average American high school kid. Most of the high school kids in the US can’t locate the United Kingdom in the map! That’s really awful. That shows the standard and depth of AP.
On the other hand, if you look at A Level, you might be surprised to find out that the results are overwhelmingly better all around the world.</p>
<p>The point with Oxbridge is that getting AAA is almost irrelevant. I can’t remember the figure exactly, but they turn away something like 6000 people a year who go on to get AAA or better.</p>
<p>The hard thing with Oxbridge is, and always has been, the interview. Unlike with the Ivies where you’re interviewed by an alumni whose opinion doesn’t carry much weight, at Oxbridge you’re interviewed by the very professors who are going to be heading your learning. And the interview, instead of a little get to know each other session, is generally a pretty intense test of your innate skills in the subject.</p>
<p>Anyway, it’s stupid to argue whether Oxbridge is better than the Ivies or the Ivies are better than Oxbridge. They’re both very different and, quite indicatively, look for very different things in their applicants. While Oxbridge is purely interested in one’s academic abilities and their skills within the subject they’re applying for, Ivy places a much greater emphasis on ECs - as many of them say on their websites, they’re looking for the leaders of the next generation in all fields, while Oxbridge is purely looking for academics. Of course these Oxbridge academics more often than not cross over with future leaders, but it’s not why they get in. And also, the Ivies take into account sports talent and legacy whereas it is almost completely irrelevant at Oxbridge - yes maybe if two near identical people need to be differentiated and one plays tennis for England, then that might swing it, but beyond that it’s irrelevant.</p>
<p>Saying one is better than the other is like saying that Federer is better than T Woods - they’re completely incomparable.</p>
The problem is that the students that took them both are often using 2 years worth of concentrated experience in a subject (the A-levels) to apply to a test that was intended for 1 year of unconcentrated study (the APs). It’s not an “AP” experience unless the student took the test their 12th year.</p>
<p>
Are you asserting that the average AP World History student can’t point out the UK on the map? Otherwise, I don’t see how this is relevant.</p>
<p>Also, the UK is a geographically small island of little importance to the average American high schoolers life. On the world stage, the entire European Union has roughly the same weight as the United States (or North America). What makes the UK so notable that the average American high schooler should be able to point it out? We did claim independence from the British in 1776. </p>
<p>Can the average UK student point out Singapore on the world map?</p>
<p>“What makes the UK so notable that the average American high schooler should be able to point it out? We did claim independence from the British in 1776.”</p>
<p>Are you serious? That is perhaps one of the most ignorant statements I’ve ever seen.</p>
<p>And to compare the UK to Singapore. Hahaha.</p>
<p>Hmmm. . . . I cannot point the UK on a map either, but I doubt that has any reference to my academic ability. I cannot point tons of countries on the map, and I am sure there are some countries in the map you can’t point to. Infact, I would wager that I cannot point to America on the map either since I generally dont look at maps. I took geography in school but I made a point to forget it. </p>
<p>I had a roommate who knew everything that was happening in nearly every major country in the world. Because that was what he was interested in.</p>
<p>I reiterate what sentiment GX4: Whats so special about pointing the UK on a map anyways? tsk tsk such arrogance. And what does this have to do with academic ability?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So its a little bit of repeat like the A-levels? And considering the fact that you have past interview questions via google?</p>
<p>I agree that not being able to locate somewhere on a map is not a great reflection of academic ability. That said, it is an undeniable reflection of a limited interest in the world outside of your own country. And yes, there are many countries I can’t point to on a map, but certainly none of the G8, the EU, NATO, G20, etc…</p>
<p>As far as your comments re. the interview. Past interview questions on google is one thing but you’d be extremely, extremely lucky to get one you’d seen on google before. And the point is, the questions themselves aren’t necessarily hard - it’s the way your mind works thinking through them that they’re interested in. You could answer many of them in one word, but that isn’t going to get you in, is it?</p>
<p>And at no point did I say that they are beyond Ivy League students - I just brought them into the discussion to rebuff the many statements of “A levels are easy therefore Oxbridge is easy”, because they just aren’t true. </p>
<p>I don’t know why you’re taking umbrage with my post. Everything in it was pretty factual, not subjective. Obviously Ivy does put some focus on ECs while Oxbridge is purely academic potential. I’m not saying Oxbridge is better, nor am I saying it’s harder to get into. Personally, I’m applying to Ivy having turned down Cambridge last year. Why? Not because it’s better, but because it’s DIFFERENT.</p>
<p>This is what I call stupidity. There is not a single reason to write such a strong comment. We are talking about AP and A Level. We are not talking about Britain and the United States. I am neither British nor American, so, I don’t want to get indulged in such kind of stupidity.
But, we know the history and I can of course tell you something about the history. You are boasting about 1776. When British people were going to Oxford and Cambridge in 1200 A.D, America hardly existed. And if you are willing to go back to 1776, then you might also be interested in knowing that ‘Americans’ were ‘Britishers’ at that time.</p>
<p>And regarding the map thing, I still believe in the US Government’s official report which says that American way of education (AP) is making kids stupid.</p>
<p>Are you trying to blame the UK for its size just because average american high school kid can’t locate it on the map? We don’t need to know about what is more important or what is less important to an american kid. You are completely running away from factual discussion.</p>
<p>If you are so much interested in talking about the interests of american kids then why don’t you tell it to your government? It is the US government itself, saying that map thing.</p>