The great debate: Harvard vs Oxford.

<p>IvyPBear, Brown, Cornell and Dartmouth are all ranked within 3-5 spots of each other (Dartmouth is usuallyranked between #8 and #10, Cornell between #12 and #15 and Brown between #14 and #16). That does not make up for the difference in international reputation that Cornell enjoys over the other two.</p>

<p>“…thats because there are many Harvard equivalents in the US. At least 10 schools can be seen as offering the same education as Harvard.”</p>

<p>Sefago, 10 is way too many. I can only think of four that can legitimately compete with Harvard. They are MIT, Princeton, Stanford and Yale. Any other school (even the likes of Cal and Columbia), regardless of how good it is, will not be considered a “Harvard equivalent”.</p>

<p>^ I am talking of undergraduate education not nebulous descriptions like departmental strength or overall strength which has close to 0 impact on teaching. Berkeley does not even come close lol to be realistic. Yes, there a lot of schools which can compete at the undergrad level to Harvard.</p>

<p>If you talk to professors at Harvard you would notice they always consider several schools as their peers in academics- its only outsiders that have an overhyped view of a school. I was talking to a professor at an HYP once and he mentioned our academic peers like Northwestern, Williams e.t.c. Harvard considers a lot of schools its academic peers and competitors.</p>

<p>RML, i’m not sure where you got Cambridge’s yield figures from but from my international high school (of my year), at least 30++ people got in and only around half are attending. Many of those attending didn’t get into good US schools and those not attending are choosing the likes of Williams, LSE, Carleton, Duke and NUS over C.</p>

<p>

Internally, Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences uses LACs as a benchmark for undergraduate education, particularly Williams (the second oldest college in Massachusetts). For example, the most recent (2005) Harvard curricular review, by the Committee on General Education, is no longer on the web, but some of the conclusions were published in [Harvard</a> Magazine](<a href=“http://harvardmagazine.com/2006/01/a-collage-of-colleges.html]Harvard”>A Collage of Colleges | Harvard Magazine):

</p>

<p>Williams, incidentally, takes cues for undergraduate education from Oxford, rather than from Harvard. The well-known Williams tutorials, with enrollments capped at two, are based on the Oxford system. Williams has traditional ties to Exeter College of Oxford, and probably sends a higher percentage of each class to Oxford than any other US school.</p>

<p>Oxbridge versus Ivies is just unanswerable. The systems are vastly different, as I see having a child interested in Cambridge. Oxbridge charges ahead much faster in a course (aka major) and lets students go much deeper, much faster. The Ivies provide a rounded education.
Admissions numbers cannot be compared. Many top American students apply to several, even all the Ivies,forcing the acceptance rate lower than Oxbridge. Under the UK system, UK residents can only apply to a MAXIMUM of five schools and cannot apply to Cambridge and Oxford, so , of course, the acceptance rates are higher.
There is very little in the way of aid for internationals at Oxbridge, so most who apply are able to pay the full amount (which is somewhat less than an Ivy, but still hardly cheap.) Oxbridge also emphasizes the interview which means fewer international applicants.</p>

<p>“If you talk to professors at Harvard you would notice they always consider several schools as their peers in academics- its only outsiders that have an overhyped view of a school. I was talking to a professor at an HYP once and he mentioned our academic peers like Northwestern, Williams e.t.c. Harvard considers a lot of schools its academic peers and competitors.”</p>

<p>I agree sefago. Those Harvard professors and administrators would even include a couple of public institutions as peers. However, given the choice between Harvard and another university/college (other than MIT, Princeton, Stanford and Yale), the vast majority of people would choose Harvard. That is all I was saying.</p>

<p>

Sorry; but I cannot find any compelling reason why a top student would choose Williams or Duke or NUS or LSE over Cambridge. In fact, Cambridge’s wait-lists aren’t utilized most of the time. The slots at Cambridge are highly coveted. The application process is long and arduous, so the acceptance would be a great reward, more so than a Duke or Williams or LSE or NUS acceptance. Many LSE, Imperial, Warwick or UCL students would break an arm just to get into Cambridge. </p>

<p>

The University Chancellor announces it during every early first day in class. The TIMES once published it too; sadly it is not accessible on the internet. But to give you an example, only 3 of the 88 admitted students onto computer science in 2000 (my year) did not enroll. Only 2 of the 157 admitted students for Economics did not enroll and also only 2 of the 252 admitted students for mathematics did not enroll. I don’t think that has changed much since that year. There was also no mention of where those students eventually enrolled, but I surmised most of them went to Harvard or any of HYPSM+Caltech.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Financial aid. Take for example an International student whose parents are ready to break the bank for him to send him to any school. For brits and americans this might sound weird but in other countries, parents place a lot of premium on educating their children. The student applies to Cambridge after his IB, then applies to top LAC and some American universities. He gets a scholarship in the american school- why would he pay so much money so that he can attend cambridge?</p>

<p>Do you think Williams, Carleton, Duke or LSE are generous to international students? I don’t think so. And, like I said, many international students at Cambridge are government-sponsored, so fees are shouldered by their respective governments. NUS isn’t that expensive. Cambridge is not that expensive for EU students. </p>

<p>If you think the 2000 data are reflective of today’s data then this take this:</p>

<p>Cambridge Applicantions, Acceptances and Enrollment Yield by Course</p>

<p>ARTS …Applications …Acceptances … Enrollment
Anglo Saxon…34 …18 … 15
Archaeology & Anthropology …145…60… 54
Architecture…214…39… 35
Classics …105…74… 71
English … 834 …201 … 182
Georgraphy … 247 …94 … 76
History … 575 … 195 … 181
History of Art … 95 … 20 … 18
Modern & Medieval Languages … 509 … 177 … 169
Music … 144 … 61 … 54
Oriental Studies … 62 … 25 … 21
Philosophy … 181 … 53 … 52
Theology & Religious Studies … 79 … 43 … 31</p>

<p>TOTAL ARTS… 3,224 …1,059 … 959
% Places to Applications: 32.8
% Enrollment Yield: 90.6</p>

<p>SOCIAL SCIENCES
Economics … 722 …157 … 155
Land Economy… 116 …39 … 34
Law … 921 …231 … 226
Social & Political Sciences … 362 …93 … 88</p>

<p>TOTAL SOCIAL SCIENCES … 2,121 …520 … 503
% Places to Applications: 24.5
% Enrollment Yield: 96.7</p>

<p>SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGY
Computer Science … 499 …88 … 85
Mathematics … 861 …252 … 250
Natural Sciences … 1,816 … 617 … 614
Engineering … 1,016 … 253 … 240
Medical Sciences … 1,130 … 281 … 280
Veterinary Medicine … 494 … 65 … 65
% Places to Applications: 25.8
% Enrollment Yield: 98.6</p>

<p>I also have data for 2001, as well as for Oxford for 2000 and 2001, but I’m lazy today.</p>

<p>“IvyPBear, Brown, Cornell and Dartmouth are all ranked within 3-5 spots of each other (Dartmouth is usuallyranked between #8 and #10, Cornell between #12 and #15 and Brown between #14 and #16). That does not make up for the difference in international reputation that Cornell enjoys over the other two.”</p>

<p>It’s just what I have seen. Brown is greatly preferred over Cornell. Cornell’s reputation doesn’t align with its prestige in the eyes of students at UWC. Go talk with someone from a UWC yourself, and I’m sure he/she will tell you exactly the same thing.</p>

<p>Showing Oxford and Cambridge have high yield means nothing since students in the UK can only apply to one or the other. On the other hand, students in the US may choose many school over Harvard, including Stanford, Yale, Princeton, and MIT, and students may choose Brown, Dartmouth, Columbia, Penn, UChicago over those ones. It’s ridiculous to compare the each Ivy to Oxford/Cambridge, considering Oxbridge graduate about the same number of undergrads each year as the 6 smaller Ivies combined.</p>

<p>Any Ivy is probably more difficult to get into than Oxbridge, simply because the U.S. has five times the population of the U.K. (and a larger proportion of that population is college-age, as well).</p>

<p>The Ivy League–as a whole–has slightly more than twice as many undergrads as Oxbridge, while drawing from an applicant pool that is at least 5x larger.</p>

<p>Harvard all the way man. $28 billion endowment (2010) v. 3 billion pound endowment. If anything Harvard’s financial aid should be more than enough of a reason to go there.</p>

<p>I was just trying to refute the statement and claim that many more students would rather enroll in Duke, Williams, Carleton or LSE, NUS or the Ivies than Cambridge. Of course that isn’t true. The vast majority of those who apply to Cambridge are very decided to attend Cambridge. I think it’s the same for Oxford. Cambridge and Oxford are superior to UPenn, Columbia, Dartmouth, Brown or Cornell. Only Harvard, Yale and Princton are as brilliant as Oxbridge.</p>

<p>"Any Ivy is probably more difficult to get into than Oxbridge, simply because the U.S. has five times the population of the U.K. (and a larger proportion of that population is college-age, as well).</p>

<p>The Ivy League–as a whole–has slightly more than twice as many undergrads as Oxbridge, while drawing from an applicant pool that is at least 5x larger. "</p>

<p>Its actually 3x larger. Because of former british colonies and students from all over the world trying to get into oxbridge. Nevertheless the competition for both would be close.</p>

<p>

[quote]
I was just trying to refute the statement and claim that many more students would rather enroll in Duke, Williams, Carleton or LSE, NUS or the Ivies than Cambridge. Of course that isn’t true. The vast majority of those who apply to Cambridge are very decided to attend Cambridge. I think it’s the same for Oxford. Cambridge and Oxford are superior to UPenn, Columbia, Dartmouth, Brown or Cornell. Only Harvard, Yale and Princton are as brilliant as Oxbridge.

[quote]
</p>

<p>I dont think anyone used the term many more. I think people said some people do choose these schools ahead of Cambridge or oxford. This is true. Yes, Williams, Duke and Carleton are generous to international students. And most of the internationals who get financial aid at these schools could literally walk into Cambridge or oxford because of their superior academic achievements</p>

<p>Considering the fact that as an Overall university scale, Cornell, university of chicago, and Columbia have departments equal to or stronger at the graduate level than Oxford, that claim is *****. You cannot tell much in terms of undergraduate. Columbia is very very selective. It would be very much in the same league as Oxford if not going on reputation alone but tangible facts.</p>

<p>Just say you think that Oxbridge is superior to the “lower” ivies. There is no proof about this, and I doubt this is true. On an objective basis and when I have time, I could analytically prove at the undergrad basis. Sadly I dont have time today</p>

<p>safego, how could you say that proofs that Oxbridge are superior to the “lower Ivies” do not exist when all international league tables are saying so? And, if you insist that the “lower Ivies” are academically superior to Oxbridge for undergraduate, show me facts. Until then, I’d maintain that Oxbridge is superior to the “lower Ivies”, and generally speaking, are peers of HYPSM + Caltech & Berkeley.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No. Those American universities mentioned are hardly top 8. Oxbridge are consistently top 8 in international league tables. Like I said, Oxbridge’s peers are HYPSM + Caltech and Berkeley. Columbia, UPenn, Michigan, and most especially, Chicago are in the next tier.</p>

<p>

Why not? Have you forgotten that Oxbridge are undergrad and major focused? The maths curriculum at Cambridge, for example, contains more maths subjects than the maths at the “lower Ivies”. How can you not say that Cambridge undergrad isn’t better then? Would you contest that Cambridge is superior to Columbia for Brown or Dartmouth for economcis then? Would you contest that Cambridge is superior to all the Ivies aside from HP for maths? Which Ivy is superior to Cambridge for engineering? Which “lower Ivy” is superior to Cambridge for English or History or Architecture or biology or medicine?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think it would be more appropriate to say FEW rather than SOME, as in, a few people do choose these schools ahead of Cambridge or Oxford. It’s just too funny to hear from someone saying, Williams or Carleton is a contender of Cambridge (and Oxford) in the enrollment yield. In fact, I don’t think they belong to the same sentence.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>ARWU places Oxford with Cornell and Columbia and not that far from UPenn, JHU. QS is a very flawed methodology but since its your thing- UChicago, Upenn and Duke and not that far from Oxford. the gap between Oxford and these schools is minute. The world league tables are very flawed, using meters like International character and heavily focussed on research production than even research quality. </p>

<p>No international league table suggests that Oxbridge is superior to Columbia, Penn, Dartmouth or Brown at the undergraduate level. Am I wrong? If you know one please let me know.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>the fact that it might contain more math subjects does not mean that the student will be tested in all that math subjects or that the system would be rigorous.</p>

<p>Also there are past examination papers for most of these classes anyways and you can develop a good understanding of the patterns of the examination if you study hard enough. The fact that you focus on your major, does not mean you will be tested in everything in your major that you learn or the level of material would be of intense difficulty. You could be taught everything and only tested on a few concepts. Or you could be taught very little and taught very well. Being taught the fundamentals can make you learn the advanced material way faster since advanced material is built from fundamentals.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well depends on what you define quantitatively as few. We are talking exclusively of international students. There are not that many cross atlantic applicants. Rarely would you find an American go to Cambridge even over Emory especially if they are eligible for aid. Rarely would you find someone from Britain pay the ridiculous 50,000 fees in the US when they can pay way less in their country. This has nothing to do with the academics of a school. However when we are talking of international students who are comparing between Williams and Cambridge- there in terms of financial aid-they would reasonably choose the former. They would reason that there is nothing Cambridge can offer them that they cannot get at Williams or even Carleton</p>