<p>Looked at the cambridge math tripos and the past examinations for some of them.
The vectors and matrices content and the differential equations content where no different from what I learned in university.</p>
<p>[Mathematics</a> Examples](<a href=“http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/examples/]Mathematics”>Mathematics Examples)</p>
<p>Infact the diff eq exam looks like a joke. I was already doing it for fun</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You mean the general curriculum of the lower ivies. Students at most top schools which include the lower ivies would be required to take 35-40 classes. 10-12 would be general education classes. What you see on the internet as the Maths curriculum would be around 14 classes (or less). What do you think the people at the lower ivies majoring in math do with the 10-14 other courses they need to graduate? </p>
<p>Most of course would want to be investment bankers and do more econ classes or double major and such- but those weirdos interested in academia would overload on math classes and would choose the ones suggested by there advisors. They would go more indepth than you think.</p>
<p>You can even obtain a masters degree at Penn in 4 years: [Mathematics</a> Major Information](<a href=“Undergraduate | Department of Mathematics”>Undergraduate | Department of Mathematics)</p>
<p>These arguments are full of misinformation and foolish presumptions and I can’t really be bothered to flog that dead horse again. However, I’m curious as to why people are equating numbers of UWC students at American colleges with prestige. UWC students don’t flock to the US because the colleges are more prestigious or of better quality, but because of the scholarships available. Keep in mind that the Shelby Davis Scholarship, which is offered to UWC students attending college, is only available to students attending select American universities. Why would you not go to the US if it’s free?</p>
<p>This discussion is not about the most prestigious colleges. RML finds it hard to believe Internationals would jump at Cambridge which is not the case all the time based on certain situations. Only EU/UK citizens who pay next to nothing will.</p>
<p>Yes, even if the reason is financial-drawing a superior student to your university/college is a good thing. I know several good students who have been able to attend American LAC schools on financial aid.</p>
<p>As for your UWC comment, I know a couple of people who attended UWCs who gave the exact same views as IvyPbear. IvyPbear did not say they flocked to these schools because of prestige but likely for other reasons.</p>
<p>“Its actually 3x larger. Because of former british colonies and students from all over the world trying to get into oxbridge.”</p>
<p>Wow, I didn’t realize students from all over the world don’t seek to attend US universities anymore, I guess things have changed.</p>
<p>Since this is an undergraduate forum, I think we should focus on the undergrad level. And at this level, people seem to be debating three distinct things: (A) Difficulty of admissions, (B) Quality of the education, and (C) Reputation.</p>
<p>For (A), it is meaningless to look at admission rates/yield, since the US and UK employ such different application systems. What we should look at, is the size of the applicant pool vs the number of places available. Harvard has roughly 1,660 per class, while Oxford has around 3,200. Given that the US population is 5 times that of the UK, it looks like Harvard has the edge here. </p>
<p>Some may argue that the Oxford system of academic interviews, etc. is more rigorous. I would say that the British and American schools are simply looking for different things. And it doesn’t matter if Oxford makes applicants do differential equations while juggling ten cats and balancing a bathtub on his head and eating fire at the same time–it still has to take 3,200 kids every year, from a more or less set number of A-level leavers. So numbers-wise, Harvard is way more selective than Oxford.</p>
<p>(B) is where the tricky part comes in, as the two models are so different. Simply comparing the rigor of curricula is useless, as one can argue that, under the American system, motivated students who take graduate classes and conduct cutting-edge research can go equally in-depth in one subject, if not more so. And how do you compare the benefits of the Oxford tutorial to the more rounded liberal arts curriculum and more extensive research opportunities American students enjoy? Not to mention that some students simply fare better under certain systems…</p>
<p>(C) Reputation is even harder to gauge, and I suspect it varies greatly depending on the social circle one finds himself in. It’s really pointless to talk about this. </p>
<p>As for comparing Harvard and Oxford on their research prowess, I believe the crown must go to Harvard. Almost every single ranking based on overall research quality has Harvard placed ahead of Oxbridge. I am sure Oxford has a sterling reputation, but if we look at the numbers, Harvard wins.</p>
<p>As much I love debating endless (and usually aimlessly) I have to say you posed your points succinctly</p>
<p>Regardless I am gunning for a 1000 by next week posts so all ur points dont make sense and we gotta keep arguing. Alexandre has 15,000 posts :(</p>
<p>"I agree sefago. There is a big drop between #2 and #3 in the UK. Other than Oxbridge, no British university has the facilities or resources to match the top American universities (including the top publics). Imperial Engineering is a notch below Carnegie Mellon or Georgia Tech to say nothing of Cal or MIT. LSE is not quite on par with Columbia or NU, to say nothing of Chicago or Princeton. UCL is slightly weaker than Cornell and Michigan, to say nothing of Harvard or Stanford. "</p>
<p>I’m obviously biased being from Imperial but I would not agree here. We are unable to keep up at graduate level due to a lack of funding. At undergraduate level however the focus on specific disciplines allow us to progress much further than our American equivalents.</p>
<p>I have spoken to a couple of my colleagues who managed to get on exchange programs with MIT and Berkeley. The general consensus was that it was not too useful. The reason being that the undergraduate courses being offered were significantly underwhelming while the graduate courses were too difficult. Exchange students who have been to Imperial from these universities are more than welcome to comment but the only other comparison we’d be able to get is from someone who did a degree at both universities.</p>
<p>How they compare seems to be quite clear-cut to me. Which is better however is a whole other debate with focus vs. breadth. Graduate level is a whole different ballgame.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That doesn’t help. I have never for example met a single study abroad American student who found the british curriculum “challenging.” You would get a similar response from Americans who studied abroad. I know quite a fair amount of people when I was in college (several being very close friends) who studied abroad at Oxford, UCL, KCL and LSE, Edinburgh and St Andrews specifically who said the education was not quite up to a top american school standards. They especially complained about the fact that the curriculum was outdated (I agree actually in this regard for humanities or government/political science). For example History at Oxford would be focussed on British History or Roman history and all that crap but would have nothing to do with Middle east/Latin American/African history which could be the interest of the student. Basically students get frustrated that they cannot learn exactly what they want to in such a restricted curriculum.</p>
<p>Further most people who are involved in exchanges always are in the top 50-60% of the school. Like the people I knw who studied by direct exchange abroad at Oxford where all at least in the top 15-25%. LSE and UCL more in top 50%. While those at KCL/Edinburgh did not require that much difficulty being an exchange. Obviously schools will pick students who will not embarrass them academically lol </p>
<p>I dont know much about MIT or berkeley’s science curriculum. However the question would be what classes at Berkeley are they taking- sophomore year classes or junior year/senior year classes? If they are allowed to take graduate classes, then it suggests that they were significantly advanced enough not to take most undergrad classes anyways</p>
<p>My two cents</p>
<p>ponjavic:</p>
<p>The distinction between undergrad and graduate level classes at American universities isn’t that clear. When I was in college, most of my friends took graduate-level classes in their senior or even junior year. I myself even tried to take a graduate class outside of my major (which didn’t turn out that well…). So I guess it would have been natural for an IC engineering major to find the undergrad classes easy (as they should, having focused on one major for 2-3 years versus the Americans who often spend less than half of their time on their major), but if they found the graduate level classes too hard, then it really speaks to the quality of (admittedly, the more motivated) American students…</p>
<p>And haven’t you ever wondered why there would be such a big discrepancy between undergrad and graduate classes? Do US college grads magically get smarter when they start grad school? I think the answer is obvious.</p>
<p>Ivies and G5 are all good. Since my daugther study Accouting and Finance while not all Ivy and G5 offering this program at undergraduate, she goes for the famous LSE.</p>
<p>Cambridge trumps all in my opinion</p>
<p>This has to be the strangest thread I’ve ever read on here. By what dimension is Oxford a less formidable Uni than Harvard? The endowments? Because once you get past 1 billion dollars, your endowment is less of a factor when compared with other post-1 billi universities. Is it the smarts? Because from first hand experience of having actually lived in both America and England for several years, and I do consider both countries my home, British students on average know more than Americans at the pre-undergraduate and freshman level. I used the phrase “know more” as opposed to “are smarter” because I know for a fact, with lots of evidence, the ability to get good grades is just a tiny measure of intelligence. But British students learn by age 15/16 what your average American high school graduate learned and should they choose to go on to sixth-form, they know about as much as your college freshmen and sophomore knows (This applies surely to the Humanities and Liberal Arts fields, not so sure about Science and Engineering). But honestly, by the time you graduate university, especially from top institutions like Harvard or Oxford, you’re pretty much the same. </p>
<p>I also saw people talking about Oxford’s focus on concentration in a field as a disadvantage. This is because prior to coming to Oxford, it is expected that you already have a multifaceted education. Honestly, Core classes here in American Universities are just basic classes I took when I was in high school myself with many others like me so Oxonians don’t need them. And honestly, if you really want to learn about the “Frontiers of Science” just read a book.</p>
<p>All in all the two schools are about equal. They both have a loooooooong list of distinguished alumna, both have very large endowments, both have very interesting histories unique to the institutions, and both offer a premium, elite education. At the end of the day, you both come out knowing the same thing. Whether or not Harvard alumna receive better levels of distinction than Oxford or vice versa is dependent on the individual and not the institution. So if you’re choosing between Harvard and Oxford, it’s really a question of would you rather be in America or England because both schools are very great schools that will provide you with a great education.</p>