But the real differentiation at Oxbridge is the reliance on in-person academic interviews, because top exam scores are taken for granted.
If the top 5-10 colleges moved to REA-only admissions then it would cut the pool down sufficiently that they could actually interview all competitive applicants (not the current alumni interviews which are more of a courtesy) to determine the best candidates. But it won’t happen.
Yet these top 5-10 college would say they can, and already do determine the ‘best’ candidates thru their holistic admissions process.
It seems that proponents of the UK system fundamentally don’t believe a ‘best’ candidate can be one who doesn’t have the highest GPA, rigor, and/or test scores (and it creates even more discomfort for some of these proponents that test scores aren’t currently required at most highly selective US colleges).
Analysis of those graduating each year at these highly selective institutions repeatedly show no difference in college performance and graduation rates for those who were admitted with lower academic stats. That data show me the admissions officers are adept at choosing the ‘best’ applicants, using the criteria that are important to each school.
I’m not sure “popular” is the right word for what you are trying to say. The most popular group by far are the UCs. They received almost twice the number of applications of Harvard. There aren’t any Ivies in the top ten on this USNews list: https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-list-college/articles/colleges-that-received-the-most-applications
And add the additional layer of a school/degree program specific admissions test. For most subjects, Oxford isn’t just looking at A levels. For any of the math degree programs, the applicant must take the Oxford MAT which is written by Oxford to test the material they think is important for success in their math programs. You likely won’t make the shortlist for interviews if your performance there is poor. A level performance won’t matter if you can’t pass that hurdle.
I didn’t suggest that the US adopt the Oxford model, I merely pointed out that it is a far less stressful and confusing experience for applicants than the US model, and rewards applicants with significant intellectual curiosity and ability. My daughter found the process most interesting and loved her conversations with the tutors. She ultimately decided to stay in the US, but she is clear that the Oxford process produced an extremely strong intellectual group of students. She is still in touch with many of them.
In comparison, yes, a sizeable group of her HYP colleagues would be "under qualified " to attend Oxford, and do not necessarily share an intellectual passion in any subject. Presumably they brought other attributes to the class, which is what holistic admissions is all about.
My family members in the UK will fall down laughing at the description of the Oxford model as less stressful. Less confusing- for sure. But the years leading up to the decision- Oxbridge- worthy or not- are surely stressful. And woe to the kid who is heading off to Manchester, Birmingham, etc. because “second chances” are not really a thing in the UK.
I have a family member who teaches in a well regarded HS in a London suburb. The dynamic there seems just as bad- if not worse- as at the type of US HS where everyone is gunning for Stanford or Yale- with the notable exception being that the “top” schools in the UK are literally- two schools. At least in the US you’ve got 30 or 40 universities and colleges who could legitimately describe themselves as being “Top 20” depending on how you count.
Eating disorders? Yup. Anxiety meds? Yup. Kids abusing ritalin and adderal? Yup. Suicides? Sadly- yes.
They have far better odds of admission to Oxford Cambridge to begin with, given the smaller population base. And they have less time pressure dur to no need to focus on athletics, or other extracurriculars. The applicants are far better placed to understand their relative position-do they have solid entrance exams scores or not, how many A* do they have? Oxford at least publishes highly detailed data on exactly how many applicants at each data point with each level of qualification are interviewed and accepted.
The level of pressure on kids in most places safly has risen, but in my experience the US is among the worst.
A rejection is still a rejection. The UK does not have options like U Chicago, CMU, Vanderbilt, etc., i.e. “recognized as elite” universities from which you can launch in pretty much the same way as your friend or neighbor from Oxbridge. There are tiers of society (and the economy) which are still Oxbridge or bust.
I read somewhere recently that the number of UK students applying to top US schools has been skyrocketing in the past few years. As more UK public school kids are getting into Oxbridge, etc and shutting out the private school kids, they are finding US schools easier to get into and have better amenities. There is a burgeoning UK college counseling industry and wealthier kids start grooming their ECs at an early age. Just like here.
I will have to find the article …
Stress in college applications, like almost everything else in life, is almost always relative. Relative to the student, that is. A tiny minority of tippy top students are nearly certain to get into Oxbridge or at least one of the super elite US colleges, so neither is that stressful. For some strongly hooked but otherwise relatively “average” students, US elite privates may be less stressful. However, for some academically strong students who prefer to focus their energy and spend their time on things that truly interest them, the Oxbridge admission process is much less stressful.
Even though US elite college admission isn’t a lottery, some students and their families behave like it is. In the US system, everyone can buy a cheap “ticket” to try one’s luck with a remote probability but a significant playoff. In the UK system, there’re relatively transparent minimum hurdles one must cross so a student would know whether s/he is potentially Oxbridge material. The vast majority aren’t potentially Oxbridge material. It isn’t surprising that some of them may take a look at US colleges (some would choose US colleges because they genuinely believe US colleges are better for them, of course).
And top US colleges may offer generous financial aid to UK applicants
In what universe is studying at Manchester a reason for woe? In my field (engineering/applied sciences) it’s one of the top institutions with very strong research programs and talented lecturers. I guess it’s the equivalent of crying over going to Purdue for engineering because you didn’t get into Harvard. I will not pass the tissues.
British person here. Just to reiterate:
courses (majors in US) state their entrance criteria online (e.g. A*, A, A and often in which subjects). If your predicted grades are not matching, or you haven’t taken the requisite A Levels, you don’t bother to apply. UCAS (Common App in US) limits applications to just 5 courses - e.g. English at 5 different unis.
Both of these combine to limit the number of applicants down to those who meet the minimum requirements. Some unis will interview, require subject specific tests (MAT, HAT), or a marked essay from school, or all of these as part of their further assessment of applicants.
Faculty assess the applicants, the future students they will be teaching.
There is a second tier of elite unis in the UK, occasionally known as Oxbridge Reject Bins: Durham, St Andrews, Bristol, Warwick, Edinburgh, Imperial, UCL, Nottingham, Exeter. Most of these are v popular with private schools and well performing state/public schools. I’d consider these the Lehighs of the US.
Not saying its better or worse - I went through this and my husband and kids are doing the US version. Pros and cons to both.
As I wrote, so long as you believe that the “best candidate” is the best of the candidates out of a group that can all afford the best private high schools or highest cost school districts, private places at home to study, have parents who make enough money to so that their kids do not have to work or help with child care or elder care, then, yes, maybe you will get the “best” applicants.
As I wrote, part of this “cutting down the pool” is to cut out 80% of the pool, based on income alone.
Here is the insidious thing about interviews - people tend to select people who are Just Like Them.
So, first you make sure that almost all poor kids are not competitive Then you make sure that those poor kids who manage, by dint of hard work and tenacity, to get high enough scores are then subject to further discrimination when they have to “prove” that they are “the right material” during the in-person interviews.
So poor kids have a double whammy, and wealthy kids have a double advantage.
I guess that I mean “popular” in the sense of “popular” kids in school. They have a reputation in a large part because of their reputation. I need a term somewhere between “popular” and “famous”. The colleges which are the biggest “celebrities” among colleges.
Which is where the tendency to accept students like yourself comes in, and most Oxbridge faculty had Oxbridge educations, and were selected by similarly privileged individuals who were also educated in Oxbridge.
I think US colleges and Oxbridge are looking for different types of top students. Even though the “pointy” kid gets rewarded in US college admissions, there’s an assumption that the applicant will have had broad exposure to a variety of subjects and will have had at least above-average results in all of them. UK colleges focus on excellence in one field.
I used to interview for my alma mater. There is one person I interviewed who was far and away the most impressive student I ever interviewed in terms of our conversation. Yet, I was fairly certain that this student would not be accepted by my alma mater. Why? because in one particular subject area, this student was a STAR. But, overall, the student was a strong student, but not a star. Student attended a top public high school in NYC and was not in the top 5%. Student was a commended, not a National Merit Semifinalist. Student had high AP scores in tests related to the field she wanted to study, but 3s on other tests. Student was involved in ECs related to that field, but overall, the ECs were nothing special.
The student was extraordinarily articulate about the prospective field of study. Moreover, student was just plain extraordinarily articulate. Interviews just aren’t that important in US college admissions. They are very important to Oxbridge admissions, especially in non-STEM courses.
As I had expected, the student was rejected by my alma mater. Student went to Oxbridge. That was a wise choice. It didn’t surprise me because student was from an academic background and I think her academic parents suggested this path.
I think the two systems simply reward different types of students.
but actually I am state/public school educated and didn’t go to Oxbridge…and faculty in ALL Uk universities assess candidates even much lower ranked places.
I take your point though about the system perpetuating itself, although considerable, yet not enough, work has been done on improving that. Like the US, unless social inequalities, like you mention, are addressed, fiddling around with Oxbridge access is only scratching the surface.
Just to update because I posted questions on this forum. My child was offered a place at Cambridge. I am happy to answer any questions anyone might have about the process, which is a bit of a tussle from the US.
Not sure that’s true, tbh. If you put Oxbridge at around $58K a year for 3 years, which is equivalent to 43K for 4, you’ll find that even the largest merit awards from LACs like Kenyon don’t begin to compare (especially since UK tuition is locked at year of entry vs US which is subject to inflation). It is def true that a kid who has scores for Oxbridge could go to U Miss or equivalent free. I am not knocking those choices, I am simply pointing out that for families in high-income, high-tax, high-cost states, who do not qualify for any financial aid, Oxbridge is a good deal. For example, my state school is 30K a year for 4 years.
List item
deleted
My son’s tuition at Oxford went up each of his four years there along with the additional international student college fee that he was charged. Plus different courses have different tuition levels. The 2022 fee level for his course (Maths & CS) is 39,000 GBP. Translates to $53k at today’s exchange rate.