<p>I don' think so. Someone mentioned that Havard is harder to get in than Oxford by looking at the addmission rate ( Harvad = about 9%, Oxford = 20~20%.) However, LSE has 8% of admission rate.....then is LSE harder to get in than above two unis???
Unlike in US, students are only available to apply for 6 unis in the UK. In addition, U can't apply for both OX and CAM. It may affected the admission rate. What do you think of it???</p>
<p>The top UK universities are definitely not easier to get in. I've applied both to the UK (Oxford Univ) and to the USA (Ivy), so I speak of personal experience... In the UK, you've got interviews and harder exams.. At least, to me, the math & computer science exam I took in Oxford was harder than all the SATs I had to take, altogether. And you can guess it's probably not just me as the top UK univs generally do not accept SAT scores.</p>
<p>This has been discussed before [url=<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=246196%5Dhere%5B/url">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=246196]here[/url</a>], and you just don't want to go there again...</p>
<p>I wouldn't say that Oxbridge are easy to get into, but definitely more predictable because they make decisions mostly based on objective test scores and academic achievements.</p>
<p>Top US schools, um..., actually might be a little bit harder 'cos they are more internationally minded, so their applicant pools have more talent. But in generally, top US schools' decisions are just notoriously 'random'. One important reason is that they base their outcomes heavily on essays and personalities. But really, judging one's personality from essays is highly highly subjective! But this formula does seem to be working for US universities though as they churn out industry leaders. Maybe, unlike Oxbridge, they just don't want boring nerds with no personality.</p>
<p>PS Admission rate is just a massive scandal. Harvard sends letters to almost all decent students in the States, encouraging them to apply so that Harvard has the lowest admission rate....Oxbridge would never do that.</p>
<p>Yeah, as you said, Havard students may be more well-rounded than Oxbridge students. However, Oxbridge may have more academically intelligent students. In addittion, Oxbridge addmission is not more predictable as interview (which is far harder than that of US unis) takes a very huge part in the selection of students.
It may true that UK unis other unis other than Oxbridge maybe more predictable but how can this mean that it is easier to get into UK schools than the US???</p>
<p>yeah, i would actually think US top schools are harder. I mean, at least in the US its that way. If i had great grades (3.9uw 4.6w ish) and like 10 5s on AP's and was good at interviewing, then i would most likely get into top UK schools.</p>
<p>To get into harvard, i have to be smart, get great test scores, and also have to pretty much be the best at something in the entire state or be a national placing athlete or competitor in some event.</p>
<p>In the US, there's some moronic competition to see who can turn down the most people. UK Unis don't care about that.</p>
<p>If you're an Athlete, URM, or a bleeding-heart social volunteer, US admissions will be easier. Being Black is more important than your 2400 SAT. Founding a homeless shelter is worth points on your GPA. Being captain of a varsity sport is more important than an 800 on an SAT II.</p>
<p>If you're a good test-taker, writer, and interviewer, UK will be easier. UK admissions are based almost entirely on tests, writing samples, and interviews. They don't care about your GPA. They don't care about your starving aunt in the Sudan. They don't care that your people have been historically oppressed.</p>
<p>jbruner17: Is that a joke post, or are you just making up incorrect exaggerations to try to get your point across?</p>
<p>If I wasn't on summer vacation, I don't know that I'd have time to respond to all the glaring inaccuracies in that post. I am, so I do.</p>
<p>US universities (with very few exceptions, notably UWStL) don't compete to turn down more people. They really, really don't. If you think they do, you're wrong; I don't know how else to say it.</p>
<p>Being black is not more important than a 2400. It might make a lower score more impressive in context, but it's not more important. Founding a homeless shelter is an amazing accomplishment, but it doesn't give you a higher GPA, just makes your holistic impression more impressive. Being captain of a Varsity sport is certainly not more impressive than an 800 - trust me, I know.</p>
<p>jbruner, you're making the standard, rehashed, misguided points that tons of people make with regards to US university admissions, so let's dispel the murky cloud of inaccuracy you've just thrown up:</p>
<p>At top US schools, admissions are holistic. This doesn't mean that Harvard is letting in every single volunteering woman just because they volunteer or are a girl. It means that top schools recognize that test scores and GPA are not the only facets to a person - and have made the conscious realization that the most vibrant universities stress more than just pure academics. This doesn't mean that top US universities compromise their academics; to the contrary, I think everyone realizes this is distinctly untrue.</p>
<p>So if you have someone applying who came from the ghetto, works on their own to help their family out (many hours a week), and yet still has the dedication to do well (maybe not perfectly, but well) in school, and the skill to do well at a sport, that person is going to get in over a person who is great at school, but has had to overcome nothing to get there, and just slacks while getting great marks.</p>
<p>The worst misconception I have heard with regards to US schools is that there's no special hook for being academically spectacular. That's just not true. Olympiad participants (especially the international ones, though national olympiads like USAMO, USPhO USChO, USABO and so forth are also great) have extremely good admissions results. People who go above and beyond their in-school work and do research, publish papers, compete in science competitions and so on are regularly sought after by top universities.</p>
<p>jbruner, the implication you repeated, which is addressed above, is that academics isn't important. Academic qualifications are still the most important thing overall. But for top universities, that's not enough. You must be unbelievably amazing at something - and I'm sorry, but just having a perfect GPA and test scores doesn't qualify. That doesn't mean that what you must be amazing at isn't academic; it could be. It just means it must be above and beyond school. </p>
<p>Yes, sometimes academics will be weighted slightly less when faced with a candidate of extreme ability or accomplishment in another area, but you know, the presence of people like those make top American universities the extremely vibrant, diverse places they are.</p>
<hr>
<p>Anyways, to the original question: I think UK universities are easier to get in to, generally (but definitely not for everyone). Coming from an IB school in Canada, at last, had I applied to UK schools (and I'm talking Oxbridge and LSE) I would've been given much more favorable chances than a top American school. And that's not just for me, but for most people at my school.</p>
<p>My post was definitely hyberbole. :)</p>
<p>I agree with you. US admissions are more holistic (based on a variety of qualities such as passion, work ethic, character) whereas UK admissions are more academic.</p>
<p>Yeah, UK admissions are more academic while US admissions are more holistic. However, although you can say that they are different from each other but can't say one is harder or easier than another one.</p>
<p>Social Service, Athletics, URM status, and Legacy are all US things. Most applicants on CC are weak in these areas and strong on academics, so UK unis would probably be easier for the average CCer.</p>
<p>So UK unis don't really care about gpa? If I have a low gpa say a 2.8-3.0, will they care even if I have really good test scores?</p>
<p>Generally they're more focused on tests, however I'd imagine your AP tests (or IB if you're doing that) to be more important than SATs, as they're comparable to Britain's A-levels whereas SATs are a totally different type of test.</p>
<p>APs (or IBs) are the main tests you need. SATs are sort of a side influence.</p>
<p>bittersweetie: yes. a crap GPA will dent your chances.They dont care about GPA in the sense that the majority of people will have a very high GPA, therefore it is a poor descriminator.</p>