University College London

[sefago]

<p>

Really, 30% of domestic students who receive offers from Harvard turn it down? Do you have any evidence to support that?

</p>

<p>This is trite knowledge. You can easily GOOGLE it. Harvard has one of the highest yields though but it also has strong competitors. In the states a lot of people turn down Harvard for YPSM and a bunch of other schools such as Williams, Hopkins, Duke et al. Reason being that they are aware that the gap in education is not that significant. Most people who live internationally might not see the wisdom in this but yeah a lot of Northeastern prep school do that. </p>

<p>

How are you measuring the quality or the ‘smartness’ of Columbia’s students in comparison to UCLs?

</p>

<p>I meant where they place in the IQ curve in their country. US large pool, Columbia very elite group of students actually get accepted. Moreover, UCL isnt known to produce some of the greatest minds do you really wanna do a comparison?</p>

<p>

How are you measuring the quality or the ‘smartness’ of Columbia’s students in comparison to UCLs? Columbia’s student body is not a third of UCLs; no Ivy League college has an undergraduate enrollment that small. UCL has 11,970 undergrads, Columbia has 7,160.

</p>

<p>Why add graduate students? Anyways, I was thinking about the college which had like 4K-5k students, I forgot to add the engineering school and general studies school. Dartmouth has 4196 undergrads stil roughly a third of UCL. </p>

<p>

Oxbridge rejects a massive number of very talented students, and often, are absorbed by the likes of UCL, St Andrews, Warwick, Durham, aside from Imperial and LSE.

</p>

<p>Its the same case in the states. Also how are these students talented- they are like 3-8 percentile which is like what top 30+ US university. How many smart and talented people can one country have lol?</p>

<p>

And, I would argue that Cambridge is superior to Columbia. Heck, I would even go far and say that Cambridge is slightly superior to Princeton.

</p>

<p>I can also argue that pigs can fly. Can pigs fly?</p>

[Dionysus58]

<p>

This is trite knowledge. You can easily GOOGLE it. Harvard has one of the highest yields though but it also has strong competitors. In the states a lot of people turn down Harvard for YPSM and a bunch of other schools such as Williams, Hopkins, Duke et al. Reason being that they are aware that the gap in education is not that significant. Most people who live internationally might not see the wisdom in this but yeah a lot of Northeastern prep school do that.

</p>

<p>I can’t find anywhere that says 30% of Harvard’s domestic acceptances go elsewhere. It is also important to remember that in the UK you can only apply to five universities, so people do not have the luxury of applying everywhere and anywhere they fancy. Actually, when you take that into account it’s hardly surprising that only 8.5% of people accepted to Oxford don’t go; presumably because the people who do apply there actually want to go and are not just hedging bets.</p>

<p>

I meant where they place in the IQ curve in their country. US large pool, Columbia very elite group of students actually get accepted. Moreover, UCL isnt known to produce some of the greatest minds do you really wanna do a comparison? .

</p>

<p>So you’re arguing that a larger propitiation of students with very high IQs attend Columbia than UCL? Again, where is your evidence for this?</p>

<p>

Dartmouth has 4196 undergrads stil roughly a third of UCL.

</p>

<p>No, a third of 11,970 is 3,990 - no Ivy League college has an undergraduate enrollment of 3,990. It’s simply not good practice to say roughly when you’re quoting figures.</p>

[RML]

<p>

I can also argue that pigs can fly. Can pigs fly?

The analogy is wrong. You’re making me laugh… </p>

<p>Cambridge is superior to Columbia and that is a fact. This is trite knowledge.</p>

[RML]

<p>

Its the same case in the states. Also how are these students talented- they are like 3-8 percentile which is like what top 30+ US university. How many smart and talented people can one country have lol?

</p>

<p>What’s the basis for this comparison? You’d need A-Levels to get into UK unis, if you don’t have IB grades. In general, you need to earn 37-39 to get into the 2nd tier UK unis. That’s just a minimum cut off grade to be even eligible to apply. And, in many instances, the admit ratio is 1:8. That even goes up to 1:30 for some programs, like economics for LSE, UCL and Warwick. I seriously think that your knowledge about UK unis is raw, or that, needs to be updated.</p>

[GeraldM]

<p>Dionysus58@" You won’t make a very good academic GeraldM if you truly think 8.5% is insignificant. It’s actually quite a large anomaly; I wonder how many people who get into Harvard turn it down - probably less than 8.5%."</p>

<p>I’m not saying 8,5% is insignificant, but you mentioned “lots of people turning down Oxbridge”, without offering any proof to support this theory. I, however, cited a valid research with facts. </p>

<p>There is a certain difference how one would interpret “lot of people” but for me, “lot of people” is not equal with 8,5% LOL If my understanding is correct, if someone gets 8,5 points on a test, he or she achieved “lots of points” and 8,5 from 100 is quite a significant number, am I right? Again, I’m not arguing against the fact that there are people who reject Oxbridge, but the FACTS presented seems not to support your vague idea about “lot of people rejecting Oxbridge”. Nope, it’s quite the contrary. Just a few does. </p>

<p>BTW, Though it is quite obvious that quoting Guardian or any rankings is far from being the ultimate proof, at least I quoted something. You said “Lots of universities in the UK have departments which are just as good if not better than Oxbridge” which is the same very vague statement as “many people”. Let me guess: you have read it on the studentroom? I quoted Guardian rankings, but all the rankings in question would tell you the same; Oxbridge is far superior to anything in the UK. Not just the universities as a whole, but the overwhelming majority of the individual department as well. </p>

<p>Again and again, you fail to offer any evidence. I have quoted rankings, statistics, etc, whereas the only thing you could offer is “many people” and “lots of universities”, and the Research Exercise which tells nothing about the relations between Oxbridge and other UK universities. As an example, the ARWU rankings measures only academic output, and being a Chinese ranking, have no bias towards any UK institution. Still, it ranks Cambridge as 5, Oxford as 10, and UCL comes as the distant 20.</p>

<p>Let me put it this way. I believe UFOs exist, and Elvis is till alive. After all, many people believes it’s true, and lots of institutions devoted their research to such questions. I don’t have any proof, but, again, many people saying it’s true…</p>

[RML]

<p>In my time at Cambridge, only less than 10% of the total admits didn’t accept the offer. In my program, only 3 people didn’t show up, if my knowledge serves me right. Cambridge has a very high enrollment yield rate. I have no idea of Oxford’s yield rate, but I would expect they have as high as Cambridge’s.</p>

[GeraldM]

<p><a href=“http://www.hepi.ac.uk/files/44%20Oxford%20and%20Cambridge%20summary.pdf[/url]”>http://www.hepi.ac.uk/files/44%20Oxford%20and%20Cambridge%20summary.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>It’s a fresh research from this April. According to the admission statistics, in 2008, 92,5% of UK applicants accepted Oxford’s offer, and 86,8% of ALL (international+UK) accepted their offer from Cambridge (internationals have more choices anyway). So yes, it’s in the range of 10% for UK applicants at both places. “many people”…LOL</p>

[IvyPBear]

<p>Comparing yield rates among American and British universities wouldn’t make sense. In the US, HYPSM are all on par with each other; and they aren’t vastly superior to the rest of the Ivies and schools like UChicago and Duke either. On the other hand, in the UK, Cambridge and Oxford are vastly superior to all other British schools, including LSE and Imperial. In addition, British students can only apply to one of Oxbridge, therefore, Cambridge and Oxford are never fighting for the same admitted students.</p>

<p>“I’ve provided or can provide multiple different ranking systems, QS, ARWU, THE, employer rankings etc. that show UCL is a peer of the ivies. Yet you refute this and say they aren’t. Can you give me some evidence to support your claims?”</p>

<p>You just can’t accept the fact that using employers’ rating to claim that one school is superior or on par with another is faulty can you? Employers’ rating is arbitrary, can you prove that it’s not? You obviously don’t understand the concept that general measurements can’t accurately measure certain specific segments.</p>

<p>“IvyPBear, not everyone who graduated from those schools deemed superior to UCL work in banks. Heck, a number of them don’t even have a job, let alone, a decent job.
Having said that, I think UCL is slightly inferior to those elite American schools.”</p>

<p>I agree. Not everyone who graduated from elite American school are deemed superior to UCL to work in elite banks, go to elite professional schools, etc. However, that’s generally the case. Being someone familiar with New York, London, and Hong Kong. In New York, UCL (and Warwick) can’t place, especially in this economy. All of the Ivies, Stanford, and MIT can still place in London. In Hong Kong, the most well regarded and represented schools are Harvard and Yale, followed by Wharton, Stanford, Oxford, Cambridge, and other Ivies. LSE isn’t even regarded as super elite because the quantity of rich kids with low qualifications who tend to end up there, let alone UCL.</p>

[RML]

<p>GeraldM, I think Cambridge losses some of its international admits to HYSPM because Cambridge does not offer financial aid. I wonder if Cambridge losses that much international admits if they could offer the same money as HYSPM do.</p>

[sefago]

<p>

So you’re arguing that a larger propitiation of students with very high IQs attend Columbia than UCL? Again, where is your evidence for this?

</p>

<p>First of all you claimed that people at Columbia are there because they are chess champions. But their test scores/class rank place the majority in the top 1% or higher in America. </p>

<p>The US is a large country and only a higher percentile of people get into Columbia than say UCL. Infact for most top 15-20 Universities the students are in general in a higher percentile than UCL. A lot of people on a percentile basis achieve the grades to get into UCL relative to that of Columbia. </p>

<p>

No, a third of 11,970 is 3,990 - no Ivy League college has an undergraduate enrollment of 3,990. It’s simply not good practice to say roughly when you’re quoting figures.

</p>

<p>Joker. People use ball park figures all the time, ok its 1/2.8 if that gets you the brownie points you need. </p>

<p>Also stop asking for evidence when you statements lack proof too. Like being a chess champion lol. And American Universities spend all their money on gym.</p>

<p>

You’d need A-Levels to get into UK unis, if you don’t have IB grades. In general, you need to earn 37-39 to get into the 2nd tier UK unis. That’s just a minimum cut off grade to be even eligible to apply. And, in many instances, the admit ratio is 1:8. That even goes up to 1:30 for some programs, like economics for LSE, UCL and Warwick.

</p>

<p>Needing A-levels is not sufficient requirement to show anything. Does not really matter what you need or how “difficult”. What matters is where you place in the percentile for that exam in your country. The admit ratio is irrelevant too with some of the students who even get admitted not attending a school for one reason or the other. Its all about the percentile. Columbia students in general place in the top 1% in America based on the US curriculum. Someone with A-levels maybe able to say get into </p>

<p>

The analogy is wrong. You’re making me laugh…</p>

<p>Cambridge is superior to Columbia and that is a fact. This is trite knowledge.

</p>

<p>There is no such thing as a fact . . . there is a opinion and a mass of polled opinions. The latter is what some people on CC call facts.</p>

<p>No proof of this either inbtw. Also I dont even know what you mean by superior. Qualifying what you mean or providing a basis could help me. But this discussion is not about Cambridge . . .</p>

[Dionysus58]

<p>

There is a certain difference how one would interpret “lot of people” but for me, “lot of people” is not equal with 8,5% LOL If my understanding is correct, if someone gets 8,5 points on a test, he or she achieved “lots of points” and 8,5 from 100 is quite a significant number, am I right? Again, I’m not arguing against the fact that there are people who reject Oxbridge, but the FACTS presented seems not to support your vague idea about “lot of people rejecting Oxbridge”. Nope, it’s quite the contrary. Just a few does.

</p>

<p>Like I said earlier, 8.5% is (to me anyway) quite a larger number considering the fact that in the UK you only apply to five universities; presumably people who apply to Oxford do so because they really want to go. If they subsequently decide not to then that is significant.</p>

<p>

I quoted Guardian rankings, but all the rankings in question would tell you the same; Oxbridge is far superior to anything in the UK. Not just the universities as a whole, but the overwhelming majority of the individual department as well.

</p>

<p>Since you obviously didn’t read my post earlier on I will say it again. This clearly shows that many British universities have departments which are Oxbridge standard or better.</p>

<p>The most recent Research Assessment Exercise in 2008 found that 54% of UK research is either world-leading or internationally excellent. It also found that 150 of the 159 higher education institutions that took part in the study demonstrated world-leading quality research in at least one or more of their departments.</p>

<p>

In the UK, Cambridge and Oxford are vastly superior to all other British schools, including LSE and Imperial.

</p>

<p>We have already established that to be untrue.</p>

<p>

First of all you claimed that people at Columbia are there because they are chess champions. But their test scores/class rank place the majority in the top 1% or higher in America. </p>

<p>The US is a large country and only a higher percentile of people get into Columbia than say UCL. Infact for most top 15-20 Universities the students are in general in a higher percentile than UCL. A lot of people on a percentile basis achieve the grades to get into UCL relative to that of Columbia.

</p>

<p>Are you being deliberately obtuse? I did not just say people get into Columbia (or any Ivy for that matter) just because they’re chess champions. I said that being smart is not what gets you into those schools; it’s the large amount of (rather pointless) extracurriculars. My wider point was that being at a college which selects its students on how many ECs they have and whether they have ‘leadership potential’ does not enhance the education you receive.</p>

<p>You still haven’t given me any evidence for your absurd assertion that Columbia students are smarter and of better quality than their UCL counterparts. Do you have any or not? What you said about percentiles is not evidence; the UK does not rank its students so how exactly are you making the comparison with US students?</p>

[sefago]

<p>

I said that being smart is not what gets you into those schools; it’s the large amount of (rather pointless) extracurriculars.

</p>

<p>HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH</p>

<p>Yeah right. </p>

<p>I know what you said, its the chess champion thingy that caught my eye thats still making me laugh.</p>

<p>Really you are a joker</p>

[RML]

<p>Sefago, there are some things you need to consider before raising a point. </p>

<ol>
<li>A student can only apply to either Oxford or Cambridge. (You can’t apply to both.)</li>
<li>A student can only apply to 5 unis. (5 is the maximum.)</li>
<li>UK unis set the entry requirements. It means to say, applicants whose grades aren’t within the cut-off cannot apply. For example, UCL economics requires A*AAa. So, if you don’t have that grade, you cannot apply.</li>
</ol>

<p>Why knowing these things is important?</p>

<p>Because it makes you understand why the admit rates at most top British universities are lower than their US counterparts. At Georgetown, for example, anyone who has a GPA of 3.6 and a SAT score of 2000 can apply, and sometimes, would even be given an offer. It does not work that way in UK universities. To give you an example, you you need to have a 770 in SAT Subject test Mathematics Level 2 to be even eligible to apply to Warwick mathematics. That’s just the basic requirement. If you don’t have that, you’re not eligible to apply, let alone, get accepted. And, due to the stiff competition at Warwick maths, there is a very high chance that even with a 770 SAT maths, you won’t get an offer. Even applicants with 800 SAT maths are turned down. </p>

<p>Personally, I believe Columbia is superior to UCL. But in terms of student quality and teaching quality, the gap isn’t big, if at all it’s true that Columbia students are a little smarter. Where the difference lies is in the brand power, where Columbia would trounce UCL by a marginal gap.</p>

[sefago]

<p>

You still haven’t given me any evidence for your absurd assertion that Columbia students are smarter and of better quality than their UCL counterparts. Do you have any or not? What you said about percentiles is not evidence; the UK does not rank its students so how exactly are you making the comparison with US students?

</p>

<p>How many students take the A-levels and then how many are in UCL. I would assume that the best students go into Oxbridge and then LSE and then Imperial with the fifth being UCL you would probably be getting the top 2-3. Thats roughly top 20-25+ in the US. There is no need to rank and its just a model full of assumptions but its still a decent estimate. I know people pick schools based on having better departments yada.</p>

[RML]

<p>sefago, at UCL, or any UK uni for that matter, it’s the department that sets their cut-off entry grades, not the university. I think you really need to understand that.</p>

[sefago]

<p>

sefago, at UCL, or any UK uni for that matter, it’s the department that sets their cut-off entry grades, not the university. I think you really need to understand that.

</p>

<p>RML, I have studied at some point at two UK universities and one of my research advisors was an admission tutor so I know that already but thanks again. </p>

<p>@ your previous post
I am already aware of what you said lol. You assume of that most people in the US actually apply to a lot more than 5-6 universities. Its pretty rare to find someone apply to more that 6-8 in a country that has loads of choices of top universities. Moreover, I dont use admit rates for these reasons but an estimated percentile in the country. Its you guys who use admit rates. </p>

<p>

Because it makes you understand why the admit rates at most top British universities are lower than their US counterparts. At Georgetown, for example, anyone who has a GPA of 3.6 and a SAT score of 2000 can apply, and sometimes, would even be given an offer.

</p>

<p>Question is how many people with such stats apply and get in? You assume that people just apply for the heck of it like its really that easy. The only people who do that tends to be international students because of rumors like extracurricular activities and such. Except you are a recruited athlete you are likely not going to get in with those stats. Importantly, most of the people with such low scores (If they get in) never ever study math they do sociology or psychology. The students who study say a hard major like math at Columbia will be be the cream of the crop and a bit different from those studying sociology or softer subjects. Because you can change your major in the US things are a bit different. Only the top students tend to stay in the math and science and a lot of them can easily get the 770 in math. The low percentile kids are more likely to end up in softer subjects. </p>

<p>The Warwick comparison is also does not parallel. If you have done A-levels further math and cannot get a 770 in SAT subject test math then well . . . but if say in the US where maybe the curriculum makes a 770 more challenging to get and you get it you are in a higher percentile. </p>

<p>As I said I dont really do cross comparisons like you guys do. I standardize my comparison because I understand there are differences in the educational systems. Just because you are a year ahead or older than someone does not make you smarter (A good comparison of the A-levels versus AP/SAT).</p>

<p>

Personally, I believe Columbia is superior to UCL. But in terms of student quality and teaching quality, the gap isn’t big, if at all it’s true that Columbia students are a little smarter.

</p>

<p>How do you know this . . . gut feeling?</p>

[RML]

<p>sefago, you probably went there for grad and postgrad education. So, perhaps this has slipped in your memory, but the undergrad admissions at UK unis is entirely/complete different from the grad/postgrad level. </p>

<p>My point is that you cannot compare student quality of UK unis to US unis because you have no basis for comparison. A-Levels/IB vs GPA+SATs. They’re not entirely the same.</p>

<p>–</p>

<p>Many students in the US apply to more than 6 schools. I applied to 12. Many of my former classmates applied to 10, at least.</p>

[RML]

<p>

Question is how many people with such stats apply and get in? You assume that people just apply for the heck of it like its really that easy.

</p>

<p>The Middle 50% of SATs at Columbia is 1990 – 2290. [Average</a> Ivy League SAT Scores: Harvard, Yale and More](<a href=“http://www.universitylanguage.com/blog/11/ivy-league-sat-scores/]Average”>http://www.universitylanguage.com/blog/11/ivy-league-sat-scores/) That means, 25% of Columbia students don’t have SATs above 1990, correct? Now, if Columbia has 8k undergrads, that means 2,000 Columbia students don’t have SAT scores over 2000, correct?</p>

[Dionysus58]

<p>

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH</p>

<p>Yeah right.

</p>

<p>I don’t understand why you’re pretending it’s a joke - or is this simply a clever ruse to get out of finding some evidence to support your stupid assertions. If I applied to elite US colleges with perfect GCSE and A level grades, a great SAT score and brilliant essays but had no ECs and no life outside of school I would not get in.</p>

<p>

I would assume that the best students go into Oxbridge and then LSE and then Imperial with the fifth being UCL you would probably be getting the top 2-3.

</p>

<p>Your assumption is incorrect. Are you really suggesting people go through uni league tables trying to get into the most prestigious uni they can with their grades? Most people I know choose to go to universities which offer them the best combination of course and living styles. For example: If I wanted to study German I would not even bother applying to Oxford because its mostly literature and I don’t like lit much.</p>

[GeraldM]

<p>

Like I said earlier, 8.5% is (to me anyway) quite a larger number considering the fact that in the UK you only apply to five universities; presumably people who apply to Oxford do so because they really want to go. If they subsequently decide not to then that is significant."

</p>

<p>Finally, thanks. That’s the key sentence “to me anyway”. You’re right; for you, 8.5% is significant. Anyway, you have to take into account the number of British applicants who apply to top US universities, and choose those instead of Oxbridge. That most certainly makes else, and I personally know such students. Moreover, there are always some people who go crazy, and choose an other uni instead. Twelve years ago the guy who had the best A levels in the country went to Nottingham or something like that, instead of Cambridge. He explained that he likes busier cities. Idiot? Perhaps, but, regrettable as this fact may be, there are some people like him. </p>

<p>

The most recent Research Assessment Exercise in 2008 found that 54% of UK research is either world-leading or internationally excellent. It also found that 150 of the 159 higher education institutions that took part in the study demonstrated world-leading quality research in at least one or more of their departments"

</p>

<p>Nope, it shows nothing at all. It only shows that, according to British Assesments, UK universities have world class research. But please tell me where this research ranks departments. Interestingly enough, when it comes to rank the departments and subjects, almost always Oxbridge can be found on the top. If it’s an international ranking, then Oxbridge are the highest ranked UK universities. Fact. You can have problems with one ranking, and indeed, rankings can be misleading. But every single ranking? Hardly…</p>

<p>

We have already established that to be untrue

</p>

<p>You only established the “lots of” and “many people” theory, nevertheless you’re still yet to offer any proof why other universities and/or departments are equal or superior to the Oxbridge ones.</p>