@alicemorgon - perhaps you can find a more current listing, but here is the 2013 stats from Cambridge. Congrats on your acceptances. Very nice!
Welcome back, @Brexit99! I see that you are still mocking Americans for making American references on an American siteā¦
As it happens, I am not āabsolutely wrongā that Oxbridge offers donāt go out until January- they donāt. That there are back channels of information that let some schools/students know that they will be getting an offer is one thing; a formal offer is another thing altogether. I have this first hand from admissions tutors at several Oxbridge colleges. What is your source?
Also, fwiw, these claims were not coming from students at the UK schools you named, but from US schools.
What is the relevance to an American applying that students at Eton and Harrow etc. are informed informally early?
@collegemon3717 I shared this link with my school head and she agreed that the problem is that people in the US confuse university policies with college ones. The Oxford and Cambridge university admissions offices are not at all like those in the US. To say that colleges are āprohibitedā from announcing decisions early is misleading. Itās a very American attitude. British admissions tutors will FREQUENTLY advise a school that is ālikelyā a student is admitted. In Britain, this is the equivalent of saying they will be admitted. To expect a university to publicly acknowledge that a practice that āgoes against the grainā exists in naive in the extreme.
@Brexit99, I am not sure what the bee in your bonnet is. I never used the word āprohibitedā, and I acknowledged that an individual nod (especially at schools where there are long time connections) is different than a formal offer. Indeed there is such a thing as a ālikely letterā in the US.
I am well aware that the US and the UK are different, and I am not as ignorant of the UK system as you seem to think. At least 3 of the admissions tutors that I know are personal contacts (one a close relation) and their comments to me were NOT āpubliclyā acknowledging anything.
All that I said, and I stand over it, is that Oxbridge formal offers (not counting organ scholars) do not go out until January. I said this in response to an American student, at an American school, who said that there were a number of people in her/his class who had received offers from Cambridge in early December. Thatās it.
Iām applying to St Andrews too and Iām a dual British/American citizen so Iām familiar with both british and American universities. I wouldnāt say that St Andrews is an Ivy league equivalent or particularly World class. Other than the obvious royal family connection that seems to attract American applicants nothing would really stand out.
St Andrews is a mid-sized university with very few resources around $80 million im endowment. This is dwarfed by Ivy League schools billion dollar endowments such as Brown or Dartmouth. In addition to this, St Andrews receives a low amount of research funding of around $63
million it isnāt really considered a world class research university either and is also small compared to the $643 million that Imperial or UCL receive.
In all honesty Ivy League schools and most top 20 us schools are light years ahead of their UK counterparts bar Oxbridge. When it comes to raising money US universities are king, only UK universities to ever raise over $1 billion are Oxford and Cambridge. This becomes evident when you compare Harvards $37 billion endowment to Cambridges $9.1 billion endowment. Cambridge still has an endowment equivalent to Columbia and Pennsylvania but still falls short of HYPS. The university with the most money/resources is the university with the most opportunities and best educational value, itās as simple as that.
I believe British universities are government supported and donāt need endowments as much. British schools donāt make admissions decisions on what will build there endowment. Also, US universities research orientation has disadvantages in terms of lack of emphasis on undergraduate education. So it may not be that simple that US universities are superior.
@Ali1302 Your post is way off base. All British universities, with the exception of the University of Buckingham, are publicly supported. Oxbridge colleges have their own endowments but the university is government support and tuition is set by the government (albeit now universities can charge within bands established by the government). Like all European universities, endowments per se have not been essential since government funding has been very extensive.
As for resources equating with the quality of educational value, you are even more off base. Harvard College is not known for the quality of its teaching. Harvard students will admit that. The quality of instruction at other Ivies varies tremendously. Same goes for other very wealthy American universities (i.e. Cal, Michigan, NYU, UVA).
America has created a system where if you are poor and extremely bright, you can obtain a fantastic education at little cost. If you are middle class, you are asked to go into massive debt. A FEW universities have fantastic financial aid programs, but you can count these on your hands.
@excanuck99, I suppose āmassiveā is in the eye of the beholder. Most Americans have as options their in-state publics where tuition is usually no higher or lower than what English kids pay for their unis these days.
Sorry to say, I just came across this discussion, and it broke my ātransatlantic educational discussion generalization/exaggerationā meter.
I could think of lots of things to say in response, but have decided to boil it down to the following:
- If you don't know what a UROP is, you don't understand how MIT - ranked as high as No. 1 in some international surveys of global universities - is committed to involving its undergraduates with the cutting-edge research of its faculty.
- If you don't know about Princeton's senior thesis program, you don't understand its deep institutional emphasis on undergraduate education (part of why it is often ranked as No. 1 in terms of undergraduate education in the US).
- If anyone wants to discuss further - or hear some examples of "development admits" at Oxbridge - let me know.
I didnāt apply to Oxford or Cambridge, as I didnāt decide to change universities until after the deadline, so right now Iāve got applications into St. Andrews, Durham, and Bristol for Geography. Iāve gotten into University College London and University of Edinburgh already. Which of these universities would you say is most prestigious? Obviously none are as prestigious as Oxbridge, nor is prestige going to be my deciding factor, Iād just like to know. And if anyone knows specifically about Geography at any of these unis thatād be great. Iām going to be 20 coming in because I did a gap year and a year at University of Texas, but hated it, mainly because itās my hometown.
@madyabby UCL for sure. In the UK, it has a very strong reputation for geography, both in terms of academic and employer perception. Itās the oldest department of the kind of the country and therefore went a long way in formalising the way the discipline is taught in the UK. Not to mention that the department is based in the main quad, which is beautiful architecturally.
Prestigious is in the eye of the beholder.
For example, in the UK a lot of people would rank Durham > UCL > Edinburgh > St Andrews- even though St Andrews typically does better in the ratings. In the US, it would be almost the reverse- based largely on how many people have heard of it (Edinburgh > St As > UCL > Durham). Ratings-wise, Durham is the top of that group for geography.
Have you read the course descriptions carefully for geography at each university? The 3 Scottish ones will all emphasize that you have a lot of choices- but by US standards not so much. All four lay out in a fair amount of detail what each of your 3 (Durham) or 4 (Scottish unis) will be like.
Also, given that you have already hated one university, you should think hard about what you want / expect. You have a university in a mega-city, in a small city, in a town and in a village. Durham is collegiate- that is you are part of a college within the university, the others are not.
@collegemom3717 Durham perceived as more prestigious than UCL domestically? Holistically or just for geography? Holistically, it certainly isnāt. Whilst itās seen as very good, its main peers are universities like Warwick and Bristol, whilst UCL sits in a tier with LSE and Imperial.
http://news.efinancialcareers.com/uk-en/218782/the-top-universities-for-the-analyst-class-for-2015-at-goldman-sachs-j-p-morgan-and-morgan-stanley/ - I know IB recruitment certainly isnāt the be-all-and-end-all, but it does provide a useful metric of assessing the employability of graduates amongst elite/boutique firmsā¦ here, Durham simply fails to place. In terms of faculty, Durham is pretty parochial.
I DO acknowledge, however, that for geography Durhamās excellence is undisputed.
Geography in particular 
@collegemom3717 Oh, in that case- sorry for my endless spiel; it looks like a bit of a tirade now! Yes, I do concede that Durham geog is probably perceived as better. Durham excels at the physical sciences, whereas UCLās more into its social sciences/humanities/medicine.
Durhamās also great for humanities too- so Iām sure human geographical studies at Durham will be stellar.
Durhamās also great for humanities too- so Iām sure human geographical studies at Durham will be stellar.
@filouxx Thanks for the info about UCL! I didnāt know the geography department was based in the main quad, which is a plus. Iām also leaning towards UCL at the moment because the program I was accepted to has a mandatory year abroad. Iāll be studying abroad while studying abroadā¦ Plus the geography program has all of those wonderful short fieldwork courses each year where you stay in Barcelona, Paris, Berlin, etc.
@collegemom3717 You make a good point about the differing views in the UK and the US. Of course, the average person here is likely to have only heard of Saint Andrews, if only for the royalty connection. Iām not really sure where I am planning on living after graduation of course, itās likely not to be the US.
I am not worried about lack of options. Iāve had that here at UT and while I enjoyed taking the occasional architecture course, Iām ready to focus on my main studies. As for why I hated UT-Austin, it was really just itās large size and the fact that Iād already been stuck in Austin my whole life. I love the city and all, I just donāt want to live here anymore.
I am mildly worried about size. I know Saint Andrewās is quite small, and in a tiny town. I donāt hate small towns or anything, as Iām not big on clubbing and all, but I do worry it might be too antisocial. Although I donāt party much and am introverted, I love being around people. Also, I love the traditions at Saint Andrewās, which is a big draw, as well as the architecture. Of course, I havenāt gotten an offer back yet so it may not even be an option. As for Durham I also worry about what the social life will be like, though as I said, clubbing and constant partying arenāt necessary for me.
Iāll take your advice and read more specifically into the geography programs at each of them! I was pretty crunched for time when I applied so I confess I just picked the 5 I liked best based off of size, appearance, location, and reputation and didnāt read too much into the specific program, just selected whatever geography option they had openā¦
@filouxx Not that the other programs wonāt have the option for study abroad. My program at Bristol has it required for the degree and I know Edinburgh (and I assume Durham) offers it in the 3rd year with Erasmus, etc.