<p>It's easier in the sense that an applicant with no EC's whatsoever can get into Oxbridge, provided he has the required stats</p>
<p>Yes you're absolutely right -- EC's don't matter as much in the UK as in the US. Oxbridge tries to assess an applicant's "academic potential" in admissions. Extra curriculars are just that: extra. </p>
<p>This doesn't make things easier though. Just different. And I think Oxbridge is more strict when it comes to stats. The thing is, with US colleges not having cut off points for stats, EC's can tip the balance in the applicant's favor -- even if she or he is not a top student (academically). So with js2's logic, this may even make US colleges easier to get in. Anyway, end of polemics. UK and US colleges do have different criteria and it's tough to get into the top schools in both countries -- in fact, across the world I guess.</p>
<p>For anyone on an IB/A-level system, which seems to be the majority of international applicants browsing these forums, getting into Oxbridge is much easier than getting into CHYMPS. Fact.</p>
<p>(btw, why do you imply that there are only 2 universities in the UK- Oxford and Cambridge?)</p>
<p>i am doing my A levels and I would have to agree that getting into Oxbridge is easier than any of HYPSM by far. This is because a lot of people get good grades just by studying a week before the exam. Thats the most important factor in admissions to Oxbridge. Reference letter and personal statements do count but not for much. At HYPSM not only are essays very important written to show colleges who you really are (rather than just talking about your love for the course as in a personal statement for UCAS), but an attempt is made to judge how able the candidate is. I know alot of non-creative dumb asses getting straight A's in O and A levels.</p>
<p>I am afraid this post makes it clear that you actually have no idea how Oxbridge admissions work. A-level grades the most important factor? Hardly. The whole reason why Oxford and Cambridge put so much emphasis on interviews and, increasingly, their own subject-specific tests is because they do not believe A-levels are sufficient for judging who are the best candidates.</p>
<p>Just a passing take on this question: overall prestige is largely equal i would imagine between Oxbridge and the smattering of top US unis which encompasses as a group more than HYPetc. And I would think the experience, particularly of being a student at Cambridge and perhaps at Oxford, would be just about impossible to match in terms of interest though perhaps not quality in the US schools. But if you want to be in the US after uni and have broader global opportunities, I would imagine one of the top US unis would stand you in better stead. </p>
<p>So, Oxbridge vs. US top university = tie more or less, depending on what's important to you</p>
<p>Other UK unis vs. US 1st or 2nd tier = US a better idea</p>
<p>Part of this observation is driven by the fact that in the UK, it's my impression that it's always Oxbridge and all the forgettable others. Whereas in the US, there is a large number of respectable unis and not as much emphasis is ultimately put on where one went to school particularly as an undergrad if one goes to grad school.</p>
<p>^I applied to oxford, gave the interview and test and I know exactly how important they are. The most important factor are indeed your O levels and AS level grades. I even asked my interviewer. He said that the interview was to see whether the candidate is really as able as his grades project him to be, and is he at par with the students at Oxford in terms of intellectual ability? In my interview, they only asked questions about Economics. They did not try and gauge my personality or even ask "Why Oxford?"; factors that US colleges consider. One guy from my school did not even give the test for admission or any written work and got in!! He only had a telephonic interview. Another guy got rejected because he only had 8 O level A's!!! (My counselor was told by oxford). Moreover, interviews are not even mandatory.
SO point being, that yes Oxbridge are easier to get into than HYPMS if you have the grades. However, they are one of the top colleges in the world and i do not take anything away from them.</p>
<p>Top US Uni vs Oxbridge....hmmm...would considering grad school make a difference? What's the general take on Oxbridge grad school vs. Top US grad school?</p>
<p>^^^^</p>
<p>I think the Shanghai world university rankings are a good indicator of that. The top usual suspects from the US: Harvard, Berkeley, Stanford, MIT, etc. are all at the top of the list. Cambridge does quite well, Oxford not as well.</p>
<p>But generally, if you are interested in grad school, you want to go to a US university. Their endowments, cutting edge research, number of prizes (Nobel, etc), and the fact that their student bodies especially on the graduate level in several disciplines are often very international, if not majority international.</p>
<p>Depends on the subjects, though.</p>
<p>moizuhk: Considering you didn't even mention interviews or subject tests in your first post you were pretty much open to the conclusion that you had no experience of the Oxbridge process. However, I simply disagree with your conclusions. Moreover I think you have taken your interviewer's comment the other round to how it was intended.</p>
<p>The great majority of Oxbridge applicants will have a similar array of top grade GSCEs and AS-levels and the great majority will be predicted 3 or 4 grade As at A-level. Grades offer little or no differential between the candidates and can only be an initial filter to weed out a small minority before interview. It is the interviews and the subject tests which provide those differentials and are as a result the main bases of whether you are offered a place. Simply looking at the percentage of candidates who fall at each stage shows what the most important factors are.</p>
<p>And why should they try to gauge your personality? Oxford want to find someone who has the intellectual ability to undertake 3-4 years of detailed study of the subject. The point is frequently made on these boards about the very different approach of UK and US undergraduate studies. So why should Oxbridge follow US application processes that don't meet their need?</p>
<p>I just said that my friend got in without giving the test or any written work. He only gave a telephonic interview. Yes the interview and test are factors, but accept it or not, GRADES ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR. And i am not asking oxbridge to change their admissions process or anything. Grades should be important. but my point is simple, Oxbridge is easier to get into than HYPSM for the reasons i gave in my posts above. Period</p>
<p>
[quote]
GRADES ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR
[/quote]
This is plainly wrong. Believe me. Interviews make or break it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Grades should be important. but my point is simple, Oxbridge is easier to get into than HYPSM for the reasons i gave in my posts above.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This says nothing, though, about what would be a better experience or better fit for a person.</p>
<p>I had always heard interviews were spectacularly important for Oxbridge.</p>
<p>I guess you can argue both sides.
Without the right grades you won't even get an interview, but once you are at that stage the interview will probably be a lot more significant than grades. </p>
<p>Isn't it the same for job applications? An applicant with a C- average might not even get an interview, but once you get to the interview round it doesn't make much of a difference whether your GPA is 3.7 or 3.4 I would suppose.</p>
<p>In terms of admission rate UK unis don't seem to be easy to get in.
For instance, I've heard of that LSE admission rate (in overall) is about 1/12.5
(Wiki) and Last year, UCL economics course addmitted only 150 people (this figure excludes double major course students.) out of 1600 applicants according to my brother's friend who is studying at UCL.</p>
<p>^That is not the admission rate.. that's the applicant-place ratio.. they admit far more applicants than the actual no. of places available.. yield rate and stuffs.. so UK unis are always misleading in this aspect</p>
<p>I've seen this discussion far too many times and felt I just had to contribute. My thoughts on this topic would most resemble the opinion of the third poster, in that, this thread creates very little value. Having just skim read through the posts I would like to say this;</p>
<p>Cross system applications will always be tougher on the applicant as application to place ratios are higher and the candidate is exposed to an environment that the education system in the region has not prepared him/her for. </p>
<p>But ultimately the argument might be which system is more effective in producing the "better" graduate. The answer is yet again indeterminable as the universities/colleges generally prepare candidates for graduate job/school application processes within their own region, which goes back to my first point about cross-system applications being more demanding. </p>
<p>The 'transferrable skills' that one ultimately acquires by the end of a graduate program (i.e. first job/post-grad degree) are obtained at different times/ways through the life of the individual in the two systems. </p>
<p>Now if we're looking at competancy in terms of knowlegde of core subjects within the courses, I believe once again there will be a staggered pattern of learning between the two, but by the end of the course the two graduates would be equal in terms of technical knowledge of their subjects. </p>
<p>The top employers and graduate schools will always target the top undergraduate programs in the region which in turn will always prepare their graduates based on their respective application/interview criteria which are also different. </p>
<p>It may be more fitting to compare systems at the end of a post graduate degree or a graduate program in industry at which point you'll find the difference to be minimal. </p>
<p>Conclusion: Comparing colleges/universities between systems is a pointless waste of time. They all get you to the same place all be it via different time schedules and routes. However if you plan on changing system at some point during this process, be prepared for some unconventionality (i.e. having to conform to a higher or possibly lower standard than normal as well as a lot more competition)</p>
<p>The UK higher education system is great and so is the American one. However it is really easier to get into top UK unis (except Oxbridge) then American ones. To get into place like UCL and Imperial all you have to do is send in your A-Level or IB grades. With 3 or 4 A's (depending on the program) you are pretty much guranteed admission. Getting into similar unis like NU, UChicago or Georgetown is a hell lot more difficult with the EC's and essays in addition to your grades.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>thats probably due to differences in focus in the pre-U education systems in the US and UK....try letting the americans take the A-levels, UChicago or Georgetown will probably have lower their requirements to only 2As (the SAT maths level is equivalent to grade 8/sec2 maths in the uk system)....the point is, the american pre-college education probably aims at developing your writting skills more than anything else, while only infusing an iota of knowledge in the sciences and arts (they prefer to leave it to college level lol), hence university admission is heavily dependent on application essays and ECs which are a main part rather than an extra part of their high school "curriculum"</p>
<p>therefore, for the majority of international applicants whose pre-U education systems was modelled somewhat after the specialised knowledge-intensive A-levels....applying to US unis can somewhat be disadvantageous to us....besides, the americans probably find it hard to apply to the UK as well =)</p>
<p>Since collegeconfidential is mainly an undergrad blog</p>
<p>Overall HYPSM > Oxford, Cambridge
Columbia, Dartmouth, Penn, Chicago, Brown = Oxford, Cambridge > LSE, Imperial >>>>>>>> Warwick.</p>
<p>For IB
Harvard, Princeton, Wharton >> Oxford, Cambridge
Columbia, Dartmouth, Duke > Penn, Chicago, Brown, Oxford, Cambridge, LSE > Imperial >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Warwick.</p>
<p>Based on my experience, most talented international students, both wealthy and not so wealthy, strive for the Ivy League schools + Stanford, MIT, and Duke. Less talented, but rich, international students who couldn’t get into Ivy League schools + Stanford, MIT, and Duke end up at Oxford and Cambridge.</p>