US top unis Vs. UK top unis

Student Lounge International Students
41

<p>This post is HILARIOUS and UNBELIEVABLY uninformed.</p>

<p>Any notion that it’s “easier” to get into Oxbridge or any of the top universities in the UK is horribly incorrect. Warwick, York, Bristol, UCL, Cardiff, Trinity, Manchester… any of those and plenty more wouldn’t look twice at anyone with less than stellar grades.</p>

<p>The top US colleges are generally all about the holistic approach. They have enough funding behind them that they can be less picky about stats and look more into the kind of people they admit. Naturally, offering such great financial aid anyway they can afford to be hugely selective, and in comparison the UK has a lot fewer applicants.</p>

<p>Overall I’d say neither is easier. It all depends on who you are and what you want in a college experience.</p>

42

<p>Oxbridge offers one of the best undergraduate, if not the best undergraduate experience. Many of their applicants are self-selecting, thus higher acceptance rates. I do not agree that HYPSM >>>> Oxbridge. In the eyes of many people, especially adults I have talked to only H = Oxbridge. Oxbridge >>>> YPSM. This is due to Oxbridge’s age and tradition of excellence.</p>

43

<p>I think basically, Oxbridge is easier to get into than HYPSM because all you have to do is get straight As, which like 70% of RJ/HC and 55% of VJ/NJ does… Whereas for HYPSM, straight As is just a small component, whereas ECs essays make up the other components. I’m sure all oxbridge cares about is academic potential. Sure, the interview matter a lot. But these interviews assesses ACADEMIC POTENTIAL!! The interviews ask you chem questions… </p>

<p>I saw this from a scholarship portal, where this guy from hwa chong wanted to do chem at cambridge. </p>

<p>The interview qns were

  1. How would you calculate the number of moles of oxygen in this room?
  2. Show me how you would calculate the born hable cycle energy sth of some compound.
  3. Write the equation between lithium and water and explain sth…</p>

<p>Get it?</p>

<p>And besides the numbers speak for themselves… Just count the number of singaporeans at oxbridge, imperial, lse, and compare that with HYPSM. The numbers speak for themselves.</p>

<p>And lastly, IMHO, oxbridge is easier for SINGAPOREANS or those taking A levels to get in, simply because it’s the same british system. We focus on grades and academic stuff since young, how can you simply get into the US system so easily when you are competing with those who have been brought up in the US system since young?</p>

44

<p>

That’s not the problem. The problem is that HYP are even more selective among international applicants than domestic ones. Think about it this way: domestic applicants have to stand out on a national level to get into these universities, while international applicants have to stand out on an international level.</p>

<p>Apparently Princeton assigns each applicants two numbers, rating their academic and non-academic achievements. 1 stands for international-level recognition, 2 is national recognition, 3 is regional, 4 is local, 5 is… well… average. Apparently most domestic Princeton students are 2-3. Since it wouldn’t make sense to admit international applicants that are less qualified than domestic applicants, international applicants would need at least a 2-3 rating as well. I would wager that most successful international applicants are indeed 1-x (e.g. IMO participants) or x-2 (a successful national-level soccer player), unless they get a boost for wealthy relatives or being from some obscure country.</p>

45

<p>“I think basically, Oxbridge is easier to get into than HYPSM because all you have to do is get straight As”</p>

<p>Not entirely true. While you do have to have superb grades for Oxbridge, a LOT of emphasis is put on your personal statement. Just getting As and having a rubbish personal statement won’t get you anywhere. Alternatively, if you have an amazing person statement and a slight reduction in the quality of your grades, you might still be in with a chance. And Oxbridge still does look at ECs. They may not factor them actively in the admissions process, it’s still something they will generally look at.</p>

46

<p>Alright, here’s how I see things, main criteria being undergraduate academic experience:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>HYPMCS Vs. Oxbridge –> OXBRIDGE (Oxbridge tutoring systems are amazing, and I’m saying this as a Stanford student)</p></li>
<li><p>Columbia Penn Chicago Vs. LSE Imperial –> Chicago > Columbia, Penn > LSE (awful, awful undergraduate teaching), Imperial</p></li>
<li><p>Dartmouth Brown Cornell Vs. UCL Warwick –> DBC > UCL Warwick</p></li>
<li><p>Gtown Northwestern JH Vs. Bristol Durham Nottingham Bath –> American u’s are way ahead</p></li>
</ol>

<p>To me, the best schools in the world for undergraduates are Oxbridge, Amherst, and Williams.</p>

47

<p>

</p>

<p>I disagree. I can think of several US universities that are worse IMHO than Imperial or LSE for example. I also think LSE beats Oxbridge in economics specifically and Imperial is better than Oxford (but not Cambridge) in engineering.</p>

48

<p>What experience does anyone here, myself included, have to accurately say which is worse? Any of the top tier schools in the US or the UK are GREAT colleges and will undoubtedly offer a good education.</p>

<p>This forum is so obsessed with stats and finding the best at everything. This elitism is just mad. Surely it depends more on whether a college fits the individual?</p>

49

<p>I’m currently finishing up at Cambridge. I’ve graduated from a top US public, attended the #1 ranked university in a 3rd country and will be starting at and am familiar with a top US private…differences between all are NEGLIGIBLE! The only advantage that US universities have over foreign U’s (as I see it) is $$$ and this doesn’t necessarily trickle down to the students.</p>

50

<p>Colleges in the UK can never compare to the top tier colleges in the US. The whole education system in the UK is different and outdated.</p>

51

<p>What is the point of this? It’s like saying ‘which is the better fruit, apples or pears?’ Umm, well, clearly, apples are better if you like the taste of apples more, and pears are better if you like the taste of pears more. </p>

<p>The key difference between UK and US universities is that in the US (during ugrad level at least) the emphasis is breadth, while in the UK it is depth.</p>

<p>Obviously, there are practical differences such as price and living arrangements, but seriously, people should make the choice based on what is best for them as individuals, not on spurious ‘rankings’.</p>

52

<p>Laylah, if you plan your courses appropriately, you can get a lot more depth in an American major than in a British one.</p>

53

<p>^Can you spell out how this can be the case? E.g. how would a physics major at Stanford get a lot more depth than an Oxford physics undergraduate who has studied only physics for four years? What would each have to know by the time they leave university? (I ask this not as a physicist but simply because it is rather easier to compare in the case of a hard science than something like history.)</p>

54

<p>Yes, I find that hard to understand too. </p>

<p>I’m not a physicist - my degree was in Mandarin Chinese. Here are Harvard’s requirements for its East Asian Studies concentration: [EALC</a> - Harvard University](<a href=“ealc.org”>ealc.org)</p>

<p>Here’s what I had to do: [B.A</a>. in Chinese - Chinese Studies - Faculty of Oriental Studies - University of Oxford](<a href=“http://www.orinst.ox.ac.uk/html/ea/chinese/ba_chinese.html]B.A”>http://www.orinst.ox.ac.uk/html/ea/chinese/ba_chinese.html)</p>

<p>Briefly, I studied 4 years of Mandarin Chinese (interpreting, composition, translation), 4 years of Classical Chinese, 2 years of ancient history, 2 years of modern history and politics, 2 years of linguistics, 2 years of anthropology and a 15,000 word thesis. Plus short options in religion, art, literature etc. </p>

<p>The Harvard programme is not comparable to this. </p>

<p>I will just repeat again - one is not better than the other. They just have different approaches. </p>

<p>I know plenty of people who studied EAS at Harvard. They are hugely smart individuals, with a fantastic all-round knowledge of China, its culture and (particularly) its politics - far more than I was ever exposed to. But they haven’t had the depth of language teaching I had; they don’t have the depth of historical or linguistic detail that I was expected to recall.</p>

<p>This doesn’t make them any less well educated than me, and it doesn’t make me any more educated than them. It just means our conversations are more fun because they know things I don’t, and vice versa. :)</p>

55

<p>■■■■■■■■ first post. An undergraduate education at a place like Brown or Dartmouth would perhaps be much better than at a place like Harvard.</p>

56

<p>Sure, I can explain how one could do a more focused physics degree at an American school than at Oxford. Don’t know why you guys are getting onto me about Oxford when I did mention that I think it’s one of the top 4 schools in the world. But anyway –></p>

<p>Let’s compare Oxford and Stanford.</p>

<p>Here’s the Oxford physics course overview: [Oxford</a> Physics - Oxford Physics - Admissions - Overview of the BA and MPhys Courses](<a href=“http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/overview.htm]Oxford”>http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/overview.htm)</p>

<p>Basically you take the following amount of subjects (includes physics topic courses and mathematical methods) a year:</p>

<p>First year: 5
Second year: 5
Third year: 4
Fourth year (which is only for MPhys, not a regular bachelors): 2</p>

<p>So that’s 16 subjects (courses) in total, if you’re enrolled in the master’s program.</p>

<p>Stanford is on the quarter system, which might be a curse for some, but HEAVEN for the kid who really wants to specialize in physics. </p>

<p>Stanford kids on average take 48 classes (4 classes per quarter X 3 quarters a year X 4 years) before they graduate. </p>

<p>Stanford physics enthusiasts need to complete (according to university graduating regulations –> [General</a> Education Requirements](<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/dept/registrar/bulletin/4877.htm]General”>Stanford University Bulletin)) the following general ed classes outside of their physics curriculum: 3 foreign language classes, 1 social science class, 4 humanities classes and 2 more general liberal arts classes. There are a few more general ed classes, but these are natural science and math classes which fall under the Stanford physics major.</p>

<p>So, 3+1+4+2 = 10. Essentially, Stanford physics majors need to take 10 classes outside of physics but then have on average 38 classes of physics that they can take (48 overall - 10 for gen eds). </p>

<p>38 classes of physics at Stanford seems to me to be more in depth than 16 classes at Oxford. Stanford physics majors can also choose to complete a four-year co-term masters programs if they still can’t get enough of thermodynamics. </p>

<p>All I’m saying, with the right college choice (no, don’t go to UChicago…killer general eds) and the right class choices, college majors in the US can be a lot more in depth than at the best British unis. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the US colleges are better, hence me saying that Oxford still rules supreme.</p>

57

<p>[BlueBubbles] First, those are 16 one-year courses, which would count at least as 32 one-semester courses in the US. In fact, most papers are actually divided into modules, which in the US would be broken instead into several one-semester classes. Therefore, the total equivalent course content is probably greater than 32. </p>

<p>I am not very familiar with Oxford, but if you take for example the NatSci tripos description at Cambridge, you will see that only 3 “courses” are listed e.g. for year 2 (Part IB) in the Physics track. Those “courses” are referred generically as Physics A, Physics B, and Mathematics, but probably cover the same content as 8-10 Stanford classes.</p>

<p>If you look at the distribution requirements for any BS in Physics in the US, I doubt you will find any degree that covers as many topics as the Oxford MPhys or the Cambridge MSci at the same level of depth.</p>

58

<p>Bruno123, I understand what you’re saying, but I still think that with proper planning, the US is the way to go for specialization. That doesn’t mean British universities aren’t specialized. On the contrary, they are, you only study one subject. I’m not very familiar with physics or any of the natural sciences nor have I ever gone to Oxford, so I’m not the best expert either. </p>

<p>I think I didn’t clarify myself enough, though. When I think of specialization in a subject I think of taking lot’s of different diverse classes in a major, not necessarily fewer, longer classes. </p>

<p>Part of the reason I (and a couple other people on here) think that the UK system is a bit outdated is exactly because too few and less diverse classes are taken in a course. For example, when one looks at the LSE BA in International Relations structure, it’s appalling that students need to take only 1 foreign language course and that there are only a handful of economics and history classes to take. There is much less to choose from and it doesn’t allow students to find their true specialty. The best overall word for the problem is “inflexibility” and this leads to several other issues, such as students starting university in one subject and having to completely reapply at UCAS when they find out they hate their course.</p>

59

<p>it depends if you are absolutely certain of your major…
if the answer is yes: you should consider the UK…if No…dont</p>

<p>in terms of the schools:
IF YOU GET INTO OXBRIDGE…GO THERE!..its nearly impossble for american students to do so (or anyone else for that matter) …there are stats on that somewhere…like only 20 americans got into oxbridge…or something rediculous like that.</p>

<p>also LSE and Imperial are very respected schools especially in the business world (not well known in the US though for some reason)</p>

<p>also obviously the ivies are great and it would depend on your certainty of major…</p>

<p>but the rest of your comparisons…the american schools win out.</p>

60

<p>I agree with bluebubbles here.</p>

<p>It’s true that you won’t find any Physics degree in the US that covers as much material as the UK equivalent but this takes into consideration only the MANDATORY classes. At US schools nobody keeps you from taking more than the minimum units/courses required for graduation. At most schools you are also allowed to take graduate level courses, which are probably much more specialized than UK courses. </p>

<p>bruno123, your phrasing here is very good:

This may be true. But then this has nothing to do with specialization and I don’t see any benefit. </p>

<p>If I want to specialize in something I should focus on one subset of Physics and really study it in depth instead of studying as many topics as possible “kind of in depth”. The US system with its flexibility is much better suited for that purpose. The introductory courses may not go as deep as the ones in the UK but they do a good job of guiding students towards an area of specialization related to which they can take more advanced classes. Why waste time studying things in depth I am not interested in?</p>

<p>

Out of how many American applicants?</p>