Us->uk

<p>" but St Andrews ...</p>

<p>I don't mean to give anyone the hard sell, but I think the "Oxbridge of Scotland" moniker is appropriate..."</p>

<p>St Andrews is a third tier university.
They do get a large number of clueless American students, who get sucked in by the royalty factor. </p>

<p>The only Oxbridge of Scotland is Edinburgh.
And even that is only a second tier university.</p>

<p>Remember that English royalty are academically mediocre and have to compete on an even keel with other English students. Some of them end up at places like St Andrews because that is the only place that they can get into. Legacy and nepotism does not work in the UK admission system, unlike the US.</p>

<p>EDIT:
I see that you finally got into UCL and SOAS and were rejected by Oxford, LSE and St Andrews.
I am surprised that St Andrews rejected you, but I guess that they have too many Americans applying.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
St Andrews is a third tier university.
They do get a large number of clueless American students, who get sucked in by the royalty factor.

[/QUOTE]

I couldn't agree more.
William going there made St Andrews hard to get into. Just because they now receive huge numbers of overseas applications due to sudden fame. Before William went there is wasn't that hard. William didn't have very good grades and probably wouldn't get in there now!</p>

<p>I haven’t been on CC in some time, but I’ll make a few points:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>St Andrews bests or equals Edinburgh in almost every key indicator (research score, tariff points, student satisfaction, etc.). In fact, they are far and away the highest rated university in Scotland. St Andrews is also an ancient university – the oldest in Scotland. I assume most people use the phrase “Oxbridge of Scotland” to describe the oldest, most prestigious universities in Scotland. St Andrews fits the bill, but to a slightly lesser degree, so does Edinburgh.</p></li>
<li><p>St Andrews draws a higher proportion of international students (not just Americans) than almost any other university in the UK. The majority of the students, however, come from the UK. Based on the most recent stats, St Andrews has the fourth highest tariff score (think admission standards) in the UK. I think the claim that St Andreans are “clueless” is clearly unfounded. </p></li>
<li><p>Let’s not fool ourselves about the value of royal “branding” in higher education. Prince William could have attended any university in the UK. In fact, both Oxford and Cambridge were courting him, but for a variety of reasons he chose St Andrews.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>bearpooh:</p>

<p>" but St Andrews ...</p>

<p>I don't mean to give anyone the hard sell, but I think the "Oxbridge of Scotland" moniker is appropriate..."</p>

<p>St Andrews is a third tier university.
They do get a large number of clueless American students, who get sucked in by the royalty factor. </p>

<p>The only Oxbridge of Scotland is Edinburgh.
And even that is only a second tier university.</p>

<p>Remember that English royalty are academically mediocre and have to compete on an even keel with other English students. Some of them end up at places like St Andrews because that is the only place that they can get into. Legacy and nepotism does not work in the UK admission system, unlike the US. "</p>

<p>Completely agree.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Remember that English royalty are academically mediocre and have to compete on an even keel with other English students. Some of them end up at places like St Andrews because that is the only place that they can get into. Legacy and nepotism does not work in the UK admission system, unlike the US.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>To say that the royalty has to compete on an even keel with other English students is to ignore the fact that being a royalty, one has a much better chance to succeed than a commoner who is poor. The socio-economic factor tips the balance in favor of the rich. Unlike the U.S. system, the U.K. H.E. is an elitist system that fails to put into context the accomplishments that a poor student achieves despite facing many life's obstacles. </p>

<p>Not defending the royalty, I don't get how anyone can claim that places like St. Andrews is the only place that they can get into if their test scores are not public knowledge.</p>

<p>tarrafna: You may agree, but the facts far from support this position. </p>

<p>kwyml: I completely agree that royalty in the UK, and most other places, do not have to compete on an even keel with other students. If fact, I don't think that their grades are relevant. Regardless of their marks, the public assumes they will attend the best universities. The universities compete over them because of the increased publicity.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
The socio-economic factor tips the balance in favor of the rich. Unlike the U.S. system, the U.K. H.E. is an elitist system that fails to put into context the accomplishments that a poor student achieves despite facing many life's obstacles.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>I think the US system is far far far more biased to the extremely wealthy than the UK! Yes, exceptional students can get scholarships, but only very few. At top US colleges you will see that the vast majority of students appear to be the children of the mega rich. College in the UK just doesn't cost anywhere near the amount it does in the US (for UK and EU students. Foreign students pay more) so there is nowhere near the economic barrier for poorer students that there is in the US.</p>

<p>im the opposite. i went from the UK to the US</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think the US system is far far far more biased to the extremely wealthy than the UK! Yes, exceptional students can get scholarships, but only very few.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Top schools such as Harvard & Yale are need-blind to all, including internationals, not so at Oxbridge. Harvard has been drawing talents from the U.K., providing scholarships to Oxford rejects such as Laura Spence & Lara Dixon, who, despite their stellar academic credentials, were not admitted for various reasons which sparked a debate within the UK itself on the unfairness of their system that favors those who attend public schools (US equivalent of private schools) over those in state schools (US equivalent of public schools).</p>

<p>Sutton</a> Trust Recent Press Coverage</p>

<p>For your reference:</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/harvard-university/440904-harvard-yale-lure-brightest-away-oxbridge-applications-yale-triple.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/harvard-university/440904-harvard-yale-lure-brightest-away-oxbridge-applications-yale-triple.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
At top US colleges you will see that the vast majority of students appear to be the children of the mega rich.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Perhaps you have access to the rosters of top US colleges? & you can tell from those lists who's who among the mega rich?</p>

<p>
[quote]
College in the UK just doesn't cost anywhere near the amount it does in the US (for UK and EU students. Foreign students pay more) so there is nowhere near the economic barrier for poorer students that there is in the US.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Please read the stories of Lara Dixon & Laura Spence & many like them who were drawn to HY & other ivies. Many US colleges have FA packages, a US student can even enroll in community colleges for the 1st 2 years where the tuition fees are much lower, then transfer to a better known college such as Cornell or Harvard to complete their degree at a much lower cost.</p>

<p>The Laura Spence story is dragged out again and again by the anti-Oxbridge crowd. But it really says nothing about the Oxbridge admissions policy. Laura was doing unsuitable A-level subjects and did not perform well in her interview (I believe she was towards the bottom of the list when it came to interview performance. She certainly wasn't first on the waiting list). So she was rejected, as were many hundreds of others. </p>

<p>Laura applied to study Medicine at Oxford. This is not an undergraduate subject in the US. She was not admitted to an equivalent course at Harvard because it isn't available. </p>

<p>She studied 2 sciences and a couple of other subjects at A-level (English and French? I haven' t looked through the linked articles). In the UK, going to college is all about FOCUS and NOT being well-rounded as it is in the US. Especially for vocational subjects like medicine. The vast vast majority of sucessful applicants have at least 3 science subjects. Things like French will just be ignored as irrelevant. But at a US college having a wide variety of subjects is an advantage. I am sure a few exceptional people do get in without the required A-level subjects (no doubt someone will now find one on the web), but it's rare. Laura's subject choice was very ill-advised if she wanted to do medicine anywhere in the UK, and Oxbridge is the most conservative in terms of subject. But she made a good choice for US colleges. I believe her headmaster was a Harvard graduate and therefore may not have been preparing her for US admissions anyway, or may not have understood the UK system.</p>

<p>She already had at least one "offer" to study medicine in the UK. You can only apply to 4 or 5 places and most people get just one offer and hence don't get any choice really where they go. Given the combination of A-level subjects Laura took, as discussed above, she was lucky to get any offers. Most people would have been elated to get one, and taken it</p>

<p>If Laura really wanted a broad liberal arts education, she would have been very unhappy in the medicine-focused 6-year intensive Oxford course. Therefore they did the right thing in rejecting her. A good Harvard candidate is not necessarily a good Oxford candidate.</p>

<p>The UK students who go to study in the US are, in the vast majority of cases, the rich public school pupils. Often those who are not smart enough to get into Oxbridge but can pay their way into a US college. Or they may well be smart enough (as are most applicants really. Just like most Ivy league applicants are brilliant, even if rejected. There are just not enough places), but are rejected and decide it's not fair and it should be their right to go to Oxbridge just because their parents did (legacy is basically illegal in the UK. People here are SHOCKED that the US supports a system that essentailly the UK has spent 100 years trying to stamp out). So they go off in a sulk.</p>

<p>Over half the pupils at Oxford went to a free "state" school in England, like I did! That is not because hundreds of state school pupils are being rejected at interview. It's because they don't apply. In the UK system you can only apply for a maximum of 6 schools, less for some subjects. There is no concept of safety and match. At a private school students are encouraged to apply for all reach colleges basically, and also get extra coaching to help with the interviews. At state schools, students most apply for what on this board we would consider to be safeties. Through fear of getting 6 rejections. About 50% of Oxford applicants went to state schools and they're slightly more likely to be admitted that private school pupils, if they apply in the first place. Since private schools are often selective (i.e. there is an entrance exam), they will always be over-represented because they have a higher concentration of the clever pupils.</p>

<p>Most people in the UK would never dream of applying to a college where you have to pay to apply for a start (seen as extremely unfair and untrustworthy. UCAS application fee is minimal) and do not think ECs should be assesed, because essentially that is assessing what activities parents can afford to pay for. Of course the difference is that all schools here are publically funded so people feel they pay taxes and have a right to equal access.</p>

<p>UK students whose families earn under a certain amount pay nothing at all for their college and the costs are the same wherever you go (apart from living costs, which are more expensive in London). Of course, getting a college degree is much more important and increases your future earning power by a much greater amount in the US than it does in any other country. that is why US colleges can charge more. Plus I get the impression from this board that college prestige is more important in the US.</p>

<p>Do not read stories about spoilt little girls throwing a hissy fit about being rejected from college and base your entire opinion of a college on that. I am not saying the system is perfect. Far from it. But it is in no way like the 18th century impression you have described above.</p>

<p>To prove my point, that Harvard and Yale lure the brightest away article linked above, is all about places like Cheltenham Ladies college. i.e. UK schools where you have to be a millionnaire to attend. It's the super rich on the whole who go to the US. Because they can't get in through legacy in the UK.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The UK students who go to study in the US are, in the vast majority of cases, the rich public school pupils. Often those who are not smart enough to get into Oxbridge but can pay their way into a US college.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I have to agree with this one. </p>

<p>I went to Exeter School in England and many of my classmates who got into a top US school got rejected in places like Oxbridge, Warwick, Imperial and LSE. My cousin, also from Exeter School, will be attending either UC Berkeley (if he gets an offer) or Northwestern on the fall b/coz he did not get into Cambridge and Warwick. Though he got into Imperial, Nottingham and Birmingham.</p>

<p>Ahhh, I was agreeing with much of what cupcake had to say in the first half of the above post, and then cupcake had to go and spoil it with the second half of the post, where there are overwhelming generalities that are just simply wrong.</p>

<p>Re: Laura Spence, Cupcake is exactly right. She seemed to be looking for a liberal arts education, which she definitely was not going to get at Oxbridge. Harvard is a much better fit for her. Indeed, most of cupcake's comments re: specialisation are exactly right. Finding the right school system is an integral part of choosing a school, there are students who would be much better off in the UK, and those who would be much better off in the US. It depends on entirely on the student.</p>

<p>As to the second half of cupcake's post, that is just misguided.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The UK students who go to study in the US are, in the vast majority of cases, the rich public school pupils. Often those who are not smart enough to get into Oxbridge but can pay their way into a US college.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>True, but they cannot pay their way into most top US colleges any more than they can pay their way into UK schools. The admit rate for internationals at the top US schools is broadly lower than the admit rate for Oxbridge (MIT for example has an international admit rate of 4%, Princeton 7%). It may be true however that they can pay their way into a good, but not top, US school more easily than they can pay their way into a good, but not top, UK school.</p>

<p>
[quote]
People here are SHOCKED that the US supports a system [legacy admissions] that essentailly the UK has spent 100 years trying to stamp out).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, that varies dramatically from university to university. </p>

<p>At the University of Michigan, applicants are rated on a “selection index” of 150 points, where 100 points is usually enough to be admitted; students with legacy receive four points. At Harvard, the admissions dean personally reads every application from alumni children and uses the legacy status “as a tie-breaker between comparable candidates,” according to a series of Pulitzer Prize-winning articles published by The Wall Street Journal published Jan. 13, 2003. At Stanford, they say: “Among equally qualified candidates, [legacy] could be a plus factor... Such consideration, however, is never enough to admit a student who would not be compelling in our process without such consideration.” At MIT, legacy does not contribute to admissions decisions.</p>

<p>There is certainly some debate about legacy admits, but it is a relatively small group of people. Money does pay a part of admissions. A family who has a track record of donating buildings to large institutions is going to receive favourable treatment at almost any US university, but this applies not merely to those who are rich, but those who are really, really, really rich and generous with that, which is such an infinitismally small part of the admissions pool as to be irrelevant. Beyond that, US universities have a track record in urging alumni to donate money, a lot of which goes towards student financial aid. The schools that do weight legacy applications, argue that this encourages strong alumni support. There is some dispute as to the value of this.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Over half the pupils at Oxford went to a free "state" school in England, like I did!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, here the statistics favour the US, rather than the UK in terms of elitism. Cupcake is proud that "over half" went to a state school.</p>

<p>64% of Harvard Students went to a State School. 74% of MIT students went to a state school. 65% of Stanford students went to a state school.</p>

<p>Oxford does not publish exactly comparable figures. The only statistic they are prepared to give was that 46.1 percent of Oxford students were from "maintained" schools as opposed to 43.7 percent from the independent sector, statistics almost identical with Cambridge figures. The remainder is comprised of Sixth Form College or foreign students.</p>

<p>By these measure, the US schools are much more solicitious of state school students than Oxbridge. Cupcake is just barking up the wrong tree when suggesting otherwise.</p>

<p>
[quote]
At state schools, students most apply for what on this board we would consider to be safeties. Through fear of getting 6 rejections.

[/quote]

Is there any source for this statistic, or is this just anecdotal? I have no hard statistics, but anecdotally, most of the state secondary school students that I encounter (quite a few) do apply to at least one reach amongst their six applications. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Most people in the UK would never dream of applying to a college where you have to pay to apply for a start (seen as extremely unfair and untrustworthy. UCAS application fee is minimal)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>A legitimate difference. Almost all US schools offer an entrance fee waiver for those unable to afford the fee, but there is indeed a fee to apply. This goes some way to covering the costs of the application.</p>

<p>
[quote]
and do not think ECs should be assesed, because essentially that is assessing what activities parents can afford to pay for.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again a difference, particularly that in US state schools, EC's are considered to be part of the curriculum, so in most cases are not charged for. Therefore, it is reasonable to assess these. </p>

<p>The top schools have enough highly qualified applicants to fill their classes several times over with students with appropriate test scores and grades. So there is a subjective element which is usually looking for those students who contributed the most to the life of their secondary school, in the hope and expectation that they will do so again in university. If, for example, you started a band while in high school, this might help you at a US top school, as they hope you will start a band in university. Again, there are exceptions. Caltech, for example, does not focus on EC's.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Of course the difference is that all schools here are publically funded so people feel they pay taxes and have a right to equal access.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Which is broadly true in the US as well. Every state funds a university system which is highly subsidised for residents of that state (and much easier for residents to gain admittance to). Some states university systems are world class (such as the University of California system, and the University of Michigan). There is also a private tier of universities in the US, as there is at every layer in the UK educational system up to University. One difference is that there is a snobbery that exists in at least some UK public schools (which are private) towards those in state education, that does not exist in the same way in the US educational system. It is extremely rare to hear of say Brown University students looking down on UC Berkeley students as they are only in a State university. That is regrettably not true of UK Secondary schools.</p>

<p>
[quote]
UK students whose families earn under a certain amount pay nothing at all for their college and the costs are the same wherever you go (apart from living costs, which are more expensive in London).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Which is also true to a much greater case at the top US schools. For students whose families earn less than USD$180000 per year, Harvard guarantees extensive financial aid that will not include student loan packages. The exact amount is capped at 10% of a families income, if above $120000, and substantially lower beyond that. The point at which a Harvard student pays for nothing, including room and board kicks in at a family income of about $60000. This is much higher than in the UK. This is typical of the top schools. Yale, Princeton, MIT are all broadly similar.</p>

<p>Indeed, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Dartmouth, Williams amongst other schools definitely do not consider financial status in any way in the admissions decision.</p>

<p>Cupcake is quite right in that the Laura Spence story is not a reasonable portrayal of Oxbridge admissions procedures and that US students are at risk of generalising wildly and inappropriately about UK admissions. Then Cupcake proceeds to generalise wildly and inappropriately about US admissions.</p>

<p>The real issue here is that finding out about an educational system other than the one in which you were raised is hard, and it is too easy to reach wrong conclusions based on fragmentary information.</p>

<p>Just as an update after a few months.. I finally got all my results back.</p>

<p>LSE - Unconditional
UCL - Unconditional
SOAS - Unconditional
Oxford - Unsuccessful
King's - Unsuccessful</p>

<p>Seems that admissions are quite unpredictable.. was shocked to get into LSE today!</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for all your input and opinions over the past few months... was a great help!</p>

<p>congrats...and its really surprising that King's rejected you and LSE accepted you but I guess its their loss</p>

<p>^ its not that surprising considering he applied for 4 different courses out of 5 universities</p>

<p>while I believe that his writing is no doubt very solid, even prolific writers have difficulty adjusting their personal statements to suit 4 different courses while trying to convey a sense of passion and genuine interest in each one</p>

<p>@lOngbOWmeN you seem to be very knowledgable about UK unis...my friend is in a bit of a dilemma because he has been accepted to UCL eco and math, Imperial for math and City for actuarial sciences...which would you suggest would be the best choice for him</p>

<p>haha thank you for your compliment....actually I am very knowledgable about both UK and US unis lol but nvm =)</p>

<p>i wouldnt be able to say which is the best choice for him, because it all depends on which field is he interested in, whats he looking for in college, and whether hes planning to go onto grad school etc. ....but i can give a few suggestions as to the overall repute of the schools, the college experience, cost etc.</p>

<p>In terms of prestige, Imperial is right behind oxbridge in the UK, and hence the best of the 3. If your friend is planning to go on to grad school in the US, a solid grounding in arguably one of the most demanding courses - mathematics in a prestigious school is bound to impress your admission officers. UCL is not far behind in terms of quality of education, but not many ppl outside the UK have an idea of it (prestige to an international student like me is very impt). A degree in econs and maths is definitely more marketable though. City is fairly weak compared to the other 2 both in prestige and quality of edu so it all depends if you really want the actuarial science (on average the most high paying profession according to a study conducted in the US)</p>

<p>cost wise, City and UCL are about the same, £12k/annum...Imperial is more expensive, more so than any university in the UK including oxbridge, £15k/annum (and thats for maths, for the sciences its like 19k)</p>

<p>extra-curricular activites and college life, well I would say its pretty lacking since all 3 are city campuses which consist of at most a few blocks (Imperial has a sparking new campus though)....in the UK unis are really pure educational institutions preparing you for the working life rather than the US colleges which are work-play institutions aiming to develop well-rounded individuals with great literacy and numeracy skills leading to an eventual graduate degree (gross generalisation but thats the perception that I get)</p>

<p>Imperial is good.
UCL is ok.
I would suggest that your friend avoid City.</p>

<p>ok thanks for the advice...he was actually thinking about city because its one of the few unis that offer actuary at the undergrad level...it would also allow him to get an exemption from a couple of the actuary tests that you have to take to become a certified actuarist (?)</p>