What's the image of US colleges/universities in your country?

International Students
41

<p>I second(third ?) Nauru's remark. Most people i know only know of Harvard... that's seriously it! Just anything they pick up from watching TV builds their view of an American College =
All Women are beatiful
All men are Jocks
All the campuses are beatiful and covered in ivy
People do nothing except for ride around in their car to the gym and talk about the opposite sex the whole day.</p>

<p>This is kind of sad from an American's point of view, but no one is really going to go to a College in the US anyway so who really cares.</p>

<p>In holland we have different kinds of higher education but all their buildings look the same and are ugly, most of the time there isn't even a campus. Actually probobly all the time(very few exceptions but please correct me if i am wrong). I don't know enough to say so but this might be the case in most countries in Europe.</p>

<p>Hahaha the NY - U thing is sooo true !</p>

42

<p>second edwinksl. i'm his pal. just got into Middlebury. few singaporeans have heard of it--so what? what's the matter with u guys? stop having hang-ups abt the prestige factor in ur HOME COUNTRY. screw that! get ur ownage academics in top LACs, work in the states--BAM! it's on like donkey kong. then u can get ur prestige-whoring butts into grad programs in those 'recognized' universities--of course, by then u're no longer that caught up in that ****... huh? what's that u say? WHY?</p>

<p>here's why, cos u'll be enjoying ur life there. 'nuff said.</p>

<p>ok, the above is a super "grass is greener on the other side" rant; but seriously, as a singaporean, i dont see what sg has to offer when the behemoth is compared to it.</p>

<p>so say <em>|</em> to those chaebols and fricking work in goldman sachs if money is what u're all abt.</p>

<p>but if u're the real deal, the dude who wants knowledge simply because he desires it, loves it, and treasures it, then u wouldnt give half a rat's ass abt what those naysayers say and--heck--return a few yrs later as Patrick Bateman, crinkling that emotionless face into a smile, blending in, and killing them when the party's over.</p>

43

<p>
[quote]

aw5k
Junior Member</p>

<p>Join Date: Apr 2005
Threads:
Posts: 295</p>

<p>I second nauru's comment about the perception of LACs in Europe: nobody has ever heard of them. What is more, people in my country (Germany) sure think that their universities are clearly stronger than LACs (and they would probably be right).
Personally, I'd rather look for good (better) universities in Europe.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>what on earth?</p>

<p>they'd be right that their unis are better than LACs? u must be mistaken. Better than Amherst? hmmm... you've got me there.</p>

<p>good (better) universities in europe? hey, i'm not discounting that, cos they are certainly still better than NUS/NTU/SMU, but seriously, the UK education system is screwing up big time because of a serious lack of funding--a problem that plagues tertiary institutes in Europe.</p>

<p>better? thk again.</p>

<p>my gc scoffed when i mentioned UK. i said "but hey, at least oxford and cambridge are still quality institutes, yeah?"</p>

<p>all he did was let out a little snort of derision. the gap is widening, do wake up and realize that.</p>

44

<p>Even if the UK system was well-funded, I would not choose to go there. The first reason is financial aid (though I suppose if I went to Oxbridge, getting a scholarship from somewhere would not be too hard). The second is because the US system provides a much more vast range of opportunities. If you go to Oxbridge or wherever, you focus on your degree. In the US, you are actually expected to have a broad grounding in a wide range of fields. I prefer that approach.</p>

<p>Most LACs aren't too bad with the sciences either, so I hear.</p>

45

<p>Touche.</p>

<p>Well said johnleemk.</p>

<p>LACs are good.</p>

46

<p>I prefer LACs over big universities too.
I can still worry about my future after graduating from one...</p>

47

<p>depends, if a big univ. can give you the best possible education in one specific field then i would go for that, but for a very individualized and 'liberal arts' education a LAC is best for that.
God i am like Switzerland i'm as neutral as . . . . stuff that's neutral</p>

48

<p>well adult people ( teachers and parents) say " u go to the states, study whatever u want and u'll be fine ;)" and 17, 18-people say " ohh u wanna go to Harvard.. all those nerdy people.." of course I know this isn't true!.. that's the usual perception they have of Ivies..</p>

<p>I don't really care what they think; I have my own perspective and it's far different from those two above.</p>

49

<p>Williams, Amherst and Wellesley's reputation in Korea? Any Koreans out there???</p>

50

<p>I would be surprised if nobody in Korea has heard of these awesome LACs.</p>

51

<p>Curious Kid, we've discussed it in page 3...</p>

52

<p>hoeman:</p>

<p>As someone from Germany, I have never heard of Williams, Amherst, etc. They don't show up on any rankings (since they are LACs), so I have difficulties in assessing their quality. And yes, I still think that we have better universities in Germany. Agreed, it's a different system. Here, like in UK, you concentrate on one major. LACs pursue a totally different approach. I must say that I am not so enthusiastic about this liberal arts thing as you are.</p>

<p>And to this guy who disputed Oxbridge's quality: if you're saying that Amherst, etc. are "better" than Oxbridge, then nobody will be able to take you serious. This is a ridiculous statement. And this guidance counselor you talked to must be ridiculous, too.
Personally, I strongly favor the Oxbridge education (focusing on one major). Oxbridge offers <em>great</em> teaching quality (and the LACs really stand no comparison, sorry!) and are one of the best universities in the world (and certainly better than LACs, come on - lol!). I won't argue about the HYP vs. Oxbridge thing, because all these institutions are fine.
However, since I know exactly what I want to do later, I am very positive that the Oxbridge model is better for me than HYP.</p>

<p>PS: I don't think that Oxbridge are the only UK universities that are better than LACs. Look at Imperial, for example: world class.
PPS: Ok, maybe I should clarify. If you really want a liberal arts education, LACs are maybe good. If you know what you want, though, I think there are dozens of unis that are better. Am I completely mistaken?</p>

53

<p>aw5k, ordinary LACs are of course not comparable to Oxbridge. However, Williams, Swarthmore and Amherst are around the same level or slightly below, I would say. Most American rankings treat universities and LACs differently, but I think these LACs would be in at least the top 100 if they were in the same ranking.</p>

<p>Also, the liberal arts approach to education is one not confined to LACs alone. Almost all top American universities have a core curriculum which requires you to take certain courses in different fields (yes, including HYP; the only Ivy League without a core curriculum is Brown).</p>

<p>The American view on education, I think, is that you should be exposed to a variety of experiences at an undergraduate level. Sometimes this saves people from ending up in the wrong field; people who intended to be doctors may emerge as historians instead, after finding they enjoy history more than medicine. In America, you specialise only at the graduate level.</p>

<p>In the British system, specialisation starts at the undergraduate level. I have friends who are already training to be lawyers or engineers even though they're just doing their bachelor's degree. This can be a good or bad thing, depending on your viewpoint, but I think it's not that great. Unless you were exposed to a wide range of subjects in school (one as wide as the opportunities for courses you might find at an LAC or HYP), you won't be able to get as well-rounded an education.</p>

<p>But that's just my point of view. As they say, it takes all sorts. :p</p>

54

<p>
[quote]

Most American rankings treat universities and LACs differently, but I think these LACs would be in at least the top 100 if they were in the same ranking.

[/quote]

Fair enough, but how would they be on "the same level or slightly below" Oxbridge? Clearly, Oxbridge is on a level with HYP.</p>

<p>I know that American universities have a liberal arts approach. As you said, it's a personal matter. Personally, I don't like it too much. First of all, it's basically the first year (freshman year) where you explore different subjects. Why? Well, American high schools are so different that the unis want their students to be on one and the same level.
Concerning your education: isn't high school (or school in general) supposed to give you an education? I strongly doubt that someone from Oxford or Cambridge is less educated than someone from HYP.</p>

<p>Ok, we have to pay attention not to let this thread drift out. I just hate it if people generalize so badly. Liberal arts is not the be and end all. In fact, I've heard several people who've been educated in the liberal arts who would have preferred not to. Next point, one major argument people bring up in the "America's unis are the best" discussion is the money: yes, American unis are the richest! But this only really matters for graduate studies. If I am not completely mistaken, we're talking about undergraduate here, right!</p>

55

<p>
[quote]
Fair enough, but how would they be on "the same level or slightly below" Oxbridge? Clearly, Oxbridge is on a level with HYP.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because rankings are not laser-accurate - far from it. When you look at schools in, say, the top 50, the quality of the education is almost the same. Rankings are only useful if you look at them in terms of tiers. Schools in the same range of ranking will have roughly the same kind of education, even if they are separated by 10 spots. Lots of people have written on the issue of rankings, so I won't delve into them too deeply, but I think that if a university is in the top 100, it certainly isn't that far off from Oxbridge.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I know that American universities have a liberal arts approach. As you said, it's a personal matter. Personally, I don't like it too much. First of all, it's basically the first year (freshman year) where you explore different subjects. Why? Well, American high schools are so different that the unis want their students to be on one and the same level.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The problem is that if your education is standardised on a level that's not so good (e.g. many Asian countries; I'm sure German education is much better), you still have a lot of room for improvement. So for me and many Asians, an LAC might be a better choice.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Concerning your education: isn't high school (or school in general) supposed to give you an education? I strongly doubt that someone from Oxford or Cambridge is less educated than someone from HYP.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not very familiar with the German education system, but that's something like how the British education system is supposed to operate. Only problem is, it doesn't work too well, because we are made to specialise from young. I'm not sure about what they do in Britain these days, but the Malaysian education system (based on the British system of 50 years ago) streams you into either the sciences or arts at the age of 15. Once there, it's extremely difficult to switch streams, and you are exposed to a very limited range of subjects.</p>

<p>It's not in dispute that Oxbridge gives a very good education on par with HYP. However, would a medical graduate from Oxford have the same breadth of education as a pre-med graduate from Harvard?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Liberal arts is not the be and end all.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Absolutely. Education, IMO, is about being the best you can be. It's not wise to make generalisations when individuals differ so much. Each person will perform best under different circumstances.</p>

56

<p>
[quote]

Absolutely. Education, IMO, is about being the best you can be. It's not wise to make generalisations when individuals differ so much. Each person will perform best under different circumstances.

[/quote]

Ok, I totally agree with you on this.
Some other points, though:</p>

<p>I'm not sure how you were taught in high school. In Germany, you certainly get a well-rounded education in school (at least you should): I studied mathematics, the sciences on the one hand and philosophy, the languages, history, etc. on the other hand. I think I was well educated. Personally, I feel that now - after 13 years of school - I want to do what I like most, at last! That's why I like the idea to specialize. OK, it's a question of personal choice and circumstances, I agree.</p>

<p>One more thing about the rankings:
I would agree that the top10 universities are about the same. But the top100? Nah, would you say that Harvard or Stanford are on par with the University of Arizona or Iowa State University? Seems a bit weird for me.</p>

<p>
[quote]

It's not in dispute that Oxbridge gives a very good education on par with HYP. However, would a medical graduate from Oxford have the same breadth of education as a pre-med graduate from Harvard?

[/quote]

No, probably not, since the pre-med will take classes outside of his major. So what? I mean, this doesn't make him better in his subject at all, you will certainly agree. I think what you mean is that it might be better for him, since he'll be educated in more breadth. As I said, that's a matter of personal circumstances. Actually, I think that education is a long-life process, and cannot be taught in school or college, anyway.</p>

57

<p>So the only way an LAC education can be valuable is if you stay and work in the US, or if you use it as a stepping stone to get into a recognized university. Fair enough. </p>

<p>I think where people stand on education in the US versus Europe depends a lot on people's vested interests and personal preferences. For example, I prefer the European style of education because they don't force me to take a bunch of "liberal arts" courses that I'm not even interested in. I know what I want, so I sign up for my program and I get to study what I signed up for, not some other random crap that the administration thinks will make me "rounded". I am already very rounded, and I am so of my own volition - not because it was imposed on me in the form of a on-size-fits-all rounding formula. I already ranted about this a few months ago.</p>

58

<p>I think I am in the same position as nauru, btw. I know exactly what I want to do, and I am very well-rounded. That's why I say it is a matter of personal fit.
Back to the topic, I still don't think that LACs are on par with Harvard, Princeton, Oxbridge, Stanford, etc. in quality - it'd be the first time I hear this. And coming back to the reputation (i.e. <em>perceived</em> quality), LACs are unknown in Europe (and that's why I probably refuse to accept that they are on par with HYP).</p>

59

<p>I don't think any university in the world would be on par with Oxbridge as far as undergrad is concerned, LAC or not. The tutorial system at Oxbridge is simply amazing.
But I definitely don't agree with the fact that other UK universities such as imperial/LSE are also on par with / better than top LACs. I just don't believe that quality of undergrad education is nearly as good.</p>

<p>I would say:
1. Oxbridge
2. HYPS etc. tied with Williams, Amherst, Swat... etc.</p>

60

<p>Why do you refuse to believe it? Have you ever studied at those British universities?</p>

<p>Harvard Yale and Princeton TIED with Williams Amherst and Swarthmore? You must be joking... I mean, maybe that's the way it's perceived by some Americans in certain geographic regions of the country, but I don't think you'll ever convince anyone else of that. And by anyone else I mean the 95%+ of the world's people that don't live in the United States, and also the portion (majority?) of Americans who don't live in one of those unique geographic regions where Williams is considered equal to Harvard.</p>