<p>wow, who dug up that thread :p</p>
<p>1of42,</p>
<p>Even assuming the rank is the same, the fact that your grades are better already make you more competitive.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is, of course, unless you're postulating that HK schools contain smarter pupils than US schools, which may be true for certain US high schools (there are many inner-city and rural schools that are bad), but in general probably isn't true - even if it is, you'll need to provide statistics before that becomes a valid argument.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There's actually an international study that measures the performance of students from different countries in math/science. Singapore and Hong Kong were two of the top-3. They are not smarter. They just spend more time studying. My relatives, siblings, and friends did get higher rank because higher % of their peers were into playing. ;)</p>
<p>Sam Lee:</p>
<p>No, your grades being better doesn't make you materially more competitive, even with decent grades, assuming the adcoms have good knowledge of where you would be coming from in HK. This wouldn't be true at small or lower ranked schools, but at the ivies and other places it would.</p>
<p>As for math rankings, no surprises there, Asian children tend to work harder in Asian schools. On the other hand, a lot of equalization happens in university. However, before I buy into it, please link to the study, just so I know you're not making stuff up. :P</p>
<p>1of42,</p>
<p>You overestimate how much the adcoms know about different systems. When NU sent me their application package, there's a page saying the minimum requirement for us; for HKAL, they require no grade lower than B. If they <em>really</em> know about HKAL, they wouldn't have such requirement. Any person that scores a C in any HKAL science/math would easily score >700 on SATII or 4/5 on AP. Heck, my friend scored 800 on SAT I math but a D on AL pure math.</p>
<p>Indeed, even for graduate school admissions, US adcoms have limited information about specific universities in other parts of the world, even European unis. They seem to just go by the overall conversion scale for the country and leave it at that. So why the heck would undergraduate admissions committees (which have far more apps to go through in the same amount of time) know about the differences between thousands of high schools on the other side of the earth?</p>
<p>1of42</p>
<p><a href="http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005005.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005005.pdf</a></p>
<p>Look at appendix C for tables showing detailed results.</p>
<p>TIMSS is for students ages 10 and 14, and this is what BBC had to say about the results of 2003:</p>
<p>Here are the scores of interest:</p>
<p>
[quote]
TOP FIVE IN MATHS
GRADE EIGHT:
Singapore 605
South Korea 589
Hong Kong 586
Chinese Taipei 585
Japan 570
Average 467</p>
<p>GRADE FOUR:
Singapore 594
Hong Kong 575
Japan 565
Chinese Taipei 564
Belgium (Flemish) 551
Average 495
Source: TIMSS 2003 </p>
<p>TOP FIVE IN SCIENCE
GRADE EIGHT:
Singapore 578
Chinese Taipei 571
South Korea 558
Hong Kong 556
Estonia and Japan 552
Average 474</p>
<p>GRADE FOUR:
Singapore 565
Chinese Taipei 551
Japan 543
Hong Kong 542
England 540
Average 489 </p>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Finland (which did so well in the PISA) did not participate in the study. </p>
<p>I personally prefer the PISA which looked at 15 year olds in 32 countries.</p>
<p>Some comments from the BBC:</p>
<p>
[quote]
The survey, carried out by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, found that pupils in Finland had the best literacy skills, with Japanese pupils highest at maths and Korean pupils top-scoring in science.</p>
<p>And pupils in the United States appeared in the middle ranking average band for all three subjects. </p>
<p>The ratings are based on an assessment of how pupils approaching the end of compulsory education are able to apply their academic skills to problems in the workplace and in adult life. </p>
<p>Among the high-flying countries which appeared in the above-average rankings for all three subjects, along with the UK, were Finland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Korea, Austria and Sweden. </p>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Too bad HK and Singapore did not participate in the study.</p>
<p>Which university is NU?</p>
<p>In any case, for the best US schools, that are used to getting lots of international applicants, the counselor's report can be used to highlight why grades (like a B for example) that might be considere bad in the US are actually amazing in your educational system. The hole "international students supplement" on the CommonApp is a great example of how this works.</p>
<p>As for the PISA, those results don't surprise me. On average, the United States is pretty badly educated.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Which university is NU?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's Northwestern University.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As for the PISA, those results don't surprise me. On average, the United States is pretty badly educated.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I was never a fan of average data sets. I think the luxury of having some of the strongest academic programs and high schools in the world is good enough for me.</p>
<p>1of42,</p>
<p>
[quote]
counselor's report can be used to highlight why grades (like a B for example) that might be considere bad in the US are actually amazing in your educational system.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think you get it. What if the counselors in Hong Kong don't have intimate knowledge about the difference and don't bother to explain it? What if the students aren't aware of the difference and how easy to get A in the US and therefore aren't aware their Bs on O-level may be viewed negatively? </p>
<p>I just thought of one more thing which would probably make my point clearer:
among the ones from Hong Kong at Northwestern, not everyone went to schools under Hong Kong system. Few actually went to international schools in Hong Kong (like Hong Kong International School, Island School, King George V). At NU, the ones that went to schools under HK system were consistently of higher caliber than the ones from international school. Why? Because like I said before, it's much easier to <em>look</em> good and shiny under other systems; the HK system makes good students <em>look</em> mediocre or even bad and only the very best would look competitve (last year only 40+ out of 100,000+ candidates have straight As in 10 O-level subjects) so NU was getting the better group out of them when they want students with nothing lower than B. By the way, no more than 10 out of 400+ schools are international schools yet probably 3 or so out of 20 HK students at NU went to one of them. So they were over-represented. It just shows that if a HK student wants to get into competitive US universities, it's easier to do that from any of the international schools which are very similar to US high schools.</p>
<p>
<p>Your comment about universities having to treat him as a domestic student because he studies in a US school is 100%, patently false. US universities treat those without US citizenship or Green Cards as international students, period. They could be studying in America, or in Nepal, they're still internationals.</p>
<p>Regarding your comment about "dim-bulbs" at MIT, that's idiotic. Calling MIT students - of all people! - dim is ridiculous. There are IMO medallists, IPhO competitors, and the like who are domestic applicants to MIT. There are also students who do incredibly cool stuff that showcases their creativity.</p>
<p>The difference between your mindset and that of many US universities' admissions councils is clear here. You focus heavily on numbers. "But many students didn't have perfect SAT IIs!" you say, and so on and so forth. Well, first of all, scores above 750 in most SAT IIs are essentially equivalent to each other, and score above 700 are not far behind, as a result of the curving and the randomness of missing a question or two and potentially losing lots of marks. Your mindset betrays the whole "marks are everything, the best marks deserve the best education" mentality that is so pervasive in Asian students. In American admissions, marks are extremely important, but once you have marks in the highest ranges, the most important things on your application are more intangible - essays, ECs, leadership, and so forth. And they should be.</p>
<p>As for your suspicion regarding Harvard/Cambridge strength of students etc., I'll repeat what I've said before: at my IB school in Toronto, Canada, the smarter students go to Ivies, and those just under the top echelon of marks often end up at Oxford or Cambridge. That may not mean anything, but it means just as much as your inane anecdotal stories and random guesses.
Firstly, pls mind your words because I have never made things up. B at A-level is easily a 800 for SAT II. (I am quite sure for those subjects like SAT II MathsII, Chem and Physics, esp. Physics. SATII MathI is an exception because of the incredibly high ceiling.) I know what I am talking about and I have done both. AP is never harder than A-levels; I have seen the questions for calc BC (and top 20% get 5s). IB HL may be.</p>
<p>Is it? Unfair treatment even if the student graduate from a US high-school, with his classmates (of a comparable standard) going Ivies and him going to a state uni just because he does not have a green card?! Sounds strange to me, because it makes discrimination too obvious.</p>
<p>No... dim-bulbs wrt those int'ls to made it to MIT. I am quite sure Big Brother 1984 is a lot of qualified than 90% of the domestic Dartmouth entering freshmen. He enter thru a route with a much higher bar. Most int'ls need to be IMO IPhO people for MIT, while you don't even need that as a domestic student.</p>
<p>Your comment about how 750+ for SAT II is sufficient for academic purposes is hilarious. Eg, for SAT II Math II, 90 percentile is 800 (check the back of your SATII result, it is printed there). So 750 must be below the top 10% am I rite? Now count for me how many Canadians qualify for MIT. I am quite sure that the figure is less than 1% of the total no. of people who qualify for university in their own country. What I am trying to say is that, well, it may not matter if you are the top 0.1% or the top 1%, both of which would give you a 800/800/800 for SAT II. But once you are talking about scores that drop below 800, i.e., 790, it shows that the academic ability of the student is mediocre at best.</p>
<p>Top 10% of SATII MathII people get 800, top 5% for physics get 800 and top 2% for chem get 800. I don't know what you mean by "highest ranges", but to me, there are already tons of people in the top 2% that dropping below that would be considered mediocre. (Recall that for internationals it is easily the top 0.1-1%)</p>
<p>That is the case for your IB school. In my country people would only drop Oxbridge for Harvard, Stanford and MIT. Princeton/Yale is taken as the same as Oxbridge, although the latter would look better because so many of the ministers are from there. So may be for international admissions, HYPSM (not the lower Ivies like Cornell/Penn) is more selective than Oxbridge, and so may attract students of higher quality. But please note that int'l admission for US schools are much much much tougher than domestic admission, while for UK schools, they are essentially the same. UK schools do not make it harder for int'ls to get in; they just take in the best students, whether from UK/EU or int'l. Hence, I highly suspect that if you are measuring the ability of the students from the universities as a whole (local + int'l), Oxford has better student than Princeton. Do you dispute my claim?</p>
<p>(Or let me put it in another way. The average Oxbridge Imperial student score AAAA for A-levels, and average LSE student score AAAB for A-levels. An A is 800, there is no way to dispute that. So isn't it right to say that the average student from Oxbridge Imperial LSE would score 800/800/800 for SATII? Then does the average Cornell/UPenn student have 800/800/800 for SATII?)</p>
<p>1of42, I just reread your post. No I believe that the average Princeton/Yale student have better ECs, leadership, passion etc than the average Oxbridge student. But I believe that the average academic ability (local + int'l) in core subjects (i.e., major) is a lot better at Oxbridge than Princeton/Yale.</p>
<p>Sam Lee: You are from HK and should be doing HKCEE rite? Why O-levels? O-levels is used in Singapore.</p>
<p><a href="last%20year%20only%2040+%20out%20of%20100,000+%20candidates%20have%20straight%20As%20in%2010%20O-level%20subjects">quote=Sam Lee</a>
[/quote]
O-levels? Is that place HK or Singapore?</p>
<p>1of42, let me tell you something. As far as I know, the HK exams are notorious for their severe grading. It is completely possible for a C in HK A-level to be an A in GCE A-level. But of course, this itself means nothing. HK uses HKAL while Singapore uses the supposedly easier GCE A-level. But I have reasons to believe that the average Singaporean does maths/science better than the average HK student.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But I believe that the average academic ability (local + int'l) in core subjects (i.e., major) is a lot better at Oxbridge than Princeton/Yale.
[/quote]
I actually agree with that.</p>
<p>spencer11111,</p>
<p>Yes, that's O-level in HK. O-level isn't as bad as A-level but still has pretty tough grading. As my numbers show, only 0.04% of the candidate didn't have any B appeared on their O-level certificates. You know how some domestic applicants on CC are worried because of couple Bs on their transcript? What a world of difference!</p>
<p>I think what I have described explains why your friend got into more competitive schools than you did. I don't think it's a matter of domestic vs international in your case because I am pretty sure unless your friend won a green card lottery, he was applying as international. So you guys were in the same pool. What likely happened is that he became a more competitive applicant than you simply by switching to an American school where he was somehow able to shine better. Your friend's case isn't unusual at all. I have already listed quite a few of people that I know and had similar "make over" experience.</p>
<p>I second you about A-level vs AP. Even the UK version is harder than AP. APs, at least the ones that I know (science/calculus), are pretty straight forward.</p>
<p>As far as A-level (UK grading) A = 800 on SAT II goes, I am not sure if that's necessarily the case because UK does give quite a few As these days. But it may apply if Singapore has tougher grading. The one in HK is notorious, as my link showed. But SAT IIs are more comparable to O-level anyway.</p>
<p>No... are you taking about HKCEE or O-level?</p>
<p>It is confusing when you start saying something like HK's O-level or Singapore's SAT because there is frankly no such thing...</p>
<p>Are you saying HKCEE? (I know the edu_ system of HK...)</p>
<ol>
<li>it is getting quite confusing over here... Did you do O-level or HKCEE?</li>
</ol>
<p>
I think even a B for GCE AL can be a 800 for SAT II."not sure if that's the case"? Then what... as in is there more As or less As or more 800 or no 800?</p>
<p>your link?</p>
<p>SATIIs are not comparable to O-level... SATIIs are mainly A-level topics but questions are extremely easy and the concepts tested very shallow. </p>
<p>Again are you talking about O-level or HKCEE??</p>
<p>Yea, HKCEE. Wait, the O-level isn't comparable to HKCEE? Now, I realize I just sorta assumed they are. It's true that in HK, they call it HKCEE, not O-level. I just kinda made up the term cos I wasn't sure if people know HKCEE. HKCEE's science/math are very similar to SAT IIs (with the exception of "additional math" which has AP calculus, 3D geometry, math induction..etc), but with slightly harder questions, more time constraint, and definitely much harder grading.</p>
<p>You should just say something like HKCEE (=GCSE of UK), it would be so much more clear that way. (Also, they just need to type HKCEE in Wikipedia and they know the deal...)</p>
<p>Anyway, UK people DON'T do O-levels, they do GCSE! O-level is only used in some ex-colonies like Singapore and a number of others.</p>
<p>Not everyone knows O-levels too. You should equate it to GCSE because that's a lot more main stream. Anyway, O-levels has fine grades (A1 A2 B3 B4...) whereas HKCEE uses board grades (A B C). </p>
<p>Are you sure that HKCEE Science is similar to SAT II Science? I don't tell me you learn all those things like sp2 sp3 for chemistry at HKCEE level. ?!</p>