<p>I don'tr know anything about the UK, but UMich and Purdue are definitely not bad.</p>
<p>You guys are all so smart. How come no one can crunch any numbers? Let's take Harvard. Half the students (about 1650 new students every year) are in the top 4% of test-takers and half are below the 4% mark and get in for other reasons like extracurriculars, legacies, ethnic background and sports. Well 4% in the States is 208,000 students (based on SAT and ACT), enough to fill the "unhooked" spots at 50-100 top universities and colleges. Contrast that with the UK. The top 4% is what? Maybe 20,000 Brits? Plenty of them are going to Oxbridge. If Oxford took .5 of 1% of the top 4% like Harvard does, they would take 100 Brits. Can one of you quant jocks fine-tune these numbers?</p>
<p>yeah...i totally agree with the notion that uk universities are easier to get into. some of the british actors like kate beckinsale are oxford graduate.</p>
<p>are u guys talking about general ed when u're complaining about taking courses completely unrelated to ur major? i completed my ge in one year dude with the help of ap's..</p>
<p>As albert87 said, Imperial is far and away the best of those options. Don't know anything about the UK? Maybe it's time to read up lol.</p>
<p>So what if Kate Beckinsale went to Oxford? Edward Norton went to Yale and Julia Stiles went to Columbia.</p>
<p>Yeah a lot of big name American actors went to ivy league schools actually. That Kate Beckinsale went to Oxford isn't the most meaningful of observations.</p>
<p>I don't really get the argument. Is having successful alumni in the acting field a bad thing? Why?</p>
<p>Sauronvoldemort was implying (i think) that if actors can get in, then the school must not be particularly selective. I suppose this comes with the assumption that actors can't be smart or motivated or well-connected -- all false, of course.</p>
<p>That is what I believe he means as well but I hoped he had a better argument.</p>
<p>Thats a crap argument. Just look at where GW Bush went. I rest my case.</p>
<p>Yeah, Rowan Atkinson and Borat also went to Cambridge and Oxford. But look they're making millions...isn't that the mark of more intelligence than working as an engineer (Their course) =P And it takes a lot of brains to come up with something like Mr. Bean, or Borat. If it wasn't then why are you even going to college? Every stupid person could just act and retire early. </p>
<p>Oh and to the person doing number crunching earlier? There were around 800k A-level entries this year, and this is including all the overseas students and whatnot, but I'll leave them in. Each person roughly takes 4 A-levels, so that's 200,000 students. Top 4% of them is 8000 Students. And that is roughly the number of undergrads entering Oxford and Cambridge. Now take into account roughly half the undergrads enterring Harvard are below 4%, that actually drags their average down to maybe, top 6%? 8%? Making it perhaps even easier academically to get in. </p>
<p>So before you use a tone like 'You guys are all so smart. How come no one can crunch any numbers?' MAybe you'd like to check your figures in advance.</p>
<p>My conviction is that UK universities are easier to get into because there is no real emphasis on extracurriculars. That enables students who are just good at school to get into a lot of UK universities, albeit most USA universities would reject them instantaneously.</p>
<p>I can't speak generally, but here is what the GC at my school said when I had this conversation with her months ago:</p>
<p>"For top students at our school, a higher rate of success has traditionally come at Oxbridge (for those who apply) and other UK schools than at top American schools."</p>
<p>We're a highly regarded IB school with excellent results, so that shouldn't be surprising. Really, the academic demands that Oxbridge have are not as strenuous as they're made out to be - and once they've been met, you can count on admission more reliably than at US universities.</p>
<p>So for some people they're easier, for sure.</p>
<p>On the flip side american system allows people who aren't so good in school, and we're not just talking about EC's, Being of the right ethnicity, Athletic Admits, Legacy Admits....these make it easier too. And yeah you need straight A's to get into Oxbridge, but not necessarily for Harvard.</p>
<p>If I were you, I'd be more careful of how I reasoned with Athletes, Legacies and other minorities. Check the legacy/minority/athletes policies. We have discussed this before in many forums, and it all boils down to the fact that : "they are simply and only looked favorably upon". If a legacy has sucky stats, they are NOT getting in. Your argument is simply invalid, and that is evident through the graduation rates...which you should really look up.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If I were you, I'd be more careful of how I reasoned with Athletes, Legacies and other minorities. Check the legacy/minority/athletes policies. We have discussed this before in many forums, and it all boils down to the fact that : "they are simply and only looked favorably upon". If a legacy has sucky stats, they are NOT getting in. Your argument is simply invalid, and that is evident through the graduation rates...which you should really look up.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, he (she ?) is not wrong ! Just look at anectodal evidence in the CC Ivy forums: students with perfect 800 SAT scores, research experience, multiple AP courses etc. are often rejected/waitlisted while legacy applicants and URMs with SAT scores in the 650-720 range get in.</p>
<p>This is stupid. Do you even know what the recommendations, essays, extracurriculars or interviews of these students were? No, and that is EXACTLY the reason why you cannot say anything about that. You do not know if they had amazing essays, and in spite of their good but not excellent SAT scores got in. On the other hand, the 2400s were probably nerds who did nothing but study, or just did not show that they were good enough through essays and other stuff. That is EXACTLY why you cannot make such blatant statements. Do you think a Harvard adcom would accept a 2400 with limited ecs and dry personal statement? Also, how would an adcom view a good student with good SAT scores, who is passionate about a sport, wants to be a writer and has published articles in local newspapers, and all of his ecs are oriented towards his passion?
See??</p>
<p>You are all disregarding an integral part of the application, that only adcoms have insight to. Essays, recommendations, interview. They are integral, because no matter how good or bad you are, if u suck at these, you are OUT.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For studying science at the highest level, it's hard to beat US universities. For what it's worth, the graduate level science programs in the US are filled to the brim with international students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is true that no country beats the US for graduate studies. That's not necessarily true though for undergraduate education. In fact, I'd say undergraduate curriculum, even in science and engineering, is far more advanced in Europe than in the US. I guess the best option for an European clearly is to get a university degree in his/her home country (where universities are much cheaper than in the US or, sometimes, even tuition-free), and then go to America to get a PhD (usually with a full ride in terms of tuition + stipend, which is the norm in most top US graduate schools).</p>
<p>Sometimes the whole graduate-undergrad thing is true bruno. For instance, in Greece the medical and law schools are good in terms of undergrad, BUT everything else pretty much sucks.</p>
<p>Debate Addict,</p>
<p>Your argument just reinforces by point, namely that, in the US, subjective criteria like non-academic EC's, essays, non-academic interviews, social skills, ethnicity, or vague definitions of "diversity" and "well-roundness" (whatever that means) play a major role in admissions, whereas, in the UK, the only thing that matters, as it should always be case, is the candidate's potential for academic/scholarly success judged from his/her academic credentials and achievements.</p>