<p>God NO.
Dont get this there. Is it better to have a nerdy pool that does nothing but study? No, and that is why it is so important to be well-rounded, a concept you clearly question. The way it seems to me, is that if a candidate is a bookworm that has no social life, then he/she is a failure, and in spite of the fact that they are a great student, that does not change the fact that this is the ONLY good thing about em. US colleges look for the whole package. And students' journey towards that helps them attain independence and grow up, both academically and socially. THis is the big difference. Just look at the amazing applicant pools of Ivies.
I want to study with people who are fun, and both intellectually curious as well as socially active. I DONT WANT A NERD CAMPUS.
This is exactly what is happening to the greek system. The brilliant people who go to Greek unis turn out to either nerds or flunk out. Why? Because the unis are not challenging and the whole system sucks. It's either the one or the other, either academics or social life. US unis combine it all. That is why UK unis are inferior in terms of the whole student body. Because they are not well-rounded, and no matter how disdainfully you question the whole concept, well-roundedness is integral in both academic and social success.</p>
<p>Debate Addict - Intelligence and being soicable are not mutually exclusive. Who says that if your smart you can't be fun?</p>
<p>Who says the students at Oxford/Cambridge/LSE etc... are not well rounded? Just beacuse the unis look more at academics does not mean that they could not also have other inetrests, etc....</p>
<p>I agree - just because they don't ask for their EC's , doesn't mean that the applicants don't participate in them. There are very few people who JUST study. Students who don't need to worry about making a good application actually end up doing ECs they love - not the ones that just look good. The fact that colleges like LSE and Imperial have students who become leaders in society and in their respective fields is a testament to that.</p>
<p>I am not saying that UK colleges and their students are stupid and nerdy. It may have come out this way, and I did not mean it that way, but I was arguing against the statement that the vice versa is valid, namely the fact that schools that value extracurriculars are not as good, as the poster above me said..</p>
<p>What I am taking away from this discussion is that the top 4% in the UK is about 8,000 students (thank you Changeling for the stats), and they have a good chance of getting into Oxbridge. The top 4% in the States is 107,000 students, and their chances of being one of the 2,000 that Harvard accepts or the less than 2,000 that Princeton accepts are pretty slim. Still to be answered is how the top 4% in the UK and the top 4% in the States measure up. I do know that some secondary schools in the UK send 25% of their grads to Oxbridge. Only a handful of schools in the States send that percentage to the Ivy League, Stanford and MIT, combined.</p>
<p>And really would you prefer your heart surgeon to be someone who practiced 10 hours a day, showed early committment and passion to the profession (Uk unis specifically require you to show passion for your subject in your personal statement, no changing major once you get there like in the US). Or a surgeon who went to a party the day before finals, and balanced learning to cut open hearts with writing for a newspaper. I don't know about you? but I think I'd prefer the guy who spent all his time perfecting to cut open my heart =P</p>
<p>So yeah maybe you won't like the college experience as much...but it probably churns out better specailists. And besides...you're getting a few thousand young adults in one place, how boring can it be?</p>
<p>Oh and about how some schools send 25% to oxbridge, and some never do. That jsut fits with the UK unis looking for academics, not diversity. While the most diverse body might not come from one school, some schools do have the best academic students. I.e. competive selective private schools. The competition in those schools would produce higher caliber students, then uncompetitive public schools. So if you just look at academics prep schools should have the highest acceptances to top unis. Of course this lowers diversity, so depends what you're going for.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And really would you prefer your heart surgeon to be someone who practiced 10 hours a day, showed early committment and passion to the profession (Uk unis specifically require you to show passion for your subject in your personal statement, no changing major once you get there like in the US). Or a surgeon who went to a party the day before finals, and balanced learning to cut open hearts with writing for a newspaper. I don't know about you? but I think I'd prefer the guy who spent all his time perfecting to cut open my heart =P
[/quote]
Why dont u actually think before making up stupid analogies??
Who says that kids in the states dont show passion? And especially Ivies.
And who on earth says that people in the states go partying right before finals??
The difference is that kids in the states are more free to adapt, to change their minds about their major, and so on. because there, they are actually treated as adults. And the whole thing about oxbridge and kids not being able to change major..that is just stupid. Really stupid.</p>
<p>The quality of this debate is definitely diluting. Students in the UK are very much treated as adults. There is very little hand holding and it is realy up to you to get your work done. No offence intended debate_addict but you don't really seem to know that much about unis in the UK and you make vast sweeping statements which as a whole are quite incorrect</p>
<p>This is getting boring and repetitive. The main issue is that you cannot say that simply because US universities value extracurriculars are not good enough compared to Oxbridge.</p>
<p>I'm not saying that they are NOT AS GOOD. I'm saying that they are about the same - which means that looking at extracurricular activities and having a complicated admissions process don't really help.</p>
<p>Other people who support the UK in this argument do not think so apparently.
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
Which basically states that "even though you are crappy, you can get in"</p>
<p>I'm not going to spend my time posting around why extracurriculars are a pivotal aspect and they are integral in the admissions process, especially when you have 20.000 students and all have equally or similarly stellar scores, so it takes an additional criterion to evaluate them, hence the ec thing. (oops, i just did :D)</p>
<p>I agree on the equal part.</p>
<p>And instead of ECs Oxbridge use interviews and specific subject tests.</p>
<p>US also use subject tests (SAT I and II), interviews, essays, recommendations and so on. I am not familiar with the applicant pool but I presume the US pool is greater, right?</p>
<p>Top US schools require an interview as part of the application process? That's news to me.</p>
<p>Most US college interviews are not exactly 'testing'. They are just meant to see what your like etc. </p>
<p>Oxbridge interviews are designed to see how you think and what you know.</p>
<p>W8, was that???
Oh GOD. Yes, YES IT WAS. IT WAS SARCASM!!!!</p>
<p>^^ What are you talking about? Would it be possible for you to simma-down, and engage in a reasoned discussion like everyone else? Thanks. :)</p>
<p>Wow your funny. I wish I could be like you...</p>
<p>Post deleted by nauru (the reasoned and rational speaker of the thread apparently) said:
Universities in the US interview people? That's news to me!!</p>