<p>Again, I don't know what you are talking about. My post wasn't deleted, it's sitting right there at #75... (without exclamation marks)</p>
<p>EDIT: Actually, you changed the wording of my post. I know American universities interview people for some programs, but did not know it was obligatory for all undergraduate applicants to the top universities.</p>
<p>I don't believe it is Nauru.</p>
<p>Oops, yea. Page before.
Nevertheless, are you actually trying to tell me that this is not sarcastic?:
[quote]
Top US schools require an interview as part of the application process? That's news to me.
[/quote]
[list=a]If this is sarcastic, then the whole thing and discussion is stupid and useless.
[*]If it is not sarcastic, then you really shouldn't post here unless you are familiar with the procedure of how universities work with students. otherwise, i don't know how you can evaluate US universities when u don't even know how they work.[/list]</p>
<p>US interviews (especially when compared to UK ones) are a joke. Period. No comparison. Really.</p>
<p>I like the fact that you substantiate everything you say with quotes, links and other references aw5k. Now I am convinced that US universities are a joke compared to UK's. Debate is over, after such a comprehensive post.</p>
<p>Uhm, I don't really understand what you are trying to say.
Do you want a prove or what? Well, just apply to Oxbridge and to the Ivys. The interviews are <em>totally</em> different. I mean, it's so obvious, everyone knows - what is there to prove ?!</p>
<p>I am so tired of repeating myself. Why dont you actually read what has been posted before.</p>
<p>I have no idea what you're aiming at.
And I don't really care, either :)</p>
<p>No idea either, aw5k. And have also stopped caring. :)</p>
<p>I'm with you guys as well. No point.</p>
<p>It's come to a point where the thread should die. No more debating for me (lol), especially since we are all repeating ourselves.
Ciao :)</p>
<p>Well now debate_addict has lost his debate he tries to leave the topic thinking he was on top...well obviously not.</p>
<p>Points made so far:
**[ol]The fact that US unis value extracurriculars shows that they are not as good
Lame point with no rationale. The fact that they value extracurriculars is just as good of an indicator of how passionate a student can be in his/her studies. For example, a student who has been doing MUNs and wants to major in politics and get a degree in government shows passion through these extracurriculars, a passion that will not be taken into account at the same extent in Oxbridge. The fact is that extracurriculars are not a long list of activities to show you have been doing sth, and as a parent (either Northstarmom or mathmom, cant remember) said, "what makes an activity a good extracurricular is the passion that it conveys". The rest, stupid ecs will be disregarded and can actually hurt an application.
**INFERENCE:extracurriculars help a lot and are in many cases a great indicator of how much commitment a student can and will show in their academic plans, and to what extent they will try to succeed in them.
[li]UK unis are better than US unis (and/or) US unis are better than UK unis.[/li]after a lot of discussion, the following are the cases:
Firstly, it has been admitted that at a graduate level, US unis are the best, but UK unis can antagonize US unis at an undergraduate level.
Also, UK unis are easier to get in, and an indicator of that is that Oxford for example has 11.000 undergrads. Now what is the ration of faculty to students? Lets venture a guess, shall we? PRETTY DAMN BIG.
INFERENCE:not that good in terms of undergraduate education with respect to faculty/students ratio, which is admittedly a significant factor.
[li]What is the role of reputation?[/li]Reputation-wise, Harvard is top. Rankings have it top, and if you google "top 100 universities" one of the first links is this <a href="http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005_Top100.htm%5B/url%5D">http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005_Top100.htm</a> that has Harvard top. So no matter what the case actually is, people do look at **the rankings and they DO count them in. No matter what we say, rankings matter. If they didnt, why are colleges obsessed with them?? And if I wanna be employed at say not a huge firm at a country like Greece, what is my supervisor gonna do? He is going to GOOGLE the college. He is not going to check with academic advisors and consult what my major's statistics and facts were at the college. He is going to **Google it.
INFERENCE:Rankings matter.[/ol]</p>
<p>FINAL POINT:The thread was to discuss why UK unis were easier to get into. Because they don't value as many factors as US unis, and because they have more space.</p>
<p>Oxford stats: (taken from <a href="http://www.admissions.ox.ac.uk/adstats.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.admissions.ox.ac.uk/adstats.pdf</a>)
[list=a]Number of total applicants this year:12,614
[<em>]Number of acceptances:3,208.
[</em>]Overall percentage: 25% [/list]
Harvard stats: (taken from <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=506759%5B/url%5D">http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=506759</a>)
[list=a]Number of total applicants this year: 22,276
[<em>]Number of acceptances: 2,074
[</em>]Overall percentage: 9.3%[/list]</p>
<p>
[quote]
<a href="http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005_Top100.htm%5B/url%5D">http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005_Top100.htm</a>
[/quote]
This is ranking is BS. It should never be quoted.</p>
<p>EDIT: Why is Bul!shi! censored? Even, my teacher use this word (to me sometimes). Here, we even have ad</a> campaigns mentioning this word. Why? Why?</p>
<p>The ranking was a mere example of how reputation works. I am not trying to discredit Oxbridge. That was a fact that conveyed how Harvard's reputation, though admittedly to a certain extent justified, can sometimes surpass its actual value, and how somebody would view this ranking.
Anything else regarding what I posted?</p>
<p>Here are some more rankings, again!
To show you how it works and what the ratio of UK unis to US unis is.
From <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14321230/site/newsweek/%5B/url%5D">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14321230/site/newsweek/</a>
[ol]Harvard University<br>
[<em>]Stanford University<br>
[</em>]Yale University<br>
[<em>]California Institute of Technology<br>
[</em>]University of California at Berkeley<br>
[<em>]University of Cambridge<br>
[</em>]Massachusetts Institute Technology<br>
[<em>]Oxford University<br>
[</em>]University of California at San Francisco<br>
[<em>]Columbia University<br>
[</em>]University of Michigan at Ann Arbor<br>
[<em>]University of California at Los Angeles<br>
[</em>]University of Pennsylvania<br>
[<em>]Duke University<br>
[</em>]Princeton Universitty<br>
[<em>]Tokyo University<br>
[</em>]Imperial College London<br>
[<em>]University of Toronto<br>
[</em>]Cornell University<br>
[<em>]University of Chicago[/ol]
Ratio of UK to US universities on the top 20 list: 3 over 15 out of 20.
[list=a]US:75%
[</em>]UK:15%.[/list]</p>
<p>From another source <a href="http://www.universitymetrics.com/tiki-index.php?page=Top+300+Universities+2006%5B/url%5D:">http://www.universitymetrics.com/tiki-index.php?page=Top+300+Universities+2006:</a>
[ol]Massachusetts Inst Tech (MIT)
[<em>]Harvard Univ
[</em>]Univ California - Berkeley
[<em>]Stanford Univ
[</em>]Princeton Univ
[<em>]Univ Pennsylvania
[</em>]Univ Washington - Seattle
[<em>]Univ Illinois - Urbana Champaign
[</em>]Carnegie Mellon Univ
[<em>]Rutgers State Univ - New Brunswick
[</em>]Univ Cambridge
[<em>]Univ Michigan - Ann Arbor
[</em>]Univ Wisconsin - Madison
[<em>]Cornell Univ
[</em>]Univ Arizona
[<em>]California Inst Tech
[</em>]Swiss Fed Inst Tech - Zurich
[<em>]Univ California - Los Angeles
[</em>]Univ Minnesota - Twin Cities
[<em>]Univ Oxford[/ol]
Again, UK over US: 2 over 17 out of 20.
Percentages:
[list=a]US:85%
[</em>]UK:10%.[/list]
My point is, in rankings, US universities rule, and even if that is not the case, that is what people see, and this is what people value. The end.</p>
<p>EDIT
[quote]
EDIT: Why is Bul!shi! censored? Even, my teacher use this word (to me sometimes). Here, we even have ad campaigns mentioning this word. Why? Why?
[/quote]
Is this even a point made? So what? I am not dealing with the validity of the rankings, I am dealing with the
impact
of the rankings.</p>
<p>These rankings tell what people value, not what academicians and employers :)</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Whats your point? I thought we all agreed on that...?</p></li>
<li><p>Well if an employer has to google oxbridge or Haravard then they shouldnt be employing people.</p></li>
<li><p>Actually, most classes at Oxbridge are one on one with a professor. I doubt many other universities can boast that fact.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>And for your rankings - Rutgers over Cornell, Oxford and Caltech? I'm not even going to start on that....</p>
<p>
[quote]
3. Actually, most classes at Oxbridge are one on one with a professor. I doubt many other universities can boast that fact.
[/quote]
Few top LACs and Princeton offer the best undergraduate experience in the world.</p>