<ol>
<li><p>ECs:
I don't want to delve into this. Your example with MUN is ok, but there are loads of other examples. In my POV, ECs are overrated and students are often taking them just for college. Anyway, let's leave that aside for a moment.</p></li>
<li><p>Student/faculty ratio
Now you're getting into trouble here. True, Oxbridge is bigger than HYPS, but the support at undergraduate level is immense (!) and arguably more intense than at HYPS. Remember: there are about 30 colleges with ca. 100 incoming freshmen. The tutorial system gives you 1on1 contact with the faculty. Honestly, Oxbridge wins here.</p></li>
<li><p>Reputation:
Are you really saying that Harvard has a better reputation than Cambridge. Haha, you're funny. :)
Seriously, HYPS + Oxbridge are all equal, reputation-wise. To say anything else is stupid. Go back to Greece ;)</p></li>
</ol>
<p>And the last point:
[quote]
Ratio of UK to US universities on the top 20 list: 3 over 15. US has 75% on the top 20, UK has 15%.
[/quote]
Hehe, I've never really understood this argument. What the heck do I care how many UK unis are top if I am part of just <em>one</em>??? A Cambridge student will find his uni on 2nd place, so what!!? His uni is ranked better than 90% of the top20 unis.</p>
What? I don't understand what you mean? Cambridge is made up of 31 colleges. Now you're asking if each college has the same reputation as HYP? Uhmm, comparing apples and lemons?</p>
Few top LACs and Princeton offer the best undergraduate experience in the world.
[/quote]
That's a very subjective and even more generalized point of view. We had this discussion already, but there are certainly many people who believe that Oxbridge's undergraduate education is at least on par with Princeton & Co.</p>
<ol>
<li>No we did not agree on that. Many people posted that extracurriculars show the fact that US universities do not value the proper criteria.</li>
<li>We are dealing with marginalized countries here, not the wonderful welfare states you pertain to. Put what we are saying into the social context of each country. Does a public employee have the time or the volition to do more than a mere fact-check, especially if he/she is tenured? No, clearly not. And what is your amazing alternative. By the way, the employer is NOT going to look up the facts, clearly. Do you think they would allocate time for a look-up? Of course not.</li>
<li>I'll give you that, but I am not trying to establish US unis' superiority here. I am trying to show that US unis and UK unis should not be looked comparatively in order to establish which is better, but in order to establish which one is more suitable.</li>
</ol>
<p>Also, yes aw5k, in your perfect little world everything might be great and your life all set, but no matter what you think, if you were to be a resident at more marginalized countries, you would find out that people pull rank on you. So instead of resorting to offensive comments about my person of the sort "Go back to Greece" what matters is reputation.
And I am not comparing Oxford or Cambridge to the entire pool of US colleges.
*I am comparing the entire pool of top UK colleges to the pool of top US colleges. * Cuz I believe the name of the thread refers to UK colleges, not Oxbridge only.</p>
<p>Comment on acceptance rates: This has been discussed earlier in the thread, I believe. In the UK, students are only allowed to apply to 6 universities, and they can't apply to both Cambridge and Oxford. What you're implying is that since the acceptance rate is lower at Harvard, it is harder to get accepted there. But these stats does not tell us anything about how qualified the applicants who apply to the two universities are. </p>
<p>Abhi: Are all 30 college as prestigious as HYP?
Yes, because they're all a part of Cambridge.</p>
[quote]
By standard measures of academic talent, including test scores and academic performance in school, this year's applicant pool reflects the remarkable level of excellence typical of recent years. For example, nearly 2,500 scored a perfect 800 on their SAT verbal test; almost 3,200 scored 800 on the SAT math; and more than 3,000 were ranked first in their high school classes.
[/quote]
By standard measures of academic excellence, 3000 Harvard applicants were valedictorians, which means more than stellar grades at high school. Compare this to 3,208 applicants at Oxford. That means that 93% of Harvard applicants would **qualify **for Oxford. And bear in mind that I am disregarding the rest 10% with indubitably equally stellar score, albeit not valedictorians.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What? I don't understand what you mean? Cambridge is made up of 31 colleges. Now you're asking if each college has the same reputation as HYP? Uhmm, comparing apples and lemons?
[/quote]
I believe there are few less-prestigious colleges in Cambridge; Can a graduate from such comparatively less prestigious (compared to King's college, say) compete with HYP graduates?</p>
<p>Ok, then I think you should have said that earlier :P </p>
<p>Bottom line, whether it's easier or harder to get into UK universities depends on the applicant and what high school system he or her has been in. A British student with AAAA and few extracurriculars would get into almost any UK university, while it would be harder to get into an American uni. An American student with an average GPA and SAT, and a ton of good extracurriculars, would have a harder time getting into top UK unis because even though you have to write a personal statement when applying, at the end of the day, each course and university have a standard offer that is based solely on grades.</p>
<p>But to answer the thread starter, I think that UK unis aren't easy to get into, but when you compare them to American unis it may seem so. If you compare them to European unis you'll see that most of them look solely on grades and that their admission process is even easier than in the UK. It's hard to get into a good American uni because not only do you have to have a really good GPA, but also an amazing essay, amazing extracurriculars, really good SATI and SATII scores and good recommendations. You would think it was easier to get into an American uni because there are so many of them, but this is not true since there are so many more applicants as well, and in the UK, higher education just isn't that popular.</p>
<p>By standard measures of academic talent, including test scores and academic performance in school, this year's applicant pool reflects the remarkable level of excellence typical of recent years. For example, nearly 2,500 scored a perfect 800 on their SAT verbal test; almost 3,200 scored 800 on the SAT math; and more than 3,000 were ranked first in their high school classes. </p>
<p>By standard measures of academic excellence, 3000 Harvard applicants were valedictorians, which means more than stellar grades at high school. Compare this to 3,208 applicants at Oxford. That means that 93% of Harvard applicants would qualify for Oxford. And bear in mind that I am disregarding the rest 10% with indubitably equally stellar score, albeit not valedictorians.</p>
<p>Being a valedictorian at your HS does not necessarily indicate academic ability. You can be a valedictorian at a non-competitive HS where most students go to community college after graduation. Same with SAT scores. I`m not saying that these valedictorians and 800-SAT scorers are not smart. My point is that acceptance rates for some US universities are artificially lower, compared to that of UK universities.
As some people have mentioned before, you can only apply to 6 universities on the UCAS. You can also only apply to Cambridge OR Oxford, not both (hence each school would naturally have fewer applicants. Think about it.) Furthermore, you must have AAAs in your A-levels, which in my opinion says more about the students academic ability than being the valecitorian of his or her class or having an 800 SAT score.
Of course this isnt always the case, but what I`m trying to say is that acceptance rates cant be compared between the 2 systems.</p>
<p>Re. the question about reputation of particular oxbridge colleges:</p>
<p>You may find an arsey King's grad who looks down on someone who spent their three years at Girton, but for most people Cambridge is Cambridge and the final degree classification is what matters, not the college.</p>
<p>debate_addict: I do agree that there are more top US unis than UK unis. Fine. Reputation-wise, I cannot believe that anybody hasn't heard of Cambridge. Whether it's Harvard, Cambridge, Stanford or Princeton - they're all playing in the same league.</p>
<p>Well of course there'll be more top US unis, simply because there are more US unis anyway....The US has a larger population, so would have ten times more unis, and so would have 10 times more unis in the top 20, they'd still have the same percentage in the top 20... Oh and straight As at A-level is far harder than straight A's in any comparable US course. An AP would be roughly half the difficulty of an A-level. a Perfect GPA with straight 5's at AP only courses would still not compare with the difficulty of straigh As at A-0levels, so the valedictorian argument is a bit of a moot point.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The US has a larger population, so would have ten times more unis, and so would have 10 times more unis in the top 20, they'd still have the same percentage in the top 20... Oh and straight As at A-level is far harder than straight A's in any comparable US course. An AP would be roughly half the difficulty of an A-level. a Perfect GPA with straight 5's at AP only courses would still not compare with the difficulty of straigh As at A-0levels, so the valedictorian argument is a bit of a moot point.
[/quote]
Do not make such blatant assumptions, especially if you have not taken the courses. Also, the capacity of a student is also dependent upon the caliber of their high school. And in my IB, we are working with both A-level books and IB books, and the IB books are much harder than the A-level ones. You cannot compare programs unless you have experienced both. And that's all there is to it. </p>
<p>@ aw5k:I am not saying that people have not heard of Cambridge, I am comparing the reputation of Oxbridge and HYP. And in many countries, HYP rule, though this may not be the case at an undergraduate level.
And bear in mind that we are examining universities as a whole, not by sections.</p>
<p>Are the IB level books really harder than A-levels? IMO, for instance, A-level chem covers the material more in-depth than IB. Same goes for Bio. Of course, IB is harder in the sense that you have to do a set of subjects along with TOK/EE/CAS and whatnot. I agree, the valedictorian argument isnt really sufficient to say that Harvard<code>s applicants are better on average than Cambridge applicants (or other UK unis) AP at alot of HS</code>s are a joke.</p>