<p>Do NOT twist my words around!!!!!!
I never said nor will you ever hear me say that Harvard applicants are better than UK applicants. I only said that they are of EQUAL caliber. And based on what they have to undergo in order to GET INTO Harvard and Yale and Princeton, they are put to the test at a more extensive degree than Oxford's applicants</p>
<p>
[quote]
they are put to the test at a more extensive degree than Oxford's applicants
[/quote]
Although I know what you're meaning, this is slightly misleading.
It's pretty "easy" to get into HYP: write some essays and send off your application. For Oxbridge, you're having real academical interviews that are far from easy.</p>
<p>I got into both Princeton and Cambridge. From my experience, it was "harder" to get into Cambridge. Of course, it's harder to get into Princeton because they took only ~7%, but from my <em>feeling</em> I thought that Cambridge was more challenging.</p>
<p>**WHAT ON EARTH IS BEING POSTED HERE?? HYP IS PRETTY EASY TO GET INTO!!??
**After this ludicrous comment, I cannot say anything. Clearly you have a completely erroneous opinion, and in spite of all the data and statistics that invalidate the "it's easier" allegation, you are not going to change your mind. I rest my case. This thread has died long ago.</p>
<p>EDIT: I'll create a thread for people to see at other threads to see this. They will be able to reply as well, so I hope others can shed some light as well.</p>
<p>1) he put "easy" in "quotation marks" to "imply" that the "meaning" of the word "may" not be its "most" conventional sense</p>
<p>2) as appose to debating with statistics and rhetoric, this guy is giving his personal opinion, having been through the experience, something you have not.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
put to the test at a more extensive degree than Oxford's applicants
[/QUOTE]
The only test the applicants to US unis face is how to best present their acomplishments, after all it is how they are presented that is of most importance.
Secondly, the only fear that HYP applicants face is the fear of rejecction, oxbridge applicants have to sit through an hour of grilling alongside a 1/2 hour exam written specifically for applicants for that course. Somewhat more testing that the US admissions system.</p>
<p>I don't really have a whole lot of interest in trying to convince you, because you will never see the other side, and given that you have not applied yet, havent even seen one side of the argument very clearly.</p>
<p>EDIT note: I am not actually arguing that cam applicants are of a higher calibre, but what i am saying is that, on average, they will be academically superior in their subject, given the information that the admissions officers have to make their decisions with. This is not to say that HYP applicants are not very accomplished in their own way, and even of the same academic ability as Oxbridge applicants, its just that the US system is much less effective are extracting the best academics from the group. A star korean mathematician is much less likely to slip through the net as 'just another asian math superstar' at HYP than at cambridge where you race plays absolutely no part.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's pretty "easy" to get into HYP: write some essays and send off your application. For Oxbridge, you're having real academical interviews that are far from easy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That doesn't makes HYP better than Cambridge. IIT</a> JEE is definitely more rigorous and challenging than any of the examination/interviews at Oxbridge. That doesn't makes IIT's better than HYP/Oxbridge or even IIT kids more smarter than their counterparts in HYP/Oxbridge. HYP and Cambridge are in different societies with different education system. Context.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A star korean mathematician is much less likely to slip through the net as 'just another asian math superstar' at HYP than at cambridge where you race plays absolutely no part.
[/quote]
Because almost all applicants at oxbridge are whites.</p>
<p>
[quote]
2) as appose to debating with statistics and rhetoric, this guy is giving his personal opinion, having been through the experience, something you have not.
[/quote]
Personal opinion.</p>
<p>The context point is the most valid one, and is one reason why I say that calling both UK and US higher education institutions universities is a but misleading when they are so different.
The point regarding the tests is that they tend to do a good job of selecting the best candidates. You mention the indian tests, and my point is that students selected on the basis of a challenging exam (note challenging) will on average be of a higher ability in that academic subject than those selected on much more subjective factors.</p>
<p>"they are put to the test at a more extensive degree than Oxford's applicants" </p>
<p>Really? have you actually applied to Oxford or Cambrdige yourself? You have to do an interview with a tutor from the major you are applying to. They will ask you specific questions regarding your major. For example, I applied to Biochem at Cambridge, and I was asked what negative feedback was, how DNA replication works, etc. I was never asked about such things in my interview with US universities, obviously. </p>
<p>Oxford and Cambridge applicants must also sit an exam and write essays specifically pertaining to your major as well. I had to write an essay about the ethics of biotechnology. Most applicants also have done some sort of internship or job relating to their prospective major. </p>
<p>Therefore, I don<code>t understand how you can possibly say that Oxford</code>s applicatns face a less challenge than Harvard/Yale applicants. You`ve obviously not been through the process and thus I suggest you stop making such hasty/erroneous remarks</p>
<p>debate<em>addict: I put "easy" in quotation marks, implying that the _process</em> as a whole is rather simple in comparison with the process at Oxbridge. Thus, I challenge your view that applicants at HYP "are put to the at a more extensive degree than Oxford's applicants".</p>
<p>Abhi:</p>
<p>
[quote]
That doesn't makes HYP better than Cambridge.
[/quote]
Quite right (even though I supposed you meant the opposite) and I don't mean to say anything else. Even though I share Lady<em>Lou's opinion that Oxbridge applicants are academically superior _in their chosen subject</em> when they enter college, that's not to say that Ivy League applicant's are more silly or won't achieve the same level at the end of the day.
[quote]
HYP and Cambridge are in different societies with different education system. Context.
[/quote]
Hey, you're starting to surprise me positively :) - I think that's the first time we actually agree ;)
[quote]
Personal opinion
[/quote]
Indeed, but it's an opinion of someone who went through both processes. I just dislike it when people like debate_addict show up here and start posting about things they have not the slightest idea of.</p>
<p>You know how this is called??
Ad hominem fallacy..look it up.
Just because I have not applied to colleges yet that does not mean that I am not familiar with the particularities of the process, and lets not forget exposure to UK applications from other friends and applicants. I am not the expert you are regarding Uk, cuz u have applied there. But at least listen to what I have to say, which is perfectly rational, and dont disqualify it simply because I have not "been there done that".</p>
<p>And LadyLou, since you are such a champion of personal opinion, you had better reconsider the fact that you are discrediting my opinion with spurious and asinine claims of the sort "he hasnt applied yet". My main points from the very beginning are posted in the two comprehensive posts in the previous page. If you are going to keep up with this, at least read what others have posted before attacking them.</p>
<p>Main points summed up:
[ol]
UK and US are VERY different
[<em>] US unis are more selective and the screening process involves more factors
[</em>] Nobody (including me) has said that UK unis are worse than US unis
[li] Reputation is a key aspect of interpreting a college's status[/ol]</p>[/li]
<p>EDIT: I agree with you LadyLou though on the race issue of Oxford. Race should not be a factor either against or in favor of a candidate.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Because almost all applicants at oxbridge are whites.
[/QUOTE]
So wonderfully untrue, it's worrying. Have you not heard of the term multi-culturalism when referring to the UK?
And just so that I can include I stat to dispove the bleedin obvious... In 2006 71% of HOME (i.e. UK) applicants were classified as 'white'. When you consider that people in the UK do not use their race as a potential way to get themselves an advantage in the admissions process, there is probably a higher percentage of people who in reality would class themselves as 'non-white' but for the sake of a UCAS form use the simplest. Added to the fact that a large percentage of international applicants will also not be white you statement is completely wrong.</p>
<p>This has nothing to do with the debate in hand however, but such an incorrect statement, on a rather sensitive topic needed to be adressed.</p>
<p>Oh and debate_addict the fact you haven't been through the process doesn't negate your comments, however it does make it a pretty weak argument when aw5k says something along the lines of "i did both and found getting into cam harder" and you say "no it isn't". Its asthough you are trying to tell him his opinion is wrong...
That's where my criticism lies.</p>
<p>The fact is that admission-wise IT IS NOT. Percentages speak for that. And what were the standards for getting in to both Princeton and Cambridge. Does he know?? Of course not. He got into both for a different reason apparently. That is what I am pointing out, in addition to the fact that HYP take 10% whereas Oxbridge take 25%.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So wonderfully untrue, it's worrying. Have you not heard of the term multi-culturalism when referring to the UK?
[/quote]
No.
[quote]
Ethnic distribution of United Kingdom
White British 85.67%
White (other) 5.27%
Indian 1.8%
Pakistani 1.3%
White Irish 1.2%
Mixed race 1.2%
Black Caribbean 1.0%
Black African 0.8%
Bangladeshi 0.5%
Asian (non-Chinese) 0.4%
Chinese (Oriental) 0.4%
Other 0.4%
Black (others) 0.2%
* Percentage of total UK population
[/quote]
</p>
<p>92% White population.</p>
<p>
[quote]
EDIT: I agree with you LadyLou though on the race issue of Oxford. Race should not be a factor either against or in favor of a candidate.
[/quote]
And lemme guess, you both are whites.
[quote]
Quite right (even though I supposed you meant the opposite) and I don't mean to say anything else. Even though I share Lady<em>Lou's opinion that Oxbridge applicants are academically superior _in their chosen subject</em> when they enter college, that's not to say that Ivy League applicant's are more silly or won't achieve the same level at the end of the day.
[/quote]
Just clearing a exam doesn't means that they are academically superior.
[quote]
Hey, you're starting to surprise me positively - I think that's the first time we actually agree
[/quote]
It's the second time I think, we partially agreed on Marllie Jones Saga :)</p>
<p>Percentages represent very little; lets consider that you can only apply to one of oxford or cambridge, whereas the majority of applicants will apply to more than one of HYPS. If there were no controlls on applications, i'm almost certain that the admit rate would drop to below 15%, and given that some subjects already have admit rates below 15% (econ, philosophy 15%, architecture 8%) these would drop further if you could apply to both.
Admissions is more competitive in the US, in the pure sense of applications to places, this does not however make it harder.</p>
<p>Anyway, this is utterly pointless.
Maybe some benefit could come from this by me asking you why you don't consider cambridge, or oxford, for your university. You mention the prestige, but as someone in the EU you must know that EU wise a Cambridge degree in a good subject is going to open just about every graduate job opportunity, as well as a way onto just about any post-graduate course of your choice. Also, the fees of £3k must be appealing, given that international aid can be stingy at many colleges, and may also entail loans. I'm curious to see why you seem so set on the US, given that you can hardly dismiss the UK as an unattractive opportunity.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And lemme guess, you both are whites.
[/quote]
Dont go there. Are you saying that in support of the others, whites should be considered inferior to other students in terms of admission like Ivies do??
That is the one thing I despise. Neither should be benefited from race. The end.</p>
<p>And how are you implying that?</p>
<p>I meant you are opposing AA just because you are disadvantaged in the admission process.</p>
<p>And Ivies consider whites as inferior? That's news for me.</p>
<p>what exactly does the fact that 92% of the population are white have to do with applications to cambridge. And given that multiculturalism refers to more than one ethnic or cultural group living in a society, the UK is still multicultural.
More relevantly, your comment about applications to cambridge being mostly white was utterly wrong.</p>
<p>Have you ever been to the UK? Becuase I dont see how you could spend any time here and not appreciate that there a heck of a lot of different cultures, skin colours and backgrounds living here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And given that multiculturalism refers to more than one ethnic or cultural group living in a society, the UK is still multicultural.
[/quote]
You are free to assume that UK is multicultural because it has 1.8 % Indians, 1.2% Pakistanis and 2% Africans. Nationalism.</p>
<p>The argument that there's no Race factor in UK admission is pointless because there's no disadvantaged race in UK with considerable percentage of population. Plus US has a Gini coefficient greater than 0.4 (maximum in the west, I think), which means it has greater Income inequality. That further enhances the case for AA.</p>
<p>Anybody know what the point is of having white irish classification? I always tick that box as I am white and have irish citizenship but why don't they just have white? Don't see the point of it.</p>
<p>Lol, debate addict, I understand it would be fallicous to discard your argument simply because you havent been through the process, but nonetheless, your logic is faulty. Just because the US universities consider more factors such as EC<code>s and leadership does not mean they are</code>put to the test more<code>than Oxbridge applicants. Perhaps US universities require some degree of luck to be accepted (due to the</code>subjective<code>nature of the process), but Oxbrdige applicants face a much more</code>objective<code>admissions process including interviews (which is like an oral examination in your subject area, not those typical interviews like</code>what do you do in your free time?`), a test specifically pertaining to your major, A-level scores (which IMO, does not compare to HS grades/SATs/etc).
And I thought I refuted your BS acceptance rate argument, but you still do not seem convinced. Acceptance rates alone do not say much about the competitiveness of the admissions. Everyone and anyone under the sun can apply to Harvard, and alot of people do, just because they think they have the shot when clearly they do not have the numbers to get in. On the other hand, most people who do not have predicted AAAs in their A-levels do not even BOTHER applying to Oxbridge (or LSE or Imperial for that matter) simply because they know they will be rejected. This is especially the case since UCAS only allows a student to apply to 6 schools, so most people do not want to waste their application because they know they wont make it. Furthermore, you can only apply to Oxford OR Cambridge and therefore the number of applicants each school recieves is dramatically decreased. s acceptance rates. It
Harvard and Princeton naturally have more applicants and therefore if you do the math, the acceptance rates are artifically low because of the sheer number of applicants. A similar situation is with UChicagos quite high (about 38%) however, the mean SAT scores of the school is the same as HYP. The acceptance rate is artifically higher because not many people KNOW of Chicago or they dont bother applying. Of course HYP admissions is more competitive than UChicago, but my point is that you must carefully assess acceptance rates before making erroneous remakrs such as "they are put to the test more". Im not saying its easier to get into HYP, what Im saying is that you`re argument is weak.</p>