Why are UK schools so easy to get into?

<p>Many people in the US apply to Ivy schools just for the sake of it, and they might apply to more than one. In the UK, since they are limited to 5 slots (starting next year), people don't even bother applying to Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, or Imperial if they don't meet the requirements. And you can only apply to either Oxford or Cambridge (which makes sense).</p>

<p>Admissions in the UK are much more academic-based than in the US, where they consider EC's, your race, etc... In the UK it's either you have what they want, or you don't get accepted. The admission process in the US seems like a lottery to me.</p>

<p>The application process in the UK is far simpler than in the US. You select 5 courses (you might apply to more than one course at a same university, in the UK you apply for a course, not for a university) through UCAS. They only consider AP's, and they might consider SAT II's and SAT's. You send in the application with your scores and/or predicted scores, and you get your replies a few months later. Either you get an unconditional acceptance, meaning that you are accepted and nothing can change that, or a conditional acceptance, meaning that your acceptance depends on the grades you get on the AP's they tell you. When you have received answers from all your universities (conditional, or unconditional), you pick a firm (the one that you will go to if you meet the requirements) and an insurance (the one that you will go to if you miss the requirements for the firm). If all your offers are unconditional, you just pick a firm.
If you have been rejected from all your choices, you can still apply to a course in UCAS Extra, which is basically a system that allows you to apply to courses that still have not been filled up. Some people decline the offers they got because they found out that the course they prefer is on Extra, meaning that they will be more leniant towards grades since they're trying to fill up the classrooms.</p>

<p>This is my conclusion:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Admission in the UK is more straight-forward. It's academic-based (what it should be, since it's what you will meet in university), and doesn't involve irrelevant factors such as your race, your religion, or what sport you're good at.</p></li>
<li><p>A-levels are much harder than AP's, SAT II's and SAT's put together. You only choose 3-4 subjects, but in so much more depth. Therefore you cannot compare the US system with the one in the UK, as in the UK it's far superior.</p></li>
<li><p>The application process is far simpler, and it gives opportunity even to those who have been rejected from all their choices. There is no such thing as Extra in the US.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>I study here in the UK - I took APs, and I've seen A-level papers, the syllabus, and i see how AP students and A-level students are coping. I can definitely tell you AP = and in some cases more difficult than A-level - guaranteed.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I can definitely tell you AP = and in some cases more difficult than A-level - guaranteed.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>A-levels and the harder AP's are probably equivalent. The difference is though that A-levels are a requirement for any domestic British student who wants to go to university in the UK, whereas, in the US, only the top HS students who apply to the top American universities actually take AP's. In fact, the broader body of American HS seniors, including those who plan to go to lesser-known state universities or community colleges, may not even take SAT-II tests, much less AP exams. That's why the UK system is on average far more demanding for university-bound students than its US counterpart.</p>

<p>so basically its hard to get in UK universities? Aren't there lesser known or average unis in the uk as well?</p>

<p>A levels r not hard to crack at all..i did 2 curriculums simultaneously(A levels nd local system in my state(HSC)) and i felt A levels were not hard(i got all A's btw..)
A levels is intellectually very satisying and interesting than most other curriculums(dont no bout IB tho)..but thts another thing..</p>

<p>There are many average unis in the Uk.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
A-levels and the harder AP's are probably equivalent. The difference is though that A-levels are a requirement for any domestic British student who wants to go to university in the UK, whereas, in the US, only the top HS students who apply to the top American universities actually take AP's. In fact, the broader body of American HS seniors, including those who plan to go to lesser-known state universities or community colleges, may not even take SAT-II tests, much less AP exams. That's why the UK system is on average far more demanding for university-bound students than its US counterpart.

[/QUOTE]

Like the US, the UK has a huge range of universities, from oxbridge to the russel group down to the 'ex-polys', some of which dont really require anything other than an application to get into. Google the 'times league tables' to see the rankings.</p>

<p>'A levels r not hard to crack at all..i did 2 curriculums simultaneously(A levels nd local system in my state(HSC)) and i felt A levels were not hard(i got all A's btw..)
A levels is intellectually very satisying and interesting than most other curriculums(dont no bout IB tho)..but thts another thing..'</p>

<p>If you write that I doubt it... And you never mentioned doing any AP's...just the local system in your state....which isn't really comparable to anything. How many A-levels did you do? Did you do them in respected subjects? Or...Media studies or something? I can assure you after looking at respected A-level subject papers, Maths, English, the Sciences, and the equivalent AP exam they are not comparable.</p>

<p>And I checked out HSC, the educational system of New South Wales. Sorry but I don't think an educational system that prepares students for the University of New South Wales is comparable to one that prepares students for Oxbridege/Ivies...</p>

<p>Umm He's talking about Indian HSC, I think.</p>

<p>Some good universities are very good and not as demanding AP-wise. For War Studies & History at King's College London (got a 5*A on both departments on the 2001 RAE), they require 554, which isn't that hard. However, LSE requires 55544 for International Relations on Group A subjects (the hard sciences, languages, and histories). Keep in mind that those are just minimum requirements, there are over 15 applicants per place for LSE and 12 for KCL so you want to be as competitive as possible.</p>

<p>As an A level chemist I have had a look at AP chem (i actually studied for it for a while when i thought of taking it), and on the material that is on both subjects, the level of difficulty does not vary much. However, the sylabus for A Level is easily double the size. One example; A level chemistry has around 25% organic chemistry on it which is barely touched on AP chem (what is required to be known of orgo is infact covered mostly on GCSE chem). Calc BC is probably as hard as A Level maths (athough A level maths covers much more than just calculus) however, there is nothing even equivalent to Further maths on AP.</p>

<p>I can't really comment on any other subjects as I dont have enough in-depth knowledge, but my general experince of the sciences and maths is that they are as testing in terms of question difficulty, but do not cover nearly as much in terms of bredth, which when you think about how they are taught (APs are normaly one year courses take atter a 1 year into course for biology say, and A Levels are a 2 year course) it isn't really shocking, not is it to the discredit of the students or the course to say they are not as broad.</p>

<p>yes India HSC..which you'll wudnt evn no bout so i dont think ull can comment on tht..i took A levels in maths,bio,chem nd an AS in physics..for whoever wanted to know..
nd i think thts a pretty heavy courseload cosidering i did my state board..wich is demanding..</p>

<p>im going abroad to the uk and i was thinking about taking A level maths but in the US i havent even taken pre calc yet and i just finished algebra 2. Would maths be too over the top? And if i decide come back to the US for senior year would it be a disadvantage of not taking a math class junior year if i decide not to take maths in the UK?</p>

<p>'nd i think thts a pretty heavy courseload cosidering i did my state board..wich is demanding..'</p>

<p>Hmm...so demanding that you managed to spell...maybe half your words correctly? Ok...you might not trust wiki but...
Criticism of Indian Education System</p>

<p>Modern education in India is often criticized for being based on rote learning. Emphasis is laid on passing examinations with high percentage. Very few institutes give importance to developing personality and creativity among students. Recently, the country has seen a rise in instances of student suicides due to low marks and failures, especially in metropolitan cities, even though such cases are very rare.</p>

<p>The presence of a number of education boards (SSC, ICSE, CBSE, IB) leads to non-uniformity. ICSE and CBSE boards, being quite tougher than SSC, are favourably considered at the time of admission. A large number of SSC (State board) students therefore complain that their ICSE and CBSE counterparts are given an advantage during college admissions, which are extremely competitive and sought for. Most colleges though account for these differences during admissions. The syllabi prescribed by the various boards are accused of being archaic and some textbooks (mostly ones written for the SSC) contain many errors.</p>

<p>The boards are recently trying to improve quality of education by increasing percentage of practical and project marks. However, critics say even this is memorized by students (or even plagiarized). This is attributed to pressure from parents who are eager to see high scores more than overall development.</p>

<p>Based on Rote Learning? Well it'd explain why you'd fine A-levels in straight sciences manageable. And the article mentioned that 'ICSE and CBSE' are a lot tougher than State Boards, which is the system that you mentioned. So...you're taking a far easier courseload even in your system. </p>

<p>I guess you're the kinda person who aces SAT's by memorising all the vocab at the back of the Kaplan books. But guess what, that doesn't make you any better at English, just means you found a way to play the system and get marks without understanding any of the material. And judging by your expression, I presume this proves your English and communication levels have suffered as a result of doing sciences by 'rote learning'</p>

<p>erm... maths is hard. definitely known to be one of the harder A levels with quite a high drop out rate, having said that it does ease you into A Level pretty slowly, so I would say provided you have a good grasp of quadratics, you should be alright. you can always change as the term goes on.</p>

<p>I hate quoting wiki, but as you have already:</p>

<p>
[quote]
In the UK, the average grades achieved by A-level candidates have been steadily rising for over 20 years in a row.[8] The government and teaching bodies maintain that the improved grades represent higher levels of achievement due to improved and more experienced teaching methods,[19][20] but many educationalists and elements of the popular press argue that the change is due to grade inflation and the examinations getting easier.[21] A third view is that, as schools come under increasing pressure to improve their examination results, pupils are being coached to pass specific examinations, at the expense of a general understanding of their subjects.[22] Still another view is that, as the cost to an examination board of changing a subject's syllabus is very high, they are reluctant to do so, leading to a lengthy period over which exam questions will inevitably be very similar and so teaching towards their likely content will be more successful.[citation needed] Yet another view is that, because of the new changes introduced in Curriculum 2000, where students are examined in both years of sixth form, less academically able students drop subjects they find difficult resulting in better candidate self-selection and enabling students achieving less than desired grades to retake specific units.[22] The ability of unlimited resits, with the best mark going through, has improved results.[23] According to some, students selecting "easier" instead of "harder" ones have also contributed to this rise.[24][25][26]</p>

<p>Universities in Britain have constantly complained that the increasing number of A grades awarded makes it hard to distinguish between students at the upper end of the ability spectrum.[27] The C grade was originally intended to represent the average ability, and students typically required 60% or higher across all assessments to attain it; however, the average result is now at the lower end of the B grade, rendering this measure almost meaningless. Thus, many universities now have their own entrance tests or interviews to distinguish between applicants. In 2005, the head of admissions at the University of Cambridge outlined changes[28] he believed should be made to the current system, particularly the use of the Advanced Extension Awards, a top-up qualification that tests the most-able students some of the harder content in their A-level courses. More universities have wanted to see applicants' individual module results to see how comfortably they have achieved their result.[29] There are fears that the A-level may not offer an accurate test of ability,[30] nor will it be a good prediction of future academic success.[31]</p>

<p>Concern over A-Level grading became national news in September 2002. The Observer newspaper ran a story making claims that A-Level results had been fixed. It was alleged that students had been given lower marks than they deserved in order to fix overall results, making the pass rate seem lower than it really should have been and so disproving that A-Levels were becoming too easy. This resulted in the Tomlinson Inquiry. As a result, some papers were re-marked but only 1,220 A-Level and 733 AS-Level students saw an improvement to their results.[32]</p>

<p>In response to concerns shown by employers and universities that it is not possible to distinguish between the large number of students achieving A grades, and in order to mirror the current GCSE standards, a debate arose in 2004 as to whether a new, higher "super A" grade (like the A* grade at GCSE) should be attainable.[33] Although it has not yet been put into place, it was generally agreed that bringing in higher grades would be a much better idea than raising the grade boundaries to keep the standards consistent, and it has been proposed that A* and A** grades be attainable at A-level in order to stretch the most able students while still allowing others to achieve the grades they deserve. The Advanced Extension Award has been increasingly used to serve this purpose.[34]</p>

<p>The September 2004 reformation of the Mathematics syllabus, following calls it was too hard,[35] has attracted criticism for allegedly being made easier.[36] In the change, content consisting of three modules (Pure 1-3) were spread to four modules (Core 1-4). It is alleged that this makes the course easier as students do the same amount of work for more qualifications. Further reforms to make the Mathematics syllabus more popular have been met with mixed opinions.[37] Supporters cite it will reverse the downward trend in students taking the subject whilst others are concerned that the subject is being "dumbed down".</p>

<p>Following criticisms from many groups, from September 2008 onwards, candidates will take 4 papers for most A-levels, instead of the current six.[38]</p>

<p>A possible reformation would be something called the post-qualifications applications system (PQA), where applicants apply to university after they receive their results.[39] It is said that this will be fairer to applicants, especially those from lower-income families who tend to be underpredicted. 55% of predictions are over-estimates and 9% are under-estimates. Education ministers have said that it will be implemented by 2012.</p>

<p>Harrow has warned that it will ditch A-levels if they are dumbed down further.[citation needed] They are considering moving to a new exam (to be called Pre-U) being developed by private schools in conjunction with Cambridge University's exam board.</p>

<p>As a result of dislike of the modular system, many schools now offer the alternative "International Baccalaureate" qualification. The course offers more subjects, extra-curricular activity, a philosophical epistemological component known as "Theory of Knowledge", as well as the requirement of an extended essay on any subject of a candidate's choice. Unlike the current AS/A2 system, the International Baccalaureate is not based on a modular system.</p>

<p>Prime Minister Tony Blair recently suggested that one state school in every county should offer the Baccalaureate as an alternative to A-Levels.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This means A-levels are ****ingly easier and that we are dumber than Indians (I am in A levels too).</p>

<p>ok..first of all mr. changeling..just cause i use short forms on the net does not mean i cnt spell..thts a pretty stupid thing to say to begin with..</p>

<p>secondly, i did the ICSE till the 10th..ICSE is only till the 10th..after tht it changes to the state board...so ..no , i did not take an easier courseload in my state..</p>

<p>also, u have no freakin idea about who i am or how i study , so u hav no rite to make a judgement on y i did well on my A levels..i did say tht thy wer intellectually satisfying..y did i say tht?? cause i did not hav to do any rote learning..i just needed to understand the content and answering questions in the exam is pretty easy if u understood the content..</p>

<p>i agree tht many ppl do use the rote learning technique fr the state boards..thy rnt planned very well, i do agree, but wat i sed is tht it ws a diff. courseload considering i did the A levels along with my state curriculum..</p>

<p>about the sat's..again. u dont no me..u shudnt comment on it..
using such personal attacks wen u do not even no me is stupid nd uncalled for..</p>

<p>its my personal opinion tht it wasnt the toughest thing to get A's in my A levels..how the hell do u evn have ne basis fr disputing tht???</p>

<p>Ok, sorry, I admit ad hominem isn't quite fair. And I was making remarks that don't pertain to the debate and for that I apologize. Wiki does say A-level's are getting easier, but this is only in comparison to the previous A-levels. It is not comparing to the AP's.</p>

<p>Well I'm basing my opinion on having done A-levels, then looking at mock papers for equivanelt AP exams and finding the level and breadth required for an AP to be far lower. So perhaps the Indian system is more demanding, but I think A-levels are more demanding than AP's, at least in English, Biology, Maths and Physics.</p>

<p>I have done igcse, a level maths......have moved to IB because a levels not challenging enough. Basically everyone in my old school got AAA. And not only that over 40 got AAAA, 10 got AAAAA and a few even got AAAAAA.</p>

<p>In my new school, only 2 get 45/45 in the IB diploma each year.</p>

<p>Such a pity that IB is not that recognised in the US....it's just like the AP, and yet its much harder...</p>