<p>General opinion is that A-levels are more challenging than Indian boards which are in turn, superior than US High School system, but that can't be used to justify that kids in "Oxbridge are more intelligent and able than in IIT who are superior than Harvard graduates."</p>
<p>Nice comparison...</p>
<p>I was looking for a post of that kind...</p>
<p>I'm interested (seriously) to see which school it is that everyone gets AAA...</p>
<p>everyone getting an AAA...really?? i too would like to know which school this is..</p>
<p>changeling..its ok..i still do agree that the curriculum is great..A levels have a lot of advantages- their level and depth are very good..the structure of the papers and the fact that they do not repeat questions also make the curriculum a very good one..however, they do give far too many A's..and this disadvantages top students..there is no way to distinguish between the very best students(say, top 10%) and the very good students(top 20%) since they all probably got A's..
they should start giving A* like the GCSE's...that would certainly help..</p>
<p>Ladyyou: I know there are plenty of in Pakistan and some in India(no mine though:). But sometimes CIE messups and you end up with AAA*U*.</p>
<p>Sorry for misspelling your name, LadyLou. I was to edit the post, but the the electricity failed the same moment.</p>
<p>And there's supposed to be a parenthesis after the smiley.</p>
<p>ok at my old school we take 6 subjects....at a level.....
obviously AAACDE is still 3 As, right?</p>
<p>and my old school is the best state school in the country...
my school is streamed.....as in the put you into classes depending on ur academic ability.... i dont know about the lower streams but the higher streams get all As.... </p>
<p>And also half my school doesnt do CIE, they do the national qualification....only the top half do CIE.</p>
<p>And for all you ppl wanting to know what school it is...</p>
<p>AUCKLAND GRAMMAR SCHOOL</p>
<p>A B C D E U
34% 25% 22% 14% 4% 1%</p>
<p>sry i think i overexaggerated before....these are the real stats....but it has been improving through the years and by the time i finish high school it will be like 60% A. plus i was in the top stream...so i didnt really know about the situation down there. in my class everyone gets AAA. For sure.</p>
<p>AAACDE is better than AAA. Use the UCAS tariff to compare for example: AAA is worth 360 points, while AAACDE is worth 540 points.</p>
<p>doesn't the UCAS tariff apply to only three subjects? i tot you were supposed to choose your three best subjects only for computation of points...</p>
<p>UCAS tariff is pretty unimportant, unless you are applying to the lesser unis. Anyway, an offer would typically be "260 points in 3 ALevels" to stop people flunking out on alevels and using the points they got in music exams to get into uni...</p>
<p>Yeah I know the tariff is pretty unimportant, but I was just pointing out that AAACDE is still better than AAA.</p>
<p>US universities are crazy, they have a huge bias against overseas applicants. It is like 10 to 30 times harder to get into the same university thru applying internationally than thru the domestic route. Let me share this incident with you:</p>
<p>I had a secondary school friend, and his result in secondary school was not really as good as mine most of the time. Then he went to a US high school, because his father was transferred to work there. I continued to stay in the local system and do the A-levels.</p>
<p>After two years, I applied to US universities, and so did he. I got rejected from schools like Columbia, Stanford and Berkeley, and managed only to get into Cornell and UCLA. Yet he managed to get into Columbia and Princeton, as well as UC Berkeley. Maybe he improved very rapidly in two years, I don't know. But It really seem that the US university admission is very very very biased towards domestic students (very very against the int'ls). Also, from what I know, those who managed to get into MIT from my country are all IMO people, whereas I don't think many of the domestic students at MIT have such credentials.</p>
<p>The UK schools, however, seem to have a system that bias towards the overseas applicants, because overseas students pay full fees, whereas UK or EU students pay subsided fees. Also, because I do A-levels, the UK schools need to be fair to us and give us similar offers to the US schools.</p>
<p>I guess this explains why UK schools seem to be easier to get into than the US ones. Ironically, some people would rather go to the middle (and even lower!) Ivies in the US instead of LSE/Imperial in the UK because they think an offer from the middle Ivies are "hard to come by". I guess they just enjoy the "maltreatment".</p>
<p>spencer1111,</p>
<p>Well, it's not difficult to reinvent yourself under the US system. The grading here is so much more lenient that you can be struggling big time in math in HK while appear to be a star in most high schools here. My older sister had RED marks all over her HS report card. Then she went to HS in Canada, got very good grades, and got into U of Toronto. My brother failed the HKCEE but got As in Canadian HS and got into a decent Canadian U. The system in HK, as we all know, is not very forgiving. To be fair, I think the system here does a better job on nurturing students' interest and that helped my sister to put more effort. The system in HK can be suffocating to many. Not to mention there are zillions "awards" given available here that can go with your transcript.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I had a secondary school friend, and his result in secondary school was not really as good as mine most of the time. Then he went to a US high school, because his father was transferred to work there. I continued to stay in the local system and do the A-levels.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Just out of curiosity, was your friend a U.S. citizen?</p>
<p>I can definitely relate to your criticisms. The MIT admits from Georgia were all relatively mediocre, with none of them standing out exceptionally at the national level. For MIT domestic students, whoever makes the Georgia ARML team is basically guaranteed admission into MIT. For any aspiring math Olympian, making the Georgia ARML team is not difficult.</p>
<p>The bar is definitely set higher for International students, but it's not like we can do anything about it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, from what I know, those who managed to get into MIT from my country are all IMO people, whereas I don't think many of the domestic students at MIT have such credentials.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is almost nearly true for the successful Canadian admits. Every single Canadian I know of accepted to the MIT Class of 2011 participated in some form of International Olympiad. Most U.S. citizens simply aren't at that level. I strongly suspect that for citizens, it's usually sufficient enough to be a good student, have several (but not exceptional) extracurricular activities, and score decently enough (but not perfect) the SATs. Sure the admissions offices can have their selective preferences, but I just don't think this is exactly fair.</p>
<p>These last few posts seem relatively misguided.</p>
<p>spencer11111: US universities exist primarily to serve US students. This is as it should be. I'm not saying that as an international I'm happy about that, but frankly, they're in the US, they are exempt from US taxes, so there's very strong arguments for them to be harder on internationals. </p>
<p>As for your friend, here's how it is. Either he was a permanent resident of the US when he applied, in which case he was treated as a domestic applicant (in line with my above point) or he improved hugely in his time in the US, as even a landed immigrant in the US (resident alien) is treated as an international student.</p>
<p>Sam Lee: You gave 2 examples of people getting into Canadian schools. I'm sorry to say, but that proves nothing. Trust me, I live in Canada, I know. No Canadian schools have particularly difficult admissions. The hardest to get into are UofT engineering science, Waterloo's engineering programs, McMaster Health Sciences and McMaster Art Sciences. Other than that, almost every program in Canada is basically easy to get into.</p>
<p>This is because almost all Canadian unis (certainly all the good ones) are public. Your statement about friends getting into Canadian schools means little, as it is essentially equivalent to getting into decent US public schools (maybe U. Wisconsin, for example).</p>
<p>Look, life isn't fair. But in this case, it's fairer than you think. As much as everybody in the world wants to go to Harvard, it and other private and public elite schools are an institutions that at the undergraduate level primarily serve US citizens. As I just covered, due to their tax-exempt status, among other things, this is completely justified IMO.</p>
<p>The status quo for school is to go to school in your own country. Yes, ideally from an international student's point of view everyone should be able to go wherever they want, but the fact that they aren't really isn't a significant injustice.</p>
<p>1of42,</p>
<p>I was really thinking about North America as a whole. What I said applied to US high schools also. One of my cousins was like dead last (had to repeat 5th grade) in Hong Kong but managed to do much better here (not top student but far from the worst). You mentioned Wisconsin. Well, my sister would have had no chance of getting into Wisconsin had she stayed in Hong Kong. I went to US high school for 2 years; bunch of kids who got "A" in science/math would have probably gotten F in my HS in Hong Kong. Grading can be very harsh over there; it's a lot easier to look great on paper while here. It could be that US universities hold internationals to higher standard. But I also suspect that spencer1111's friend actually might look better than spencer1111 on paper even though couple years back, spencer1111 had better grades while they were <em>in the same school in their hometown</em>. That's what my point was. I wasn't talking about how easy/hard to get into which universities. I was saying it's easer to get good/top grades in high schools in the US and that helps in the college admission.</p>
<p>Big Brother 1984, thank you for the reply :)</p>
<p>He was from Singapore too like me. He went to US for two years and ended up at these top schools. Actually I asked him over MSN a few times on what ground is he staying in the US but he refused to answer me, most probably because of the military service issue. (males must do NS before going to uni, skipping is a very serious offence and I have no idea how he would be coming back to Singapore). In short, I am not sure about his citizenship, resident rights or whatever. But I believe that by studying in a local school and applying thru the domestic route, the US universities must treat him fairly just like all his classmates. It must be, actually, because only a handful of people make it into Princeton from my country and they are really stellar people. I am 100% sure he couldn't have gotten into Princeton and Columbia had he stayed in Singapore.</p>
<p>Ya then all the people come thinking that MIT is full of IMO IPhO people when in fact when an int'l is in MIT, he is more likely to be around a bunch of dim-bulbs! I mean, check the stats of those so call "Ivies". Many students there don't even have anything close to 800/800/800 for SAT II (MathII, phy, chem, whatever...) and you must know how easy it is to get a 800.</p>
<p>I suspect that the US universities really sell themselves too well when compare to Oxbridge, boasting that they have "exceptional" students and all. The average A-level for an Oxbridge student is AAAA, and having personally done both A-levels and SAT II, I can say that you can get a 800 for SATII even with a B for A-levels. Hence I strongly suspect that an average Cornell student is arguably much weaker academically than an average Imperial student (AAAA also). Seriously, I just want to snatch 5 students from each school and force them to sit for an exam and see how they fair. I strongly suspect that the Imperial ones would do better in maths, phy, chem and all other core subjects. No bias here, but there are people (I mean domestic ones) who get into Stanford with only 700+ for SATII Maths! and the lowest for MathII for my classmates is 780. Cornell appears to be slightly more selective than Imperial for my country, but all the evidence so far suggest that the average Imperial student has a far higher academic standard than the average Cornell student. (For ECs, leadership, Cornell should win hands-down)</p>
<p>I mean, Big Brother 1984, you could have gotten into Harvard or Stanford if you are a US student. Don't you feel a bit short-charged or cheated?</p>
<p>I strongly suspect that only students from Harvard are academically stronger on average than those from Cambridge. I strongly suspect that Oxbridge use an open-door policy, i.e., accepting the best student, regardless of nationality. LSE and Imperial also have an open-door policy, but bias towards the int'l, against the UK/EU students due to top-up fees.</p>
<p>I also think that 95 - 98% of domestic Harvard students would not have made it to Harvard if they were internationals.</p>
<p>spencer11111: You're basically making things up. The comparison between SAT II and A-levels is misguided, for a start, since those aren't comparable. The IB and AP classes are comparable to A levels, and are equally as hard, if not harder in many cases (especially IB HL courses).</p>
<p>Your comment about universities having to treat him as a domestic student because he studies in a US school is 100%, patently false. US universities treat those without US citizenship or Green Cards as international students, period. They could be studying in America, or in Nepal, they're still internationals.</p>
<p>Regarding your comment about "dim-bulbs" at MIT, that's idiotic. Calling MIT students - of all people! - dim is ridiculous. There are IMO medallists, IPhO competitors, and the like who are domestic applicants to MIT. There are also students who do incredibly cool stuff that showcases their creativity. </p>
<p>The difference between your mindset and that of many US universities' admissions councils is clear here. You focus heavily on numbers. "But many students didn't have perfect SAT IIs!" you say, and so on and so forth. Well, first of all, scores above 750 in most SAT IIs are essentially equivalent to each other, and score above 700 are not far behind, as a result of the curving and the randomness of missing a question or two and potentially losing lots of marks. Your mindset betrays the whole "marks are everything, the best marks deserve the best education" mentality that is so pervasive in Asian students. In American admissions, marks are extremely important, but once you have marks in the highest ranges, the most important things on your application are more intangible - essays, ECs, leadership, and so forth. And they should be.</p>
<p>As for your suspicion regarding Harvard/Cambridge strength of students etc., I'll repeat what I've said before: at my IB school in Toronto, Canada, the smarter students go to Ivies, and those just under the top echelon of marks often end up at Oxford or Cambridge. That may not mean anything, but it means just as much as your inane anecdotal stories and random guesses.</p>
<p>Sam Lee: Yes, grades might be more inflated at US universities. But put it this way. If your cousin repeated a grade in Singapore, and then came to America and got good marks, it means one of a few things. Either your cousin got way smarter and worked harder in America (which isn't unheard of), or grades are inflated in American high schools, which is more likely. The thing is, if grades are inflated in American high schools, assuming your cousin didn't get smarter, then his/her rank should not have changed. This is, of course, unless you're postulating that HK schools contain smarter pupils than US schools, which may be true for certain US high schools (there are many inner-city and rural schools that are bad), but in general probably isn't true - even if it is, you'll need to provide statistics before that becomes a valid argument.</p>
<p>Finally, I have to repeat:</p>
<p>These are US universities. They are exempt from US taxes, because they serve an educational role in America. Under that mandate, they have a moral obligation to have a bias towards accepting American students. This is not unfair.</p>
<p>Many internationals have this sense of entitlement to going to a US university if they are great in school. Sorry, but that isn't the way it works. US universities have a duty to serve US students first; they all let in internationals, but they're not going around filling up their classes with internationals, because that would defy their moral mandate.</p>