<p>Nobody will dispute that Oxford and Cambridge and many other top universities outside of America do just fine in terms of quality and prestige. Like the top privates here, they surely have no dearth of overqualified applicants to choose from - so they have interviews and a personal statement. But they don't consider ECs and community involvement at all, and I don't think student life there is any less vibrant or stimulating. </p>
<p>I'm aware that the vast majority of colleges here base their admissions solely on academics too - my question is limited to the very top colleges in the two countries. Why don't Oxbridge care about extracurricular involvement? Is it really just the cultural difference?</p>
<p>Well I go to boarding school in England, so I can say that their admissions are based almost entirely on--</p>
<p>Rigorous Interviews
"given that you've got the grades to actually be offered one"</p>
<p>At the interview they ask you about, e.g. for economics, what economics literature have you read, and will test you on some really hard questions...</p>
<p>The admissions rate at Oxbridge varies because you are accepted for the subject you apply for; e.g. economics --> about 9% admission, whereas Norse & Celtic is about 40-50%</p>
<p>Im an international who got the interview last year at Cambridge...Unfortunately,even though I got all As,i was pooled(kind of waitlisted) but didnt get in afterwards..that was for economics btw..Yep,but i think its academics that count after all..extra curricular is v.gud but should not be as important as the subject itself.I think usa emphasises excessively on non academic criteria..Indeed,the common app essay,for eg,can be written by smbd else.How will they know??Concerning uk,Oxford is way easier to get in compared to Cambridge..sad for me:(</p>
<p>
[quote]
At the interview they ask you about, e.g. for economics, what economics literature have you read, and will test you on some really hard questions...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>yep i've bene through a Cambridge interview before - it's basically an oral examination in the course you're applying for. me, the prof even gave me a piece of paper to work out answers!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yep,but i think its academics that count after all..extra curricular is v.gud but should not be as important as the subject itself.I think usa emphasises excessively on non academic criteria..
[/quote]
</p>
<p>that's what i'm curious about. do Oxbridge suffer in any way because they ignore applicants' ECs (or the lack thereof)?</p>
<p>Keep in mind that the kids who come up under the European system to be credible for Oxbridge have been filtered a lot before. The education system is different and stressed different things. They produce very smart, but sometimes narrow folks, which may be what the US colleges are trying to avoid, for better or worse. Also, in the end, we have mass education -- not always the best -- in HS. Just some thoughts.</p>
<p>That's not true at all; they teach lots of liberal arts. Keep in mind, those universities were originally quasi-religious institutions whose main purpose was to train future priests. Thus liberal arts have been huge at Oxbridge from the beginning. (Actually, this may not be true of Cambridge; I'm generalizing from what I know about Oxford.)</p>
<p>And yes, I suspect the interviews are what allows them to select great students. I believe they even have you interview with the don who will become your tutor if you're accepted.</p>
<p>Because you don't need to know non-academic criteria to generate admissions to an academic institution, and 'holistic' admissions is a cover so that universities won't be held accountable for hidden agendas ^^ You can <em>always</em> just say, well maybe the essays were really, really bad.</p>
<p>interviews are not necessary for oxbridge... two people from my class got into oxford... one was admitted after an interview... one was admitted without...</p>
<p>Insaneabd, I'm quite sure interviews are necessary - they're the most important part! Unless - did this person do a local and/or phone interview? What was he studying?</p>
<p>I don't know, I think that if people got in based only on test scores, our upper schools would be a lot more boring. Different schools definitely have different characters and that would happen a lot less if they only cared about scores. I love my quirky LACs and they would definitely be less possible in the kind of environment that only looks at numbers.</p>
<p>Not saying that it doesn't work for them, I'm just glad it's different here. :D</p>
<p>I wondered about this myself, and made a thread about it a while ago. Seems like no one has answers...</p>
<p>Anyways, I do know someone who got into cambridge without an interview.. and even without that pre-admission test that they require. 3 5's on AP's is enough, that's equivalent to AAA I assume?</p>
<p>Did your person have a phone interview, ee33ee? Because it does seem awfully unlikely otherwise; the interview is such a big component of admissions. The only time I could see it otherwise would be in a subject like math, or a science, where an interview might not have the same sort of tone as an arts interview, but even then...</p>
<p>3/4 APs, yes. Oxford considers them equivalent - but they're not, really...</p>
<p>No, well she's going to cambridge for econ.. but she basically had an interview scheduled in philly, but when she called them they told her "not to worry about it"</p>
<p>Anyways, what really shocked me wasn't that they were so objective, but that they had no way of being objective... no transcript, no SAT's, only 1 rec</p>
<p>3/4 AP's is nothing really, you're right.. what are A-levels like by the way?</p>
<p>I wouldn't know; I'm not English. Harder than APs, apparently.</p>
<p>But I'm quite surprised at your friend - it sounds like a very, very strange situation. Unless she's published a book or something, it sounds like something else is going on there, especially if she hadn't sent in her standardized scores.</p>