U.S unis vs. U.K unis

plus I'm not really a fan of American culture/people- I see neg reps coming lol

I'll grant that APs don't go as in-depth as A levels. This is more than compensated for by the fact that they're shorter -- I studied AP Micro and AP Macro for only one semester each before the exams, so while an A level in a relevant field might be deeper, you have much more time to learn the material and prepare for it. Accepting the AP as a replacement for the A level is perfectly valid. Besides, this isn't even accounting for IBs, which are more difficult than APs.

Also, it's actually more difficult to get into US universities. Even Oxbridge accept around 20-25% of applicants (according to Cambridge's alternate prospectus, to give at least one source). Harvard is under 10%, and most Ivies reach the low teens. To give a personal history: Rejected by 4 (?) of the Ivies and waitlisted by 1, but accepted to Bristol, LSE, UCL, RHUL, and Warwick.

a) Dictating that APs are equivalent to A2s because (although they cover less material) they do so in a shorter period is absurd. By that logic I could suggest one term (1/6) of A2 is equivalent to an A2. Your AP Micro/Macro anecdote only serves to prove this.

b) Using applicantslaces ratios doesn't fairly compare the two systems. In the UK UCAS limits the number of universities to which you can apply to 5 - in contrast I have friends who've applied to 10+ US colleges. Consequently those who apply to top UK universities are of a consistently high standard (the average applicant to the Cambridge college that I applied to had 9A*s at GCSE and an AS % average of 96% (AS =the mid-way exam in A-level; 80% is an A).)

c) Your UK/US offer tally is skewed: of the UK universities that you have applied to, only LSE approaches the reputation of a (lesser) Ivy. Significantly, UK universities do not have vast endowments, and thus will often accept weaker international applicants as they pay a higher fee than home students.

Wtf? LSE is highly reputable. I would also include UCL.

I'll grant that APs don't go as in-depth as A levels. This is more than compensated for by the fact that they're shorter -- I studied AP Micro and AP Macro for only one semester each before the exams, so while an A level in a relevant field might be deeper, you have much more time to learn the material and prepare for it. Accepting the AP as a replacement for the A level is perfectly valid. Besides, this isn't even accounting for IBs, which are more difficult than APs.

a) Dictating that APs are equivalent to A2s because (although they cover less material) they do so in a shorter period is absurd. By that logic I could suggest one term (1/6) of A2 is equivalent to an A2. Your AP Micro/Macro anecdote only serves to prove this.

I don't understand why you think that you'll be treated differently for being foreign in the US - I think it's more the case that you'll be treated differently if you get used to the idea that you'll be treated differently because you are foreign. Plus you've been in the British system for almost 6 years and have integrated well with you community I doubt you'll have a problem plus your love for football and girls will surely help you meet people with similar interests. Furthermore, being different is good - who would want to have friends that were all exactly the same? Part of the university experience is meeting people who are different from you and hopefully learning from them.

Would I get no credit for my A Levels?

Yes because the cost of the Ivy league school is a fair representation of all other uni's

My yearly cost is $10k for 34 credit hours.... so it's not as insane as people make it out to be

Actually I don't pay a cent towards tuition. I only have to pay for books, fees, and next semester campus housing so it's really like $3k

Haha, you clearly have no clue what you're talking about, dude.

A levels = AP/IB exams. To go to any decent school in the US, you have to do lots of them, and well. Don't believe me? Then try checking out the entry qualifications for US students at UK unis. They accept AP exams as equivalent to A levels. I did 8 AP courses and averaged a 5, or the equivalent of AAAAAAAA. Still want to act like our degrees are less advanced?

You start your degree the day you begin classes. For instance, I was taking 300-level courses (ie, 3rd year courses) fall of my freshman year, and that's by no means extraordinary. Meanwhile, my Brit friends were taking Research Methods.

The reason we have 4 year degrees is to allow for everything you cover, plus any others we just want to take out of interest.

Seriously, don't speak about something you have no clue about.

Is there any major differences? I know that U.S unis are less specialised but they give you more flexibility + cover wider topics. However, are there any differences between degrees? I know it would depend on the uni, but in general? I read that in the U.S, a BEng will have you considered as an engineer, whereas in the U.K you need an MEng or MSc. So if I got a U.K degree in engineering, would I be considered an engineer in the U.S?

Another reason I'm asking is because I will most likely end up in the U.S doing a double major - please don't question the double degree decision, my mind is made and apparently a lot of people in the U.S do it anyway. I can have it completed in five years.

However, I will complete a UCAS form and send it off, in the situation that I get an offer for a higher reputed uni in the U.K than the U.S. If that is the case, then I will do two separate degrees over 6 years - not too bad. I do want to spend some of my education in the U.S but it would not kill me if I didn't and 6 years is not much more than 5. I would be 24 when I was done - hardly ancient.

Thing is, I may choose to stay in the U.K because of confidence issues really. It shouldn't be a problem, what with communications now days. Half my family went to the U.S to study, so it should not be a problem. I am from Abu Dhabi, U.A.E FYI.

However, by the time I finish Y13, I will have been put through 6 years of British Education, growing up in a British environment and going away with a slight accent. I'm comfortable with this by now and whilst I've had the privilege to be exposed to many cultures and am multi cultured myself, I've grown accustomed to British surroundings.

Thing is, I spent 10 days on a homestay in the U.S and went around to a couple of unis. The people there seem a lot nicer and have a better attitude towards foreigners than in the U.K - I know it is a generalisation, please don't take it the wrong way. Also, the U.S seems a lot more modern and that is also an environment I'm used to growing up in. Again, don't take this the wrong way, but I don't see myself fitting in well in a place like Manchester or Brighton or Bristol or Liverpool or Southampton.

However, I feel that I've been too immersed in British culture that I will not be able to get along with the Americans there. This may seem shallow, but in terms of women, I seem to get along a lot better with British girls than I do with Americans. There will be more British Asians who I get along really well with - in general - because we share a lot in common.

Will there be a different style of teaching? I've gotten used to British teachers, how different will it be in the U.S?

There is also the matter that the majority of my friends will be going to U.K unis as well and I'd like to keep in touch with them. U.K also provides so much more opportunities in terms of exploring Europe. I'd also have more opportunities to support my football team - I know it shouldn't be a uni consideration, but it is one of the biggest thrills of my life and if I could do it more often, it would be great.

I think the matter of flying to the U.S is also putting me off slightly. Call me a baby but I don't like the idea of a whole ocean separating me and my family. I prefer the 6 hour U.K flight to the 14 - 18 hour U.S one. It would be a lot easier getting home for sure.

In an ideal world, I'd like to go to the U.S, but I've highlighted a couple of issues, but on the other hand, I'm being a bit picky with my U.K destinations and also worried about being treated differently for being foreign. It's a long thread, I know, but I'd appreciate any answer.

I do know what I'm talking about.

Also, it's actually more difficult to get into US universities. Even Oxbridge accept around 20-25% of applicants (according to Cambridge's alternate prospectus, to give at least one source). Harvard is under 10%, and most Ivies reach the low teens. To give a personal history: Rejected by 4 (?) of the Ivies and waitlisted by 1, but accepted to Bristol, LSE, UCL, RHUL, and Warwick.

b. Thanks, but I say what I say having worked 3 years for an undergraduate admissions office in the US. I'm quite aware of the UCAS system, which I figured you'd have gathered from my having applied. Anyway, your analysis fails on a few key points. First, the lack of a limit on apps does not decrease quality but rather increases it. Whereas a student may choose to apply to, say, Oxford, UCL, King's, Nottingham, and Warwick now, he or she would (under the US system) throw in apps to Bristol, St Andrews, Edinburgh, and LSE just for good measure. That doesn't mean the student is a poor applicant, obviously, and it doesn't drag down the quality of the pool. The applicant pool actually strengthens for this reason. More applications means that every qualified applicant can apply to many schools -- increasing competition. Now, as for this decreasing the percentage admitted, you would be correct were it not for yield ratios. Given the fact that admissions offices know students are applying to 10+, they are forced to admit more students based on the fact that there's a greater chance the admitted student won't take up the offer. If he or she only applies to 5 schools, the chances are reasonable he or she will take the offer. Thus, yield is higher in the UK, and overall admit rates are lower than they would be otherwise. So the effect you're trying to portray is negligible, if not the opposite of what you argue.