Oxbridge or Ivy League

Scroll to see replies

Even with significantly less funding, I think only Havard and MIT are above Oxbridge. Should Oxbridge ever get near the same levels of funding that the top US colleges get, then Oxbridge would be clearly ahead.

Reply 21

jimmyatemyworld

I hear, from people who have attended English and American universities, that English ones are much harder. I don't know much about the American uni system (they have private and public universities so the best are for the rich or something?) but in terms of prestige Oxbridge and Harvard/Yale are the same, then UCL/Kings/Durham are on par with the other Ivy Leaguers. Plus, from an English point of view, the American system would probably be too different to what is expected - from what I understand you get into the uni not knowing what you're going to do, and then you decide what you're going to major in which I guess will be your degree? And they do A/B/C grading so it seems a bit more like school. And then, having paid ridiculous fees if you want to go into certain careers you have to get a specific degree like Law/Medicine/Business afterwards? However, if I had unlimited $$$ I would go to Harvard/Yale given the choice, but if it was between Oxbridge or another American Ivy League, I would go Oxbridge.

Reply 22

Warrior King

Oxbridge has the history and prestige. The Ivy Leagues have the wealth. IMO the only Ivy Leagues which can match Oxbridge in terms of history and prestige are Harvard and possibly Yale and Columbia. Harvard and Yale are the true brand names of US education and oh perhaps Princeton and UCLA namely because of the clothing sales.

But yeah you can have all the money in the world but it can't buy you glory and prestige just ask Roman Abramovich that.

Reply 23

emmanottinghil

Which research are you quoting? QS?

Original post by Astonix

Cambridge is the best university in the world this year, followed by Havard then Yale, before Oxford. I think the top universities has more Ivy League, than Russel Group.

The whole competition thing I'd put down to purely population of America.

Reply 24

EasyA

Original post by ForGreatJustice

Doesn't really mean anything, I know people who got accepted to Oxbridge and got rejected by Bristol and Bath

Spoiler

Omg :|| Really? That's good though right? Everyone wants to get into Oxbridge

Yeah I know but I've seen that good universities in the US really demand a lot of extra curricular activities and amazing essays.Literally essays.And a different essay for each university ( some of them demanding upto 3 essays).

I think Law,Economics,History and similar subjects will be better in the UK (Oxbridge especially) but when it comes to Math and Engineering universities like MIT,Caltech always win.I hate it but it's kinda true :-\

For Fashion and Art I'm sure Central Saint Martins > > > Parsons.I really dislike New School for the really hefty fee.

Reply 25

jimmyatemyworld

Original post by MC armani

From people I've spoken to who've been to both, in terms of teaching quality, there are more Ivy leaguers comparable with Oxbridge, but the UK top 10 roughly reflects the Ivy League.

Oxbridge = Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia (and Stanford, even though it's not in the Ivy League)

MIT is slightly superior to Imperial, but perhaps only because of greater wealth

UCL, Durham, LSE, Warwick are roughly on a par with UC Berkeley, Penn, Chicago, Johns Hopkins.

Because of the much larger number of applicants, the Ivy League is MUCH more competitive than the Russell Group or indeed Oxbridge.

I think you're wrong. Serena Van Der Woodsen got into Columbia and Brown and she was a straight C student (lol).

Reply 26

RyanT

Original post by emmanottinghil

I think this is exceptionally unlikely to be true, given the huge volumes of money the top US universities have. I would suggest that Harvard, Yale, MIT and Stanford are all well ahead of Oxbridge on almost all criteria, eg, research, the kinds of staff they have, output of famous / gifted graduates, facilities, support for students, etc, etc.

That's the sharp end of the Ivy League you're using in your example. I said they were around on par with each other, which is reasonably true - especially from a student perspective.

I'm also friends with two oxbridge graduates and their experiences since graduation are very similar to mine. It's not always what's cracked up to be and in particular I will say this - any difference in student outcomes between the Ivy League and Oxbridge students will be down to the individual student rather than some circumstance relating to their alma mater.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 27

hyn_shayan

Original post by emmanottinghil

Which research are you quoting? QS?

http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2010

I think he means this

Reply 28

Warrior King

Also it varies on what you want to study I reckon. The only Ivy Leagues which seem to provide a solid education in most departments are Harvard and Yale and possibly Columbia. I mean Princeton doesn't even have a Law or Medical School. In the medical sector the Ivies lag behind Johns Hopkins. Harvard and Cornell tend to be the good ones for medical sciences. Yale always struck as a bit of an artsy type of university. Princeton is good for undergraduate.

Penn has got Wharton which is bit like having Lionel Messi in your squad. And then you got Brown and Dartmouth...............

Reply 29

Warrior King

Original post by gozatron

You may be a *spits* United fan but I agree 100% with what you're saying. But I wouldn't put MIT in that bracket.

Reply 30

Arcanine

I'd rather go to the Ivy league universities.

Reply 31

hyn_shayan

Original post by Arcanine

I'd rather go to the Ivy league universities.

Why is that?

Reply 32

MC armani

Original post by jimmyatemyworld

I think you're wrong. Serena Van Der Woodsen got into Columbia and Brown and she was a straight C student (lol).

She's a fictional character. There's no way a straight-C student would get into Columbia (or Brown, for that matter) unless she was internationally exceptional at something else.

Reply 33

qwertyuiop1993

Original post by manchild007

This is what you asked - "What about admissions? Are they equally hard or is Oxbridge (in comparison to Ivy League of course) slightly easier in your opinion?". Nowhere in my post did I mention (because I don't think this myself) that the Ivy League is better because it is MUCH harder to get into than Oxbridge - you asked how hard it was to get into the Ivy League, and I thought I'd provide you with some figures :smile:

Ivy League - 35,000 Applicants to each Ivy, about 6% acceptance rate (much lower for international students).

Oxbridge - 3,000/4,000 Applicants each, about 20%-30% acceptance rate (varies depending on course and college etc, but overall much easier to get into by the numbers than the Ivy League).

Actually, Oxford received 17300 undergraduate applications for 2011. Don't know where you got 3000/4000 =S That's closer to the number of places.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/mar/11/oxford-record-state-school-intake

Yes, Ivy League are more harder to get in (according to statistics).
Yet a part of this is due to the fact you can't apply to both Oxford and Cambridge - if you could, that would practically double the applicant pool to each university.

My understanding is that the best Ivy league unis are generally better for postgraduate study, but the undergraduate tutorial system of Oxbridge is something that greatly attracted me.
Also, it's my understanding that American universities are more broad? This is a factor my friend had to consider when choosing between Harvard and Cambridge for Maths and Physics. He believed he'd get a more focused Maths education at Cambridge, but that Harvard would allow him to explore other interests as well (as well as providing a very good maths education of course).

And to the person who wrote "I know people who got into Oxbridge and didn't get into Harvard" - This is a rather meaningless measure and it works both ways. To some extent they are looking at different things. Being well-rounded is definitely not a requirement for Oxbridge - ECs have little to no bearing on applications, whereas my friend really had to highlight his other interests for Harvard, yet didn't feel that testing of his maths was as rigorous.

Reply 34

ForGreatJustice

Original post by EasyA

For engineering probably. But Cambridge's maths department rates up there with any in the world.

Reply 35

jimmyatemyworld

Original post by manchild007

Hold up...! Is that supposed to be to the WHOLE university? Because I'm pretty sure there are like 3,000 applicants to Oxford just for Law?!

Reply 36

jimmyatemyworld

Original post by MC armani

She's a fictional character. There's no way a straight-C student would get into Columbia (or Brown, for that matter) unless she was internationally exceptional at something else.

Did you not get my lol...?

Although, there is some truth that universities will accept famous people (within reason) with unexceptional academics

Reply 37

Astonix

Original post by emmanottinghil

Which research are you quoting? QS?

Yes, but I was wrong about Oxford. UCL is actually 4th.

Reply 38

RedCasino

People talk as if they have had the privilege to experience both sides, or have read into the subject more clearly.

Regarding admissions, the reason why Oxbridge is higher at 20% rate is because you know if you stand a good chance when applying since there's a limit on the UCAS form as well as CHOOSING between the two otherwise double the applicants and therefore closer to the 10% success rate of Ivy Leagues, so candidates are conditioned into the role early on depending on their calibre. Those that apply to Ivy League can have a shot, because there is no successful formula, your extra-curricular speak a lot, and it's more uncertain than applying to Oxbridge since they look to your academics purely.

Regarding prestige, they're probably the same, though Harvard tends to rule... however this does not in ANY way reflect the quality of the course, I mean Harvard at undergraduate level is not very reputable but employers will still hire you due to brand name. The actual quality very much differs, and Oxbridge tend to rule at undergraduate level with supervisions/tutorials which rarely happens in Ivy League. However due to funding, postgraduate is much better off being done at some reputable Ivy Leagues.

And please don't generalise, Ivy League is a sports union, not one that's academically similar in calibre like Oxbridge is. Plus, employers know the top institutions and it's always tough to apply to either place and receive an offer, very few people get the option to choose and even then it's based on other factors rather than just BRAND name vs BRAND name since they're similar. Furthermore, it depends where you want to work, because going to university abroad in the USA is great but a visa is virtually impossible, employers like to see an experience from both sides though, and more variety if you have gone to many universities.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 39

Arcanine

Original post by hyn_shayan

Why is that?

Because in terms of reputation not much splits the two. Obviously certain ones are better for certain subjects but overall they're all elite. I think I'd rather go to the US for 3 years instead of staying here, but only if money wasn't taken into consideration. If money was then I'd definitely go to Oxbridge.