This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Oxbridge vs. Ivy League

Fluffy

Given all UK universities are publicly funded and the US set up is privately financed, there really isn't any comparison...

That said, if you want to get by on brain power alone, rather than ability to pay, you can't beat a bit of OxBridge! It has history, something the US could never achieve...

Well, Harvard was established in 1636 which is quite old, so it has a fair bit of history.

Reply 21

President_Ben

15

hungry_hog

Appling for a job in the UK I wonder how:

a) Employers rate somewhere like (say) Caltech, which has an awesome rep in the US, but is not so well known here.
b) They compare ___cum laude/GPA to degree class

Big employers know who Caltech are.

GPA to degree class is pretty well done. And <> cum laude... don't know.

Reply 22

claracw

my take, as an undegrad at an ivy league school:

certainly there is NOTHING at any ivy league school that compares to the tutorial system at oxbridge. classes here center (centre) around lectures (some with several hundreds of student, even) and seminars/tutorials, but the smallest per class that you can hope for (most likely it is an unpopular class, or is very dry/specific/has a bad reputation) is probably.... 4. popular "small classes" could number up until 16. i once took a seminar where the professor said "the max i go for this seminar is 16, with 16 you can still have a good discussion."

having said that, there are big names at oxbridge and ivy leagues, so if you want to work with a high powered professor, there are certainly opportunities at both places.

the stuff oxbridge offers that i wish i could have:
1. the supervisions/tutorials -- definitely a BIG plus
2. oxbridge is just so beautiful that nothing in the US could compare!!!

stuff i like about my own school/the american system:
1. definitely the whole liberal arts thing. i've taken classes from latin american politics to the history of US foreign policy, as well as organic chemistry, linear algebra and shakespeare -- and they all count towards graduation!
2. the pastoral care. i might be totally wrong here, but my school takes a lot of care in ensuring that we are healthy/not depressed/coping well.
3. the school being private and having a BIG endowment. one could feasibly get a grant to do anything. independent research, doing non-profit, studying abroad etc. there is so much money to do so many things!

i may have gone a bit off topic.... so as far as an employer/jobs go, i think if you have Cambridge/Oxford/Harvard/Yale to your name, regardless of which school, an employer will DEFINITELY at least take interest in your application. of course, if you didn't do anything exciting at school, or have bad grades, and generally did not make full use of your undergraduate years, then would it matter so much that you have a bachelor's from oxford? or harvard? the name will get your foot through the door, but how impressive you are will be apparent in what you've done/accomplished at university.

also, there is this thing about "the grass is greener on the other side." my american schoolmates are convinced that oxford and cambridge are about as difficult to get into as it could possibly get while i've heard that people across the pond regard schools like harvard as being at the pinnacle of all academic prestige.

my take is just that it's not often that you hear of students from top high schools in america going off to oxford and cambridge, but definitely a good high school sends several to ivy leagues each year, whereas even at prestigious english public schools, more go off to oxford and cambridge than american ivy leagues. i think this boils down to the fact that not many people actually apply to schools abroad. however, this trend is changing, though, and more and more americans are crossing over to the UK and vice versa

just my thoughts!

Reply 23

CamSPSer

hungry_hog

Appling for a job in the UK I wonder how:

a) Employers rate somewhere like (say) Caltech, which has an awesome rep in the US, but is not so well known here.
b) They compare ___cum laude/GPA to degree class

There isn't a mass of employers out there all acting in the same way... they are all looking for different things

Reply 24

President_Ben

15

US - breadth but no depth :wink:

There is plenty of pastoral care in the UK. We just don't need to formalise it. We're all just nice to each other :smile:

Reply 25

Fluffy

15

pratikv

Well, Harvard was established in 1636 which is quite old, so it has a fair bit of history.

Oxford still pisses all over that in terms of dates! The earliest record of teaching at Oxford is 1096/7!

--------------

hungry_hog

Appling for a job in the UK I wonder how:

a) Employers rate somewhere like (say) Caltech, which has an awesome rep in the US, but is not so well known here.
b) They compare ___cum laude/GPA to degree class

A GPA of 3.6 is roughly equal to a 2i.

Reply 26

bluefuture

5

Ivy league to my knowledge, dont do the academic interview process that oxbridge does. I have heard it is merely an discussion of why you want to go to Harvard etc..
Also they have big donation dinners for rich parents of applicants (being private and therefore more corrupt and less controlled), meaning a large percentage of students who go to ivy league get there with fairly low SAT scores, but have bought their way in (IE George Bush).
One thing that does seem to great about their admissions process is the amount of extracurriculars required though.

correct me if i have been wrong anyplace....

Reply 27

President_Ben

15

And what does W himself actually bring or do? :confused:

The GOP has a lot of clever people in it and a front in W. I can't believe he has ever come up with a policy or made a tough choice. Ever. W is not an example of how great Yale was in picking them. It shows that Yale can be bought and that Presidents can be talking puppets.

Reply 28

sebbie

15

oxbridge is harder to get into as anyone can get in not just millionaires....

Reply 29

President_Ben

15

JFK wasn't a dummy. He loved to party - but not a dummy.

W on the other hand... well... not the sharpest tool in the box? Given his record and the evidence, I find it hard to believe, to say the least, that underneath that simian exterior is a genius. I doubt Yale are proud of the bloke... or that most of the student body is*.

*Unless they too are unable to distinguish between the GOP and W.

Reply 30

President_Ben

15

theslow&living

He was a member of Skull and Bones, so his contemporary students obviously felt he would become someone important. The GOP did not pick Bush, Republican primaries did. Why do you think George W Bush is a dummy, he succeeded in winning the election, is it hard to believe that his folksie exteria hides a sharp mind well aware of what it take to win an election.

You mean, his contemporary students knew you didn't have to intelligent, just monied with mummy and daddy connections?

Which are also sufficient to win primaries et alia?

Walks like a duck, talks like a duck, acts like a duck. There's no hidden genius behind this 'bird-brain'. Why pretend there is one when there is no evidence to support it? :confused:

He's surrounded by intelligent people who have power to do and face less of the risks.

W probably doesn't even know it :smile:

How quaint.

Reply 31

President_Ben

15

Mmm... all those people who remark about being blown away by how impressive W is... yeah... all - none of them. There's nothing to W, he's just so perfectly malleable.

Reply 32

RxB

1

By portraying GWB as stupid, it gives the impression of affability and forgivability. If you look purely at the decisions of the GOP, then you see the executive as irresponsible and incompetent. By considering GWB as the leader, it seems as if they're just a bit harmless.

It's very, very dangerous.

Reply 33

$Avatar for sTe\/o$

sTe\/o

16

theslow&living

62,040,610 voted for him, and though i may question there motives, i dont deny they had reasons for believing the man worthy of office. Anyway, the point is that using W Bush as an example of the failure of admissions policy in the US would be more valid if, as the son of a rich businessman (as that was what his father was at the time of his period at Yale, he was not yet a congressman) he had dropped out of college and then spent the rest of his days out of the public eye and doing nothing of any worth. The man became President, and although he is most likely the least well regarded for his personality, intelligence, wit and charm since Calvin Coolidge, he was, I am sure, worthy of the place he recieved at Yale when he was admitted.

Are you at Yale?

Reply 34

JustaGuy

1

theslow&living

62,040,610 voted for him,

So 62,040,610 don't find him 'stupid', but i doubt very much the rest of 6,451,058,790 (estimated population of the world) think the same way :wink:

Reply 35

Sparrowhawk

[Regarding the fearless and feckless leader of the colonies - I hadn't attained voting age by the 2004 election, but would have been among the many millions that voted against W. "The Divided America" (by John Sperling, PhD Phil Cambridge, founder of Phoenix University) chapters 1 and 2 (free download online) has an excellent explanation of the structural flaws in the US constitution and the electoral vote policies that effectively prevent majority rule - also explains the primary cause of our poor voter turnout, as well as why Congress can so easily tip over into the Red Zone (e.g. insufficient representation per capita for heavily populated states, a Democart in Utah has no incentive to vote in Presidential elections, etc.). Traces back to the deal-making efforts of the Founding Fathers to include the slave-owning states in the Union.]

According to the (out of date) US page on the admissions website, 270 US students applied for 2004 undergraduate entry and 20% were accepted (doesn't say how many accepted the offer in January or actually matriculated in October). Not too many of us around, probably because few students are willing to go so far from home, most are not yet ready to select a defined course of study, and it is difficult to get an idea of what the Oxbridge undergraduate experience is like from the US - if more people knew, I'm sure the number of US applications would increase.

In my case, there were four reasons why I chose to attend Oxford instead of Harvard: 1) the tutorials 2) the course 3) the performing arts scene and 4) the adventure. Very pleased with my experience thus far!

Reply 36

fundamentally

15

theslow&living

This makes me laugh often, that people use George W Bush as an example of a failed admissions system on the part of Yale.

Yale carefully avoid all references to Bush on their web site.
They are very aware that their reputation dropped by a couple of notches because of George Bush.

Similarly, Oxford avoid mentioning that our local Head Monkey (Prince Charles Parker-Bowles ) is an ex-student.

Reply 37

SlyPie

12

If I had applied and got into either Ox/Cam and had applied and accepted to Harvard, I'd pick the latter. All three are excellent institutions, but Harvard is just, well, Haaavard, as my poli sci teacher put it.

Reply 38

tenjon

8

fundamentally

Similarly, Oxford avoid mentioning that our local Head Monkey (Prince Charles Parker-Bowles ) is an ex-student.

He went to Cambridge :p:

Reply 39

kalen

8

SlyPie

If I had applied and got into either Ox/Cam and had applied and accepted to Harvard, I'd pick the latter. All three are excellent institutions, but Harvard is just, well, Haaavard, as my poli sci teacher put it.