Choosing between Cambridge and US universities. OPINIONS PLS :D

Having experience with both it's a fair statement. Units in US are much more hands on in terms of supervision of nonacademic matters. Definitely more oversight of living arrangements, review of how you are doing etc. UK Unis have support but expect you to manage mostly on your own. They view students as adults. In US I think the concept is that the students are somewhere in the middle of teen and adult.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Academically though, I think Cambridge students are expected to do a lot more independent study?
Posted from TSR Mobile

Is there a perception that international students who get accepted into Cambridge tend to do better than local ones? As in, by virtue of the fact that they were picked out of the rest of the world to fit within an international students' quota for Cambridge?

Does this perception exist and is it true on average? I'm sure there are cases which disprove it, but try to answer generally?

My impression is that Cambridge is more objective than most people think it might be.

Please feel free to point out all the fallacies above.

Bear in mind (and any current Cam undergrads feel free to correct me on this) that in general the international students at Cam will come from more privileged backgrounds; unlike say UK state school students they generally do not get loans to go to Cambridge so it is those whose parents can afford to send them across the world to study there. There are probably many perfectly capable international students for whom universities like Cambridge are an unaffordable dream. Some would-be applicants are immediately disadvantaged by not living in countries where interviews are held so simply interviewing would be a large expense; others even earlier by living in countries where only private schools offer school-leaving qualifications acceptable to Cam. ... All I'm saying is, when you talk about Cambridge "picking" these students from the rest of the world, the pool they pick from is generally smaller and wealthier than it would be if it was mainly grades that was the determinant. That doesn't answer your question on performance of course. The above also takes "international" in the Cam sense of non-EU too.

I am not sure what you mean by "objective", unless referring to grade admission cutoffs.

What choices do you have in the US?

LOL, this is the longest non-answer I've ever read.

Well where I come from, usually international students are selected to come here precisely because they have a better academic track record than the average local student. Regardless of wealth though, international students usually come (or leave) with scholarships.

They're a little resented here for creating more competition, but I was just wondering if the same perceptions applied to Cambridge international students.

It's hard to predict performance at Cambridge based on current track record. I guess the question I was trying to answer in this thread is, "How well would I be able to do at Cambridge?".

I think I'm frustrating the people around me with my arms-flailing response to the offer.

Yale and Columbia are the closest to Cambridge in terms of prestige. Yale probably most resembles Cambridge in terms of feel. Houses=Colleges. Columbia reminds me of UCL more than anything.

Some points to consider:

US Unis require a broad curriculum. Are you ok taking English 101 and History for two years? Columbia still has a great books/classics core.

Tests will still be at least half of your grade. Yes, there will be more papers and presentations etc. So it is a chance to have variety in assessment.

Even at these top schools first two years class size for many classes (not all) will be big and there are no supervisions.

The Oxbridge supervision system is utterly unique and will not be duplicated.

I think there is less stress in US. Classes are still hard, but people who go there will admit, eventually, that the hardest part is getting in. Last year Columbia accepted 7.1% of applicants; Yale 6.8%.

US system gives you more choice in what modules and subjects you study but less choice within those modules. Readings are set and you read all of it. Usually exams don't offer choice of questions as you are expected to cover everything. Cam system allows more freedom within the papers.

Socially both will be great. Remember US terms are longer.

Not sure you will go wrong either way, but one way to think about this is that Cambridge (taken together with oxford) is unique. No where else is the program replicated. Yale, Columbia, system of teaching is same as any other Uni and there are probably 20 Unis in US that attract similarly talented students and professors.

Ok, let me give you a specific example that may help you understand my point. In the country I come from, the general school leaving qualification is not acceptable to cambridge. There are a handful of private schools that offer qualifications that are (IB, A-levels) but the cost of just one year's fees at these is more than the average annual income here. So you can be the best person in the country in the normal system - which probably means you would succeed at cam - but you don't get a chance at it because they do not accept the qualification, and you can't afford the schools for the ones they do.

And your argument about scholarships is backwards. Of course a lot of the internationals you see will be on scholarships. But you surely don't think every international out there capable of succeeding manages to win a scholarship?

That is what I meant by the pool being smaller and wealthier to begin with.

You have a point that social advantage is a factor in the probability of success. However, I think you underestimate what people can do (i.e. those who feel empowered to attempt to enter the system). My d was in a public French Lycee, a good regional one. No one there knew anything about Camb, but were very encouraging in her ambition to get into Oxbr. We got books and prep materials, studied them, and did everything ourselves in the application. We gave her opportunities to pursue her interests in unique ways, but nothing super out of the ordinary, and she was genuinely interested, not building a resume. Of course, we supported her every step of the way, and paid to bring her to GB for the interview. To prep the BAC, as we are not francophones, we hired tutors (who knew the style of the test and how to satisfy it, not for basic content), but not at anywhere near the cost of a private education. Then, she worked.

It was a long and hard process. Several times, we lost hope, but she persisted. Somehow, it all came together and she did it. To be sure, her mom and I are highly educated, but neither of us are toffs or rich or went to Oxbridge.

"Internationals" comprises a lot of people outside Europe and many people have dysfunctional education systems to deal with. You didn't. You had access to a good public school which provided a qualification Cambridge would accept.

This is a perfectly valid point.

I just wanted to argue that the assumption of the importance of special advantage. We felt empowered to try, the school was good, but it was my daughter who had the real drive in our narrative.

What do you study and where you are from (if you don't mind my asking)?

I definitely wasn't trying to take anything away from students who get in! I know it's a lot of hard work - but the pool to draw from isn't as big as one might think.

I'm from SA, and I'm doing postgrad at Cambridge - they are happy to accept (some of our universities') degrees for postgrad entrance, but not the normal school leaving qualification for undergrad. That plus the cost results in the fact that (on latest data) on average there are less than 4 South African total undergrads at Cambridge a year.

Cambridge may or may not be slightly better than any US Ivy League Uni, but so what ?

I visited Cambridge (at their invitation ) in order to decide which Uni to choose.
The Medical School was v impressive in some areas - but no way more than Oxford.

BUT the principal reason I decided not to apply to Cambridge University was not the diff. between the Med schools - it was the left wing feel of the place. (yuk)

Incidentally, No US University offers Medicine as a first degree commencing at 17 or 18 years
- is that because most Americans aren't smart enough to handle the workload … or are their high schools are too basic ?

That said, I liked Harvard when I went to visit there and I will go there for post grad Med.
- since med research money is 100 x better than here.