The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40
mdog235
Thanks for your kind words. I do have a question for you, though. How did your roommate's friend transfer to Princeton? I thought that we had, for a long time, a policy of not accepting transfer students?

Also, on the subject of grade inflation, Princeton should probably no longer be lumped with all the other schools. This article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-03-27-princeton-grades_N.htm just came out, and it's been 9 years since the 1998 article. Also, the other website stops at 2001. Princeton has taken an active crusade against the grade inflation in the past three years, to the dismay of current students. As someone who's been here over the course of the implementation of grade deflation, I can say that my friends and I have all watched our grades go down. It's not fun. But yeah, I can't comment on Princeton grades relative to those of other non-ivy schools, but I can say that it's no longer the case that everyone gets A's all the time for just being smart. Only the top 35% do now.



You're welcome... first of all, touche! Quite right: I just Googled it and it mustn't have been Princeton. I never met her actually, so as far as I know the character may not even exist, but it was definitely a top ivy under discussion. My roommate and I were simply complaining about how difficult achieving an A is at our respective schools (Michigan and Cal), at least compared to some of the ivies. Great article by the way... I'm quite impressed but I'm sure that a policy like that hurts the dynamic of a course because people always get competitive when it comes to a curve and I don't think that's the best environment within which to learn. That's the way it's been at my university for 4 years (less now though) and I'm so sick of it. I look at the 35% number and while I wish that 35% of my economics class could have gotten an A/A- (the number was 20%) I know that the academic level of admitted students is quite different.
The Ace is Back
Don't generalize like that please, this sort of attitude will get you nowhere in life.


Shut up.
Fidelis Oditah
Shut up.

Shan't neneneneneneh!

How many Etonians have you met anyway? You probably had a bad experience. But don't generalize please it offends my ears.
jealousy gets you no where in life :smile:
and yes....the amount of generalization about public school (eton in particular) is quite amusing.
Reply 44
Its tremendous that you have 2 such offers. I'd go for Cambridge myself, partially cos many a great cricketer has and I'd wish to follow in there footsteps. Ah maybe oneday, if I get onto an MA program and do that, later I can crack Oxbridge.
abrp
jealousy gets you no where in life :smile:
and yes....the amount of generalization about public school (eton in particular) is quite amusing.

Are you going to Warwick? What happened to America?
well i didnt think id get into Warwick :eek:!...if i had to go to nottingham i would have definetly applied...but atm it just seems a bit pointless (kinda upset in a way) however....warwick has started an exchange with Georgetown, limited but still has one...which is very very exciting! Georgetown was originally one of the 3 Unis i wanted to apply to (Dartmouth + Brown).

oh and the fact that i didnt get an amazing mark in Maths has meant that i wont be revising for SATs so wont get the marks (nor will i be able to participate in the relevent ECs to get me an offer).

the profile of the candidates rejected this year also makes it look very bleak (6A*,6A, 7Alevels...first team rugby players...teachers favourites..etc etc) either way.
Cambridge is in a league bellow Princeton and is generally regarded as such.
Cambridge is to Princeton as St. Andrews is to Cambridge
They like to go around comparing them selfs and will deny any aligation that they aren't as good tooth and nale but its just the way things are.
^ Depends what you're measuring. It would be pretty fair to say that Cambridge graduates as a whole will be intellectually superior to their Princeton counterparts and will have a more specialized knowledge of their subject.
The Ace is Back
^ Depends what you're measuring. It would be pretty fair to say that Cambridge graduates as a whole will be intellectually superior to their Princeton counterparts and will have a more specialized knowledge of their subject.


I strongly disagree.
I think that in the 4 year degree, a student at a US university does as much in depth in their subject as a student at an equivalent UK university does in 3 years. I took more classes in IR than my major actually required, as did most of my friends on my course. Depending on how you structure your time, you can actually do significantly more than a British student could by taking more units or doing directed readings (individual study one on one with a professor).
I can describe my degree:

180 units needed to graduate

major: International Relations: 65 units + 2 years of foreign language (not included in the 65 units) + minimum 1 term study abroad

minor: African Studies: 20 units + 25 page research paper

So I did a total of 85 units of work towards my major and minor, plus the language study which was another 12. However science degrees tend to require more units, between 90-100.

Yes you can do a directed reading--you meet with a professor every 2 weeks to discuss your research but essentially it's up to you to do the work.
MerryMilkMan
Cambridge is in a league bellow Princeton and is generally regarded as such.


Not at all. Cambridge is generally regarded as one of the very best universities in the world, with far more history and prominence than Princeton. If one were to look at this year's league tables, Cambridge is placed second, behind Harvard. While you shouldn't make decisions based on league tables, it is an interesting fact to note.
wawrwinka
Could you elaborate on that please because I'm considering US unis atm, and that specialisation issue could be a deciding factor.

Do you disagree because in the US you spend 4 yrs so, although you take other subjects than your major, you still go in just as much depth as in the UK because you spend more time at uni?

The first year is basically remedial training for American students, which is why your A-Levels can be used as credit for many first-year courses (but generally not all). Many American universities have general education or core requirements, which can take up a substantial amount of your degree (at Columbia, roughly 30% - that's more than one year's worth). The minimum requirement for a major can be roughly 30/40% of your degree. As shady lane says, it is possible to take electives and courses outside of the requirements, so if you tried to fully specialize you could take all your courses outside of the core/general education in one subject. But because of the fact that first year stuff is pretty basic and you have the core/general education requirements, you will still generally not end up as specialized in a particular subject (even this is assuming you are uninterested by all the other courses on offer and stick solely to one subject). Put it this way - at Columbia, the maximum you could do outside the core is less than 70%. This is less than three years' worth. I much prefer the American system but it's pretty obvious the British one is more specialized.
Bear in mind I didn't include the language requirement of the core at Columbia.. but also that Columbia's core is probably slightly more insane than most other American universities.

Also bear in mind the fact that the students at top American universities will all be bright, but not necessarily the brightest - you are far likely to find a higher proportion of the cleverest people at Oxbridge, considering they only look for top academics and nothing else.
Originally Posted by The Ace is Back
^ Depends what you're measuring. It would be pretty fair to say that Cambridge graduates as a whole will be intellectually superior to their Princeton counterparts and will have a more specialized knowledge of their subject.


This is most likely correct. Cambridge doesn't give a damn about someone's ECs or awards. The US admissions process is a holistic one and many academically "unqualified" ppl get in because they have something else to offer.
Generally, recruited athletes, URMs, development cases and so on will not be as bright as non-hooked students at top schools. And don't flame me about this, because there is plenty of evidence out there. Just look at Berkeley or UMich and you'll see that this whole "AA doesn't help URMs" crap is absolute BS. If you want diversity, you will have to sacrifice something else, it's pretty simple. You can argue that diversity is more important than equal treatment, but denying the fact that race is a factor in the admissions process is simply wrong.
On the other hand, there are plenty of ppl at Cambridge who study "softer" subjects which are easier to get into and Cam also has a higher acceptance rate. You could also argue that UK students have more time to focus on academics so that they should perform better academically.
The difference in intelligence won't be huge, probably not even noticable but if you quantified it, Cam students would probably be a bit smarter, because Cam does not "suffer" as much from its biased admissions process. Of course, some ppl get into Oxbridge because of their prowess on the rugby field, St. Peters comes to my mind, and some get in because of their family connections, Christ Church is a good example, BUT the degree to which this is practiced is far away from that of the US admissions process.

Also, whoever said that Cam is in a league below Pton has absolutely no idea. Oxbridge is on a par with HYP, PERIOD! You can argue that a geographer from Oxford won't be as highly regarded as an econ major from Pton, but the schools play in the same league. I really don't know why some ppl here post so much BS.
Tier 1 - Harvard, Oxbridge, Stanford, MIT and maybe Caltech.
Tier 2 - Caltech, Princeton, Yale and maybe Columbia.


Definitely off. Why in the world would Yale and Princeton be below MIT or Stanford? This is closer to reality:

Tier 1 - HYP, Stanford, MIT, Oxbridge
Tier 2 - LSE, Columbia, Brown, Dartmouth, CalTech, etc.

Some ppl might also argue that the 1st tier consists of even more colleges, but that kinda depends on who you ask.
And you've mentioned LSE in tier 2 without putting Imperial in there.


Have you ever learned what etc. means?

I don't see why Princeton or Yale should be above Stanford or MIT. Care to explain why?


Read my post again. If you still don't manage to understand a simple fact, here's a detailed explanation: There are 3 possibilities: 1) YP>SM, 2) SM>YP, 3) SM=YP. My first post apparently questions point 2, so we're left with points 1 and 3. Considering the fact that I put YPMS in the same tier means that I consider them to be equal. I haven't ranked any colleges within tiers.

A general advice: before trying to attack other ppl's posts, you should make sure that you perceive the information correctly. Both of your points show your lack of critical thinking.
LOL, and this comes from someone who just made too wrong statements. Compare both of our posts and you'll see that mine was very composed and straightforward. Your's on the other hand manifests your primitive nature. You should cool your temper and stop ranting on an online forum.
The too was suppossed to be a pun, as in you made 2 mistakes and that's too many. Let me find the quotes for you:

And you've mentioned LSE in tier 2 without putting Imperial in there.


1st mistake since I said
etc.
, which means that there are other colleges which belong to this tier. However, you inferred incorrectly that I don't consider Imperial to be in this tier.


I don't see why Princeton or Yale should be above Stanford or MIT.

2nd mistake, I've explained this one in my second to last post. Therefore you have made "too" mistakes.