Harvard

Just how good at extra-curricular activities do you have to be to get into Harvard?

Good enough to be able to write several essays about your involvement, and have teachers very impressed when they're writing your reference. They also have a space specifically for you to talk about leadership positions on their application forms, which isn't necessary but the fact that it's their means you really do need to put something down to be competitive.

You could, theoretically, blag most if it, but you definitely need your teachers to be singing your praises in terms of both academics and extracurriculars, which makes it a tad more difficult.

Cambridge is different how exactly?

they have a grade verification companies run background checks on you, and check if what you said is true.

However, one could argue that while a PhD is certainly far better and perhaps the best available, the undergraduate teaching of Harvard and Yale has much to be desired.

If you get a high 2.1 or above from a top 5 UK university at undergrad, plus good GRE scores (in case you don't know, its a mindless standardised test of the type that Americans masturbate over) and letters of reference (these being uber-important), then it isn't too hard.

Most of that aid does consist of loans though.

despite their performance on the ironically named 'scholastic aptitude test.

Same; a great deal of them are monkeys, and certainly not in there because of academic merit

I know a lot of American Ivy leagures who would not cope at Oxbridge

Wow, there's a lot of incorrect information in this thread.

I've heard this before, and *always* from people with no affiliation whatsoever with either school. Both Harvard and Yale provide outstanding undergraduate educations. Yale is ranked in the top 10 for the % of PhDs produced, and Harvard isn't far behind. Both are at the top of the heap for winning awards like the Rhodes and Marshall.


"Not too hard"? Some fields (i.e. psychology) have an admit rate under 3%. Most graduate programs at Harvard are insanely competitive.


Um...no. The funding for international students at Harvard is almost exactly the same as it is for domestic students.

The SAT hasn't been an acronym in years.


Valedictorians and salutatorians make up 39% and 11% of Dartmouth's class of 2012, respectively. That means 1 out of every 2 Dartmouth students was ranked 1st or 2nd in his class. As for the other 50%, 94% of them were ranked in the top 10% of their class. Monkeys? Gimme a break.





Unsubstantiated claims are a dime a dozen. What's your reasoning?

For another interesting stat, fewer than 10% of the valedictorians (the person with the highest grade in the entire school) who apply to Harvard get in. A majority of people with perfect SAT grades do not get in. Virtually everyone applying to Harvard is one or the other, so the college makes decisions based on other criteria.

Unsubstantiated claims are a dime a dozen. What's your reasoning?

i thought it was quite obvious but if you didn't understand i'll explain: you don't have to do a levels and sats in the american system to get in whilst you do over here.

Um...no. Harvard is loan-free.

I said it's easier to get into harvard than oxbridge if you're in the americn system, and like you pointed out, i was right.

what do you mean one or the other?

What? If you're in the American system you need APs and SATs, if you're in the British you need A-levels and SATs. APs are roughly equivalent to A-levels.

I mean either people have the best grades in their school or have perfect SAT scores...And Harvard is far more difficult to get into because academic perfection isn't enough to get in, and Harvard is far more international than Oxbridge, meaning applicants are competing against people in the entire world.


You also need community services, part-time jobs, involvement in school activities, being a saint, etc.

You also need community services, part-time jobs, involvement in school activities, being a saint, etc.

British applicants to US universities need those things too, and US applicants to Oxbridge don't need any of them, so I don't see it reinforces HESA's point.

He said it's easier to get into Harvard than Oxbridge if you're in the American system. It's not. Oxbridge will only look at the Americans' grades. Harvard asks for a million other things.

I never said they're the same as A-levels maybe you should learn to read before you consider Harvard?

Like i said, Harvard is easier to get into than onxbridge if you're in the american system.

Look back to where you said "SAT's are easier than A levels...", sounds like a direct comparison to me...

Either way I think Harvard is much harder. Most of those claims of "MIT GIMPS", "Ivy league Monkeys" and the like are just pro oxbridge banter.

With regards to the ease of admittance due to ones location, I don't think so, even if your in the American system. This is because the sheer amount of applicants is so much more, Oxbridge each have roughly 15000 applicants I would say Harvard has about 25000 including EA applicants.

To those who thought me wrong about the percentages, here are the percentages for Harvard and Oxbridge.

Oxford (for entrance '07) = 23.2% success rate (and attending)
source = www.ox.ac.uk/document.rm?id=350

Harvard (for entrance '07) = 8.8% success rate (and attending)
source = http://collegeapps.about.com/od/collegeprofiles/p/harvard_profile.htm

Cambridge (for entrance '07) = 24% success rate (and attending)
source - http://www.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/statistics/university.html

End of discussion??