This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

global unis#2 [American universities]

Scroll to see replies

homoterror

Also, when they offered the MIT exchange to Cambridge Mathmos, they said "Only consider this if you find the tripos easy."

*shrugs*

:wtf?: Is is that hard ie a lot more difficult than Cambridge tripos?

Reply 41

Bradford_Jordan

amateurish

It seems you, however, prefer to offend people directly, by calling them names. :rolleyes:

I was making a point.

Reply 42

H&E

Bradford_Jordan

I have attended both Columbia and Cambridge (Clare College) and I have a great deal of respect for both institutions. I am simply stating my opinions as they relate to the current conversation.

Yeah, and I was pointing out the first sentence of your post sounded like simple prejudice, which I went on to substantiate in detail by demonstrating that you founded your argument (if I may be generous with the phrase 'founded an argument') on a combination of erroneous, irrelevant and misapplied evidence.

.... You are right. It was 11%.

Yeah. And for Cornell last time I checked it was about 30%. UPenn was about 12% for Wharton, 20% elsewhere. Stanford I can't remember. Princeton was 11%, too, I think.
And not only that, those stats are irrelevant. As you should know.

Well, let's compromise and say that yes, it is "different" which makes it harder for a number of students (particular British students brought up in the British system).

Well of course it's harder to get in to a system you've had zero preparation for (and others have had tons) than a system you've had years of preparation for. What grad course are you doing here, a D Phil in stating the obvious?
They're different systems, looking for different sorts of excellence. Different sorts of people will excel in them. They are incomparable. But, no, not for you. You felt capable of concluding in a sentence that US was better, with a half arsed attempt at explaining such a ridiculous statement with a load of dodgy evidence.

Well, perhaps you are too brilliant for your own good. Or, perhaps you have neglected to notice that:
1. Oxbridge has is fair share of "embarassingly easy courses" take, for example, the Oxford Tutor a friend of mine had who told him not to bother writing too many essays on German metaphysics, because "the exam is about how you think, not what you know." Lofty sounding, but the practical result was a breeze of a time for my mate.

Well, firstly it's clear that whether or not I am too brilliant for my own good, I'm clearly too brilliant for your own good. But irrespective of that:
i) Probably at least a couple. But at Harvard it was freely admitted to me their three biggest courses (Ec, Hist and Gov) were easy so that all their sports etc recruits, legacy kids and students admitted because of the colour of their skin or which state/country they applied for could keep up. Not quite the same, eh? Plus when I say embarrassingly easy, I do not mean lack of workload. I've saw lots of papers like that in Oxford which, actually, very few people do well in. (Economics is an example, I'd say), because the level of conceptual understanding and application of knowledge required is very high. I just mean papers where the intellectual level was non existent.

I'm beginning to feel like stopping, because it's clear I'm upsetting you and you are a deeply emotionally unstable man. But what the heck, your parents seem loaded enough to pay for the therapy, so I'll carry on.

2. America has a number of liberal arts colleges which offer fantastic undergraduate educations. Amhearst, Williams, Haverford, Swarthmore, have top-tier academics, without all of the resource misdirection towards graduate students. Like I said, I went to Columbia, a school famous for alienating its undergrads, but never once did I feel that I was not receiving the best education the world could offer. That is because I had access to every imaginable intellectual resource and worked my ass off to make the best of my own potential.

The colleges you mention are very good, but not great. Because at Harvard, and Oxford, and even second tier research unis like Columbia, you'll get academics teaching stuff they're researching. The absolute cutting edge of teaching students here attain just isn't available at these no-research unis. Not to mention the lack of cutting edge research facilities, be it specialist books, or research equipment.

In the end, it is your own motivation that will determine how much you learn. A hard-working Warwick or UCL student could probably put a number of snooty Oxbridge undergrads (like you) to shame.

Nice use of clichés. And an unsubstantiated insult too! Did they teach you to argue like that at Columbia, or did you learn that all by yourself, with your mammoth motivation?

Choose something better to be infuriated about.

Well, I'm a man who's passionate about education and academia. I think the fact that the world's richest academic institutions aren't fulfilling their potential is a pretty serious issue. I can assure you, however, there are many others things which infuriate me. I hope that makes you happy.

I am going to Oxford in October for postgrad work, not because it is better or worse than the US, but because the best minds in the world in my field are there. Any graduate student worth his salt follows professors and funding in chosing a graduate program.

This is relevant because?

A sweeping generalization suggesting that US schools are only good for Graduate programs is preposterous. Sleep on it, and next time consider your posts more carefully. One day, you might offend someone with your tone.

Well two things:
i) I didn't say that. Or come close to it. I said at grad level they use their wealth to clean up Oxbridge, but at undergrad they don't. Which is true.
ii) My tone? Gimme a break. Anyway, anyone pathetic enough to get offended by random posts on an online forum doesn't need me worrying about their feelings, he needs to get a life, and the sooner the better.

Note to Helen: If this fine gentleman chooses to make his point by swearing at me again, please don't bother yourself with editing his post. I promise I shan't be offended, leave the site forever, or sue you, pig, A or d. Ta.

Reply 43

zoraster

In all, I generally agree with H&E.

But calling Columbia a second tier institution is hardly fair. Perhaps it doesn't have the same name recognition as Harvard overseas, but it's certainly on the same "tier" even if it's not quite as good.

It's listed as 9th on the "World University Rankings." Oxford was 8th. Admittedly, these rankings are not effective at what they do, but if you use language like "tier" to describe universities, you have to admit these tables have at least some merit.

Oh, and I don't think for most of the things that places like Williams teaches well are really research heavy disciplines. At least not in the way that requires facilities and funding that people at Harvard or Columbia or wherever get.

Reply 44

Helenia

H&E

Note to Helen: If this fine gentleman chooses to make his point by swearing at me again, please don't bother yourself with editing his post. I promise I shan't be offended, leave the site forever, or sue you, pig, A or d. Ta.

Ok chuck. I was mightily bored is all :wink:

Reply 45

robmoore

Here's a little anecdotal evidence: I was accepted at BOTH Oxford and Cambridge, but rejected at Columbia.

(This may not be completely relevant, since the program at Columbia seemed to be geared toward people that had acquired significant postgraduate work experience in international relations. Nevertheless, I think that my acceptance to Ox and Cam speak volumes for the difficulty of gaining admission to a school like Columbia.)

Reply 46

Hash

robmoore

Here's a little anecdotal evidence: I was accepted at BOTH Oxford and Cambridge, but rejected at Columbia.

I have friend who was rejected by UCL, but accepted to Stanford. Anecdotal evidence works both ways.

Reply 47

H&E

Hash....did you get into Harvard in the end?

Reply 48

Hash

H&E

Hash....did you get into Harvard in the end?

Nope. In the end I got into to Carnegie Mellon (School of Computer Science), and was waitlisted repeatedly at Stanford...then eventually rejected (they only took 10 in total off the waitlist this year).

I don't think I worked hard enough on my essays, in fact for the general one i just used my personal statement. Also, I should have made an effort towards the SATs. However, all in all I think it was a good experience.

Reply 49

H&E

Ah well. It's a strange old system...

You going to Carnegie or are you gonna stay in the UK?

Reply 50

SolInvictus

H&E

Ah well. It's a strange old system...

Oh 'tis true. The US does use a strange system. BTW, I have a really good friend who is in Carnegie Mellon doing computer science. He really loves it, and as part of a failed recruitment scheme sent me free University Merchandise.

Best of luck.

Reply 51

zoraster

H&E

Ah well. It's a strange old system...

I'd have to say the same about the UKs system -- although truthfully much of it makes more sense to me.

Reply 52

Hash

H&E

Ah well. It's a strange old system...

You going to Carnegie or are you gonna stay in the UK?

I'll be staying in the UK, Lincoln College Oxford is my firm choice and Imperial is my insurance.

Reply 53

H&E

Ooh! For CompSci? I knows a Linconl CompSci'ist :biggrin:

Reply 54

FoxyStar

Phil23

How hard is it to get into MIT, Stanford, Harvard and princeton, relative to oxbridge... any ideas?

I'll say they are about the same.

For American colleges, there are more choices and you are allowed to apply for many of them at a time, not like oxbridge. Hence you may get overall a greater possibility of being selected.

My friend applied to Cambridge from Hongkong last year and got rejected. But he finally went to Yale even with some financial aid.

I guess it's because it is harder to get in to Oxbridge from Overseas.