The Student Room Logo
This thread is closed

Foreign equivalents of Oxbridge

Scroll to see replies

morgangills
I know how to add and find the mean...the confusion for me was whether you get points for the AS grade in each subject as well the A2, or just extra points for the one that you dropped.

For example I will be getting AAA in my A2 with a B in the AS I dropped...so is that (3 x 120) + 50 = 410?

That makes me rather worried for my York application...I've yet to hear from them and it seems as though I'm below the average. The same goes for Nottingham, but they only offered me ABB...so again it just seems rather high. Perhaps that is the reason for my initial confusion.


As is probably clear I'm not a maths applicant...


Yes, your reasoning is perfect - you would get 410 points so long as you 'cashed in' your AS that you dropped if you are satisfied with the grade you received. Anyhows, you should be fine, so long as you're predicted A grades in subjects relevant/useful for the course you're applying for. :smile:
Yup I'm not resitting anything so 410 it is.
Reply 42
theslow&living
kidding right? economics A-level is a complete joke. All the rest right though. Maths A-level is so much harder, and often more relevant to a degree containing economics. Thats why most places (ie Warrick for PPE, all economics courses i have looked at) require maths but not economics. Oxford for PPE dont require maths, which is good, as i didn't do it, because it is very hard, and economics a-level is very easy, which i did do.

Glad to see history there, a lot of people criticise that A-level, completely unfounded, especially now with the AEA testing the best students even further


What ****** would criticse History A level (unless they are studying it at degree level, in which case it can be misleading as to what history really is)? Its a very academic subject in its own right.
Reply 43
theslow&living
kidding right? economics A-level is a complete joke. All the rest right though. Maths A-level is so much harder, and often more relevant to a degree containing economics. Thats why most places (ie Warrick for PPE, all economics courses i have looked at) require maths but not economics. Oxford for PPE dont require maths, which is good, as i didn't do it, because it is very hard, and economics a-level is very easy, which i did do.

Glad to see history there, a lot of people criticise that A-level, completely unfounded, especially now with the AEA testing the best students even further


Oxford prefers maths for PPE (recommended) - and not to sound rude or anything but single maths is accessible to anyone with a B or better at GCSE! After two years they expect you to be able to do basic integration, differentiation - that's as hard as it gets.

AFAIK nobody requires economics for anything - I'm willing to be proven wrong on that, but even at LSE they don't like economics A-level for economics, something about filling students' minds with stuff they then have to forget to learn economics properly.
Reply 44
theslow&living
I quit maths for economics because im lazy, not stupid. My point is that one is a lot easier then the other, and the maths requires work in maths, which, however easy, is something i despise. Shame that they force it on you for PPE at oxford if you dont have it at a-level (ie through 'maths for economists' things i have read and been informed about), but i suppose you need to know it.

The last thing the LSE want is economics at A-level, they want clay fresh from the ground, not dryed in an albeit weak oven, so they can create the neo-liberals of the future.


LMFAO!!:biggrin: Neo liberals of the future!! Is what i have always found funny and perhaps ironic is the fact that nearly everyone i know who studies pure economics (at a respectable uni where it is sufficiently mathematical and long essay based) is far too introverted, geeky and weird to care about things like money making, beyond having enough to buy the latest gaming machine of a PC. They might get firsts, but theyre not going to be working for greedy corporate financiers (and if thy are, loads of money is of little consequence to them, theyl probably hoard it).
Reply 45
kizer
Oxford prefers maths for PPE (recommended) - and not to sound rude or anything but single maths is accessible to anyone with a B or better at GCSE! After two years they expect you to be able to do basic integration, differentiation - that's as hard as it gets.

AFAIK nobody requires economics for anything - I'm willing to be proven wrong on that, but even at LSE they don't like economics A-level for economics, something about filling students' minds with stuff they then have to forget to learn economics properly.


I think that youve basically got everything neatly in perspective but are you sure LSE dont like economics (and i am aware that it is a bit of a doss)? They dont mention it in their supposedly comprehensive list of disgraceful a levels.
Reply 46
Ecole di Polytechnique in France, Bologna in Italy, Zyrich
Reply 47
Niccolo
I think that youve basically got everything neatly in perspective but are you sure LSE dont like economics (and i am aware that it is a bit of a doss)? They dont mention it in their supposedly comprehensive list of disgraceful a levels.


Source: One lecturer at LSE, knowing undergrads there who advised me.

It's not a 'mickey mouse' or anything, but given a choice between it and maths, further maths, or physics, or chemistry, it's no contest.
Reply 48
As an Australian-British who has most of my relatives living in Australia I can say I am less than impressed with the system. Effectively what can happen is someone with 99.96 gets in while someone with 99.95 doesn't. As is demontrated by the oxbridge system basing everything on UMS marks is not brilliant. My UMS marks were fairly low but I got in based on interviews and other things while other people who got better UMS marks were rejected. Basing everything on statistical manipulations is looking at far too few dimensions of someones overall academic ability
Reply 49
In Sweden we've got Lund and Uppsala, though neither are very famous internationally.

The one leading place of higher education over here would be Karolinska which is a very cutting-edge medical research college.
Reply 50
poohbear
I have heard of the Karolinska Institute, but not of the others.
Lund sounds like some sort of unfortunate medical condition as in "Mr Smith, you have a serious Lund up your Psala and we need to operate to remove it.":smile:


Oh the joy of bringing swedish names into english sentences! :wink:

No surprise you've heard of Karolinska but not the other two. Somehow we've managed to create one of the top medical research institutes of the world here in little Sweden.
Reply 51
I think there's one in Germany in Heidelberg.
Reply 52
poohbear
The transparency of the system ensures that state schoolers and minorities are not discouraged from applying. If their UAI is high enough, they get in. Otherwise, even if daddy is prime minister or royalty, it makes no difference.

So, unlike the UK, where the worse universities seem to have all the minorities, in Sydney ethnic minorities predominate in the most competitive courses ( Medicine, Law, Commerce, Economics ) at the leading universities.

That isn't solely down to the examination system though but more to do with effective integration into society of other groups, which is something Australia has arguably done better than Britain.

The Oxbridge system would lose out if someone with 501 UMS marks was taken over someone with 500 UMS marks.
Reply 53
poohbear
The transparency of the system ensures that state schoolers and minorities are not discouraged from applying. If their UAI is high enough, they get in. Otherwise, even if daddy is prime minister or royalty, it makes no difference.

So, unlike the UK, where the worse universities seem to have all the minorities, in Sydney ethnic minorities predominate in the most competitive courses ( Medicine, Law, Commerce, Economics ) at the leading universities.


So are ethnic minorities more inherently intelligent than white boys? Interesting. Although those of asian descent where I study do seem to be much more conscientious and in many cases intelligent (in terms of maths and economics, at any rate) than their british counterparts.
Reply 54
poohbear
There are several universities in Melbourne
The University of Melbourne is very good.
However, Monash University is only OK.


Mon U is great for some subjects and not so good for others (e.g. its Med, Business and Comp/IT), but I wouldn't call it OK. In terms of Australian hierachy, I would call U Melb excellent and Mon U very good. I'd call Swinburne OK to middling. And Sunshine TAFE is rubbish. Straigh to the pool room.
Reply 55
sbailey
You've highlighted an important distinction: there's a difference between a world-class institution and a prestigious university. The former is recognised for the quality and quantity of its research, the latter for attracting the top students and the top researchers, thus securing its position as a world-class institution as well. In my opinion, UCL are already a world-class insitution, but until they recruit more high-flying school leavers they won't be regarded as one of the most prestigious universities. This is all just my opinion of course.



Well, if I follow your logic, UC, Berkeley wouldn't be a prestigous university then. Berkeley's undergrad entry standard is much lower than the Ivy League Unis'. Nevertheless, in academic terms, Berkeley is at least on par with--if not better than--the best of the Ivy League Unis (Harvard, Yale, and Princeton).

UCL has already attracted tons of top research students and researchers. I myself a PhD student of literature at UCL. Lots of my fellow students and PhD students I've met are garduates of Oxford, Cambridge, and top unis at their home countries. Many of them chose UCL over other unis in the UK actually.
Well UC Berkeley is not that prestigious..Its very reputable and from what I know alot of their programs are phenomenal but in terms of practical wow factor/employment opportunities which is the only way to quantify prestige, it is dwarfed (if not stamped on) by Harvard Yale and Princeton.
Reply 57
Manellowzworth
Well UC Berkeley is not that prestigious..Its very reputable and from what I know alot of their programs are phenomenal but in terms of practical wow factor/employment opportunities which is the only way to quantify prestige, it is dwarfed (if not stamped on) by Harvard Yale and Princeton.


Yeah right, I'm talking about academic prestige, whereas you're talking about employment rate or something. Apparently, we live in two different worlds then.
Reply 58
Manellowzworth
Well UC Berkeley is not that prestigious..Its very reputable and from what I know alot of their programs are phenomenal but in terms of practical wow factor/employment opportunities which is the only way to quantify prestige, it is dwarfed (if not stamped on) by Harvard Yale and Princeton.


Be silent from now on please.
Reply 59
pharmakos
Well, if I follow your logic, UC, Berkeley wouldn't be a prestigous university then. Berkeley's undergrad entry standard is much lower than the Ivy League Unis'. Nevertheless, in academic terms, Berkeley is at least on par with--if not better than--the best of the Ivy League Unis (Harvard, Yale, and Princeton).

UCL has already attracted tons of top research students and researchers. I myself a PhD student of literature at UCL. Lots of my fellow students and PhD students I've met are garduates of Oxford, Cambridge, and top unis at their home countries. Many of them chose UCL over other unis in the UK actually.


Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that universities like UCL or Berkley don't attract many of the top researchers. I was probably using the term "prestige" a bit loosely, because it means different things to different people. For an undergrad, going to UCL isn't particularly prestigious, whereas for a postdoc it would be one of the more attractive places to do your research. I was just trying to draw a distinction between universities that attract the best school-leavers and those which are less special in that sense but have an equally strong (sometimes stronger) research profile. I think the general public's estimation of UCL would increase over time if they were to make undergraduate entry more competitive.

With regard to Berkley, I thought their entry standards were quite high, probably higher than UCL's at any rate. If they're not particularly high, then there would be no reason to see it as a prestigious place to go to university because you haven't "earnt" it.

Latest