The Student Room Group

Harvard : Oxford

Hey, just thought I would start this thread for anyone who wants to know the difference between the two (like me), who has been or is going to either or both!

I'm starting at Harvard next year, had NO idea i would get in-EXTREMELY happy...but i had always imagined myself in oxford. I didn't apply because I wasn't completely sure what I wanted to do, (most likely medicine) but i didn't want to restrict my choices. Now I'm regretting not applying- but its mostly because i'm in love with the town, the architecture and i guess the reputation...
I know i should be happy with my place, but I was just wondering about other peoples thoughts and experiences...

Scroll to see replies

Did you get a deferred offer from? Harvard only dish out offers from Mid-December onwards...

...and, in fact, since they give so very few, and you had between six and ten months to apply to Oxford, I've half a mind to conclude you're one of those crazy journalists/parents who post here...
Reply 2
what did you get in your SATs?

and how the hell do you know you're in now?
Reply 3
Isaiah Berlin
Did you get a deferred offer from? Harvard only dish out offers from Mid-December onwards...

...and, in fact, since they give so very few, and you had between six and ten months to apply to Oxford, I've half a mind to conclude you're one of those crazy journalists/parents who post here...

i got an offer for 2010 (last january) and deferred to enter 2011!
Reply 4
sebbie
what did you get in your SATs?

and how the hell do you know you're in now?

i applied last year, my SATs werent that good...600 on the writing, 700 on the reading and 680 on the math for SAT 1, and i found out last winter! So I'm on my gap year at the moment...
Reply 5
*~RadiCaL~*

i got an offer for 2010 (last january) and deferred to enter 2011!


But "next year" would be 2007? :confused:

Anyhow, following from the medicine mention - you have the option of applying to a fast track course (4 years rather than 5 or 6) with an undergrad degree if you're not sure about it yet, probably a more competitive option though.
Ah right. Well, if you're not really sure Medicine was right for you, I think you did the right thing (assuming money isn't an issue for you). Not because I think Harvard is all that, their academics really aren't on the level of Oxford in a number of areas. But because Oxbridge Medicine is such a high workload that if you're not sure it's for you it's just not worth it, even if you can slog through somehow.

And one thing Harvard obviously is superb for is finding out what is for you.
Reply 7
*~RadiCaL~*
Now I'm regretting not applying [to Oxford] - but its mostly because i'm in love with the town, the architecture and i guess the reputation...

Don't feel ashamed - not many people know this, but Harvard is a diamond in the rough. :rolleyes: Seriously, Oxford is wonderful and all, but I can't see why you'd have any regrets... you can always come here for postgrad if you follow that path.
Reply 8
so then is an oxbridge degree seen as more respectable than a harvard degree in the career world?
Reply 9
Not as far as I know! You're talking about the (allegedly) top three universities in the world...
*~RadiCaL~*
so then is an oxbridge degree seen as more respectable than a harvard degree in the career world?


NO, not at all. In most parts of the world they are probablay seen as equal, but if you want to work in the US then harvard is better. I personally prefer oxbridge to the Ivy League, but I think that Harvard is definately the most well known uni in the world and their degrees are higly respected
Reply 11
harvard always comes top of the world rankings.... however they are not as academically selective as oxbridge and sometimes take people who are clever (but not that good) based on extracurricular stuff
Reply 12
*~RadiCaL~*
i applied last year, my SATs werent that good...600 on the writing, 700 on the reading and 680 on the math for SAT 1, and i found out last winter! So I'm on my gap year at the moment...


you've broken the general rule for Harvard.!!!!!!!!!!
lucky or troll or strong ec or son of tony blair(na,he went to yale)?

general rule is 5 subjects above 700 ,SAT I and II
What is your SAT subject test scores(ie the old II),even with 3 over 700 on the SAT II,you did not qualify.
I know of people who max out at 2400 SAT who did not get in.
Congrat s if you are for real
Reply 13
sebbie
harvard always comes top of the world rankings.... however they are not as academically selective as oxbridge and sometimes take people who are clever (but not that good) based on extracurricular stuff


this is nonsense, really (in my opinion, anyway).

virtually everyone who gets in to harvard has exceptional academics, having done a much more rigorous set of courses at school (APs aren't that inferior to A levels, apparently, and most ivy leaguers do like 10 of them), and fitted in a huge amount of extra-curriculars as well.

those who get in who you'd say are "not that great" tend to be things like debating national champions, international standard musicians and so forth - the majority of whom wouldn't have a problem getting in to oxbridge (musicians would just do music...)

also bear in mind how big america is, and how many outstanding applicants there are for harvard, which is basically most people's first choice university. the acceptance rate for harvard is ~9-11% every year - compared to oxbridge's 20-25%, drawing from a much smaller, often less academically motivated pool of applicants (not that many A level students spend every waking hour working like a lot of top american students do...).

also, its much harder to differentiate between students in england, as A levels have been made "more inclusive" - 20% of all grades are As, and 10% of all A level students get at least 3 As. i know several people who've gone to Oxbridge, whom i wouldn't have expected, simply because they performed well at interview and scraped the grades they needed. i'm sure people who most would regard as more intelligent, or better candidates, didn't get in because of this.

now, everybody at harvard is there for a reason. EVERYONE has top academics. although i have no direct experience of the american school system, those who take "the most rigorous subject schedule", as harvard requires, seem to do a lot more work than comparable english students. even if their grades aren't exceptionally brillant (i.e. only 2100 on SAT I, only 4 AP exams), they'll make up for it either by being exceptional in some extra-curricular discipline, or by being from an under-represented area of society.

now i'm sure a lot of you think that admitting people on the basis of being black or playing a sport to national standard, with only good, but not "the best" academics is vastly unfair on those with the good academics. but it creates a vibrant student atmosphere - with exceptional, free entertainment in the form of college sports in national standard facilities, and with the "under-represented minorities" thing is pretty much the same as the Oxbridge Access scheme thing.

harvard are more academically selective than oxford. you are assessed on exams and also your GPA - which is comprised of EVERY GRADE FOR ANY PIECE OF WORK IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS AT SCHOOL. if you ask me, to maintain a high GPA is much, much harder and forces more application and dedication than A levels do. as people constantly mention on these forums, you can get in to oxford with 1 A and 6 Bs at GCSE or something, if you do well in all other areas. the harvard admissions people would laugh at you with those grades, probably even if you excelled in some other area than academics. because they have 20,000 other applicants with perfect academic records vying for a place as well.

harvard are top of the world rankings because they have the best facilities, - academic, musical and sporting, - the best researchers in the world, the most demanding courses, the brightest students, etc etc. yes, oxford is very, very good, but it doesn't really match harvard in any aspect (maybe it's better in certain subjects though...) overall. which is why harvard is consistently number 1, whilst oxford is anywhere from 3 to 12.

i suspect that whoever wrote that post has absolutely no knowledge of the american education system - either high school or university - and really wrote from some vague prejudice about oxford being good and in england, whilst harvard lets the kids of rich men in for a hefty fee. which is pretty inaccurate really. i mean, you can get into harvard with bad academics and a father who donates $1 million, its true, but each year out of the 1600 undergrads harvard admits, this is maybe 5 people - and the money that is donated goes right back into making the facilities even better for the 1595 students who deserve to be there. not only this, but those 5 students won't get a free ride once in harvard. by all accounts, you have to work at least as hard, if not much harder, than at oxbridge, studying across a range of subjects - you must do a foreign language, a science, a social science and a humanity (at least one of each, if not more...) in your first two years, before specialising. and you are continually assessed by examination every 2 weeks. those who buy their way in won't be able to keep up. to give an example, george w. bush went to yale, which is similar to harvard. he got in because of his father's connections. he left with a 2.3 GPA. which wouldn't get you a job anywhere. he completely failed yale - so his dad getting him in didn't really help him succeed at uni, eh?

i know this post is a total overreaction...i just felt like writing a lot :smile: anyway, my point is, its nonsense to try and claim either that oxford is generally academically superior, or more academically selective, than harvard.

thankyou for your time.
Reply 14
xedx
this is nonsense, really (in my opinion, anyway).

OK, so far you are being quite reasonable.

xedx
virtually everyone who gets in to harvard has exceptional academics, having done a much more rigorous set of courses at school (APs aren't that inferior to A levels, apparently, and most ivy leaguers do like 10 of them), and fitted in a huge amount of extra-curriculars as well.

Sure, if you get in on academics alone then you will have to have done amazingly well at school, and full credit to these people. However, many people get in for other reasons - family legacy is particularly important. You can try to pull the wool over our eyes, but I know enough Americans to know this is the case. Harvard are also pretty open about their admission policies because, unlike public universities in the UK, they don't actually have to answer to anyone. I remember seeing a figure comparing people without a legacy but with full marks in their SATs to students with a legacy but mediocre grades - the legacy student had a much higher chance of getting in. In my view it is this inconsistency that sets Harvard apart from Oxbridge. If someone gets into Oxbridge you know they're good; if someone gets into Harvard you can't really be sure.

xedx
those who get in who you'd say are "not that great" tend to be things like debating national champions, international standard musicians and so forth - the majority of whom wouldn't have a problem getting in to oxbridge (musicians would just do music...)

Indeed we do have plenty of people like this at Oxbridge - except they have achieved academically as well as extracurricularly.

xedx
also bear in mind how big america is, and how many outstanding applicants there are for harvard, which is basically most people's first choice university. the acceptance rate for harvard is ~9-11% every year - compared to oxbridge's 20-25%, drawing from a much smaller, often less academically motivated pool of applicants (not that many A level students spend every waking hour working like a lot of top american students do...).

OK, no need to insult us "less academically motivated" people - oh wait, I thought it was the American schooling system that was little more than a glorified popularity contest? Don't forget that in America everyone can apply to Harvard, even if they know they have no chance - in the UK there is a lot of filtering before application. In light of this, I'd say the competition at Oxbridge is actually worse. (Mind you, I know the figures for a couple of Harvard courses, and would agree that some are particularly oversubscribed, such as Medicine, with only 1 in 100 getting an offer.)

xedx
also, its much harder to differentiate between students in england, as A levels have been made "more inclusive" - 20% of all grades are As, and 10% of all A level students get at least 3 As. i know several people who've gone to Oxbridge, whom i wouldn't have expected, simply because they performed well at interview and scraped the grades they needed. i'm sure people who most would regard as more intelligent, or better candidates, didn't get in because of this.

I don't see why it would be any easier to differentiate American students when the best you have is SATs and APs. In the UK there are GCSEs, which actually are very important when you apply for the more competitive courses. To get even an interview for Medicine at Oxford you need to get superb GCSEs and do well in the entry test. Then you also need to get 3 As at A-level, which admittedly is not that difficult, but somehow I can't see it being any easier than the APs.

xedx
now, everybody at harvard is there for a reason. EVERYONE has top academics. although i have no direct experience of the american school system, those who take "the most rigorous subject schedule", as harvard requires, seem to do a lot more work than comparable english students. even if their grades aren't exceptionally brillant (i.e. only 2100 on SAT I, only 4 AP exams), they'll make up for it either by being exceptional in some extra-curricular discipline, or by being from an under-represented area of society.

This is exactly what makes Harvard a less academically selective place than Oxbridge. You can't really refute this basic point.

xedx
harvard are more academically selective than oxford. you are assessed on exams and also your GPA - which is comprised of EVERY GRADE FOR ANY PIECE OF WORK IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS AT SCHOOL.

And how exactly do you compare people from different schools? Realistically, you won't even be allowed to apply to Oxbridge unless you're one of the top students in your school.

xedx
harvard are top of the world rankings because they have the best facilities, - academic, musical and sporting, - the best researchers in the world, the most demanding courses, the brightest students, etc etc. yes, oxford is very, very good, but it doesn't really match harvard in any aspect (maybe it's better in certain subjects though...) overall. which is why harvard is consistently number 1, whilst oxford is anywhere from 3 to 12.

They are top of the world rankings because they carry out the most high quality research, which is down to having lots of money. They snipe the best researchers from other universities, very often in Europe, and offer to pay them more. Where is the evidence that they have the most demanding courses or the brightest students? I would be very interested to know.

xedx
i suspect that whoever wrote that post has absolutely no knowledge of the american education system - either high school or university - and really wrote from some vague prejudice about oxford being good and in england, whilst harvard lets the kids of rich men in for a hefty fee. which is pretty inaccurate really.

Yes, it is a little inaccurate, but you're doing exactly the same thing.

Sorry if it seems I hate Harvard or America. I really don't. I just get the impression you are totally besotted with Harvard and blind to the fact that there may well be students elsewhere in the world who are just as intelligent (or more so) and have to work every bit as hard (or more so). If you ask me, the most academic kids are probably to be found in developing countries, where the work ethic is really quite different from here in the decadent West.
Reply 15
nah...i'd rather go to oxford than harvard. i don't think harvard even looks like that attractive a place to study because the work ethic is so over the top. i just think that at harvard is a better university than oxford, and its wrong to over simplify the way american university system. i was thinking of applying to the ivy league, but decided against it because fees are too high, its too far away, and i don't think i'd like the extreme pressure all that much (harvard and cornell are the universities with the highest suicide rate in the world).

i'm not saying that elsewhere in the world there aren't as intelligent/more intelligent people than at harvard, because that's almost certainly untrue. what i am saying is that in order to have a shot at harvard you have to work ridiculously hard - in a way that you don't really have to do to stand a chance at oxbridge.

i don't really know much about the legacy thing. i don't think there are that many legacy students there each year, comparatively, and a legacy doesn't guarantee you a place by any means. no matter what your situation (athlete, legacy etc) they have to be convinced that you'll be able to handle the work load. so you still have to be good/great, even with random, weird factors like who your father is playing a part in the admissions process.

and yes, the best people are from asia - the indians and the japanese. they have even more insane education systems than america for their top students. if foreign universities didn't have some kind of quota limiting places and financial aid for them, i reckon most of the top universities would just be packed with the ultra-hard working, ultra-intelligent asian kids.

...and finally, by "less academically motivated" i didn't mean english people don't care/want to learn/etc, i just meant that most people don't have such pressure on them to succeed from their families and schools. even if you're really passionate in england, its unlikely you'd do as much work as the top ivy league-aspirants in america, simply because the course loads they have require so much time and energy. its a work load its virtually impossible to recreate england without taking like 8 or more A levels.

don't get me wrong, i don't have any particular love for harvard. i just wanted to add a counter opinion to "oxford is more selective - and better - than harvard." because i don't think either of those facts are true. also, its always nice to spark debate rather than have comments pass unnoticed and everyone reiterating the same thing :smile:
Reply 16
I think our opinions are actually not so different. You can assume that anything I don't take issue with is something I agree with you about. :wink: I still think you're wrong, however, to assume that Harvard and other top American unis have higher workloads than the top British unis. First of all, I studied preclinical medicine at Cambridge and that was very tough indeed - reputedly, the second year of our course has been ranked second in the world for workoad by the Guinness Book of Records, after Astrophysics at Yale. Who knows if it's true... but the fact that people readily accept it at least shows that it seems very feasible to those of us who are suffering through it! Secondly, I know a couple of Cambridge students who have gone to MIT for a year abroad (there is a yearly Cambridge-MIT exchange) and in their opinion the workload is higher at Cambridge. One of my friends who studies Medicine took a biochemistry course (from the third year options, if I remember correctly) and they barely covered more than we did in the first few weeks of our first year. Also, at Oxbridge you may have to write up to 3 essays per week (and occasionally I've had to do more), as well as keeping up with lectures and labs, which tend to already fill up your days. We even have Saturday lectures in Cambridge for some subjects. I hope I've reassured you that we do in fact work very hard! If you're worried about the workload at Harvard, you should be equally worried about the workload at Oxbridge.

It's often been said that Oxbridge are better for undergrad, whilst HYPS are better for postgrad - this is because at Oxbridge you are taught by world-leading researchers, whereas at HYPS you are normally taught by postdocs, while the world-leading researchers concentrate on their research (this is one of the reasons top academics are attracted to HYPS in the first place, as well as better pay and funding). Anyway, I know some Americans hold that opinion, but it may well be the opinion of the minority - after all, the ones who like Oxbridge are bound to be the ones I'm going to meet!
sTe\/o
I think our opinions are actually not so different. You can assume that anything I don't take issue with is something I agree with you about. :wink: I still think you're wrong, however, to assume that Harvard and other top American unis have higher workloads than the top British unis. First of all, I studied preclinical medicine at Cambridge and that was very tough indeed - reputedly, the second year of our course has been ranked second in the world for workoad by the Guinness Book of Records, after Astrophysics at Yale. Who knows if it's true... but the fact that people readily accept it at least shows that it seems very feasible to those of us who are suffering through it!


I heard that it was second year vet med. at Cambridge which was top, having overtaken Astrophysics at Yale but it's quite possibly apocryphal.
xedx
also bear in mind how big america is, and how many outstanding applicants there are for harvard, which is basically most people's first choice university. the acceptance rate for harvard is ~9-11% every year - compared to oxbridge's 20-25%, drawing from a much smaller, often less academically motivated pool of applicants (not that many A level students spend every waking hour working like a lot of top american students do...).


But universities like York, Durham and Edinburgh all have more applicants per place than Oxbridge. Do you think that means that they're better?
Oxford and Cambridge are just as often people's first choice as Harvard is for its applicants.
Is it necessarily a good thing to spend all your time working?
Reply 19
J'en ai marre
I heard that it was second year vet med. at Cambridge which was top, having overtaken Astrophysics at Yale but it's quite possibly apocryphal.

The story is usually told as being 2nd year med, but 2nd year vet med is basically the same course. I suppose if we're being fair, vet med is slightly worse than med, because you also have to do a lot of work experience in the summer holidays.