Is it harder to get the grades at Oxbridge?

In the most part, some papers have short essays but mostly it's 5 or 4 choice answers. The main problem, other than they're a pretty crap indicator of ability, is that there's very little difference between 1300 and 1500, it's hard for universities to use the data to its fullest. But the Ivy league like them so what can we do.

Baz, did you get any offers from American unis?

Yeah I did: Stanford, Harvard, Brown and UPenn

Yeah I did: Stanford, Harvard, Brown and UPenn

Well done, that's fantastic! What made you go to Oxford instead of Harvard then?

Any particular reasons why you didn't apply to Yale and Princeton? And which one did you apply to EA/ED, if any?

Also I'm not a fan of the liberty arts education.

Also SATs massively favour people from a western cultural background. At my last school the three people who had the highest SATs (I and two friends) were ALL North American. Of the three of us only I was amongst the top five at the school in final exam results (the four others amongst the top five couldn't break 1500). As a matter of fact the only person at the school to get an 800 in maths is SHIT at maths - I had to help him with his preparation work for engineering at Durham. Basically SATs are crap and pointless, and studies have shown no correlation between SAT results nad final degree results (there is a week correlation in first year which disappears thereafter).

SAT I is very straightforward, SAT II is harder but I still believe it's fairly easy to get a reasonable 700+ score. And everyone repeats them 3 times, so by the time it comes to handing in the results, quite a few people up their score by about 50.

Saying it's easy to get 700+ is akin it's saying it's easy go get a B at A-level, and doesn't mean much. Secondly, universities are aware of repititions, I think; they're certailny aware of those who only do exams once, and thus they can factor them in. I may be being excessively positive here; I just think SAT's are given less respect than they deserve.

I hardly think that an exam where you can gain marks by pure guesses rather than excellent thinking, or educated guesses or having hints, deserves muchos respect.

They may as well just do proper Maths, English, Physics exams etc. Why this multiple choice thing?!

That's what I think anyway. People can gain marks and up their score to an extent via guessing - Maybe not by much, but it's possible nevertheless.

Saying it's easy to get 700+ is akin it's saying it's easy go get a B at A-level, and doesn't mean much. Secondly, universities are aware of repititions, I think; they're certailny aware of those who only do exams once, and thus they can factor them in. I may be being excessively positive here; I just think SAT's are given less respect than they deserve.

Correct me if I'm wrong someone, but you lose marks if you guess wrongly. Guessing in SATs can be a dangerous mistake.

Are exam scripts in universities externally moderated, so parity is maintained between the standards of different universities? I was originally under the impression that this was the case, and despite the fact that the people that teach you in university often write your examinations and are the first markers, a 2.1 in say history at Oxbridge would be equal in academic standard to a 2.1 in the same subject from Cardiff.

However, some things I've read over the last few months, - http://education.guardian.co.uk/universityaccess/story/0,10670,1182673,00.html - for example, seem to suggest that a lot more power lies with the universities in choosing their standards.

So. Is it harder for someone to get the grades at Oxbridge? Is it therefore possible to directly compare (disregarding comparison in terms of reputation - purely academic) one's chance of gaining a First in history at Cardiff to a 2.1 at Oxford? Is Oxbridge more work because of shorter terms/academic pressure/speed of teaching/extra work or because the actual exams that you sit will be harder?

Yes, that is true, but you do only loose very few marks.
From what I have read american unis are quite keen on pupils who are able to, to take AP exams. Some don't give them a huge ampunt of credit against placement in the first year but they like them as a sign of ability.

AP and IB are the preferred pre-university qualifications, from what I understand they consider the A-Level to restricting and specialise, they far prefer someone with transferable skills than knowledge.

It's a bit misguided though: SAT I doesn't require any more trasnferable skills than that demanded by Eng Lit and Maths AS; and you only do 3 SAT II's, so that's even more restricted than A2. I think that if you do a wide range of A2's you will get as many transferable skills as most US students do, without having to begin your university studies with GCSE level material.

I'm not saying I agree with them, but that's just the impression I got of Harvard admission officers. In fact most things about US undergrad seem a little misguided to me.