Columbia Uni

Anyone has any idea about the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities ? How is the university ? It is a little easier to get in ?

The average Columbia student in terms of a holistic assessment (as a person) is ~ Oxbridge standard.

For academic firepower it is somewhere ~ Imperial/LSE standard.

Many from Columbia get into very good jobs. I'm not too sure whether LSE or Columbia sends more people into Front Office Investment Banks...

Anyone has any idea about the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities ? How is the university ? It is a little easier to get in ?

Minnesota is conservative. If you love Michele Bachmann you will be fine.

I think the average Columbia student in terms of a holistic assessment will be a lot higher than Oxbridge student's. Top American universities usually look for more well-rounded people(excellent marks, many extracurrics etc) whereas Oxbridge looks for people who are extremely dedicated to your subject and very good at it markwise. You cannot get into Columbia with just grades. But you can with Oxbridge(as long as your 'very academic' interview goes fine). Applicants to Ivy leagues have a long list of crazy extracurriculars that takes a very big part in the admissions.

I also(of course this is my own opinion) think Columbia has more opportunities. NYC is basically the financial, commercial and cultural centre of the United States and probably even of the world. The city just has so many opportunities. Wall street(the global financial centre), UN headquarters, etc they are all there. It is also a global centre for tv, music, book publishing, newspaper etc.. Being a student in NYC will give you a huge advantage in getting these 'big jobs'.

Of course, if you want to work in the UK(or is not interested in living in NYC) then it won't matter but even the experiences it gives you from any possible interns or short-term work you might do will greatly help you anywhere in the world.

All the opportunities in NYC you mention are available in London as well. I assume you are talking about investment banking. In fact in terms of global markets , London is a more happening place. The AIG unit that blew up was based in London (AIG FP, which sold CDS against MBS). New MTF exchanges like Chi-X and Turquoise, many derivatives exchanges, and for FX I believe London is no. 1 in the world. Wall Street will shrink, London probably won't but Hong Kong will boom.

London is more of a cultural icon than a financial and business powerhouse. The economic opportunities offered by NYC and surrounding regions is far greater than London.

EDIT: Just take a look at those skyscrapers !

Also, there is a difference between the Ivy "excellent marks" and the Oxbridge "excellent marks". I agree that unis like Caltech (especially) are very tough on academics, but as for the Ivies I'd think that a proportion of those who got in would not get into Oxbridge due to insufficient academic credentials.

I don't know much about UK/EU student qualifications, but as far as the US and Canadian qualifications that Oxford(I'm not familiar with Cambridge) require, I don't completely agree.

Even though Ivy league schools give you a chance to make up a low credential with an outstanding extracurricular(publishing a best-selling novel, etc), most have excellent academics. The reason I decided to apply to Oxford is because I still wanted a world-class education even though my marks at school(GPA) weren't good enough for Ivy Leagues. Oxford does not even consider your GPA. For US applicants, all they want is a 2100 SAT along with subject tests over 700(or two 5's and one 4 on AP). That is not hard. Schools like Harvard etc admit very many people with 2300+ SATs(along with 4.0/4.0 GPA and many extracurriculars). You don't have to do much in your high school and get Bs and Cs, but study hard and do well for standardized tests like SAT and get into Oxford(provided that your interview goes well).

And for Canadian qualifications all you need is a 85% in OSSDs according to the Oxford website.. At our school 600 out of total 1500 students have averages over 80.. It's not that hard to get an 85.

As long as you have those qualifications, you will get an interview. The academic credential requirements are easy to meet. What gets people is the interview.

But I have to say that I think the North American qualifications are bit too lenient, as I know A-levels etc are tough. BMAT I've took for physiological sciences at Oxford was very hard.. But for subjects that do not require separate testing such as BMAT or TSA, North Americans can probably get acceptances quite easily as long as the interview goes well.

Also keep in mind that British students get one more year in high school than North Americans.. Instead, we have one more year in university. So comparing college-bound North Americans and British might not be fair. The academic standards should technically be lower because we go to university right after 12th grade.

To be honest, your argument for the underlined part is very very flawed. For one, there's no way for you to survive the interview if you get Bs and Cs in high school.

700+ for SAT II subject test is not tough at all. I'm only at Imperial and I scored 800-800-800 for SATII subject tests with only three days of preparation. 700 is the minimum requirement, which I think is appropriate.

In English education system, national exams like the A-levels (which have been around for close to 50 years) are the key. In parallel they will use standardised tests like SATII and AP to judge US applicants. The problem with SATII and AP however is that they are far too easy and have huge grade inflation. If my friends at Imperial are to take the SAT II and AP their grades would almost be straight 800s and 5s. A 5 for Calc BC doesn't say much since more than 50% of the people get 5s.

In North America, people study many subjects in high school. If a person were applying for maths, that person might have A+ in a calculus or functions class and might be extremely good at maths, winning national math competitions. But in other subjects, such as English or French, that person could be getting Bs or Cs because he is simply not interested or not trying hard enough. That can bring your GPA down by a lot, as your subject is only a fraction of many courses that make up the whole GPA.


No I never said SAT was tough. It is not at all. That is why I said that the US qualifications are too lenient compared to British A-levels. I was trying to say that North American students who apply there have an easy way and it's not necessarily true that North American applicants get tripped over because of the insufficient credentials. Even if SAT might not be a good way to measure how good a student is, Oxford thinks it's alright, enough for admission.

And SAT is a college entrance exam. People usually take it in their 11th or 12th year. Some in 10th grade. People in college, especially people in a school like Imperial, obviously should be getting 800's and 5's. That's a given.