Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

I was just wondering... just about all the conversation on these forums is about American universities [which makes sense since it's an American website ;-) ] and within American schools it seems like everyone talks about the Ivies here much more than anything else.

So, I was just curious how well to say the Ivy league schools match up with the UKs top universities (or any other foreign schools). i.e. how well would they compare to the Oxbridge system (Oxford and Cambridge)?

By Foreignboy (Foreignboy) on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 05:51 pm: Edit

Well, I'm prejudiced against the UK..
But most rankings that have been done put US schools on top of Oxbridge.
IMO, Oxford and Cambridge are definitely good schools, but cannot be compared to HYPS. They just don't have the resources. Plus (prejudice again) the best UK applicants, are IMO, not as competitive as the best US applicants, simply because UK universities put little emphasis on ECs. So lots of the applicants are immersed in their A-Levels, not excelling outside of the classroom.

Oh, and judging by what I have seen, it is easier to get into Oxford/Cambridge than Harvard etc. if you're not from the UK or US.

By Voigtrob (Voigtrob) on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 05:53 pm: Edit

Undergrad, US schools UK. Reason being that UK schools are often really career-focused and such, and you have to apply to a major and commit to intensive study in that major and ONLY that major for three years. US schools offer an opportunity to build diverse interests and become well-rounded people.

By Datadigit1 (Datadigit1) on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 07:27 pm: Edit

OK... here's a long one, but has a lot of info on the subject :-).

I actually know a fair deal about this topic (I once lived in the UK but am now in the states) so I’ll try to offer some insight.

Both systems (Ivy and Oxbridge) are really world class and I’m not going to say one system is better than the other, but they are quite different. The whole debate over ranking universities is somewhat moot… comparing say Harvard, Cambridge, and Oxford you could probably say they are all certainly in the “World’s top ten” but any attempt to rank them beyond that is really impossible since there are so many variables and everyone has their own idea of what constitutes “better.”

You generally don’t see many American’s going to Oxbridge for undergrad (except for maybe exchange years). The three main reasons for this would be cost (it certainly wouldn’t be any cheaper), location (I wouldn’t want to move to another country fresh out of high school), and culture (although it’s certainly possible, it takes some adjustment to get used to the different educational culture).

You often hear that Oxbridge is “easier to get into” because they have a much higher acceptance rate or other reasons. This really isn’t true and by focusing on the high acceptance rate, one just demonstrates that they really don’t know how the system works. For starters, for a UK student all universities will cost about the same (next to nothing compared with our system) so the idea is that a person’s financial status should play no role in determining what university they can go to (in practice people still complain because Oxbridge has a lot of people educated at expensive boarding schools like Eton). The admissions process to these schools is HIGHLY self selective, much more so than for the Ivy league schools. UK college admissions works much more like our American system for applying to medical school. If you apply to Cambridge then you cannot apply to Oxford and vice versa. So without taking up tons of space to explain all the details, the acceptance rate has nothing to do with the difficulty of being accepted and in practice the competition for spots at these universities is just as, if not more, competitive than the Ivies.

The requirements for admission are a lot different. A-levels (sort of like AP tests or SAT IIs) take the place of the SAT. The truth is that our SAT exam is “too easy” (it’s really a joke compared with A-level exams). The schools need a better indication of the student’s abilities.

The education itself is also totally different. Although it is true that university education focuses much more on specific subjects keep in mind that their K-12 education system is much more rigorous than our system and thus they are certainly not any less educated in the end. In terms of “personal learning and development” I would say that the systems are equal, but the methods are different. Everyone here basically knows how the US system works. As you may know, Oxbridge works on a true “residential college system.” This is something that is imitated by the Ivys to some extent but it’s nothing like the real thing. Students will receive a large part of their education in one-on-one (or one-on-two) sessions with faculty and tutors during sessions in their college.

It also often comes up that since college only lasts 3 years then it can’t be as good. Again, that is (as the brits would say) rubbish. First, it’s not true that all courses last 3 years. Some do, but many are four year courses with the fourth year often consisting of (in the case of say science) among other things intensive independent research work that is easily on par with an American graduate student in their first or second year of study. As for being “well rounded” I don’t think there is too much difference… among other things most students spend their fair share of time in the infamous Union debating chambers or rowing for one of the 50+ different college boat clubs between Oxford and Cambridge. And the courses are also quite intense… imagine if prior to graduation you had to take a cumulative essay exam (while wearing a Harry Potter style gown) that covers your entire course of study from the first day you stepped on campus!

In general terms (although there are exceptions) Oxford tends to be known for LibArts and Cambridge for the sciences/math/engineering. Also in terms of research and Nobel laureates, Cambridge is really a powerhouse. HYPS combined has ~113 lauriates but Cambridge alone has ~80… that’s twice as many as Harvard (a school of equal size)and more than any other American university. Obviously Nobel laureates is by no means the definitive way of measuring a school’s quality, but it does certainly give you a rough idea of the quality of alumni and faculty (I’m not saying that Cambridge alums are twice as better, just trying to point out they are at least of equal caliber ;-) )

Sometimes people say that Oxbridge is “in decline.” Although both universities have had a few financial hic-ups (as have most American universities too in recent years) they are certainly not in decline. For the same reasons that many Ivies are no longer the absolute powerhouses they once were, the same thing has happened to Oxbridge. Overall, standards at all universities have increased significantly over the past 50 years and so everyone else is just sort of “catching up.” As a result, Ivies and Oxbridge are not as dominating as they used to be, but that in no way means that they are of any less quality than they used to be. If anything, they have also become better… it’s just the gap that has lessened.

Everyone on this forum knows a lot about the American system and seeing as this is an American forum I figured that Oxbridge would take a beating here, so I’m just trying to stand up for the British and offer another angle at the question ;-)

By Alv (Alv) on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 11:17 pm: Edit

The best university in the world is the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) according to 60 minutes.

By Datadigit1 (Datadigit1) on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 11:35 pm: Edit

Yes, IIT certainly would be right there at the top. The admission to that place is insane! Something like millions of people take this crazy test with only a few thousand getting in. I have a few Indian friends who have mentioned it in the past. Just goes to show that us "closed eyed" americans tend to ignore what goes on outside our borders ;-)

By Alphachimp (Alphachimp) on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 03:25 pm: Edit

UK = way, way better

By Amylase (Amylase) on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 08:37 pm: Edit

Personally, I prefer US universities. I think college in UK should be quite dull compared to that in U.S.

By Jetboy1857 (Jetboy1857) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 07:23 pm: Edit

What do you mean by dull? Sure the culture is different, but I would think that the things would be just as fun. I mean, attending a school like Cambridge or Oxford for which Hogwarts in Harry Potter was modeled after can't be all that boring ;-). (i.e. parts of the movie such as the hall scenes were actually fillmed at Oxford) Sure it's a lot different, but I guess I just don't see how it could be "dull."

By Foreignboy (Foreignboy) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 07:27 pm: Edit

On a side note, Harvard and Yale are actually modelled after Cambridge and Oxford.
Of course that was hundreds of years ago.

By Evil_Robot (Evil_Robot) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 07:44 pm: Edit

I still think Yale is the most Hogwarts-like of any of the schools I've seen

By Daggerlee (Daggerlee) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 08:42 pm: Edit

Yale's Old Campus is definitely very UK-ish. And Stanford's modelled after Cornell.

By Jetboy1857 (Jetboy1857) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 09:51 pm: Edit

Yep, Harvard was founded by a bunch of scholars from Cambridge [hence the name of the town where Harvard is ;-) ] and the school was eventually named after it's famous benefactor Cambridge alumn John Harvard. Just to put it all in perspective... we all think that Harvard is an ancient institution, but when Havard was founded, Cambirdge (and Oxford too) was already older than Harvard is now! And, many of the buildings (i.e. chapels, dining halls, ect.) still in use today by Oxbridge students were constructed before Columbus even set sail on the ocean blue... now that is OLD!

By Tassadar (Tassadar) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 12:13 am: Edit

I agree with Alv..IIT (Indian Institute of Technology) is mentioned as the best university in the world according to 60 minutes. I know alot about that school. My parents and most of my cousins went there. The admission system is insane...their admissions tests are hard too..u have to take all these crap load of tests..I am not applying there...but alot of my friends did, and they got in too...i am happy for them..anywayz..IIT rocks..

By Royalchk (Royalchk) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 11:48 pm: Edit

Uhm I'm likely studying at Cambridge (I'm American) and it will be vastly cheaper than anything Ivy.

By Ickyfoo (Ickyfoo) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 12:17 am: Edit

Of course, Princeton > everyone else.


j/k

By Jetboy1857 (Jetboy1857) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 12:26 am: Edit

Just incase anyone was interested... for an American studying math, science, or eng at Cambridge the tuition and fees comes to around $29,000 per year (not including living expenses). In comparison, a UK citizen pays about $2,000. Cheaper than the Ivies, but certainly not cheap ;-).

To those accepted: congrats, should be awesome!

By 22157 (22157) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 06:03 pm: Edit

Don't forget LSE and Imperial College in this discussion. LSE has a particular yen for recruiting North Americans, and alumni include Jack Kennedy, Pierre Trudeau, David Rockefeller, Paul Volker and so on. In fact at any one time about 10% of LSE students are American or Canadian.

As for academic credentials, LSE is regularly ranked, by American citation databases, as the best economics centre outside the USA, well ahead of Oxbridge. A quarter of all the Nobel prizes awarded in economics have gone to former staff or students.

The paradox is that only a small minority of LSE students are economists. Nobels are not awarded for the other subject areas that the School covers-ie international relations, anthropology, sociology, politics, history etc. However if Nobels were awarded in these subjects then LSE would have gained many of them. The school pioneered the study of international relations, criminology, economic history, social policy and demography, amongst other things.

LSE pioneered the welfare state in the UK and later on was heavily responsible for the Thatcherite/Reaganite reaction against it. In 100 years, and on the basis of a small student body, it has produced 30 prime ministers and presidents-a remarkable figure for any university, but even more impressive per capita considering the small numbers of students and staff.

At least 50% of the students are post-grad and 60% are from outside the UK and the ambience is dynamic and dedicated to debate and discussion, in the centre of London. Everybody comes to talk and give lectures and seminars, from Bill Clinton to Nelson Mandela, Noam Chomsky and Robert McNamara and Kofi Annan. Even Mick Jagger studied there, and according to the West Wing, so did President Bartlett!

Comparisons with other leading institutions are complicated because LSE is not multi-faculty, and has been there for a much shorter time (just over a century compared to the 8-900 years of Oxbridge).

However it has the highest application rates of any university in the UK, and has expanded rapidly in numbers over the past 10 years, virtually doubling to some 7-8000 students.

The atmosphere is very different to Oxbridge and similar institutions. Intense discussion and close involvement with the outside world are the keynotes. There are no green fields and pretty quadrangles and there is litle time for frivolity, so it doesn't suit everybody. The academics are heavily involved in public life and appear some 300 times a month in the world's media and this gives the place a tremendous buzz.

There's no better place to study the social sciences.

By 22157 (22157) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 06:07 pm: Edit

I forgot to add that Imperial College, London,is considered to be the technological equivalent of what LSE is to the social sciences. It's won plenty of Nobels, but its true excellence is in applied science and technology, for which Nobels are not awarded. It's an academic powerhouse, with an international brand-name.

By Jetboy1857 (Jetboy1857) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 06:21 pm: Edit

Sure, throw those schools into the discussion too!

They are all great places so no need to leave out any of the other UK top schools outside of Oxbridge ;-)

By Nitroxideracer (Nitroxideracer) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 06:51 pm: Edit

If you're going to talk about Nobel prizes, then I think we should all get our facts straight, especially you, Datadigit1.

The figure you gaev for the number of nobels the Ivy League schools have been assoicated with may well be correct, but that Cambridge figure (80?!) can not possibly be correct. The University of Chicago is very quick to point out that they have been associated with 73 (Wow!) Nobel Laureates, and they have "by far the most of ANY univeristy in the world." Harvard is the next closest in America with ~56, but that is still 17 behind UChicago. Thus, Cambridge can not have more Nobel laureates than Uchicago, and thus can not have 80 winners.

As far as being the best place to study economics is, LSE may well be the best in Europe, but it isn't the best in the world. Once again, UChicago holds the trump card here. There have only been 35 Nobel Prizes in Economics awarded in histroy (Started in 1969), and UChicago has been associated with 21 of these award recipients. That's more than half of the prizes award, and that easily dwarfs the London School of Economics' five recipients. Not to mention that presently five of the thirty-five members of UChicago's current economics department have won the Nobel Prize in Economics.

Also, UChicago too has founded a school of economics, called the Rational Expectations School of Economics AKA the Chicago School of Economics. That says something else to UChicago's econ department. I'll leave it to you to determine which school is better for the study of Economics.

By Datadigit1 (Datadigit1) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 07:05 pm: Edit

Sorry there Nitroxideracer, but you're not right... Cambridge indeed does have the the world's most number of Nobel Prizes and it is ~80. If you don't believe me you can read all the names for yourself right here:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/smb1001/camnobel.htm

The list starts with some of the most famous ones... Lord Rayleigh, JJ Thompson, Ernest Rutherford, Niels Bohr, ect. and ends with Sydney Brenner last year.

As the website notes at the bottom Chicago indeed does have 73, but that's NOT the world's most... whoever told you that has their facts wrong.

Also, as the website points out there are various ways of "counting up" the winners and thus if you only count up those that actually hold a degree from the university in question then Chicago only has 24, but Cambridge still has 70! No matter how you fudge the numbers around Cambridge still comes out on top.

Sorry to bash your statement like that but:

-It's incorrect
- I wouldn't make such a statement to begin with unless it was 1) True and 2) I had the facts to back it up.

Cheers.

By Jetboy1857 (Jetboy1857) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 07:30 pm: Edit

Wow, looks like Datadigit1 sure pulled out the "trump card" on Nitroxideracer's argument! hehehe

I also found it interesting that although the Cambridge webpage with the Nobel stats obviously is pointing out that Cambridge is the best in the world in that department they still clearly point out the accomplishments of other universities and even include links to Nobel websites on those school's webpages. Also, they even came right out and pointed out which people on the list didn't actually hold degrees from Cambridge while lots of other universities often boost their stats by including people other than alumni that were associated with the university (i.e. they did research there)... obviously that had a big impact on Chicago's stats since they lost greater than 50% of their list when you only look at those who actually went to school there. Sure, having researchers at the school that go on to win the prize is also great, but it dosen't say the same thing about the quality of the education as having having alumns.

Anyway, based on the responses that people have posted to my orignial question it looks like the top UK universities are certainly at least on par with the top US universities and in some areas even better (much to the obvious annoyance of some American students who like Chicago ;-) ... just joking! )

By Veggieoptionsux (Veggieoptionsux) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 03:25 am: Edit

Since Americans seem to love admissions selectivity stats...

U of Nottingham in the UK has one of the highest overall selectivity rates in the western hemisphere; ~ 1 in 13 get in. For popular degrees, the figure is much higher (there were 30 applicants per place for Psychology). These figures are comparable with the best American Us.

When you consider that Oxbridge students possess more impressive scores and achievements, you get some idea of how ••••••• self-selective the applicants are.

Foreignboy, ur entire post was ••••••••.
I think you will find that, generally, admission to Oxbridge is more competitive than to HYPS.
As in the US, good grades are only the ticket to an interview. Applicants must possess some other differentiating factor (usually ECs) to gain admission because, quite simply, too many students have perfect grades. I have met Harvard and Princeton exchange students and we have discussed this very issue. Most agree that the abundance of academic and non-academic talent at Oxford is AT LEAST comparable to that found in the top ivies. If you are so prejudiced against the UK, shut up.

Voigtrob, I believe you are suggesting that all UK schools (incl Oxbridge) are vocationally inclined. That is nonsense. Apparently you know two tiny goblets of info from which you have constructed your opinion; 1)Students follow only one course of study, and 2)Most courses last three years. Everything else is unsubstantiated; you obviously know little about this issue, so please refrain from comment. Oxford and Cambridge pride themselves upon being NON-vocational. That is, they try to teach students how to analyze, critique, debate and problem-solve. Please do not assume we are 'not well-rounded' because we do not waste two years repeating secondary school material. It is a sad fact that the US education system pales in comparison to IB / A-levels etc. We do not bother with core curricula because we have learned enough 'general' material in high school. A UChicago prof once told me that the greatest use of core requirements was to ground students in a solid, broad-based education that encouraged discussion and sharpened the mind. It is not so much the material that matters, but the process and intellectual rigor that accompanies learning it. American candidates to Oxbridge are disadvantaged because their schooling system

By Veggieoptionsux (Veggieoptionsux) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 03:30 am: Edit

having exhausted myself, i shall continue later.

Of particular concern is Amylase's base and unfounded comment; "I think college in UK should be quite dull compared to that in U.S."

That must be the stupidest thing I've ever read on this forum.

By 22157 (22157) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 07:36 am: Edit

Factual correction: the total number of LSE Economics Nobels is 9, not 5, and a number have been awarded in the last 10 years (it also has 4 other Nobels, two for peace and two, incredibly, for literature, making 13-a huge number for a small single faculty institution- many large universities have never housed a single Nobel winner): nobody claimed that it had more than Chicago, just that it is generally regarded as the best economics faculty outside the US (including Africa and Asia , not just Europe).

The issue of how many Nobels are on the campus at any one time is to some extent a red herring-often this just means you've got lots of money to hire them-their main work is usually done many years before their award, and is often at a different university (Chicago still benefits from their presence, of course, and still gains lustre from this, and of course its research is world class).

Chicago is generally regarded as a superb place for social sciences, especially in sociology and economics. LSE has been more diffuse in its influence, and there is paradoxically no LSE 'school' of thought-it has always been very diverse ideologically. Its influence on British public life has been profound, firstly through the welfare state, then through the New Right counter revolution (Hayek, Oakeshott,Popper). Of course Chicago also was involved in the New Right-Hayek migrated to Chicago in 1950 after 20 years at LSE, and Milton Friedman was at Chicago.

The big problem for LSE and Imperial is money and the appalling British funding system for universities, which is tied to a middle of the road multi faculty model that does not recognise diversity. Even Oxbridge is complaining about money shortages-retaining Nobel winners is hard work in the UK, when they can earn a fortune in the US without the bureaucracy that has been dumped all over British universities.

This is now being debated and may be about to change.

By Nitroxideracer (Nitroxideracer) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 11:50 am: Edit

Touche!

Look's like you threw my argument down, put it in a headlock, and gave it a big, bad noogie! I like the fact that you did your homework and proved your point with research. Obviously, you know what you're talking about. But I have a duty to defend myself, and so I shall:

I understand how the University of Chicago came to it's conclusion that it is the most Nobel-ed university on earth; follow this line of logic with me. Because Cambridge is actually subdivided into a number of colleges within the overall university, UChicago reasoned that no college within Cambridge had acquired more nobels than UChicago. Perhaps this may not be considered fair, but that is what UChicago said on their website and in all of their recruitment materials, and they aren't allowed to lie in any of that stuff. Now maybe I am stretching my logic a bit far over a fun but impractical debate, but I still like to think that UChicago has more Nobel prizes associated with the school than any other. ;D

By 22157 (22157) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 01:02 pm: Edit

Nobels are important, and as people seek global rankings to accompany the global market in HE they will be significant as performance indicators.
But let's keep a few things in mind. They are in their own way as subjective as most other measurements of quality, with all the potential bias and internal politics that such a state of affairs implies. Nobels are decided by a committee in Sweden, a very Anglophile country. They are not handed down by Jesus Christ in conjunction with Aristotle and the prophet Mohamed

They are biassed heavily towards the 'pure' sciences and medicine. There is only one social science prize, in economics, and that started many years after the prizes were first awarded. There is only one humanities prize-literature, and you have no chance therefore if you are an engineer, a philosopher, a sociologist, a historian or a human geographer etc, however significant your work may be.

Additionally crude arithmetic is of little use unless you account for differeneces in institutional size and subject spread. Large multi faculty institutions therfore have more throws of the dice than small specialists and this should be factored into appropriate judgements. Money is another factor. Nobel winners will rarely go somewhere just for the money-they will usually want the stimulus of high quality staff and students, but money may be a factor in deciding which elite college to lend your name to (and this gives some US universities an advantage)

The distinction between Nobels who were staff and Nobels who were students of a particular uni is trivial. A Nobel may only spend a year or two as a student at a college and then spend 20 years teaching at one college. Does this mean that we should only count the college they studied at? Many academics will tell you that they learn more from their colleagues and students than from their own student experiences.

In truth every institutional affiliation that a Nobel winner has should be counted, as the prize winning work was often done or encouraged at several different places. Notoriously the prize is usually awarded when the recipient is quite old and did their key work years before-however the very fact that a college can consistently attract such people is in itself significant.

By Nop86 (Nop86) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 01:11 pm: Edit

Couple of random points:
-At a UK university you basically only study your major for the entire 3 years. This is excellent if you are sure of what you want to do (for instance, medicine). But personally, I feel no one should become so narrow that early and in that respect, US is better.
-Oxford and Cambridge are excellent schools. However, they would be better for social sciences and Ivy League's would be better for research sciences. The resources, labs, amount of research conducted at undergraduate level are better at Ivy League's.
-Oxford and Cambridge are extremely selective. People getting 11 A* in their GCSE exams and 8 A's in AS Level exams get rejected. Yes, fewer factors are considered (no essays - apart from a short personal statement) but there is a very tough required interview involved. It tends to happen that most people applying have the same grades (other people won't even try to apply, only the cream of nations) and thus, ECs and the interview have much more importance.
-At HS Level, the British system is far tougher than US. A Levels are not comparable to SAT II's or APs. APs may be the same content wise but not exam wise. For instance, in economics, while in US they do multiple choice questions, in UK it's ALL about evaluation and data response -- much harder! UK also has GCSE exams in Grade 10. Everything is so exam oriented - I have external exams every 6 months! I don't think this is realised very much in the US, putting us at disadvantage.
-At HS Level, opportunities for ECs are more in US. MUN for instance is a class for which you get credit in US. In UK, it's an extracurricular activity you do after school and get nothing on paper for.
-Basically US education believes more in breadth, it looks for breadth in individuals. UK education wants focus, more belief is in depth.

By Datadigit1 (Datadigit1) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 06:33 pm: Edit

Thanks Nitroxideracer for your comments ;-).

Just to address what you said about individual college vs. american universities... you have to remember that the word "college" dosen't quite mean the same thing in the Oxbridge system vs. the American system. Oxbridge colleges are residential colleges and although some academic work is conducted there (i.e. undergraduate tutors) research totally takes place in the departments which are a part of the University as a whole. So although the colleges play a role in undergrad education (although the degrees are still granted by the university) they don't play a role in graduate studies or research (although grad students and researchers still have an "affiliation" with a college), which are both totally run by the departments of the university.

So in short, yes I see your point... but the Cambridge colleges are not all little separate "universities" within Cambridge... they are more of a residential college with additional tutoring and teaching provided by the college to go along with the university's programs. And, even if you wanted to compare Cambridge college grads to all of Chicago, Cambridge would still come out on top ;-). Trinity College (Cambridge's largest college) has ~40 or so winners vs. the ~23 or so that graduated from Chicago ;-).

Also, I would dispute NoP86's comment that undergraduate science research would be better at the Ivies... although Oxford isn't known as a powerhouse in Science, Cambridge certainly is. As I mentioned previously, 3rd and 4th year undergrads typically work on research projects that are easily of the quality done by an American 1st or 2nd year grad student. And the facilities at Cambridge are also world class... easily on par with the best Ivies and much better than some school in the "Ivy League."

By Jetboy1857 (Jetboy1857) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 06:52 pm: Edit

I have often heard comments like:

"A British Bachelors degree is like an American Masters"

and

"American universities spend at least a year of a four year education making up for the gross inadequacies in the American K-12 system."

Based on what I have heard here is sounds like there is indeed some substance to those statements.

Although there probably are not huge differences in the end product (i.e a British engineer vs. an American engineer or a British scientists vs. an American scientist) it does seem that the American education system might have a few things to learn from our friends on the other side of the pond (and they might have a few things to learn from Harvard about endowment building ;-) )

By Nop86 (Nop86) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 10:50 pm: Edit

Perhaps I am mistaken about resources but I would say the EMPHASIS placed on research at the UNDERGRAD level is more at the best Ivy's. Even otherwise, in my own experience, I have heard the name of top Ivy's like Princeton, or Yale with regards to scientific research far more than I've heard of Cambridge.

It is true that UK takes 3 years and US 4 years because of the depth to which A-Levels take you (you get a semester off in US if you get A's in your A-Levels) AND because there are no 'broader requirements' as there are in US which take time to fulfill.

By Veggieoptionsux (Veggieoptionsux) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 07:17 am: Edit

I shall not bother. Enough has been said.

Nop86 sums it up nicely.

By 22157 (22157) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 09:17 am: Edit

There's a powerful argument that the Oxbridge collegiate system is a huge drawback. The excessive decentralisation hinders decision-making. And boy, do the British hate making decisions. And basically there's a whole range of obscure small colleges that live off the prestige of the big ones (Ie King's/Trinity). I mean Oxford and Cambridge have about 30 colleges each!

The insistence on teaching only 24 weeks a year, and the fact that both are located in otherwise obscure country towns, shoulld be considered by American students: these environments are only really suited to certain stypes of people. Basically, once you get beyond the kitsch Dreaming Spires hype you can be very lonely, isolated in a tiny college, in a provincial town, with little happening for half the year.

By 22157 (22157) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 07:15 pm: Edit

A MINI-GUIDE TO BRIT UNIVERSITIES

Anyone applying to UK colleges needs to know about the different groupings among the 100 or more universities. A number of institutions overlap into several categories, in this multi-layered system, and the definitions are often fairly fluid, although significant. But certain clear trends emerge

OXBRIDGE

Oxford and Cambridge. Technically these are two separate institutions, although you would never guess this from the way in which they co-ordinate their activities and general approach to life, not to mention application dates and student numbers. For many centuries, since the middle ages, they were the only universities in what became the UK, apart from a few in Scotland. This allowed them to build up endowments and alumni networks when there were no effective rivals (apart from the Scots unis in the late 18th century, and to some extent Trinity College, Dublin in the same period). Despite this headstart they declined in the 18th and 19th centuries, but have since revived, especially in response to the challenge posed by the innovatory University of London since the mid 19th century. Still enormously powerful and celebrated, although their influence has steadily declined as competition has increased. To some they are the pinnacle of the British system, to others they are a drag on progress, a symbol of all the class snobberies and anachronisms that have pulled the UK down.

THE GOLDEN TRIANGLE/

This term refers to Oxbridge and the leading London University colleges, especially LSE and Imperial. According to this formulation Oxbridge is still the benchmark for academic standards in general, although in the social sciences as a whole LSE is king, as is Imperial for technology and applied science. UCL is often included in this group, although its entry standards lag behind the others. King's London is another college that is sometimes mentioned in this connection, although it has declined lately.
In practice these institutions have increasingly sought to work in concert, especially as regards government funding (a vexed issue). Recently Oxbridge, LSE, Imperial and LSE sent a joint letter to The Times about university fees.

Also there are small, specialist London University colleges that have international standing, such as LBS (business) or SOAS (African and Asian studies) or the Courtauld Institute (art history). The London University medical hospitals, ie Guy's, St. Bart's are world famous.

THE RUSSELL GROUP

This term refers to about 20 universities whose heads meet at the Russell Hotel in central London. They include the aforementioned names and present themselves as the voice of traditional high standards in British higher education.

The full list of names in this grouping is:University of Birmingham
University of Bristol
University of Cambridge
Cardiff University
University of Edinburgh
University of Glasgow
Imperial College, London
King's College, London
University of Leeds
University of Liverpool
London School of Economics
University of Manchester
University of Newcastle upon Tyne
University of Nottingham
University of Oxford
University of Sheffield
University of Southampton
University College, London
University of Warwick

To be a member of this group has increasingly been seen as a mark of prestige, and all are considered to be research active and selective.

THE 1994 GROUP

This is a grouping of smaller research led universities, amongst which LSE, which is also a member of the Golden Triangle and the Russell Group, is the most famous:

St Andrews University
University of Durham
Lancaster University
The University of York
University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST)
The University of Warwick
The University of Reading
University of East Anglia
University of Essex
Birkbeck - University of London
Goldsmiths - University of London
Royal Holloway - University of London
London School of Economics and Political Science
University of Surrey
University of Bath
University of Sussex
University of Exeter

THE BIG CIVICS

These are large provincial universities that pack a fair amount of punch without being terribly fashionable. Again there is considerable overlap with other categories. Prominent in this group is Manchester, which is merging with UMIST (the technology college). Manchester has a glorious history (20 Nobel Prizes etc), but fell away and is now on the up again. Edinburgh is another noteworthy member of this cluster: an ancient university with a distinguished history. The names are:
Birmingham
Bristol
Manchester
Edinburgh
Sheffield
Leeds
Glasgow
Southampton
Cardiff


NICE GIRL UNIVERSITIES

This term is my own, unlike those used above, but it describes a group of universities which have a 'twee' goody-goody reputation. These are safe places to send your son or daughter-they will not meet people who steal the spoons. Academically they are sound rather than spectacular,although there is some overlap with other groups, and some of them have a reputation for harbouring privately educated 'Oxbridge failures':

Durham
Bristol
St.Andrews
Exeter
York.

EVERYBODY ELSE

Into this category falls two main types of university-the former technical colleges (polytechnics) which have been upgraded to universities, and a handful of solid Middle Britain places that are so obscure theit names escape me. Basically this group is for people who can't get in anywhere else. Cruel but true. They often have pockets of excellence but they are desperately undefunded and they do not look good on the CV, to put it mildly.

Advice: go for the big four that belong to the top two or three categories: ie Oxbridge, LSE, Imperial. These are international names with bucketfulls of famous alumni and influence. UCL also just about creeps into this league.

Failing that the Big Civics are a good bet, and 1960s universities like Sussex, York and Warwick have high standards, top level research and a distinctive approach of their own.

But the sad news is that apart from the big four, and maybe Sussex and Edinburgh, few British universities are really individual in their approach. This may change in the next few years, as funding systems change, but change takes a long time in the UK

By Radagasty (Radagasty) on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 08:47 am: Edit

When I was trying to choose between Cambridge and the University of New South Wales for a PhD in physics earlier this year--I know most people here would consider Cambridge the obvious choice, but I had personal reasons for wanting to remain in Sydney and hence UNSW, where I got my undergrad degree, and UNSW has a strong and internationally well-regarded research group (I'm speaking of a particular research group within the uni here, not of research in the uni as a whole) in which I had already done some--I went to speak to the Director of Academic Affairs in my School (Elec. Eng. and Telecoms.), with whom I had quite a good relationship. He was from Ireland himself, and, basically, his advice was Oxbridge or nothing, i.e., I should only go to the UK for Oxford or Cambridge, not even Imperial (my area is in solid-state physics).

By 22157 (22157) on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 12:55 pm: Edit

On the only going to Oxbridge or nothing bit, so what? I'm sure I could at random find people who would tell me the opposite-ie only go to Imperial for physics in the UK and nowhere else, but I'd be still relying on one person's subjective impression. A lot of the time one opinion, or even one league table, tells you more about the person making the judgement or compiling the table than it does about the ostensible subject. What matters is to make a rational judgement, based on the widest possible range of factors, over the longest possible period.

By Wbbigtymer (Wbbigtymer) on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 05:27 pm: Edit

To respond to datadigit1, you say that "UK college admissions works much more like our American system for applying to medical school. If you apply to Cambridge then you cannot apply to Oxford and vice versa." This makes a fundamentally FALSE implication. Not only can you apply to more than one medical school here, but there is something like the common app which enables you to apply to like 15 or more med schools at once. Almost all top med schools participate in it, but many of them have a supplement application to go along with it. While we're talking about medicine and the topic of US vs UK, the united states med schools are the best in the world, bar none. The top 10 (and maybe more) US med schools are substantially better than any for. med school. That's not some kind of "US" bias, either. Also a word on Nobel laureates. Back in the days of laureates such as Richard P. Feynman (Physics..among other things, he first conceptualized the idea of nanotechnology,) I don't know how the numbers compared, but I can tell you than the school where he taught (Caltech) had Nobel laureates as TA's (not even full professors!) Nowadays, and I hate to say it, but there's somewhat of an anti-American sentiment in the international community, and that has found its way into the Nobel prize award committee. The number of American laureates has dropped somewhat and ridiculous awards have been given, such as a peace prize to the UN!!!!!! That's the single most laughable thing I've ever seen in such a supposedly serious enterprise as the Nobel prize selection committee. I know there are still some US awardees, but I think it's at least somewhat fair to say that you can't completely rely on Nobel prize awards to compare Americans versus UK and other countries, because it just may not be an level playing field. Unless you are either outspoken against the US, or embrace a "hard left" tradition of globalizing the political interests of countries to benefit many, but not the US, such as Jimmy Carter (recent Laureate,) then I don't think you have much of a chance. Let me just say I don't expect to see Bush get a peace prize for liberating millions in the country of Iraq any time soon.

By Adxj220 (Adxj220) on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 11:33 pm: Edit

Perhaps he won't win the nobel PEACE prize because this "liberation" took place under the false pretense of finding (non-existent) Al-qaeda connections and WMD's, at the cost of destabilizing the region and fostering further enmity towards the US-- at the cost of thousands of Iraqi lives, and hundreds of US and coalition soldiers. Maybe he won't get the PEACE prize because he started an absurd and unneccessary WAR.

And the remark about the nobel commitee's bias against Americas is "laughable". Please take a look at the nationality of this year's award winners: Alexei A. Abrikosov--based in America (argonne national lab); Peter Agre, Roderick MacKinnon--Americans; Paul C. Lauterbur--American--not bad out of 5 categories. And you can't exactly call Shirin Ebadi's (Iranian) efforts for human rights and democracy anti-American (but to a right-winger, anthing is possible; jingoism tends to cloud their perception). Please don't bandy about nonsensical statements without reasoning.

I'm actually American myself, but I hate to see that self-righteous, "I'm-a-victim-of-global bias" attitude.

By Wbbigtymer (Wbbigtymer) on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 04:29 am: Edit

You could tell that I'm a self-righteous right winger and find insight into my attitude all from my previous post?! Props on that... As for the important part of your response, peace DOES NOT result from the absence of war. It's a simple, sad fact that all but crushes pacifist ideals from a pragmatic perspective. So a war does not necessarily disqualify one as a profound champion of peace. Sorry dear, but you’re being too parochial and simplistic. Also, in case you missed my theses, I was trying to point out that there's a *possibility* that the number of recent laureates isn't commensurate to the academic quality of our researchers and scholars in recent years. Just because we're well represented (in your opinion) doesn't mean we're well represented *enough* (from an objective standpoint which would require more scholarly research that you or I can claim to have done.) I'm just saying it's something to consider, so as not to automatically resort to the number of Nobel laureates as a criterion for determining who possesses the highest quality educational system.

BTW: under-reported, obscure (but important) facts and premature conclusions do not equate to "non-existence." I'm saying that there are some links between al quaeda and sadam, and that you CANNOT conclude that he didn't have WMDs, because a) there is proof they WERE there (and the UN couldn't find them when they def. were) and b)there is not nearly enough evidence to disprove their current existence or distribution to potentially threatening entities. Do I think Bush deserves the Nobel peace prize? Not necessarily... Did you completely miss my point in the interest of responding with your vitriolic rants, exposing your animosity and prejudices? Yes.

By Largegreenturt (Largegreenturt) on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 05:19 am: Edit

I think I have a problem with the fact the from K-12, and on through college, European schools (particularly the French, but the British do this too) funnel their students into tracks at such an early age that it makes it impossible to change your line of study after around 8th grade. I'm sure you can, but you won't have the required classes, for example, to get into engineering if you aren't on the track at a very early age. I see this is as an unintentional (or maybe not) method for keeping the rich people rich, and not letting much social change. This jives with historical interpretations that traditionally Europe's middle and lower classes have been much less able of 'rising through the social and economic ranks' than America. This college admissions process in England, as well as their entire academic program k-12, only promotes this ideology. It makes me angry inside.

By 22157 (22157) on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 05:55 am: Edit

Interesting discussion about Nobel bias. Nobels are important, but it's healthy to engage with them critically,rather than passively, like anything else.

Never forget: the Nobels are awarded by a committee in Sweden.

That means by a bunch of white, European protestants, English speaking (Sweden is very Anglophone), subliminally anti-Catholic, social democrat, and focused heavily on an Anglo-Saxon world view. People from other cultures and linguistic groups will be at a disadvantage. The record of prize giving bears this out-English speaking scientists have a huge edge. If you're a brilliant scientist at an obscure college in Jakarta, and your work is published in a non-European language, your chances are much lower.

There's also something in the idea of political bias. It was rumoured for years that Graham Greene didn't get the literature prize cos he was a Catholic convert (of course they gave it to Seamus Heaney, but he's an Irish Catholic, whom trendy Swedes would see in romanticist terms as a gifted but oppressed group etc).

Again, Nobels are important, but always weight them in the critical balance.

By Frodobododo (Frodobododo) on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 11:28 am: Edit

For all you UK-college wannabes:

There is an excellent, excellent book out there about Oxbridge called Looking for Class. Bruce Feiler spent two years between 1990-2 at Cambridge studying history (?) and now writes for the NY Times, along with being an accomplished author. The great thing about the book is that one sees the prestige of Oxbridge just by glimpsing the beauty of his writing style. Read it, and you will be informed -- Oxbridge people do have hearts and minds, you know, that are used for more than just academics.

By Datadigit1 (Datadigit1) on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 12:46 pm: Edit

When I said that the UK undergrad application process was like American medical schools I just ment that there was a central unit that organizes the applications ect... yes you can apply to more than one medical school, I know that ;-), but it is true that you can't apply to Oxford AND Cambridge.

- The comments about American medical schools being far superior are moot. Medical schools are PROFESSIONAL schools not academic schools and the medical degree is a professional degree not an academic degree. Also, medicine and medical polices vary by country. If you want to compare American medicine to UK medicine then I'll offer this point and rest my case... In the UK everyone, yes EVERYONE, has access to free medical care. We are far from that here in the US so I think we have a lot to learn in terms of providing an equal opportunity healtcare system to our citizens.

- Everyone has OPINONS about Oxbridge ect. vs. the US, but there are a few cold hard facts which us Americans just can't deny.

- Our K-12 education system sucks. When you compare the rigor of our system to the UK, or any other developed country for that matter, we look horrible. This is a serious issue that we need to address with more than just flashy "no child left behind" talk.

- UK students enter college with much more knowledge than their American counterparts... Hence the lack of need for "general education." The comment about general education in the US just serving to make up for our crappy K-12 education may be harsh, but it's true.

- Because the UK students are already ahead by the time they reach college, they can afford to focus on a much more rigorous study of thier specific subject area. Case in point, I was looking over some of the Cambridge part IA and IB (freshman and sophomore in American terms) exams and they are easliy testing junior and senior level material in terms of American schools. This is also why they can afford to have their students focus a lot of academic time during their part II and III years (junior and senior in american talk) on research in the lab... and still take tests which by that time are easily of grad school standard in the states.

- The comments about science research being better in the Ivy League are laughable. In the states science is dominated primarily by large public schools (with a few exceptions). If you want to compare the science research that came out of Cambridge with what came out of Harvard then go right ahead... I'm sure Bohr, Rutterford, Watson, Crick, Newton, Hawking, ect. and gang would be happy to dispute that ;-). Although research in most of the Ivy league is certainly world class (see I can dispute things without just bashing to other argument with pointless factless attacks, while still giving credit to the other argument ;-) )

- Although the comments about the Nobel being a "Swedish" prize are worth taking in, in the end it just sounds like comments from sore losers... mabye you should go join that guy this year that didn't win and spent tons of money trying to bash the Nobel with ads in the New York Times ;-) Sure it is somewhat objective, but so is everything else in life... in my opinion there are those who suck it up and get ahead and those that fall behind and just whine and complain ;-)

- So in conclusion, most of the arguments I have seen against Oxbridge ect. have been primarily based on personal opinions and mostly unfounded. As an American, I can say that Oxbridge is easily on par with our Ivy League if not much better in certain areas... my main point is that as Americans we should stop bashing them with pointless arguments (it just makes us look dumber) and worry about things like our own K-12 system and how to improve it from the horrible state it is in now... in that department there is no question about it that we need to learn a few things from other countries!

By Wbbigtymer (Wbbigtymer) on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 03:08 pm: Edit

Well with the whole k-12 argument, I don't think anyone has addressed whether we're talking about the 'norm' or the best of the best from each respective system. Overall, the education of k-12 kids here in the US is pitiful. I mean USELESS, almost. But if you want to talk about the BEST of the BEST, look no further than this board, and I think you'll be hard pressed to make a case that the UK or anyone else can give us a run for our money at the top level. Now, datadigit, I get your point about applying to only one school and that accounting for higher acceptance rates at each school, but you kind of lost it when you went on the argue that UK has better medicine. First of all, I didn't argue that the US has the best health care policy. If you want to argue that socialized medicine is superior, go right ahead, but take caution: high taxes, a HUGE percentage of the GDP (the us is the only country that isn't in the double digits on that,) and the unattractiveness of the field of medicine to the best potential docs due to less competitive pay are all things to consider if you want socialized medicine. But alas, we both stray from the point, because my argument was that our SCHOOLS were better. I said our med schools were the best, bar none. How does the fact that the UK taxes more and therefore socializes their medical policy dispute my argument? Granted, to take advantage of the BEST medical care in the world, you have to be a rich US citizen, or have an awesome healthcare package from your employer or something, but the fact remains that if you are talking about the absolute best of the best, the US has the BEST. I didn't make the statement: "the average US citizen has access to the best healthcare in the world." lol. Actually, I've recently been convinced that perhaps the people who have it best in the way of healthcare are US senators and congressmen. Among other perks, they have reserved hospital rooms! As for the comment about MDs being professional and not academic degrees, I think you should recognize how our system works as opposed to our European counterparts. In the UK, you go right to med school from high school in some cases (or at least it used to be like this.) For this and many other reasons, no other country has the standards that we do. Yes, the education you receive from medical school is considered "undergraduate medical education," but almost all practicing doctors go through an incredibly rigorous academic and clinical "graduate medical education" called internship, residency, and fellowship. For many medical specialties, this takes up to 7 years. That's longer than it takes to get a PhD, and they usually work up to 100 hour weeks (PhD students do NOT work that long... maybe 40.) Also, MANY MANY MANY doctors also get masters degrees and a considerable number go into academic medicine with OR without attaining a PhD degree in addition to the MD. The truth is that the MD program is more rigorous than most PhD programs in any field at any school. As for the absolute TOP medical schools, such as Hopkins (the school which has the distinction of pioneering the modern medical education curriculum) have moved away from the "trade school training" approach, and have HUGELY increased their academic benchmarks and standards. The entire first two years are RIGOROUS graduate-level basic sciences. Arguably as hard as graduate school anywhere in the world. The next two years are a mixture of clinical rotations, etc. In general, a lot of foreign doctors have two degrees that they like to equate to an MD—a “bm” and a “bs,” abbreviated MBBS, and meaning “bachelor and medicine and bachelor of sugery.” Here in the US, it’s a doctorate-level education and warrents that its graduates be called “Doctor.” Anyway, hopefully I've made my point that when I say we possess the best medical education, I mean the "best of our best med schools are better than anything else, anywhere in the world."

By Pimpdaddy (Pimpdaddy) on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 03:43 pm: Edit

i think this discussion is stupid
we're comparing the best institutions in two of the greatest countries. Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Oxford and Cambridge (and perhaps a few others belong, but prestige-wise, these 5 are unequaled internationally) are the pinnacle of higher education. None are better persay than another. Saying Princeton economics is better than harvard is merely splitting hairs.

Quality of K-12 education system is a moot point in this discussion. Sure, on average the american system is probably worse than that of the UK, but the american students who can get into HYP are the best and would do just well if they were in Britain, probably getting in oxford or cambridge. The best will always be the best, whether they are in America or the UK.

Finally, this point about using nobel prizes as a guide is really really stupid. Yale has about half the nobels as princeton, is it half as good? Would anyone really argue that chicago and columbia are better and more prestigious than harvard, oxford or princeton? Additionally the size of the school makes a big difference here as well. While Cornell has more nobels than caltech, i would never consider cornell to be in the same league as caltech. Yale and Penn have roughly the same number of nobels, here too one is undisputably better than the other. If one accounts for the size of the institution, perhaps by taking the ratio of nobels to size, I am sure that columbia would fall drastically, and caltech, princeton, harvard, oxford, chicago and cambridge would be on top. Even then, this means little as yale would still be missing. Is chicago better than yale? hahahahah, no.

Perhaps the only valid point made in this was that HYPS have far more resources than oxbridge. This is true, but it seems as though HYPS has way more resources than they really need. Princeton would probably be no different if its endowment fell to the size of Oxford's or if it balooned to the size of harvard's.

This is a stupid discussion, you cant just say the UK is better than the US by comparing the premier instutions of both countries as hyp and oxbridge are all equals.

By 22157 (22157) on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 05:52 pm: Edit

Here we go again, more sweeping claims of Dreaming Spires superiority. Yet when you look at the evidence life is not so simple. Oxbridge does not exist on a higher plane to other British universities, any more than HYPS can ignore the competition that comes from MIT, Berkeley, and Columbia. Even Oxbridge professors will tell you that the European place for social science is LSE, not Oxford, just as the place in the UK for MBAs is the London Business School,not Cambridge, just as the US place for social sciences is not Harvard but Chicago.

Sure Oxbridge and HYPS are great institutions, but all the evidence shows that they are not alone: they have real competition from other powerful internationally famous academies.

By Pimpdaddy (Pimpdaddy) on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 07:30 pm: Edit

sorry bout that 22157, i was in no way implying that HYP and Oxbridge were unrivaled, i was just saying that they are the most prestigious. Stanford, MIT, LSE and Imperial are all just as good (and in many cases better) but have not accrued the same reputation as HYP and Oxbridge. To be honest, I had never even heard of Imperial before last year and though i had heard of LSE, I just knew it was really good, never knew that it was oxbridge good until high school.

By Datadigit1 (Datadigit1) on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 07:53 pm: Edit

Wbbigtymer, my point about the healthcare system was not ment to say that American medical schools are superior... all things considered I would say that our (the American) system is tougher and probably better... my point though was that none of that matters if we can't provide even the most basic healthcare to many of our citizens... that is why I brought it up. The truth is that when push comes to shove you're going to worry about if you are going to get medical care without paying an arm and a leg for it, not wondering if your doctor had to take a course in african literature before going to medical school. Nobody is saying that medical school isn't hard. I totally understand your comments about medical school being considered very rigorus and "academic" these days, but the truth is that in the academic community it is still considered a professional degree. If you're not already in college you will find this out soon since most people applying to medical school are often excluded from applying for certain scholarships for academic work on the basis that medical school is a "professional" degree program.

As for the other comments:

- Nobody is trying to say that Oxbridge is far superior than any other place, just that it is at least on par with the best universities in the US. I too, in addition to most people you would ask on the street, would easily say that Oxbridge would be recognized as one of the most famous and prestegious universities period... but I certainly woudn't say that they are the best in everything. Sure, there are other places that are a lot better when you compare specific subjects... that goes for any university.

- "But if you want to talk about the BEST of the BEST, look no further than this board, and I think you'll be hard pressed to make a case that the UK or anyone else can give us a run for our money at the top level." This forum is dominated by Americans... of course there is going to be a bias towards Americans here. Our K-12 standards are much lower than in the UK, even at the "best of the best" level. Our K-12 system can't stand up against most countries so don't even try to defend it ;-) ... let's work on making it better, then we can talk!

- Nobel arguement: I don't think anyone in their right mind would consider the prize tally to be the be all and end all factor in how good a school is... I think this was already established long ago.

- Finally, to those that are trying to "crash the party" of those that said they were accepted to Oxbridge (on the other post topic) let it go. Personally, I think it is totally awesome that they are going there. You don't seem them bashing people that got accepted to Harvard, Yale, ect. In my mind, someone wouldn't post something like that, or any other pointless post bashing a school, unless they were jealous that someone else was going there!

By Jamimom (Jamimom) on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 08:18 pm: Edit

22157, thanks for the summary of the British university system. Never really understood how those colleges were categorized. Can you summarize how the application process works for a British student who is completing school and competitive for the top programs. I am very familiar with the US college app process and the med school process but this is all new to me. Cheers to all of you.

By Evil_Robot (Evil_Robot) on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 08:58 pm: Edit

"Our K-12 standards are much lower than in the UK, even at the "best of the best" level. Our K-12 system can't stand up against most countries so don't even try to defend it ;-) ... let's work on making it better, then we can talk!"

Not so.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/alevels2002/story/0,12321,797887,00.html

By Adxj220 (Adxj220) on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 09:11 pm: Edit

"As for the important part of your response, peace DOES NOT result from the absence of war. It's a simple, sad fact that all but crushes pacifist ideals from a pragmatic perspective. So a war does not necessarily disqualify one as a profound champion of peace. Sorry dear, but you’re being too parochial and simplistic."

Yes, but starting a unilateral, unfounded and unnecessary war--when there were many better, peaceful alternatives--does "disqualify one as a profound champion of peace". The Bush administration's supposed pragmatism was no more than a mistake made in haste.--not being simplistic at all, "dear", nor was I making a generalization about war and peace in general.

"under-reported, obscure (but important) facts and premature conclusions do not equate to "non-existence."

These have all been exhausted. They have been scrutinized by international, domestic, private and public think-tanks--the point is, Bush shouldn't have launched into an international war on such tenuous reasoning. Bush's decision was "premature". One doesn't assume that a country poses an international threat in the absence of contrary eviednce. It's innocent until found guilty. The reasoning behind this war sets a dangerous precedent for future global stability. And all indicators show that there really were no connections betwen Saddam and Alqaeda, or any WMDs; they also indicate that the research behind the war was completely misleading and inaccurate, usually false or unfounded. Yet some still like to cling to whatever faint vestiges of justification remain.

I'm not arguing about the nobel-prize as a judge of academic excellence. I realize that was your point, but that isn't what I disagreed with.

And yes, I can tell that you are a self righteous right-winger:

"somewhat and ridiculous awards have been given, such as a peace prize to the UN!!!!!! That's the single most laughable thing I've ever seen"--unilateralist, self-righteous poltical attitude.

"Unless you are either outspoken against the US, or embrace a "hard left" tradition of globalizing the political interests of countries to benefit many, but not the US, such as Jimmy Carter (recent Laureate,) then I don't think you have much of a chance."--victimized, conservative attitude

"Let me just say I don't expect to see Bush get a peace prize for liberating millions in the country of Iraq any time soon."--victimized attitude.

Please refrain from making absurd and annoying assertions.

By Datadigit1 (Datadigit1) on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 09:38 pm: Edit

Evil_Robot , your post makes no sense whatsoever??? That article dosen't say anything about K-12 education in the UK vs the US. The only thing it really said was that some new schools might have to wait a bit untill they can gain "accreditation" for the IB program... something that the article called "normal." And besides, have our K-12 schools teach IB level courses? Seriously, you must be joking! They would complain becuase we couldn't fudge the scores to make more people pass (eh eh New York Reagent's Exams ;-)... and even those are a total joke compared with A-levels or IB exams )

By Jetboy1857 (Jetboy1857) on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 09:51 pm: Edit

"They would complain becuase we couldn't fudge the scores to make more people pass"

Ha, I love how our country's attitude to a crapy K-12 education system is turning into... instead of raising the quality of the product, let's lower the standards!

Personally I find it somewhat crazy that the richest nation in the world:

- Can't find a way to provide all its citizens with free healtcare

- Can't produce an average 17-18 year old with anywhere near the quantity and quality of education that most other developed countries produce

By Evil_Robot (Evil_Robot) on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 09:54 pm: Edit

Datadigit1 - Read more of the article. Especially where it describes the IB and how it's being promoted in the UK.

My school in the US offers the IB and has for nearly 20 years, along with a magnet technology/science program. How can you claim that the "best of the best" schools aren't even close in the UK vs. the US, when even the Guardian's education register says that the IB is more difficult and distinguishing than A-levels?

Perhaps you have a misunderstanding of how American schools work??? The only thing I'm really saying is that, for the students that are bright and motivated enough (i.e. this board), the US offers rigorous programs that are equal to, if not better, than the British equivalent. The US is 5 times larger (in population) than the UK and has 40 times the area. With no standardized national cirriculum, how can you claim that *all* of the thousands of high schools in the US are inferior to the British A-level standard?

Jetboy - You're being reductionist. Without trying to simplify ad absurdum, the socioeconomic distribution of race/ethnicity, political climate, varied tradition, and sheer size of the United States makes it almost impossible to do a side by side comparison with its systems versus those of another first world nation, without oversimplifying the argument greatly. I will expound on any specific point you may want to discuss that I have made, if necessary.

By Brittania (Brittania) on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 03:05 pm: Edit

Ok, so here's a Brit's perspective...
I've got to admit i may be slightly biased being an ardent patriot and recently recieving an offer from Oxford. The one problem with all Brit uni's is the mass underfunding that it recieves, Oxford's recorded income amounts to a mere $1 billion were as Harvard is over $15 bill. However, there are of course advantages, we Brits have to pay less for a dam good education but it is becoming apparent that U.S uni's are moving slightly ahead simply because of funding.
As for the experience, i'd have to say Oxbridge, these truely are ANCIENT institutions, the traditions aT Oxbridge are unrivalled, the societies, sporting competition and Hogwarts feel is quite simply awesome!

Both are ELITE, there is no denying this, is this a good thing? i'd like to hear people's opinions, i think it is...

As for reputation i'd again have to go with Oxbridge, remember there's Her Majesty's Commonwealth out there, sure America has had a major influence on the World for the past 50 or so years but Britain virtually ruled the world for 300 years and in that time the reputation of Oxbridge and British education has become legendary.

By Voigtrob (Voigtrob) on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 03:08 pm: Edit

"Britain virtually ruled the world for 300 years"... when did that happen? ;P

By Brittania (Brittania) on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 03:14 pm: Edit

Little thing called the British Empire? I believe you Yanks were once part of it? :P

By Brittania (Brittania) on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 03:27 pm: Edit

O.k but seriously,both countries have graet Uni's, there's no doubt U.s uni's have a wider bredth when it comes to study, but as the old syaing goes......."Jack of all trades, master of none"

By Voigtrob (Voigtrob) on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 03:31 pm: Edit

The British Empire never "virtually ruled the world." ;P
As my AP World teacher would put it, that's a eurocentric viewpoint.

Jack of all trades now, AND master of one later. Grad school leaves PLENTY of time for specialization. You shouldn't have to choose what you're going to do for the rest of your life when you're 17.

By Buckley (Buckley) on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 07:56 am: Edit

brittania, you have made me ashamed to be british. how dare you bring the fact that the uk slaughtered and oppressed as many people as possible for its own personal gain into a debate about universities? it has no bearing on anything, and makes us look like a nation of arrogant snobs.

i agree that the uk system does require us to make choices while still quite young, but there is plenty of room to change your mind.just because you begin a degree when you're 18/19 doesn't mean you have to follow that route forever. you can transfer between courses or reapply. it is possible to take joint degrees, and with the open university you can chop and change modules.

the argument that oxbridge is simply fantastic just because of its age is a ridiculous assumption. i did not apply to oxford because i had read about the inflexibility of its courses, didn't want to live in a less exciting place than my home town (recently found to be one of the worst 40 towns in england), and frankly found all of my aqcuaintances who were applying to be two-dimensional and with warped world views.

personally, i think the debate itself is rather irrelevant. but i heard recently that ivy league universities are offering scholarships to the best english literature students from british sixth forms. if this is true, why are they doing this? does it say something about the quality of our sixth-form education?