bruno123

On the other hand, what about the typical Asian boy with a perfect 2400 SAT score and 10 AP courses who doesn't get into an Ivy school because some (non-academic) admissions official believes he is not "well-rounded" enough or won't add "diversity" to the freshman class ?

Meanwhile, other far less qualified kids, perhaps with a 2000 or lower SAT score, much lower GPA, and only regular HS courses, get in because they are URM's, athletes, or even worse, on the the flip side of the coin, are admitted despite their not-so-stellar academic qualifications because they have legacy parents or come from wealthy and influential families !

If you ask me, the American "holistic approach" is the one that should be considered "ridiculous", not the other way around.

bruno123

Your friend could take both Decision Analysis and Organisational Theory and Behaviour (US spelling: Organizational Theory and Behavior) as electives to fulfill the requirements for the BSc in Management Sciences at LSE. Those two (full-year) courses would probably give him/her a much more solid background in the area than any "basic psychology/decision-science class" taken as an undergrad in the US.

You are right, however, when you say foreign languages are rarely required in the UK. Several LSE programs allow you though to study a foreign language as a non-compulsory outside option. Moreover, many UK students also take a foreign language as a contrasting A-level subject before getting into a university.

bluebubbles

SamualUK, any major in the US which requires 12 classes will give you the exact same depth as an English course will. I'm not saying that British colleges are bad, on the contrary, they're very good, that's why everyone from all over the world wants to go there, just like in the US. I'm just saying they should revamp their admissions process and allow students a little more freedom in terms of class selection. It's no attack on the British. I live here and I love it.

The personal statement can either be 500 words of sincere enthusiasm or 500 words of bullcrap. Same with references. I don't see it as a good way to choose candidates. The interviews are the way to go.

Bruno123, yes AA is a *****, but I think it gets far too bad of a rap, and I say that as a whitey. It's a case-by-case basis and what I've seen a lot of times is that an applicant who might not have that great of scores makes up for it in other ways. We don't know the extent of those applicants' applications. And sorry, I think having a college filled with nerd-drones who just study all day is a terribly un-enriching place. Diversity can teach just as well as any college professors, sometimes even better.

Username, yep, you can do a year of university and reapply.

bruno123

Nevertheless, how common is it for a U.S undergraduate major to require 12 specialist classes ? My guess is that it is not very common.

Take for example the S.B degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT.

In order to graduate, a student must first fulfill the general MIT science requirements, i.e. two semesters of calculus, two semesters of physics, one semester of chemistry, and one semester of biology, most of which corresponds to material that is covered in the UK in A-level Maths/Physics/Chemistry and in first-year university courses for engineers/natural scientists. The additional departmental requirements then include two extra semesters of Math/Statistics, plus two Intro to Engineering classes, 3 "foundation subjects", 3 "header subjects" , 2 "advanced undergraduate subjects", and one lab/design class.

Taking out the additional Math classes (again, material routinely covered in the UK at A-level and first-year uni level) , the Intro to Engineering classes (which don't really count) and the required lab class, the specialist compulsory EECS content in the MIT curriculum boils down then to 8 one-semester classes only, as opposed to 12. Note that, as part of the "general education" requirements, an MIT EECS major is required to take an equal number of classes (i.e. eight classes) in Humanities and Social Sciences! Then, there are 48 units (roughly 4 classes) of free electives, which a student could use to further his/her engineering education (to match the 12-course threshold that you mentioned), or take further science/math classes, or simply study something completely unrelated to science/engineering.

Please note that I am not implying that an MIT undergraduate education is "bad". Quite the contrary, I am pretty sure MIT is the world's top engineering school offering very rigorous undergraduate courses that provide excellent preparation for further graduate studies in the area. I am implying though that, as a result of the way they are structured, US bachelor's degrees are not quite as deep in specialist content as their UK counterparts. In fact, I would dare to say that a 4-year engineering or science degree in the UK is probably comparable to a 5-year integrated BS/MS or, equivalently, a standard 4-year BS + an MS in the US.

bluebubbles

Oh dear, you do your research well. But then comes the question, how well prepared are A-level mathematics students for rigorous engineering courses such as those at Imperial or Cambridge?

If someone really wanted to specialize at MIT, they could just use the remaining 4 electives to take the last 4 EECS classes which would equal the 12 courses that I was talking about. Some people could choose not to do that and instead, say, take a business class which would prepare these electrical engineers for the days when they would, say, own their own firm. Students at Imperial don't have the flexibility to do that. All I'm saying, whether you choose to specialize or not, the US gives a valuable amount of freedom to its students to choose.

I had a friend who did business at a uni in the UK but hated it and eventually dropped out to do a film course. He lost one and a half years and 7000 pounds. In the US, he would've simply had to change his major.

I understand that a 4-year engineering degree equals an integrated 5-year BS/MS but there's no way it would be recognized as a master's in the US, or maybe even the UK.

oldspc

From bluebubbles:
"And sorry, I think having a college filled with nerd-drones who just study all day is a terribly un-enriching place. Diversity can teach just as well as any college professors, sometimes even better."

And I'm sorry but this is the sort of ignorant crap that gets spouted again and again on these boards. Yes, Oxbridge students are selected overwhelmingly on grounds of intellect, but that does not mean they are nerds or stuck in a library all day. Anyone who has actually been near Oxford or Cambridge can testify to the incredibly wide range of ECs that are pursued - sport, music, politics, drama etc - only the students don't do it to tick an EC box. The backgrounds, interests and activities of Oxbridge undergraduates are very diverse, it's just that the universities don't seem to have to socially engineer the intake to achieve it.

Just because something is done a particular way in the States doesn't mean that that is the only correct way of doing it.

u§ername

I think that means so much more than robotics pretending to be humans by doing ECs. What exactly is Diversity? Everyone keeps claiming diversity can bring this, diversity can bring that... any proof?

cc2468

Thanks guys-very interesting thread that I stumbled upon. I too am considering a UK education, from an American international high school. I feel that there's definitely an asian glass ceiling in the US.