Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.
Please take a moment to read our updated TOS, Privacy Policy, and Forum Rules.

How Australian Universities Edge Out Ivy League


Replies to: How Australian Universities Edge Out Ivy League

  • elliebhamelliebham Registered User Posts: 876 Member
    I just had to comment on the fact that the cover photo for this thread on the front page is of a group of kangaroos =))
  • TomSrOfBostonTomSrOfBoston Registered User Posts: 11,376 Senior Member
    Were they beside a billabong?
  • nanotechnologynanotechnology Registered User Posts: 2,524 Senior Member
    This is interesting from the non-student side as well; both of my dad's brothers ended up becoming professors at Australian universities (coming from the US) because that's where the jobs were.
  • bernie12bernie12 Registered User Posts: 4,603 Senior Member
    edited June 2016
    @TomSrOfBoston :
    I guess I just don't know what type of experience I consider the better UG experience. In terms of non-academic attributes of the academic experience, many US elite publics and privates I guess are better, but I can't say I prefer the U.S style of academics at the UG level over a very strong program overseas. If my HS and the US k-12 system primed me (an average student attending a selective school) to be much better in a certain area early on, I likely would have enjoyed "hitting the ground running" with much more advanced material once I got to college. The U.S. has much more of a tracking system and the offerings at elites, especially in STEM, show it. You have them offering the students who went far beyond the curriculum "special" level courses that may be closer to an introductory level of theory (as in serves the masses) in the area at somewhere like Oxbridge. The more average student at most U.S. elites gets more "snuggy" interactions with faculty, but also get taught at lower levels of theory (yes, you get a more intensive and continuous workload, but often the level of cognition for that work may not be the same and may sometimes devolve into busy work which we were kind of used to from HS). Always a trade-off I guess. I always wonder if the less structured schedule of work at those schools leads to more self-directed learning whereas in the U.S. we mostly stick to the beat of the impending exams.
  • Penn95Penn95 Registered User Posts: 1,997 Senior Member
    edited July 2016
    Australian universities are not edging out anything. The Ivy League (including MIT,Stanford) and Oxbridge are the most prominent and desirable brands in higher education. It is gonna be super hard for a another team of universities to edge them out.
  • DefensorDefensor Registered User Posts: 268 Junior Member
    I agree with Penn95. Australian universities aren't edging out anything.

    There are virtually no Australian universities that are considered elite international institutions. Australia's very best university wouldn't make the top 20 in the U.S.

  • LutherVanLutherVan Registered User Posts: 151 Junior Member
    Numerous British Commonwealth institutions are clearly overrated by QS and THE, both of which are headquartered in London. I ignore their rankings.

    ARWU (China) is considerably more reliable, and only one Australian institution makes their global top 50, the University of Melbourne which comes in at an underwhelming #44.

    ARWU ranks 6 of the 8 Ivy League schools in the world top 17.

    Please what makes ARWU "more reliable"?
  • LutherVanLutherVan Registered User Posts: 151 Junior Member
    The QS and THE rankings blatantly boost UK and Commonwealth institutions. I wouldn't go by them. If you want to use rankings, the ARWU ranking ( http://www.shanghairanking.com/SubjectCS2015.html ) is more country-neutral and appears more sane, at least for STEMmy subjects, from a research focus.

    How does QS and THE boost UK and Commonwealth institutions by being bias?

    And how is ARWU more sane if it is only good for STEM assessment? The Arts, Humanities and FLAME subjects are irrelevant?
  • losgatoscalosgatosca Registered User Posts: 8 New Member
    This sort of echoes this post: http://www.takerisksbehappy.com/save-money-and-see-the-world-the-hidden-benefits-of-foreign-universities/

    Whether it is universities in Hong Kong or Australia, it seems there are many foreign options that are much cheaper than US ones.
  • AlpineSwiftAlpineSwift Registered User Posts: 38 Junior Member
    LOL at the American elitists in this thread. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) PISA study, an international comparisons study looking at education outcomes for pre-college students around the world in OECD member states, found that United States pre-college students ranked average or below average in most competencies measured, regardless of socio-economic background. The proposed follow-up study to look at tertiary outcomes did not receive enough support to go ahead... I wonder why.
  • PurpleTitanPurpleTitan Registered User Posts: 9,999 Senior Member

    The average (which is what PISA measures) is not the same as the elite level. And obviously, secondary education is not the same as tertiary education.
  • AlpineSwiftAlpineSwift Registered User Posts: 38 Junior Member
    @PurpleTitan, I am suggesting is that the United States' relatively poor performance on the PISA may have contributed to the relatively low turnout for the feasibility study for the OECD's Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes (AHELO), which was conducted on a voluntary basis at the tertiary level across the OECD. One might think elite institutions should have welcomed an objective comparative assessment because it could have boosted prestige, or at least justified it beyond what other ranking systems claim. However, we know that most of the universities in question did not participate.
This discussion has been closed.