<p>I agree that a British high school education is more in depth than an American one–which is probably why it takes four years rather than three to graduate from an American college. And, like you, I do not like the AP syllabi (nor do many American profs, for that matter).
What I like about an American education at the college level, apart from the ease of switching majors, is the synergy a student gets from being able to combine insights from different disciplines such as anthropology and history, or combining two totally different sets of courses. I know several students who studied history or politics or some other social sciences yet accumulated enough courses in the sciences to be admitted into medical schools. They knew they wanted to go to medical school but also wanted the opportunity, not to be repeated, to take courses in totally different fields. Perhaps this is easier in a British university. It is pretty impossible in a French one.</p>
<p>Not one of these mutual p**sing sessions again :rolleyes: ?</p>
<p>In the end there is a different philosophical understanding of the purpose of undergraduate university education either side of the pond. Breadth v. depth. And both are valid points of view.</p>
<p>Here in the UK the purpose is to immerse ourselves in the subject and become as expert as possible in the 3-4 years. The liberal arts curriculum can strike us as a bit dilettante or jack-of-all-trades - nice for a bit of a side interest, but not the stuff of serious academic study. In the States, on the other hand, you are brought up in an environment where liberal arts is the way it’s done, which is why you get Byerly coming up with comments like
as if it were a universal truth.</p>
<p>And of course the tone means that more heat than light is generated, and we neglect some of the fundamental rules of academic study by presenting our opinions as fact.</p>
<p>And when it comes to all the range of league tables, none of them really tries to engage with the fundamental issue of the quality of undergraduate education. Depending on your philosophy of the purpose of university education Oxbridge or Harvard will come out on top.</p>
<p>It’s list is based on the 2004 “Shanghai” ranking. (You can hardly expect them to cite the list put together by a rival such as the THES, can you! )</p>
<p>Here is a link to the 2005 “Shanghai” ranking: note that Cambridge is up, and Oxford is down.</p>
<p>In the UK medicine is an undergraduate school, so if you had been studying history at Oxbridge for 3 years and then wanted to change to medicine you might have to reapply to the medical school (depending on A-level subjects-some evidence of scienftific ability would be required) to start from year 1 again. I know people who have done engineering and economics who have after completing their degree, done a fast track medical degree for science graduates.
basically, offically,we are less flexible than the american system, but if you really make a big issue about wanting to transfer, generally an arrangement can be made. I am sure a few even transfer to Ivy league schools every year.</p>
<p>We are really splitting hairs here, i think we are both intelligent enough to realise that both the Ivy league and Oxbridge are the best undergrad programs in the world, and we both (good luck with your application) getting the education we prefer!</p>
<p>Byerly, a response could be: well The Economist would say that!</p>
<p>Like good academics we should know about our sources as that will inform how we interpret what they say and the weight we will give them. </p>
<p>The Economist of course has a very strong editorial line in favour of a private-sector driven, free-market economy, a line that pervades virtually any article that appears in it. It also means that at times their arguments have intellectually weak foundations because they are based on what are effectively dogmas that cannot be questioned.</p>
<p>The effect, insofar as it comments UK affairs, is that it has a stock position of “public sector bad, private sector good”. I would read their comments on universities with that very much in mind.</p>
<p>I am suprised and amazed that Yale with all its wealth still failes to beat Oxbridge in the tables! I think this is because many top Academics are not totally corrupt and capitalistic, and would rather be at Oxbridge for beauty, history an reputation over a $40k pay rise. Money is not everything!</p>
<p>Personally OldSPC, I believe the Americans have a lot to teach Oxbridge in terms of the free market benefits of university finances.
If oxbridge were to be more aggressive in financing and fundraising (which they increasingly are now) they would be a force to be reckoned with.
If cambridge is world NO2 with $6bn endowment, can you imagine it with the $15bn endowment of yale? A similar logic applies to Oxford.</p>
<p>Yes, also oxbridge is ‘better value’. The government pays for my tuition fees for now (only have to pay back when i earn>$30k) and also gives me $8k per year in bursary, meaning i actually make a profit! Also then there is the $10k interest free loan per year. The difference being this is all supplied without any worry on my behalf, i do not even have to apply for it.
Also with the fourth year princeton exchange, they will supply ME with $6k to study there! As the princeton student who comes oxford continues to pay for the cost of my education in the States!</p>
<p>Imagine where Oxbridge would rank without the subsidies, which - after all - SOMEBODY has to pay for. It is a measure of their strength that the Ivies + Stanford + MIT award need-based aid, but do not subsidize those who can afford to pay - ie, they do not need to lure top students by offering discounted tuition.</p>
<p>‘they do not need to lure top students by offering discounted tuition’.</p>
<p>rubbish!, people are constantly on this site talking about how how Ivy league unis are brilliant because they offer financial aid to those top students who need it! And thus attract them. Oxbridge does exactly the opposite of what you are saying, the government make money NOT an issue for either the rich or poor and thus attract the top students independent of their financial situation. </p>
<p>Financial strength is not academic strength necesarily, Oxbridge recieve around $270m each in subsidies, nothing in comparison to ivy league schools in terms of income, yet still remain higher in the tables than Yale and Princeton.</p>
<p>With the exception of the state universities, universities in the US (the great majority) are private and fee-paying. So there is an expectation built into the system that if your household has a high enough income you will have to pay for your higher education. Therefore the fact that people who were already going to have to pay are prepared to pay to go to the Ivies + Stanford + MIT is not such a great leap.</p>
<p>As far as UK subsidies are concerned, the amount that can be charged for tuition is set by the Government and is set for all universities. The discounts are imposed by the Government not volunteered by the university so the idea that Oxbridge needs to offer discounts to lure students is a simple departure from the facts. Indeed there is a top-up element of upto £3,000 p.a. which universities can choose whether or not to charge students. Oxbridge adds the maximum £3,000 which implies if anything the opposite of a need to lure.</p>
<p>(Wanders away muttering, “What do they teach them in these schools nowadays?”)</p>
<p>Princeton is where i will probably go, if i decide to go to the US.
As an undergraduate, i had grown up in the US, it would probably be still be Princeton, it is the world leader in theoretical Physics (edward Witten, Yuan maldecena among its faculty). </p>
<p>However, i have never visited either so it is difficult to say completely, If Harvard impressed me more as a campus and architectuarly, along with its proximity to Boston and No1 ranking, it would be H.</p>
<p>Which is more beautiful in your experience? Harvard is supposed to be quite underwhelming is it not.</p>
<p>2) I have a love for History and Architecture, Oxford is the oldest, most beautiful university in the english speaking world. It truly is a magical place. Anyone who has visited will tell you that</p>
<p>3) with the Oxford-Princeton partenership and Exchange scheme, i will probably spend my final year in America anyway, and completely paid for. </p>
<p>4) I prefer the Oxford tutorial system, and also the Bodlean library is an amazing place, 900 hundred years old!</p>
<p>5) Harvard has a lesser social life (cannot drink under 21)-Oxford has a legendary social scene and is bustling.</p>
<p>6) No financial worries.</p>
<p>7) Is world famous, and among employers and the general public, there really is no distinction among an Oxford or Harvard degree.</p>
<p>8) I will be awarded with a masters after only 3 years!</p>
<p>Going by beauty, I believe Cambridge (UK) tops it all, with Oxford second.</p>
<p>As for Harvard, the Charles river really adds to the scenery (especially if you are into rowing), although for my taste the (undergraduate) campus is a little bit too much intersected by roads, once you leave the old yard. The more small town setting of Cambridge in combination with the proximity of Boston are hard to beat, however.</p>
<p>In architectural terms I find Princeton more impressive (and diverse), but that is a matter of taste, if you are more into Georgian or Gothic revival (both are nowhere near the originals from Britain as for that) The campus athmosphere at Princeton is more self-contained and park-like (if anything at Harvard were to remind me of Princeton in terms of campus athmosphere, it would be the Business School).</p>
<p>Having said all this, I would never pick a school based on its beauty.</p>
<p>As I said this is all very subjective. I simply like the vistas from the Cam better, the space in front of the churches. this is not to say that Oxford is not impressive.</p>
<p>Certainly, no Ivy campus comes close in terms of beauty, however in terms of facilites I think the new world is far ahead of the old</p>
</p>![http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Ftravel.yahoo.com%2Fp-travelguide-2798751-radcliffe_camera_oxford-i%26action%3Dimgsearch%26page%3D1&imgcurl=users.ox.ac.uk%2F~stanford%2Foxfordsmall.jpg&imgurl=users.ox.ac.uk%2F~stanford%2Foxfordsmall.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fusers.ox.ac.uk%2F~stanford&rcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fusers.ox.ac.uk%2F~stanford&name=oxfordsmall[/url]](http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Ftravel.yahoo.com%2Fp-travelguide-2798751-radcliffe_camera_oxford-i%26action%3Dimgsearch%26page%3D1&imgcurl=users.ox.ac.uk%2F%7Estanford%2Foxfordsmall.jpg&imgurl=users.ox.ac.uk%2F%7Estanford%2Foxfordsmall.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fusers.ox.ac.uk%2F%7Estanford&rcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fusers.ox.ac.uk%2F%7Estanford&name=oxfordsmall%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
