<p>BirdloverFla: You weren’t by any chance drunk when you posted your last message three times? ;)</p>
<p>@axpc: coming from an american: the undergraduate education at oxbridge is much better than at us unis, as there is lots of individual attention (tutorials), the level is much higher because high school diplomas cant be counted on, and the selection procedure is much more rigourous (interviews, not just ec counting). dont agree with your points.</p>
<p>You must be a fully acculturated “American!”</p>
<p>nope just a typo even brits dont write that. ah well.</p>
<p>ive been through the cambridge interview process.
their selection methods are not good and don’t really work
the interview tests your self-marketing skills, not your academic potential</p>
<p>and writing 500 words on how much your uncle jim has influenced you really does test your academic potential? </p>
<p>how on earth are you supposed to be able to “self-market” your way through, say, a science interview - either you can do the problem or you cant.</p>
<p>Are the interviews “harder” than typical US interviews? Sure.</p>
<p>Are the interviews so hard that the typical US HYP admitted student would have any issue with them? Not a bit.</p>
<p>And my interview did have significant science in it (p-n junctions and semiconductors), but nothing too hard for anyone that’s ever read a science journal.</p>
<p>Are the interviews so hard that the typical US HYP admitted student would have any issue with them? Most definitely. The science taught to us high school students is generally so basic that few of them have a chance in a science interview, even hyp admitted students. I’m not saying all of them arent smart enough, a year or so of college could get them to oxbridge standard in their subject. Of course if they read loads of journals and study independently they could be ok.</p>
<p>Well, the kind of students that get into HYP for science are the sort of people that - out of sheer interest - read a lot of journals, do independent research, and participate in a wide array of competitions. If you expect to get into HYP, that’s almost a pre-requisite.</p>
<p>As for my last post, I was speaking from personal experience that the science background I needed for my Oxford interview was nothing particularly difficult. I consider myself okay at science, but I assure you that at Princeton, there’ll be tons of people as good or better at science than me.</p>
<p>the point is, oxbridge dont even look at your high school grades!
grades-correct me if i’m wrong-tend to be a fairly accurate measure of academic potential.
and for humanities/social sciences, the interview is really no big deal. You just find out what your interviewer’s focus is on and then read up on that.</p>
<p>That’s just pathetically ignorant. If you have no idea about one of the two systems and are just interested in promoting the one you’re familiar with keep quiet and don’t waste people’s time.</p>
<p>Oxford receive and consider all your grades from grade 10-12. Oxbridge interviews are far more difficulties than gaining high grades - their whole point is to seperate people who’ve achieved high grades, and their level is pitched as such. Reading up on your interviewers’ interest is irrelevant, they won’t be talking about their specialist but about what you studied and pushing you as far as you can go on that, and a little bit beyond.</p>
<p>If HYP admits find interviews so easy, why are HYP seen as the less academic option at top British high schools? We had kids who didn’t get into Oxbridge and only then applied to HYP, and got in. Like I said at the start of this thread, about half the early action admits to Harvard in 2004 didn’t get into Oxbridge.</p>
<p>“That’s just pathetically ignorant.”
actually not.
I don’t know about oxford. But I did apply and got into cambridge for Social and Political Science. They didn’t even look at my high school grades. All they had was a recommendation, a personal statement and the interview.
As I said, it is possible to ******** your way through an oxbridge interview. It’s not possible to ******** your way through high school.
The person in my class who ended up going to cambridge was eloquent and articulate, but didn’t have the best grades.
I’m not commenting on the level of education at oxbridge because i wouldn’t know. But I think they’re selection process is BS.</p>
<p>They did look at your grades, they’re on the form you sent in (US apps may be an exception, I’d be surprised). But if they didn’t consider them, that may be because they were at too low a level, or irrelevant. It’s great you got 100% in a math test when you were 16 but it hardly shows ability to do a difficult degree, does it? </p>
<p>Oxbridge admissions aren’t perfect but in terms of assessing academic potential they’re far more effective than HYP. Grades are designed to test the whole population, Oxbridge and HYP are interested in testing the top 5%. That’s why academic interviews are so effective; equally it’s why HYP’s reliance on grades and other written scores is so inferior.</p>
<p>What’s a better test of academic potential - sitting for half an hour being directly tested by an expert, or sitting an exam paper? If you’re good enough to ******** the latter, and hardly anyone is, you’re easily good enough to ******** the former.</p>
<p>Not surprising, if the two schools have very different priorities and policies in admissions. Also not surprising given that the group of people who applied to both Harvard EA and Oxbridge and got into Harvard EA is truly miniscule.</p>
<p>I didn’t apply from the US.
The only grades they did look at were predicted graduation grades.
My GC just “predicted” excellent results for all oxbridge applicants.
I agree that the interviews are challenging, quite intimidating and overall a unique experience. But I don’t think a half an hour talk can gauge your academic potential better than an exam. I don’t know about science, but for SPS, the first 10 minutes were quite general and the next 20 basically tested your responsiveness, quick-wittedness, sharpness… call it whatever you want, but I don’t think it has anything to do with intellectual ability</p>
<p>The onus in this argument really is on HYP supporters. You’re the guys who are are rubbishing Oxford, saying, for example: “are the interviews so hard that the typical US HYP admitted student would have any issue with them? Not a bit.”; that we don’t get any sex; that we our courses have no depth; that our courses have no breadth; that we’re elitist; that it’s easy to get in; etc etc</p>
<p>I’ve never claimed HYP are anything but outstanding universities, very competitive to get into. I consider the fact I got into H sufficiently impressive to include it on my resum</p>
<p>“I’m not commenting on the level of education at oxbridge because i wouldn’t know.” 3 posts up.
If you read what I post, you’ll notice that I’m not trying to prove that one university is better than the other. Oxbridge are great universities and would have been happy to go to either of them. But I do think their selection process is somewhat lacking. Interviews are a great idea, but standardized testing for example could make the process more complete.
On the other, the American admissions system is far from perfect. I find they put way too much emphasis on extra-curriculars and personal experience.</p>
<p>I don’t have an issue with posters like you (I misinterpreted your first post): you respected Cambridge enough to apply, at least!</p>
<p>But a quick look through this thread will see some completely unjustified, baseless attacks on Oxford and Cambridge, and I’ve no problem pointing out people’s biggotry.</p>
<p>just a note: for American students, Oxford didn’t ask for any acadmemic transcripts, only self-reported test scores.</p>
<p>But they require a school reference, which means if you were lying your teachers would have to be on the act too.</p>
<p>Oxford does also random check transcripts before matriculation.</p>
<p>Harvard didn’t check any of my EC’s, even though they formed a substantial part of the reason they admitted me. There comes a point when you just try people not to lie!</p>