<p>The school reference was one my guidance counselor did–no teachers were involved.</p>
<p>What I’m saying is that Oxford didn’t ask for an academic transcript, not even a self-reported one. They just asked for test scores (AP + SAT + ACT).</p>
<p>Oxford’s interviews for Americans are easier than for Brits I believe b/c you are unlikely to be interviewed by a tutor in your subject, since only 4 or so come to NY. My PPE interview was done by a physiologist. That said I really respect Oxford’s subject test, and for an hour-long test I felt it had to be pretty good indicator. I was impressed that they asked for written work too - seems like something US schools should do cept they have far too many applicants.</p>
<p>For the actual interview I felt both Oxford and Harvard were more about your interpersonal skills and ability to convince than about you “intellectual potential.” And I like the American essay more than the British PS. An essay can tell you what an applicants values are, more through what they give away unintentionally than by what they focus on, whereas it seems like the PS is so formulaic that they all sound the same.</p>
<p>Everything I’ve heard about Harvard is that it prepares you well for life by being surrounded by a brilliant and influential group of students more than through the absolute best classes or anything else. So the strike against Oxbridge to me is it feels like theres slightly more isolation for an individual student - however if I was really intent on in-depth academic study in one subject I’d go Oxford hands down.</p>
<p>That is an excellent point about Harvard, Ali. However, it’s also very much relevant to Oxford. Our EC’s really are fantastic: varied, committed, ambitious, sometimes incredibly successful. Sure, there are people who just want to study, but that’s their right; and I know Harvard has those too, because my “host” when I was a pre-frosh didn’t actually see me until a couple of days after I arrived because he was in the library till 2am both days (I was looked after by someone else, who was awesome, so this isn’t a complaint*!). There is a lesser emphasis than at Harvard on rounded individuals so we do have more out and out geeks; but our undergraduate class is about twice the size of Harvard’s, so there’s really no shortage of interesting people doing interesting things. </p>
<p>Oxford definitely has problems with interviewing in the States, though. It is being looked at in the current admissions review, though I can’t see them resolving the problem.</p>
<p>Sonar: Is a GC not a school teacher? My point was simply that there is oversight. The guy who wrote my reference at my school didn’t teach me but he was a teacher and had I tried to lie about my grades I think I’d probably have been expelled!</p>
<p>*I still remember laughing as I rang the guy’s room from the admissions office and overheard his room-mate saying “Alright guys, we have three problems. First, Mike has a pre-frosh. Secnod, he’s from England. Third, he’s here…RIGHT NOW”</p>
<p>UKRUS: The GC is an advisor, so yes, she works for the school (which is what I think you’re getting at). When you say “grades” you mean “standardized test scores,” right? There is no oversight in that part. I wrote the test scores in myself, and no administrator verified them. I am not criticizing Oxford admissions, which is what I think you think I am doing, for I doubt many post illegit test scores. I am just noting how highly they regard test scores. One sees many posts on this board of people with average GPAs and excellent test scores; perhaps they should apply to Oxbridge.</p>
<p>ah yes the written work. I think that’s a really good aspect about the oxbridge application. Perhaps American universities should think of including that too.
A sample of your written work (especially something written in class with limited time) is probably the best indicator of your potential. This criterion also allows you to submit your best performance (as opposed to standardized tests, which some people just aren’t able to do well on).
That said, I have no idea how much oxbridge value each separate part of your application.</p>
<p>Written work is useful, but only really when combined with interview. If you just read it as is it’s very difficult to know how much help each student has had with his essay.</p>
<p>A princetonian writes about his experience at Oxford: <a href=“http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/03/15/news/14875.shtml[/url]”>http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/03/15/news/14875.shtml</a>. sorry, don’t quite know how to manage that link. But it is an interesting perspective and relevant to this discussion.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200503/douthat[/url]”>http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200503/douthat</a>
THE TRUTH ABOUT HARVARD
By Ross Douthat | Mar 1, 2005
(The Atlantic Monthly Magazine)</p>
<p>It may be hard to get into Harvard, but it’s easy to get out without learning much of enduring value at all. A recent graduate’s report</p>
<p>At the beginning of every term Harvard students enjoy a one-week “shopping period,” during which they can sample as many courses as they like and thus—or so the theory goes—concoct the most appropriate schedule for their semesters. There is a boisterous quality to this stretch, a sense of intellectual possibility, as people pop in and out of lecture halls, grabbing syllabi and listening for twenty minutes or so before darting away to other classes.</p>
<p>Source: <a href=“http://amps-tools.mit.edu/tomprofblog/archives/2006/03/709_blue_about.html#more[/url]”>http://amps-tools.mit.edu/tomprofblog/archives/2006/03/709_blue_about.html#more</a></p>
<p>BLUE ABOUT THE CRIMSON PLAN FOR GENERAL EDUCATION</p>
<p>February, 2006</p>
<p>The Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences is poised to approve an embarrassing retreat in general education. The committee charged with reforming the current Core Curriculum has instead abandoned the whole idea. In its place, the committee recommends only a minimum distribution requirement for undergraduates-three courses in each of three fields. Since undergraduates will major in one of these fields, this means a distribution requirement of six courses chosen from hundreds offered by faculty in their various disciplines.</p>
<p>And I know kids who got into Harvard and were rejected by Oxford. Anecdote is not proof of anything.</p>
<p>I have a question:
Why doesn’t Oxford value extracurriculars to the same extent as Harvard does, and doesn’t that convey something about the undergraduate body as well?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>oxford doesn’t consider extra-curriculars in the same way harvard does because it is primarily an academic institution, and has been for 800 years. To look at extra-curriculars with greater depth would be to move away from what makes the student body so interesting-they are all passionate, and exceptionally able at their subjects, something which the US system does not place so much emphasis on.
You raise a valid issue about the student body, and i can see that to some you could assume that it is a homogenate group of people who are obsession with academics, which is not true. The people they select are passionate, interesting and interested people, so naturally they will have interests beyond their academic syllabi, it’s just that there is no need for them to flaunt this on their applications. In my opinion, because of how the US system works, the weight in the US is not so much on what you have done, but how you have managed to sell this over a few pieces of paper.</p>
<p>There will almost certainly be less people who have climbed mount everest at the age of 14 to raise money for cancer research (or done other such amazing things) at Cambridge because such an achievement is not evaluated in the admissions procedure but, is this necessarily a bad thing for institutions whose purpose is fundamentally academic?</p>
<p>It was raised earlier with one person commenting on their ‘easy interview’, so i shall respond.</p>
<p>Perhaps what can be difficult for those not familiar with the system to understand is how different applications for different subjects are. The admit rates vary hugely, from around 40% for slightly obscure subjects to around 15% for the most competitive subjects (and lower), SPS is generally considered a less competitive subject, becuase the applicants are generally of a lower standard and the admit rates are slightly higher (-huge generalised sweeping statement, I know, sorry to any SPSers!)</p>
<p>For other subjects, there is a 2 hour exam at interview and written work must be sent in alongsde 40-60 minutes of interview. Oxford are taking steps to remove the view that the interview is the only factor. If you have had a look at any admissions papers, you will see that they don’t require lots of factual knowledege but more an aptitude for the subject.</p>
<p>Oh, and then there is the difficulties between colleges, getting into trinity cam for maths is much harder than any other cam college… (again, sweeping statement)</p>
<p>I do not understand why you devaluate Harvard’s academic value. Need I remind you that all global rankings state that Harvard is number one globally, especially in terms of academics? On the contrary, the fact that Harvard, in spite of providing its students with education just as stellar as Oxbridge, puts emphasis on the social and humanitarian aspect of the students’ lives. I for one have seen a very smart, but very introvert and destitute in terms of ecs student get rejected from Harvard and get into Oxbridge. By that I do not mean that Oxbridge is just a body of miserable students who are stuck in their books all day long. I am simply saying that you are fallaciously evaluating Harvard simply because of its emphasis on extracurriculars.
This is surreal. The US system places just the right amount of emphasis on grades that is needed. It does not overvalue them, and it uses ecs as a counterweight. When the balance is right, the student is admitted. </p>
<p>And since you proclaim that Oxbridge is “fundamentally academic”, how do you justify the fact that Harvard has been for so long top dog worldwide? Is it because it undermines grades? Of course not! It is because it is so intellectually challenging (a notion that many people I know who attend Harvard share).</p>
<p>I don’t think Harvard has a better world-wide reputation that Oxford or Cambridge. I’ve lived in both Africa and two European countries. I do think the American idea of college education is fundamentally quite different from any of the European universities. There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems. I had a friend who transferred to Oxford (in biology - don’t know which college). He had so much free time he taught himself to play the banjo and was winning festivals as a grad student.</p>
<p>
Need I remind you that rankings are regularly criticised by many academics, and furthermore are a ranking of the UNIVERSITY not the undergraduate education they offer. On top of that, arguing the difference between number 1 and 2 is like splitting hairs and completely pointless. Harvard’s sucess is firstly because of its graduate departments and graduate students, which make up 2/3 of the student body. </p>
<p>I am not going to fill in this post with lists of anecdotal evidence along the lines of “i know a two headed freak who got into Harvard, stupid affirmative action” and “we had one kid at our school who hadn’t turned up to our math class for like 6 months and he got into oxford” because it’s pointless, and much like using the Bible, you can prove any point with anecdotal evidence.</p>
<p>As to the US not ‘overvaluing grades’, well the reason they don’t is because, on the whole, their grades are very bad descriminants. Oxbridge have a similar issue, hence the emergence or such demanding aptitude tests at interview that make it very difficult for the next great physicist to slip through the net. I am not ‘devaluting Harvard’ or whatever you imply, I am just asserting that the selection process for oxbridge is based on academic rigor much more than the US system, which, is appropriate because it has been using a similar approach for the last 800 years and been churning out some of the most influential academics in the world, including, incidentally, the founder of Harvard.</p>
<p>It is pretty much undeniable that in your chosen discipline you will experience a much more rigorous and ‘deep’ education at oxford than at harvard. Why? It’s not becuase one is ‘better’ than the other, but simply becuase you only study one thing for 3 years, as appose to numerous subjects for 4 years. Similarly, you would be crazy to argue that you will get a broader education at oxford, you won’t.</p>
<p>Arguing over this is futile; I have criticisms of both systems, and fundamentally see them as such different educations stystems that it is hardly worth brushing them both with the same title of ‘university’. There are a number of people who will vehemently support one or the other of the universities, most of whom will not have attended either, and will almost certainly have not attended both.</p>
<p>In many countries, it is easier to find a job if you graduate from Harvard than Oxford or Cambridge.
Speaking as an international, the fact is that in many countries the emphasis is on reputation rather than quality. As I said before, I am not devaluating Oxbridge and eulogizing Harvard. But there is no reason whatsoever why the vice versa should take place.</p>
<p>I think its pretty nieve to claim that employers prefer one degree over the other, firstly becuase employers do not rank the universities in a simple list of 1.2.3.4.5. It’s like claiming that they prefer oxford over cambridge. Also, I think you are confusing the opinion of the man on the Calpham omnibus with the views of the human resources departments in the big employers. The man on the street in Mongolia may have heard of Harvard, and not Cambridge but this is in no way representational of the employers of the country, who really couldn’t give a rats arse between the difference in the two universities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ll give you one country - the United States of America.</p>
<p>Let’s face it. There are plenty of Americans who have never heard of Oxford or Cambridge. And yes, many of them actually have hiring power (I have encountered these people). But it’s hard to find any American who has never heard of Harvard.</p>
<p>
We are NOT talking about welfare states where everything is wonderful LadyLou. We are talking about small states, where people are ignorant. In Greece and other Balkan states, people know that Harvard is the top. And that’s all there is to it. The end. There is no such thing as “ah, Harvard puts more emphasis on extracurriculars” or “the rankings are subjective”. Nothing like that here. Here, it’s all about reputation. You really think that in a country like this people do BACKGROUND CHECK?? Dont make me laugh. Greece is admittedly one of the countries with the worst system (let that be public, welfare, …) and the people do not care. Now, if you wanna work as I do at a university and teach, of course it wont matter. But if you are a doctor and wanna go public, it’s Harvard that will get u in over somebody else, simply because people know it, and in spite of how good Oxbridge actually is, people trust what they know, and they know that Harvard is better, even though that may not be the case.</p>