Got the impression in the 1970-80s that it was pretty much impossible to get in from a US high school. Was it much harder to get in before AP exams became as common as they are now? I am just asking out of curiosity.
Oxbridge and universities elsewhere have always loved full pay international students (and probably always will).
That was a time when international standards were less well established, hence more parochial criteria were used, in particular a reliance on admissions tests. As such, public school education was a great aid in teaching students how to take the tests, how to act, even what accent to cultivate, etc. Oxbridge back then was viewed as much more exalted, the stuff of Rhodes scholars. In the late 70s, I did meet a couple of Americans who were undergraduates at Oxford in classics - they had done BAs in the US and matriculated as second years, in effect 4 years at an American Uni was treated as equivalent to one year at Oxford. So it was possible.
Today, Oxbridge is much more cosmopolitan and open, with a deeper understanding of the workings of education systems in other countries. I do not have statistics, but I have seen claims that as many as 60 Americans are undergrads at Cam. My d is an American undergrad at Cam, though she has lived in Europe most of her life, and applied from France, where she was doing a French BAC - we were very impressed with their understanding of the Lycee system. The admissions tutors at Cam are very encouraging to international applicants now.
When my parents took a tourist trip to Oxford in the 70s, their guide implied that very few students from the US and some other countries met Oxford’s qualifications. He indicated that Rhodes Scholars also did not meet their qualifications, but were admitted because it was in Cecil Rhode’s will.
Rhodes Scholars mostly studied for a 2nd undergraduate degree. The US educational system is less structured and more general. The British high school education is more specialized, and more advanced, particularly at English “public” schools. Oxbridge undergraduate study might be similar to graduate study at some US universities.
Those classic students given credit for one year might have been about right. They probably weren’t ready for graduate study at Oxford.
With 30 US students from US high schools admitted to Oxbridge every year, versus about 5000 at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton combined, it seems like it is still difficult.
I don’t think thousands of Americans are applying to Oxbridge and being turned down, either now or in the past. I think the UK education system is not very compatible with the US one so there aren’t that US many applicants. US students have not spent the previous two years already focussing on at least an area (Science or arts) of study.UK students have.
I also think before online applications and skype interviews existed it was probably much more difficult to apply from abroad. Applicants would have had to be much more organised in order to meet the 15th October application deadine when applying by mail, and would have had to travel to the UK for an interview.
A classics major in the US typically would study 4 years of Latin in high school, 1 of 6 courses a year (only a few private schools offer Greek). Then he/she might study about half classics courses for 4 years of college. A British student might study Latin and Greek for O-levels and A-levels. So the British student might have studied more classics after 1 year at Oxford than the US student after 4 years of college. Given the high level of education at Oxford, and the rigidity of the program, starting at the second year would be about right.
It would be similar in other subjects, though maybe not engineering. The US student does get more of a general education, particularly at good schools.
I would imagine that Oxford is really good in classics, and some US students would want to study there, as they could not get the same level of education in classics in the US.
^In response to the above comment, as a 2015 college grad who studied classical Latin for 3 years at an American university and for 1 year at Oxford (I spent my junior year there), I can tell you that’s an outdated representation of the differences between classical instruction in America and the UK.
Oxford students do more translation work in terms of sheer volume/line numbers than American students, but I did not feel inferior to my peers or like I needed catching up once I got there. It’s hard to explain. Basically, yes, classics students at Oxford get a more comprehensive education in Latin and Greek, especially leading up to their Moderations, but a good US student should be able easily to transition to the local system–or to get into a postgraduate classics course at Oxford and excel, as many Americans actually do.
One of my classics professors in the US was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford in the olden days and read Literae Humaniores as her second BA, and we’ve compared notes. From my conversations with her I conclude that the average classics student at Oxford used to come in with much better knowledge of Latin and Greek back when public school pupils were even more overrepresented at Oxford than they are now/more students took Latin and Greek in school. The Oxford course was premised on the assumption that students needed no help with Latin or Greek, so there was no formal instruction in the languages, only a reading list and exams. Nowadays many of the classics students at Oxford come in without any knowledge of Latin or Greek, and even those who took Latin in school need a lot of help with it. Oxford has adjusted the course to meet these students’ needs and so there are language tutorials and translation assignments just like there are in the US.
Granted, I did not sit any exams, and I know that exam preparation is the most stressful and intensive part of the course for many. Still, I had many conversations about Latin literature and ancient history with local classics students and, to be perfectly honest, there were far more similarities between our educational experiences than there were differences.
@Ghostt, I believe that your statement is completely accurate. Frankly, I think that the pretension that American undergraduate education is worth only the first year of Oxford is unspeakably arrogant, though of course, it was more so that transfers fit the course requirements in their specificity rather than their level of education. There is a difference.
I mean no disrespect to Oxbridge standards. At Cam, there is no question that my d is focused beyond what I would expect of most American undergraduates, but I am sure that the level would match once graduate studies were undertaken. I worry that she would have had a different experience at a liberal arts college with more choices, though she is very happy with her course and certainly on the way to graduate school at 21. Both systems have their superior attributes.
The American undergrad education is definitely more flexible and can be more general (with an emphasis on a broad liberal arts education at many places) than the English one (or Scottish one, though they offer a little more flexibility than the English unis). One guy who knows more math than I do said that in the first year of a top American PhD program in math, the Americans are shellshocked and spend the year catching up with their European and Asian peers. After the first year, though (assuming that they get through it), they’re fine and on the same level.
For many majors, Americans would spend less than 50% of their 4 years in their major courses.
However, allowing kids the flexibility to decide on what to concentrate on later, after they had tried a few classes in a few subjects and also to double/triple major and take classes outside their major is a major strength of the American higher ed system, IMO. Few teenagers actually have a good idea where their interests and talents lie and there was a study that found that a greater percentage of students who went through the (more flexible) Scottish unis ended up doing work related to their major after graduation than students who graduated from English unis.
Meh, it may depend on the specific program. While the classics case may be different, the A Level curriculum for chemistry covers all of the introductory chemistry at my college (first year), and provides a complete theoretical, introductory background in organic chemistry (2nd year college chem), and also covers some of the inorganic chemistry and smatterings of biochemistry. I would think that Oxford would build on this foundation the first year, taking advantage of the fact that the student is focused on chemistry (and maybe some math and physics, although the A Level physics curriculum usually covers the necessary physics needed to understand advanced chemistry) to cover most of the other requirements for a chemistry degree at my school. To be honest, this model is nightmarish, given how much you need to digest in such a short period of time, and also to remember all of it. I much more prefer the relaxed version in America. So yeah, I don’t see why it’s unreasonable for Americans with a BA in chemistry should be placed in 2nd or 3rd year university in the UK. I think this system may make less sense for for people who are studying, say, economics or sociology, because the A Level curriculum does not cover more than 2 college economics or sociology classes, so American undergraduates would probably be fine to go to grad school in the UK right afterwards.
I agree that the flexibility in the American system is useful. I am still confused as to whether to major in math, chemistry (a completely unexpected interest, given my self-imposed bad experience w/ it in high school) or settle for some major in the humanities or social sciences.