I wish @BiffBrown could come comment and give you some insight. The best analogy to me about Oxford STEM versus Emory is kind of like comparing VU to WUSTL (and by extension Emory…the philosophy of STEM teachers at Emory main and WUSTL seem more similar). The first two formers tend to have classes (best or not) that “land” at a certain average and will definitely not be curved. The latter two in each set have top and mid-level instructors who know they will write exams (they may put several items that are a reach for the normal student in the class or even the top students…basically stuff they didn’t directly teach or even indirectly teach. You must derive it. This is normal in math and physics, but not chemistry and biology. And those in chemistry and biology on main love doing this which flies in the face of how younger students think you are supposed to prep for chemistry and biology exams, memorization of problem types and processes to solve them or rote memorization of content) that will have to be re-normed or curved to some mean (could usually range from 2.7-3.0/4.0, so a B -). In the latter system you may get a somewhat higher percentage of A’s, but there will be more C’s in those same classes and the A students will have braved or succeeded on more difficult exam items to distinguish themselves from the crowd. It is more like different styles of rigor. I don’t know what most prefer. I preferred the latter as a pre-grad because the professors with the harder exams pushed me to think deeper or more creatively than what I would have otherwise although learning to have a work ethic ain’t bad either. I guess those who went to Oxford have to navigate both systems which BiffBrown is seeing now (could be especially good for pre-MDPhD folks?)