I am a international student who has received offers from both US and UK universities, and right now I am facing a decision of which school I should choose. I get a conditional offer from Oxford University, Pembroke college, Engineering Science major, a offer of Mathematics major from UCLA(University of California, Los Angeles), and Mechanical Engineering from USC(University of Southern California).
I think that Oxford is more prestigious than UCLA and USC. But I want to start up my own company when I graduate, and according to many friends, UCLA and USC may give me a better environment for doing marketable projects because they are near the Silicon Valley. Research opportunities is a critical factor for me when choosing schools, may anyone tell me about the research conditions for undergraduate students in these three schools? I am doing several engineering projects on my own and I hope to put them onto the market when I am in the university.
What do you think?
How much time have you spent looking at the actual content of the three courses? They are strikingly different. Math at UCLA is very theoretical. Oxford is very hands-on practical- you are doing projects from first year on. USC is in the middle: first bit academic groundwork, but more projects as you go on.
Of the 3 my guess would be that you would have the most engineering research opportunities as UCLA - but you are in for math there. At Oxford research beyond the curriculum would be only during the summer- the workload is ferociously heavy, and you aren’t even meant to have a part-time job during term time (note that there are 3 9-week terms, with 2 6 week vacations between them plus the summer holidays- although engineers have to work at least one of their summers).
Also, Silicon Valley is not fairy dust, that just by being kind of “nearby” (actually a 5+ hour drive from SV to either USC or UCLA) makes your projects more marketable.
Three great schools. I would go for either UCLA or Oxford, depending on fit, instruction style (Oxford tutorials are unique), cost of attendance, curriculum, etc…USC is a great university, but I think UCLA and Oxford are a notch above.
@Alexandre: At the graduate level, yes. At undergrad, Oxford would be a notch above the other 2 on reputation.
In any case, consider also that at USC, it would likely be easy to switch in to another major in engineering or arts and science while at UCLA, it would be easy to switch in to a non-impacted major (which, granted, most engineering majors probably are).
And it’s not so much about being close to Silicon Valley. USC would have a big and proud alumni base. Oxford would have the global brand name. UCLA undergrad probably has a bigger brand name outside the US than in it.
The experience of studying and being part of Oxford is something that cannot be ignored. It is a very different experience from the USA, at undergraduate or graduate level. Tutorials at undergraduate level are also unique.
Most Silicon Valley firms have large presences in the UK. Google is building two new facilities, one in London. They recruit heavily at Oxford, so getting a job is not difficult. Indeed, I found that American employers are incredibly impressed by the “Oxbridge” label. Much more so than British ones.
@exlibris97: “Indeed, I found that American employers are incredibly impressed by the “Oxbridge” label. Much more so than British ones.”
Good point. Each of Oxbridge takes in more each year than any Ivy/equivalent and so as a percentage of the population, Oxbridge takes in more than all 30 American schools (including LACs) I have as Ivies/equivalents. So Oxbridge grads aren’t so uncommon in the UK and the schools generally are easier to get in to than HYPSM and Brits know of other good UK schools with strengths in CS.
But in the US, Oxbridge (besides being almost the only British Unis Americans know about), are also seen as the forefathers of American higher ed.
@PurpleTitan The unfortunate thing is that it doesn’t work in reverse. British employers only know the most famous American universities. I’ve known British students who went to the Claremont Colleges, Amherst and Williams and found British employers not very receptive.
Incidentally, Oxbridge and Cambridge both admit roughly 3000 undergraduates a year.
@exlibris97: Yep, that’s a little more than what Cornell takes in each year, I believe, and Cornell is the biggest of the Ivies/equivalents. The UK also has 1/5th the population of the US so that translates to 30K slots in the US.
And yeah, overseas, most people will only know of the American research unis that are high-ranked in research (or big with foreigners and in big cities), irrespective of admissions difficulty or quality of education (though that’s changing, slowly). So (outside of academia and global prestige industry circles with a lot of Americans), Cal would have more cachet than pretty much any LAC, and so would UCLA. NYU and BU also seem to have more cachet overseas than at home.
@PurpleTitan I’m still not certain what your analysis seeks to demonstrate. That it is easier to get into Oxbridge? Depends. If you test exceptionally well, have 5 APs, interview well and do well on the new Oxbridge entrance examinations, possibly. Otherwise, no.
I’ve worked on admissions in the US for a long time and never heard anyone drawing the inferences you are. Interesting approach.
As for NYU and BUs “cachet” overseas, that also depends on who you are referring to and what countries you are referring to. American expats, possibly. The general population and most employers, no.
@exlibris97: Re NYU and BU having more cachet:
non-Americans online, mostly. Namely,
- Some (mostly) Australians (mostly in academia) who seem to think that NYU has entered the league of Ivy-equivalents.
- Some Europeans who were agonizing over BU vs. some Ivy-equivalents (because the Ivy-equivalents didn’t have as big a brand-name in their home country as BU).
Yes, my eyebrows were raised.
Some Americans would put NYU in the league of Ivy-equivalents but that seems to take place overseas as well.
As for the analysis: That perceptions differ depending on locale.
But, IMO, Oxford has the edge on UCLA pretty much everywhere.
@PurpleTitan I like NYU but it is in no way the equivalent of an Ivy League college. Indeed, at many private schools, it is still considered a good “safety” for well qualified students who don’t make it into an Ivy.
I’d also add that Europeans considering American universities are a self-selecting group. They tend to either have American connections, attend international schools, or have lived in the US at some point. Or they have money. Even in the UK and among the best private schools, applying to American universities is the rare exception.
I know that in the UK, many students apply to NYU and BU because they are demonstrably easier to get into than top-tier British universities, especially if you aren’t seeking financial aid. NYU has literally become the playground for rich private school students from the UK who also want a “New York experience”. They tend not to apply to Columbia because of the ferocious competition for admission there.
@exlibris97: I don’t disagree with you. I’m just reporting perceptions I’ve seen. Evidently, admitting lots of rich kids from overseas raises your perception overseas.
Not that long ago, NYU was a night school for rich-kid CUNY rejects and USC was where rich-kid UC rejects went.
BTW, it’s the same dynamic with UK schools and Americans but in reverse. Outside of Oxbridge and LSE, admission to any UK (or Irish) uni is pretty much assured for a full-pay American who meets the minimum requirements, while, under holistic admissions, not only is admission to Ivies/equivalents insanely competitive and not assured, but even the Near-Ivies (UMich, UVa, Cal, UCLA, NYU, ND, etc.) are far from certain as well.
@PurpleTitan Agree. I’d add Imperial and UCL to that list, and IR at St Andrews.
One problem American students have with British universities is how much more advanced the university courses tend to be during the first year. This is especially true in the sciences but even in Econ. One major advantage American universities have is the less specialized nature of the freshman year. I dealt with several Americans reading PPE at Oxford who were absolutely crushed after getting Thirds their first year. The problem was AP Macro or Micro is not the same as A-Level Economics.
@exlibris97:
It seems like there are very few Americans applying to Imperial (makes sense considering that there are many publics that are tops in engineering in the US). I have yet to see an American who met the minimums rejected from UCL. And I know that IR at St. A’s is very popular with Americans, but tracking the St. A’s admissions thread, it seems like pretty much every American who meets the minimums there (and some who do not) get in there as well.
BTW, looking here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2016/10/19/which-elite-universities-have-the-highest-offer-rates/
It seems that only Oxbridge and LSE (and maybe St A’s, Edinburgh, and Imperial + some special courses elsewhere like Warwick’s specialties) are difficult for even UK kids who meet the minimums to enter.
Most anywhere else, it seems that if you meet the minimums, you have a pretty good shot.
@PurpleTitan According to St A’s (as reported in the Guardian), the admitted just 12% of IR candidates this year. Many American students said they were instead offered admission to the politics course. One reason may be that the UN and EC hire more St A’s IR graduates than any other university.
The interesting thing is that Imperial is now much better known in science and medicine than engineering. Indeed, the Gates Foundation is about to endow new scholarships there.
Another interesting thing is that while LSE is very famous internationally, it is now seriously lagging in UK assessments. It’s student satisfaction survey results are in the basement. That may be why their new Director has pledged to address this and it’s unofficial title, “Let’s See Europe”.
@exlibris97: Do you have a link to the article?
Is that admit rate or places per applicant?
They will differ quite a lot for any UK uni outside of Oxbridge or LSE. That’s because almost any English kid with an Oxbridge (or LSE) admit would attend there (Scots would be partial to Edinburgh and St. A’s), leading to pretty low yields elsewhere (the rest of the tier below Oxbridge/LSE divvy up the rest, winning some and losing some)
So, for instance, at UCL, almost all their courses have 8-12 applicants for each slot but their overall admit rate is 60%.
^ And yep, I’ve heard that about LSE.
In that sense, it may be like UCLA, with an outsized reputation abroad compared to at home.
But note that by admit rate, it is still the only UK uni within striking distance of Oxbridge. All other UK unis are far away.
British universities are quite open about treating American students as “cash cows”. The past Principal of St Andrews said they actually targeted “monied” American applicants. And a few years Oxford Vice Chancellor noted that its growing number of “MSt” degrees were designed with Americans (and Chinese) in mind.
Apropos your comment about the “yield” for British students at LSE being higher than for other UK universities, is that based on UCAS statistics? Indeed, the British system of “unconditional, conditional and insurance” offers always makes calculating “yield” a fraught exercise.
@exlibris97: If you read the article, the Telegraph says the numbers are from UCAS.
And I imagine that they took “conditional”+“unconditional” and divided by total applicants to get the acceptance rate.
From that and the number of entering first-years, you can get yield.
I see the Telegraph says this. I’ve also checked UCAS’ site. There is no data provided on this. When we attempted to conduct such research for the Sutton Trust, we found it fiendishly difficult given Clearing and the new ‘post application application’ schemes introduced in recent years. And starting a couple years ago, UCAS ceased allowing universities to see the actual application form. Now universities cannot see what other universities you have applied to. Ranking of universities has also been abolished.
If the Telegraph did indeed combine unconditional + conditional data that is worrying given that the majority of conditional offers are not confirmed (at least that data is available from UCAS).