<p>Is it Oxford, Cambridge, or UC Berkeley?</p>
<p>What do you mean by “best”? And what are your criteria for evaluating schools according to that definiton?</p>
<p>Assessment systems can focus on inputs (e.g. how the incoming class is selected), outputs (e.g. mid-career salaries of graduates; graduate and professional school placements; graduate Ph.D. completions; contributions to “social mobility”), structural characteristics of the learning environment (e.g. average class size, average faculty compensation, investment in resesearch projects, endowment size, breadth/depth of course offerings), etc.</p>
<p>Several features distinguish Oxford and Cambridge from the best American universities (public OR private.) First is their long history. Second is their tutorial system of instruction. Third is their method of selecting students, which emphasizes grades, test performance, and an interview by professors. No “extracurricular” baloney, no mysterious “hooks” (apparently), no muddling of the intellectual aims of education with social engineering goals (afaik). I’m inclined to believe that these features make Oxford and Cambridge superior learning environments. Students seem to be selected more strictly according to a high, objective standard of merit; selection apparently includes the input of professors (whose judgement ought to count for something); the tutorial system seems to offer the best possible mentoring environment.</p>
<p>I’m open to being persuaded otherwise, based on objective evidence against clear, relevant criteria. I’m unaware of any good output-based comparative studies of graduate success.</p>
<p>Despite what same may claim, neither Oxford nor Cambridge has an appreciable advantage over the other in virtually any field.</p>
<p>IB, I’m not sure what you would consider an appreciable advantage. How would we even know it when we see it? The number of faculty publications/prizes in any field? The number of courses they offer in it?</p>
<p>The tutorial system of instruction strikes me, intuitively, as having appreciable advantages over a large-lecture format or (to a lesser extent) over a seminar format. Though I have no hard evidence to confirm my intutions. For all I know, many a tutorial is a complete dud.</p>
<p>Having a Classics professor sit down in an interview with a prospective student and ask, “How do you suppose the Greeks would have loaded horses into a trireme?” strikes me, intuitively, as a superior basis for selecting students compared to having 5 admissions staffers pour over essays on “Why Brown?” , etc. But again, I have no hard evidence to confirm my intutions. The American “holistic” evaluation system presumably has its own advantages.</p>
<p>tk21769, you misunderstood my post. I meant that Oxford is not better than Cambridge and vice versa.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do they really evaluate applicants like that? I would be interested in being interviewed in that manner, but probably not on Greek history.</p>
<p>The London Times had an article only last week showing some of the sorts of questions that get asked for different subjects, and why (there’s a link within the link):</p>
<p>[Oxford</a> sample interview questions](<a href=“The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines”>The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines)</p>
<p>Fortunately you would only get asked about triremes if you were applying to read Classics. Another regular type of question is to draw on written work that you have submitted (you will see a comment from a candidate citing this as his - justifiable - reason for being rejected), or an historical or literary text that you are given to study just before the interview, or to ask you to solve a maths problem in front of the tutors. But the crucial point is that they will always be relevant to the subject you applied for, and not random.</p>
<p>Yes, that is the traditional Oxbridge interview style as I understand it. A couple of sites (or even posts here on CC) have some interesting collections of sample interview questions
(“What happens when you drop an ant?”). Though again, I plead ignorance, because for all I know the interview style may have changed in recent years.</p>
<p>Another significant difference between Oxbridge and American liberal arts education is the early specialization of the British schools. A prospective student commits at application time to what we would call a major. So a prospective Physics student would not be interviewed by a Classics professor.</p>
<p>I’ve heard of Reed College interviews apparently having a somewhat similar atmosphere to the traditional Oxbridge interview.</p>
<p>I’d claim that it’s the College of William and Mary. It’s the only top-level public school in the U.S. that’s of a comparably undergraduate intimate size to top privates such as HYP.</p>
<p>I second gadad. For a student looking for an undergraduate public college to attend, William & Mary is quite possibly the best place in the USA, if not the world (for non-engineering/science types).</p>
<p>
For being such a small size you would expect that the average test scores to approach HYP levels.</p>
<p>If you think smaller is better, why not New College of Florida? Isn’t it public?</p>
<p>There is much more that makes up a college/university than a small cohort of high scoring SATers.</p>
<p><a href=“for%20non-engineering/science%20types”>quote</a>.
[/quote]
IMHBO, Berkeley’s non engineering/science programs match or exceed W&M’s programs.</p>
<p>^IMHBO…what’s the B stand for? Biased?</p>
<p>The best public school depends on an individual’s preferences. Some might prefer small and intimate (W&M), while others might prefer large and urban (Berkeley, UCLA, UT). My favorite(best) publics are UT (better beat OU this weekend!) and Berkeley. </p>
<p>On a side note, I was talking to a recent transfer from W&M and she thought that the school was too small and the campus too boring. Again, individual preferences.</p>
<p>I was under the impression the best US public school is U of Mich, not UC Berkeley.</p>
<p>Edit: USNews seems to think I’m wrong. I was thinking of law school rankings, sorry.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lol, either way you’re wrong</p>
<p>LOL…I didn’t know that Oxford or Cambridge were “public”… I thought they were private…oh well, now I know… </p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now you know.</p>
<p>The list can be quite long but if I can do it, I’d rank the PUBLIC universities for UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION this way:</p>
<ol>
<li>Cambridge</li>
<li>Oxford</li>
<li>UC Berkeley</li>
<li>Michigan</li>
<li>UCLA, Georgia Tech</li>
</ol>
<p>6 - U of Tokyo, UVA, William & Mary, UNC, Wisconsin, UCSD, the best ones in Canada (McGill, Toronto, UBC)
7 - Texas, UIUC, Florida, the rest ofthe UCs, the best ones in Australia (Melbourne, ANU, UNSW, Sydney)
8 - The top 4 in China (Peking, Tsinghua, Fudan and Xiamen), Purdue, Rutgers and the like, the best ones in India (IIT and IIM?)
9 - Seoul National, National U of Singapore, U of HK</p>
<p>OK, I’ll bite. What’s your reasoning for putting Michigan and UCLA over Toronto? They’re about as close to peers as one can get. (In fact, in both of the fields with which I am familiar, Toronto wipes the floor with both of them.)</p>
<p>Uh yeah, I would object to Rutgers and maybe Purdue being so high on the list too.</p>
<p>If you want to rank UNDERGRADUATE education, then wouldn’t it make more sense to rank based on things that actually relate to undergraduate education? LOL. </p>
<p>Remember, the four key questions for comparison of UNDERGRADUATE education are:</p>
<ol>
<li> How good are the students? Stronger students are preferred.</li>
<li> What size is the classroom that one learns in? Smaller classes are preferred.</li>
<li> What is the quality and nature of the classroom instruction? Classes with professors (not TAs) are preferred as well as a recognized institutional commitment to teaching excellence.</li>
<li> What is the school’s financial position and are they willing to spend money to support UNDERGRADUATE education? More money is preferred.</li>
</ol>
<p>One plausible methodology would be:</p>
<p>30% to Selectivity = 50% weight to Student body depth as measured 700+ on SAT CR & M, 50% weight to ACT 30+
30% to Faculty Resources = USNWR Faculty Resources Rank
30% to Teaching = USNWR Ranking ranking or absolute rank of # 25
10% to Financial = USNWR Financial Resources ranking </p>
<p>Following this, the rankings for publics in the USA would be:</p>
<p>Rank , State University</p>
<p>1 , UC BERKELEY
2 , U N CAROLINA
3 , U VIRGINIA
4 , WILLIAM & MARY
5 , UCLA
6 , U MICHIGAN
7 , UC S BARBARA
8 , GEORGIA TECH
9 , UC IRVINE
10 , U ILLINOIS
11 , U IOWA
12 , U WISCONSIN
13 , UC SAN DIEGO
14 , PURDUE
15 , RUTGERS
16 , U GEORGIA
17 , CLEMSON
18 , U PITTSBURGH
19 , U MINNESOTA
20 , U CONNECTICUT
21 , U DELAWARE
22 , OHIO STATE
23 , UC S CRUZ
24 , UC DAVIS
25 , U TEXAS
26 , U WASHINGTON
27 , U FLORIDA
28 , U MARYLAND
29 , PENN STATE
30 , TEXAS A&M</p>
<p>As for the rest of the world, I don’t know enough to make a ranking.</p>