<p>Jeeze I have the exact same issue. It’s not that we don’t know what we like; it’s that we like so many things! And same goes for me in terms of wanting to know the fundamentals of the the world, people, and universe at large, in addition to the the abstract world in our minds. Therefore I like mathematics (my major), statistics, psychology, physics, philosophy, computer science (if I were good at it), linguistics, sociology…the list goes on and on, and I prefer all of them to be from a theoretical perspective so I can make my own connections between them and my own applications to the real world.</p>
<p>So it all depends on what type of world you want to understand, the physical world or the abstract world. Physics combines them both in my opinion once you get into more advanced topics including theories of the “very big” (relativity) and the “very small” (quantum mechanics). Physics seeks to explain the physical world, but in some ways from a very abstract and deep perspective.</p>
<p>Mathematics can be applied to the physical world too, actually any type of world, but in and of itself is the basis for everything abstract. Math can explain anything and is the language of all the sciences, even biology although most biology majors are not in it for the fundamental perspective (a.k.a. the math). Everything in mathematics can be derived from just a few axioms simply accepted as basic truths.</p>
<p>Philosophy in my opinion is in some ways more fundamental than mathematics. It entails the axiomization of the basis of mathematics, as well as forms the fundamental logical principles used in mathematics. There of course are other types of philosophy as well but in my opinion mathematical philosophy, and logic from a philosophical perspective, are the foundations of anything and everything.</p>
<p>Well I have no idea if this helped even the slightest bit but once I get going about this stuff it’s hard to stop typing.</p>
<p>That is true, you don’t take classes outside your degree subject at UK universities, and certainly not at Oxford. (That’s not to say you couldn’t sit in on a lecture series about mediaeval history if you have the time, but as far as the university is concerned that would be no different to doing some ECs.) </p>
<p>I’m not sure what you mean by not being limited to the amount of time you spend on undergrad, but bear in mind that UK degrees are not based on accumulating a certain number of credits. At Oxford a degree course is 3 or 4 years depending on subject and your degree is awarded entirely on a series of exams at the end of your final year (with maybe some practicals or a dissertation thrown in for good measure).</p>
<p>For PPE at Oxford you study all three elements in the first year, and then most students will concentrate on just two of them for the remaining two years, so you can avoid focussing on politics. BTW the economics element has a strong maths base, and they normally want to be assured that a candidate’s maths ability is sufficient that they’ll be able to cope with the course. That may also be the case for logic in philosophy.</p>
<p>When you say that the Oxford degree course would be 3 or 4 years (three for the philosophy and maths I’m interested in), does that mean that you take your courses, take your exam and leave? If I do well in everything but want to stay and take additional lectures, do you know if that would be a problem? If so, maybe I could graduate and then stay anyway. </p>
<p>If the point at Oxford (and Cambridge, which I’m also interested in, though to a lesser degree) is to get a degree and not explore academically, then I’m certainly not as interested as I was.</p>
<p>On staying around after you’ve completed your degree, I really don’t know. I doubt it’s a question they’re asked very often! There’s probably nothing to stop you going to further lectures except maybe building security. In my day there was no concept of enrolling on a lecture course - you just went along. Of course there’s always the possibility of staying on to do postgraduate study; a reasonable proportion do, although it is less common across the UK than I get the impression it is in the US.</p>
<p>There is definitely academic exploration although the context is of course different. You don’t get the broad liberal arts approach, but the emphasis is very much on academic exploration within your chosen subject. I’ve heard it said that the Oxbridge method is to educate, not teach - a subtle difference due to the importance of the tutorial method. So rather than sitting in lectures while the lecturer works through a textbook you will have an essay title and a reading list to prepare yourself for the next week’s tutorial, so the ability to carry forward independent study is essential. Within the broad parameters of a term’s work (which will usually be aimed at one of the final exam papers) there will be plenty of scope to explore the topics that you and your tutor agree on. This is especially true of the humanities - lectures take on greater importance in the sciences but they are still balanced by tutorials.</p>
<p>Thanks. If I concentrated just on philosophy and maths, I would definitely want to stay around afterward and take additional lectures. I’ll research that a bit before I make my final decision. </p>
<p>I like the method of teaching there much more than I like it in the U.S. I think that discussions are important, especially in philosophy, but I better appreciate independent study.</p>
<p>BTW you mentioned drawing on recommendations from influential people. I would caution you to think very carefully before going down that route.</p>
<p>A necessary part of the application is a recommendation from a teacher. As you’ve been out of full time education for a while a recommendation from a business associate may be a sensible alternative, but you should really discuss that with the university first (or the college if you prefer to apply to an individual college rather than put in an open application).</p>
<p>But if you are thinking of it as a way of pulling strings, don’t. At best it won’t work, at worst it’ll backfire. Entrance decisions at Oxbridge (in fact any UK university) are made by the teaching staff subject by subject (at Oxbridge by the subject tutors in each college). They are interested in passion/ability for the subject, and whether you will be worth teaching for 3/4 years; it’s not their job - or anyone else’s - to plan for a well-rounded student intake or satisfy money or famous names. Anything like the US idea of “legacy” goes down very badly. Which is probably one of the reasons why UK universities aren’t sitting on enormous endowments.</p>
<p>Thanks. I’ll definitely talk to them about the alternative to the teacher recommendation. I’m guessing there is some type of essay? Can someone include their resume? </p>
<p>If you read my statistics in one of the posts on this thread, my GPA is a little low but I don’t think I’ll have a problem with the SAT, but I most likely won’t get in without the essay / resume (which includes published research, press, etc).</p>
<p>I don’t want to pull strings at all because I think it’s unfair, but I also want to get in and find a way around the two disadvantages I do have: not having been in school for the last five years, and having what is probably a comparatively low GPA because I was more focused on business than school.</p>
<p>Edited: I could also take a semester of classes, or even two semesters, at Harvard, if Oxford will accept the grades as admission information. I’m sure it wouldn’t apply as “transfer credit”, nor would I want to. It might help my application, though - and I can go to Harvard later this year without an application or anything of that sort. Which is probably one of the reasons why it’s sitting on an enormous endowment. (I despise the way admissions works here.)</p>
This is questionable. In general I’d agree, but over the last few years Oxbridge has really been trying to do something about their endowment “issue.” They’re not at the point a lot of other British universities are at–where they’ll basically accept anyone who has parents that can pay, often a reason Middle Eastern kids are so prevalent in the current student bodies–but they’re getting there. I think your experience there and the reality today are slightly different.</p>
<p>I’d never go so far as to say that you should make a blatant statement to the effect of “hey, I’m important, I know people associated with the school, I’m a good bet.” I’d also probably not recommend submitting a letter with the application as a reference. What I would recommend is contacting people who maybe have a certain amount of influence once the application is in, and having them get in contact with people in the school to “grease the wheels” a little. It’s not as blatant or insulting to the faculty, but it’s still effective.</p>
<p>Brandon, if you could start off at Harvard (and if you could take me with you :P), I actually think you should. Spending a first year there would allow you to do what every other first year is going to do–take a sampling of a bunch of different courses, and given your drive you’d be fine transferring in after a year to Oxford. Again, the process is going to be a little more awkward than if you were transferring to another American school, but presumably you can straighten that out.</p>
<p>Oh please, u philosophers have no need of bragging yourself of the love of knowledge.
The basis of all human knowledge lies in no where.
It lies everywhere and no where.
What matters is your interpretation and your participation of your interpretation in the world.
A philosopher has a simple life, he lived, he thought, and he died.
The foundation only has relative locations, and when one views a foundation, one has already supposed the existence of the frame outside the foundation. And who is there to say that there you so called foundation is not a frame for some other “foundation?” Who is there to say that philosophy and mathematics are “more fundamental” than literature or computer science since all of them have been trapped into endless frames?
First of all, I critique philosophy for its exclusive nature, it excludes women, excludes nonwesterners, and excludes irrationality. Therefore, it is not a subject for EVERYONE, it certainly is not a subject for women, and it is certainly not a subject for the insane.
Since Marx Nietzsche and Heidegger raped philosophy one after another, philosophy, as Heidegger might have said, is dead.
If we accept deconstructive analysis of philosophy, we will find endless traces hidden deep inside philosophical discourses. With each person claims that they have found the foundation of knowledge, they all build up those self-contradictory traces deep inside their narratives.
Let me give you a simple example, look into your dictionary and find out what philosophy means, it gives you this answer: Love of knowledge, now, what is love? then you flip for a few pages in your dictionary and find love is xxxx, then what is xxxx? then you go find the meaning of xxxx, which is ffff, then you go find ffff, so on and so forth. In doing so, you have just committed an act of total insanity. Congratulation my friend, the very nature of philosophy, its curiosity of knowledge, has already causes you insanity, and therefore, render a contradiction within philosophy.
(philosophy is the same, the quest for knowledge, let’s say metaphysics, ok? You go find out reality, then you dig into reality’s meaning, then you dig dig dig dig dig dig dig, and you never find an answer, but is trapped inside a SINGLE dictionary, that dictionary is your world. It has a boundary, but for your limited philosophical ontological metaphysical transcendental empirical hypothetical existential perception, it is infinite.)</p>
<p>Now, after you finishing reading all my crap.
Take a shower and just enjoy your life!</p>
<p>Just to make it clear that there is no such thing as transferring into Oxford - they don’t accept transfer students. The benefit of a year at Harvard would be to provide yourself with stronger academic credentials. But it would still be as a means of bettering your chances of entering as a 1st year undergraduate, following the normal route. </p>
<p>On oiling wheels, I’ll repeat a case I’ve recently referred to on another thread. Just a few years ago Trinity College, Oxford, rejected a candidate despite the fact that his father was not only an alumnus but the chairman of the college’s fundraising committee. The father kicked up a fuss but it made no difference. If that sort of connection can’t get you in I’m not sure what else could.</p>
<p>Right, that’s the reason I would go to Harvard for the one year. I wouldn’t want to transfer, I’d just “waste” that year, though I wouldn’t consider it a waste.</p>
<p>I think that will be a better approach than using any connections. I don’t think, however, a chairman of a fundraising committee would exert exactly the same influence that could be had with a couple of alumni I had in mind, one from the UK and one from the US. But, again, I’m not interested in doing that unless (even after Harvard) I’d just get flat-out denied for no reason other than statistics.</p>
<p>Thanks for all of the comments. tetrishead, any comments on the “first year” school that you’d go to, instead of Harvard?</p>
I was talking about 1(American school) + 4(Oxford). I probably didn’t make that point clearly, though.</p>
<p>Your story about that kid whose father was on the fundraising committee is interesting. I’ve known of cases of kids who got into Oxbridge as a result of essentially being members of a family where the patriarch was an oil tycoon, or Middle Eastern royalty. I guess Oxford is tougher than Cambridge? I was having a conversation about this late last year with someone I’ve known online for years who graduated a couple years ago with a law degree from Oxford, and she always talked about all the students who were generally poor academically but came from exceptionally rich families.
It depends on what you’re looking for. Columbia and Chicago have the toughest cores, and if you’re looking for a little bit of everything they might be a solid bet–but I specifically chose to attend a school that has only one required course, because I like having freedom of choice. I actually think you might want to consider a tiny out of the way liberal arts college, just to put yourself in a position to focus solely on studies for one or even two years. Obviously you’d kind of have to avoid making it blatant that you’d be leaving after one year to start at another four year. You wouldn’t take a hit on prestige because you wouldn’t get a degree from then anyway, but it might be a nice little vacation for you.</p>
<p>You’re looking for a solid education, which is great. The major difference between you and another incoming freshman is that you’re not interested in what career you’ll have afterwards, because you already have that set up. The thing you’re looking for instead is a new-ish perspective (studying in another country certainly offers that) and international prestige. Harvard is a very, very good school for undergraduates. Arguably better than Yale (and I say that as someone who prefers Yale to Harvard), in my opinion much better than both Columbia (I am close to an adjunct psych professor, I am going off of her thoughts on the issue) and Chicago. I think Dartmouth is also very good, but even though it’s an Ivy it’s probably the least well-known Ivy.</p>
<p>If you’re really asking me for a list for one year schools, I mean, it almost sounds ridiculous but I’d be tempted to say Grinnell–which is the school I’ll be attending. Not because it’s so prestigious or whatever else, but because there is one required course your first semester and that’s it. If you’re trying to maximize the amount of courses you could get into, that’d probably be the way to do it. I’d probably lean towards telling you to keep away from the Northeast if this is only a one-year deal, even if it means you go a little off the grid. Reed is an excellent school for humanities and the more common sciences, as is Whitman. If I magically had a piece of paper in front of me that would make whatever plan I would write on it happen, and I knew I only wanted to spend one or two years at a school to learn as much as I could before transferring to a prestigious school to get a more focused degree, I’d be tempted to go to a Harvard or a Dartmouth but I think I’d turn towards a smaller school. You’re going to get to the best teachers and the smallest class sizes at a Harvard or a Dartmouth when you’re in more advanced courses, while at a smaller school the chair of the department may very well teach introductory courses. It’s probably not what you’re looking for, but if you know your bachelors is eventually going to have an Oxford or Harvard symbol on it (or whatever the case may be) it doesn’t really matter if you went to an out of the way school early on.</p>
<p>The main thing is trying to maximize the quality of education you’ll get, in a well-rounded way. Graduate school is for specialization, American college is really just about getting kids “up to speed” and giving them a relatively brief introduction to their field of choice (the difference between undergraduate and graduate study of say, economics, is absolutely monumental). Engineering is obviously a little different, but I’m talking about common majors. I think, if you spend a year or two at a school where academics is everything (I doubt you’d have an issue with kids leaving for start-ups at, I don’t know, Middlebury) you’d be able to find one or two subjects you like, then line that up with what you’d want to study at Oxford (or another school). Of course you may not be interested in a six year commitment, but that would be my recommendation.</p>
<p>The program that I’m interested in at Oxford would only be three years, actually.</p>
<p>I will take a look at Grinnell. Of course, I have to hope that what I’ve done in business will be enough to get in, because I don’t know anyone with any connection to that school.</p>
<p>I actually had thought about Middlebury because they’re supposed to have an excellent foreign language program, correct? I also thought about Swarthmore and Amherst because I had originally wanted to go to those schools back in high school. I think a liberal arts education is actually preferable, but I wouldn’t want to graduate from there, which wouldn’t be a big deal anyway in my case. </p>
<p>As far as Columbia and Chicago, I would definitely choose Harvard over both of those. I’ve lived in New York and if I go back I won’t be able to focus on education, and I don’t really like Chicago. It’s beautiful, but, for a big city - I really don’t see anything that it does really well. Location is very important to me.</p>
(I despise the way admissions works here.)</p>