UK schools and their US equivalents

International Students
61

Also, @elguapo1 and @LutherVan, I know that both of you buy in to the notion that the UK system is more meritocratic, and certainly, it is more predictable and more dependent on how you do on certain tests, but is it really more meritocratic to not take in to account the circumstances and resources available to two kids before uni when comparing them? Are there no differences in quality at all in colleges and HS’s in the UK? American elites who admit holistically do. They want kids who have done their best given their circumstances.

Furthermore, with an English uni costing 9K sterling a year in tuition + the cost of room and board, that is a lot of debt that a someone who is not from a rich family has to take on to attend uni. In the US, meanwhile, while if you are not stellar or in a state with generous fin aid policies, you may be out of luck (though in some states like CA, 2 years of CC and then a transfer to a 4-year uni for the last 2 years is a well-trodden path and much cheaper), the rich elite privates give very generous financial aid. For instance, if you are American and your family makes less than $125K a year, you may now attend Stanford tuition-free (http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/01/pf/college/stanford-financial-aid/). Harvard is tuition-free for those families makng 65K/year or less (they have to pay less than 10% of tuition if they make less than $150K/year). Furthermore, if your SAT/ACT scores are in the top 1% or so, there are many tuition-free college options (though not at the elites). Do those opportunities exist in the UK?

40% of places at Oxbridge went to private (public) school kids:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/10728091/The-universities-with-the-most-and-least-state-school-students.html

In the US, almost 70% of Harvard’s places went to public (state) school kids: http://blog.centerforpubliceducation.org/2014/04/04/public-high-schools-are-prominent-in-ivy-league-rosters/

And some of the top-ranked American unis have a big chunk of their student body coming from the poorest part of society, those who receive Pell Grants. To receive a Pell, you have to be Pretty Damn Poor (I know; I got them back in the day; between Pell grants, the IL state grant for poor students, Northwestern grants, work-study, and a few thousand in loans, my parents only had to pay a tiny fraction of the total cost to attend Northwestern). These days, most Pell Grant recipients come from families making $20K or less (https://www.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/financial-aid/grants/federal-grants/)
You can see the percentages here:
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/economic-diversity-among-top-ranked-schools
The elite publics Cal and UCLA has a ton of Pell Grant recipients (>35%). The Ivies and equivalents range from 12%-30%.

So is it really the UK system or the US system that is an aristocracy?

What percentage of the top unis in the UK are up of kids coming from families making, say 12K sterling a year or less?

62

That is nonsense. Devolution just took place in the last 20 years.

US have had states for over 150 years at least. With state governors, assembly and other elected officials.

The UK through out this period operated as one state with central administration.

What differences “across just England” is bigger than across US states?

Again, you want to come with your narrow, one-dimensional, the-one-that-fits-my-argument measure.

What about entry standards? What about faculty quality? What about funds attraction? What about employer surveys?

Where did you see me excluding alumni?

No, I am not excluding alumni, I am just, unlike you, looking at a lot of factors beyond just alumni.

I am not contradicting myself, you are just getting confused.

Me stating I can’t compare US entry system to UK entry system is not the same as stating I can’t compare UK unis to US unis.

But the ones that give bonus points to countries with large economies and companies is a “gold standard”?

That one “fits” your argument, so it is fantastic?

So does UK.

The rest of Europe has far more.

Again, you look for a “fit” with your Nobel argument. Do you realise there is academia beyond STEM? And you don’t have to win a Nobel to be a relevant voice in even science?

Furthermore, just by glancing at that chart, is that not the same Germany you disparaged, by saying its faculty do not earn as much as US HS teachers, having faculty winning Nobel prizes?

As for your last post, how does you arguments about “affirmative actions” prove meritocracy?

63

@LutherVan, it’s very clear that you know very little about the UK, yet you keep talking down to people about it even though you’ve never left your home country (which is not the UK). It’s grating.

Scotland has always had it’s separate legal, schooling, and university systems. And if you know anything about England, you’d know that there is a huge variety of accents/dialects as well as local customs and cuisine. Lancaster and Liverpool are very different from London or anywhere around there (or even Tyneside, which is also in the North). Heck, Liverpool and Lancaster are fairly different even though they are near each other. All those are bigger than the differences across, say, the Great Plains states (which encompasses a much greater area).

Entry standards (and all other input-based metrics) do not say much about the quality of the education.

Faculty quality is a valid metric, but as I pointed out there, the good non-Oxbridge unis (besides LSE and maybe Imperial) match the good American state schools in that regard; good research, but per capita alumni achievements that are not at the level of the Ivies/Oxbridge.

Funds attraction would be borne out in research output and alumni quality if they mean anything. And in both research funds and research output, the American unis dominate as well.

Employer surveys are silly because either people are hired or they are not, and if they are hired, they would be reflected in alumni numbers at various places.

“Me stating I can’t compare US entry system to UK entry system is not the same as stating I can’t compare UK unis to US unis.”

And I compare by alumni output and faculty output. How else would you compare? To me, prestige is like beauty and in the eye of the beholder, so it’s useless to argue over.

"But the ones that give bonus points to countries with large economies and companies is a “gold standard”?

That one “fits” your argument, so it is fantastic?"

No, it’s the gold standard because most students will go work in industry, not because it fits my arguments.

And the Germany that I disparaged now wins Nobel Prizes at a far lesser rate than the US (even when you adjust by economy or population size, in fact) in recent decades, so tell me how your point doesn’t strengthen my thesis.

And yes, there is academia beyond STEM and more than Nobel Prizes. But just saying that doesn’t justify a greater weight for Western Europe than the US in a global survey. You have to actually show how, by certain measures, Western Europe deserves a greater weight than the US in a global survey. So please do that. I’ve already shown by the recent Nobels count that, if anything, the US deserves greater weight than Western Europe in a global survey.

As for my last argument, do you have trouble seeing that offering those who have achieved the most given their background may be more meritocratic than merely offering those who do the best on some tests (given wildly different circumstances and preparation for said tests)? Actually, you may. I daresay you do.

64

BTW, @LutherVan, in research funding, UMich blows away Yale. Obviously on an absolute basis, but also on a per faculty member basis.

What are the research funding numbers for Oxbridge and UCL?

65

@PurpleTitan

Can you see why I stated boldly that you were talking nonsense?

Please explain to me how this shows/proves you statement that:

Has Scotland always had its own elected Minister like in the US states have governors?

Has Scotland always had its own elected Assembly like in the US states have?

Has Scotland always even operated as a region indepedent of the centre like the US states have with Federal?

There are no variety of accents/dialects in the US?

People from Louisiana speak like those in California?

People from Texas speak like those in Philly?

People from Arkansas speak like those in North Dakota?

Or even people from New Jersey speak like those in New York?

Each state in the US has not always had separate legal, schooling, and university systems?

Are the laws even in adjacent states in the US the same?

I don’t get the sense you are trying to make with this post. It is just another weak one that does not, in anyway, support the statement you made that is being challenged.

Please explain to me how the difference is bigger so I can be comfortable to stop saying the statements you are making is nonsense.

66

@PurpleTitan Your are right when you say I think the UK system is more of a meritocracy. Split the admission decisions into academics and finances if you will.

There is no way you are getting into top schools without superb academics no matter where you went to high school. It is true that independent school kids have more resources and are coached from a young age for entry into places like Oxbridge, but you cant blame the kid for choices the parents make about their education, or from being from wealthy background. A kid from a more disadvantaged background does have a chance for entry even if his/her academics are excellent but not stellar, there is the interview stage which is designed to pick out such candidates. That works both ways, it will weed out those independent school kids who are coached rather than who have true intellectual curiosity. Perhaps the biggest advantage for independent school kids is that UK kids are given conditional university offers, so if you come from Westminster who send dozens of kids to Oxbridge each year and whose links go back centuries, its not a stretch to believe a known commodity as the Westminster kid will get the edge over a kid whose high school has never sent a kid to Oxbridge.

In terms of finances, tuition is set for every school, 9000 sterling per year no matter where you go. If you cant fund yourself then you can take a government loan from the Student Loan Company. This is not a loan as it is in the US, you only pay it back if you earn above a certain salary and if you still have student debt after 30 years it is written off. It is not an ideal situation and will blow up in 15 years or so, but the fact is finances should not preclude any kid from going to any university he/she can get in.

Admissions in the US, call it what you will, social engineering, affirmative action, holistic admissions… its is designed so the college can admit whomever they choose for whatever reason they choose, and as we all know not necessarily based on academic achievement or potential.

67

The UK is one state (still, just) but four countries. The US is one country with 50 subsidiary states. The structure is just different. I don’t think there’s a lot of point comparing them in this discussion. Social class structures and mobility are more complex than anyone here seems to acknowledge.

Purple Titan, I think the student’s school background is considered as part of the picture, for domestic applicants. Here’s an article in which the head of admissions at Oxford says as much here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/12089249/Children-need-to-be-coached-for-Oxbridge-from-age-11-says-head-of-admissions.html

68

The maximum tuition for British/EC students attending universities in England and Wales is £9000 per annum. The standard tuition fee for an undergraduate degree course in Scotland in 2016 is £1,820 per annum for Scottish and non-UK EC students. For students from the rest of the UK, universities in Scotland charge variable fees up to a maximum of £9,000 just like England and Wales. For international students at UK universities coming from outside the EC, higher fees are paid and vary by university.

69

@PurpleTitan, I think that @LutherVan is a callow troll. I agree it is quite obvious s/he knows very little in any realistic sense about the UK. While I don’t mean to discourage inquiry, s/he seems to have just bookish knowledge.

70

@alcibiade, you are free to educate me with your “knowledge”. It would be very interesting to hear.

The floor is yours.

So what don’t I know about the UK?

Maybe you are the “expert” that would educate me that the differences in England are bigger than across US states.

71

When i was a grad student at St Andrews i remember some Brits who knew about American schools saying they thought St Andrews was comparable to Dartmouth…

72

@LutherVan , just the way you pose that question - educate me - demonstrates immaturity. Sorry, I am not going to engage.

73

@alcibiade, so telling someone to “educate me” is immaturity?

But calling them a “callow ****” is maturity?

Lol!

Stop trying it, mate. You are just scared I was going to humiliate you with your own ignorance and decided to run.

Please do run. Next time don’t try to attack people on topics you know you will struggle to make sensible points on.

74

@LutherVan at the risk of a futile undertaking, I will tell you. My wife is British and we have gone through the admissions process in the UK, our daughter is about to graduate Cambridge. We understand the system from experience and from researching it over many years.

Yes, I think your opinions and attitude are callow, and normally I wouldn’t say anything, but your stridency here looks arrogant. You don’t know what you are talking about.

I come to this site because I want to help others and learn. You don’t listen.

75

@alcibiade, just continue running, mate. Your excuses and claims are irrelevant in my opinion.

If you tried to make sense, would have taken you seriously.

Your UK grandmother’s neighbour’s niece has been through the UK’s visa application process means you know about the UK more than me?

Lol. What a joke!

76

@LutherVan, what part of “wife” and “daughter” do you not understand?
Look, keep going if you want to, but folks who have lived in or have family/close friends live in both the UK and US will find your shallow understanding and prattling quite painful to bear with.

@moooop, I’d say that St. A’s is comparable to W&M, but Dartmouth is still apt. Both W&M and Dartmouth are liberal arts universities that aren’t big and with a preponderance of undergrads. Student body at St. A’s may be closer to Dartmouth’s, granted.

@elguapo1, that’s fair. It is more meritocratic if merit is judged purely by academic ability in a subject or subjects. BTW, there are income-based federal student loan programs in the US now.

@Conformist1688, yes, it’s holistic in a fashion, though since there’s really only one target to shoot for (being terrific academically in the subject(s) of the course you are applying for), it’s not what Americans may consider holistic.

I’ve described undergraduate study in England as grad-school-lite, and their selection procedures are a lot like those of PhD programs.
In contrast, the selection process of the American elites for undergraduate admissions (with very little exception* but slight variations here and there**) is more like b-school MBA admissions. MBA programs, while they do want to feature an average GMAT of the student body that is close to a perfect score (as an aside, the GMAT, just like the SAT and ACT, just isn’t that difficult a test) are more interested in crafting a synergistic diverse class of people who will go on to do great things (mostly in the business world), help further the brand of the school, and contribute back to it in the future than they are in finding the best academics in anything.

  • Back in the '90's and before, UChicago prided itself on being focused on the pure pursuit of knowledge. These days, it's just like the other elites. Probably only Caltech--which explicitly does not discriminate by race, legacy, or athletic ability (though they reserve the right to do so by gender) and sends an insane number of their undergrads on to PhD programs--is "British-like" in caring mostly about academic ability and potential (though they also care about yield like everyone else).

** For instance, Northwestern wants to fill it’s Integrated Science Program with kids who will go on to win awards in and get PhDs in the sciences. But the NU adcom also needs to satisfy the coach of the football team, fill it’s acclaimed journalism school with kids with the potential to become world-famous journalists, fill it’s top theatre program with kids who have the potential to be successful on Broadway and in Hollywood, meet the demands of other stakeholders (the music school wants accomplished musicians, for instance), and form a student body that not only has top test scores (in the top 1% of unis by average test score) and GPAs (at least top 10% and very preferably top 5%; actually, without a hook, you probably have to be top 1%) but also will contribute to the school spirit and richness of NU both as students and alums and also looks somewhat like America.

77

@PurpleTitan, it is how the differences across just England are often bigger than across different US states I want to deeply understand.

Please answer my questions and explain why you gave such arguments.

78

BTW, @elguapo1, while athletes may have a hook in admissions (they just have to hit their academic criteria and they’re in if the coach wants them), it would be very difficult to find athletes with below-average academics at the Ivies, for instance. The Ivy League actually has a rather complex system for allocating slots for athletes (https://www.mka.org/uploaded/college_counseling/Publications/AI_Guidelines_Worksheet.pdf) but the bottom line is that athletes on average have to have an academic index within 1 standard deviation of the school’s average academic index (the Ivies boil down test scores and GPA to one number for every student) and only a handful of athletes (out of entering classes that range from 1000-3000 a year) may be more than 2 standard deviations below. And note that Ivy average test scores range from top 1% to top 3% in the country.

At the top academic schools that play at the DivIII level in sports, the criteria for athletes tends to be even stricter.

For DivI schools, the academic criteria for athletes has to be looser if they want to compete with schools that are college sports powerhouses, though athletes can’t be pulling down academic standards at Stanford and Northwestern too much if those 2 schools have average SAT scores that are in the top 1% in the country: http://www.forbes.com/sites/schifrin/2014/08/04/top-100-sat-scores-ranking-which-colleges-have-the-brightest-kids/#299797e538a1.

As we can see from the example of Roger Bannister, there are folks who are stellar both academically and athletically.
For instance, Ryan Padgett, who was a First Team All-Big Ten guard on the 1995 Northwestern Rose Bowl team as well as an honor student and Academic All-American (which is an honor voted to those student-athletes who play major roles in sports and excelled the most academically nationally), went on to medical school and is now a surgeon in WA. Sam Valensizi was the kicker on that 1995 team and also an Academic All-American, later got an MBA from Chicago Booth, and now is a managing director in investment banking. A few Northwestern Academic All-Americans went on to star in sports: Luis Castillo in the NFL in football. Joe Girardi in MLB in baseball. Girardi now is the manager of the NY Yankees. At Northwestern, he studied industrial engineering and had a 3.468 GPA. This would be akin to someone who graduates from Oxbridge/Imperial in engineering with a first/upper second then goes on to play 15 years in the Premier League and now manages Chelsea/ManU.

79

@LutherVan, England had a lot more history and time for traditions, accents, etc. to develop and splinter off. So much so that going a short distance could mean a sea change in language, foods, and mores. Meanwhile, big swaths of the US were colonized by the same cultural group of people. Southern slaveholders (and their slaves) sweeping west across the South. The Northern British borderers starting out in the Appalachian backcountry and moving west through KY, TN, the Ozarks, AR, and OK. Nordics and Germans immigrating and colonizing a big swath of the Midwest.

It’s the same with Australia and parts of China or India. Australia is much bigger than Fujian province in China or southern India, but there’s a far bigger profusion of languages in both Fujian and southern India (various dialects of Tamil, Kannada, Malayalam, etc.) than in all of Australia.

80

@Luthervan, absolutely total nonsense.

The US was colonized by the same cultural people?

The English, Dutch, Germans, Swedish, French annd Spanish that populated colonial America are the same cultural group?

They have the same “language, foods, and mores”?

You still have not explained to me the differences in UK/England that is more than the differences across US states today. You just tried to explain (absurdly) history. What are the differences today that are more pronounced?