Opinion about Oxbridge education

[aditi123]

I have two questions-

1.How do most American universities view an Oxbridge education?

2.Are they considered to be on par with the Ivy Leagues?

[origin415]

http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/worlds-best-universities/2009/10/20/worlds-best-universities-top-200.html

Cambridge is above all the ivies but Harvard, Oxford above all the ivies but Harvard and Yale. Yes, they are generally considered to be up there.

[aditi123]

http://www.usnews.co...es-top-200.html

Cambridge is above all the ivies but Harvard, Oxford above all the ivies but Harvard and Yale. Yes, they are generally considered to be up there.

Aah okay.So if an Oxbridge student applies to any of the Ivy Leagues would he/she stand a good chance?How would he/she fare in comparison to an Ivy League applicant?

I know I'm asking too many questions

[Caligula]

"So if an Oxbridge student applies to any of the Ivy Leagues would he/she stand a good chance?"

Hm, I think it's much more comlicated than that. Several things come into play. Any top graduate program will expect successful applicants to have done well in their undergrad or previous graduate program, Oxbridge included. Adcoms will not be impressed with poor results, even if from Oxbridge.

Also, did you make a positive impression on your tutors? Enough so that they will write a helpful letter of recommendation?

Did you use the wonderful library resources of Oxbridge to compose an exceptional writing sample?

Being from Oxbridge will definitely look good, but it's what you did (or didn't do) while there that counts.

[someDay]

Oxford and Cambridge are, when it comes to undergrad education, very British universities. Almost half of Oxbridge undergrads come from prestigious public schools, then another chunk from selective state schools, buy only very few from the Americas, Asia or Africa. What someone in this forum called "academic incest" is rife at Oxbridge, indeed successful completion of a master's degree is the most promising way to get a PhD place at Oxbridge. What this means is that far fewer students from Oxbridge apply to the top US institutions - this makes it difficult for admission tutor's to assess UK students, particularly the percentage-based grading system. (eg 75% is excellent in the UK, but as a raw mark in the US it is ****.)

So, compared to Ivy league students, you're perhaps more of a dark horse than you'd wish. Excellent letters are more important than which uni you attended, but if you have good letters and a good uni, obviously that's better.

A note on master's degrees at Oxbridge, or the UK in general. Due to funding issues these are not as competitive as one might think. The courses are challenging, for sure, but getting in is not that hard, given one has a sufficiently good degree and letters, and obviously the cash (particularly for non-european students). Admission is considerably less competitive than for master's degrees at Ivies, which are often at least partly funded or offer TA opportunities.

sD.

Edited February 19, 2010 by someDay

[pietjekanarie]

A note on master's degrees at Oxbridge, or the UK in general. Due to funding issues these are not as competitive as one might think. The courses are challenging, for sure, but getting in is not that hard, given one has a sufficiently good degree and letters, and obviously the cash (particularly for non-european students). Admission is considerably less competitive than for master's degrees at Ivies, which are often at least partly funded or offer TA opportunities.

sD.

How do you mean? I understood that also the Ivies often don't give any funding for Master's degrees. The master's degrees I applied for at Stanford and Columbia specifically said: no funding for freestanding masters. Harvard said: funding is exceptional and rare for Master's degrees and grad school brings responsibilities (of you paying the fees) etc. That means that if I get in, I'm about to pay 30.000-35.000 USD tuition fee. I applied for external funding, but I'm not counting on getting any support from the schools itself. So masters are often partly funded? I understood masters are rarely funded, unless you're in exact sciences.

I can't really say anything about how competitive the universities are. This must depend on the program. I can see how certain programs must be really good at certain Ivies, whereas other programs might be better at Oxford or Cambridge. For the master I applied to at Oxford they had about 80 applicants and about 15-18 will be successful. However, the comparable program at Columbia says to admit around 33%. I'm from the EU, so Britain is very very cheap for me. I'm only going to the US if I get the external funding I applied to (and if I get in).

[JerryLandis]

To say that a degree from Oxbridge is unimpressive because it is an elitist university with many wealthy students is pretty insulting to the OP. You could say the same thing about any of the Ivies. Despite what American stereotypes about the UK suggest, entrenched elitism is not what makes something "very British." As far as the masters programs go, I'm sure they are indeed easier to get into than the undergrad programs, but I'm sure it's at a similar level to the situation at Ivy MA programs. They say on their websites that you need a 2.1 to be accepted, but that is simply the minimum qualification they will consider, and I've heard from people who were accepted that the acceptance was conditional and required them to graduate with a first, which is certainly not an easy accomplishment.

Having a degree from Oxford or Cambridge is impressive, but I'm sure that what really matters is your individual performance there. People from outside the US are admitted to PhD programs all the time at American universities. The grades may not transfer exactly, but I know that my UK university has a special chart for converting ones grades to the GPA format, and I would expect that your university probably has that as well considering its international standing. I'd venture to say that the greater hurdle will simply be that many departments seem less keen to take on international students in the current economic climate since they're more expensive. But I don't think that's directly related to you having attended Oxbridge. I would suggest trying to get your letters of recommendation from people who are well known in the field, which shouldn't be too hard coming from Oxford or Cambridge.

[Yes]

I did my undergrad at Oxford (my name might give it away... ) and I am applying for PhDs in the states right now. So, OP, if you have any specific questions I can help with, feel free to ask away.

Someone suggested that it is relatively easy to get into the Oxford Masters programmes if you did your undergrad there. I think that's true if you are applying for freestanding Masters (i.e. not the MPhil that will lead to the DPhil) and if you are not shifting departments. However, the MPhil degrees frequently turn down Oxford undergrads (I have seen it happening in many cases), even very talented people with excellent grades etc. So there might be less "incest" than one would think.

I can only share my personal experience here, but a couple of hurdles I faced due to my Oxford background were:

1) comparability of degrees - someone mentioned it already. Several schools asked me to convert my score into the GPA system. I tried, failed, and ultimately refused - I just don't think it's meaningful. It is almost impossible to receive a grade above 85 in any human science at Oxford. What I did instead: gave ranking information and submitted the examiner's report to give the schools an idea of how many people got firsts etc.

2) GREs. I have never sat a multiple choice exam in my life. I can't deal with the strategic "best guessing" approach. Not a fun experience.

3) Information. Where to apply, when to start looking - many of my profs were surprisingly useless. so was the careers department. I felt pretty alone with my application, didnt know what was expected, and got very little support overall.

4) lack of research experience: undergrads at Oxford don't do research assistance. almost never happes- definitely a huge disadvantage

5) timing: not a personal problem for me but it might be for you - I applied after my finals, when I already had all my grades in the bag. If you dont, you have very little to prove to the schools that you are as good as your LORs say you are. The only grades Oxford gives out will be the ones you got after your first year exams.

6) lack of methodological training. depends on your subject, but definitely true for most of the human sciences.

However, some things also worked in my favour, I think:

1) tutorial system: after three years of meeting some of my professors 2 hours/week, they knew me incredibly well - generally an advantage in terms of LORs

2) being a little bit 'different': applications are all about being able to distinguish yourself. sometimes an 'unusual' background can be useful. And in some ways not knowing what was expected of me in terms of SOP etc was an advantage too: I felt less corsetted, and was not exposed to the postgrad application hype

So far the applications have gone very well for me - of course, this is only anecdotal evidence, but don't be discouraged by the challenge of "changing systems". Hope you find this helpful.

[red_crayons]

One speculation related to an experience I had:

A few of you mentioned that the Oxbridge grading system is difficult to convert to an American GPA scale. When I was applying a couple months ago, a professor said to me, "Don't worry about your transcript; we know how to read XYZ school's transcript." By that, I took him to mean that there would be certain random things on my transcript (that were there because of weird college requirements and because of my choice of major) that they would give more or less weight to because they were familiar with certain curriculum quirks of the school. It's also widely known that medical schools ask questions to applicants from my undergrad about specific biology major requirements. Our school is known for certain things, and people within AND outside the university know how to sort through different kinds of classes and consider them in context.

I would imagine that applying from Oxbridge would be the same. They're prestigious schools; there's inbreeding among prestigious schools; other applicants have certainly applied before, and there are probably even people with Oxbridge experience (collaboration, exchange, degrees) in most Ivy departments. There's gotta be people at comparably elite schools/departments who know what your scores mean. At the very least, they know faculty in other departments with Oxbridge affiliations who can explain the system to them.

This may be a good reason to contact schools ahead of time, to let them know that they better get up on their facts. It also might suggest that applying to state universities as safety schools would backfire, since they may have less experience with applicants/colleagues from the British system, and that Ivy-plus schools might be a better bet because of closer ties to Oxbridge (WILD SPECULATION).

[Johnian]

To the OP:

All the advice so far seems good. I would emphasize one thing, which is that you almost certainly will need a first to get into one of the Ivies (though I guess it might depend on what sort of field you are going into). I applied from Cambridge last year with a 2.i and got into a very good state university which has been a great fit for me, but I didn't make it into any of the Ivies I applied to (which could be due to any number of things, but the above advice is based on what I heard from professors and other students when I was applying, not my own experience). With a strong application and a first, you should be very competitive. And of any American universities, I would think there will be someone at an Ivy League school who will be able to make sense of your Oxbridge transcript!

[indianacat]

To the OP:

All the advice so far seems good. I would emphasize one thing, which is that you almost certainly will need a first to get into one of the Ivies (though I guess it might depend on what sort of field you are going into). I applied from Cambridge last year with a 2.i and got into a very good state university which has been a great fit for me, but I didn't make it into any of the Ivies I applied to (which could be due to any number of things, but the above advice is based on what I heard from professors and other students when I was applying, not my own experience). With a strong application and a first, you should be very competitive. And of any American universities, I would think there will be someone at an Ivy League school who will be able to make sense of your Oxbridge transcript!

I have also just applied from Cambridge with a 2.1, and have been accepted at Yale. Also, going by my GRE scores (bad bad bad!) I can say that at least in my field, it is not grades that count for a lot. If I'm to guess, it is my research interests and experience...and yes, perhaps my undergrad university helped.

I'm going out to meet with the two departments that have accepted me so far (Yale/NYU) soon, and I really want to ask them what it was about my application that swung it. I'll report back!

Edited March 5, 2010 by indianacat

[crutch]

I did my Master's at Oxford. I didn't graduate with Distinction, although the average score on all my marks was well above that needed for Distinction (my thesis just barely missed receiving a distinction, so I couldn't be awarded distinction on the overall course, despite my average).

My undergraduate GPA was a 3.95, 4.0 in my major. My GRE scores are average to just above average. My statement of purpose follows the same basic format as the one I used when applying to Oxford, and my writing sample is one of the papers that received a distinction during my Master's.

Just look at my signature to see how much weight that has carried for me.

[glucklich]

Hmmm. I'd really appreciate some input on a conundrum I have:

An offer of a five year fully-funded ($20K+ stipend each year) position in a top 3-4 public US college (dept ranking in the twenties)

vs.

offers from Oxford, Cambridge and LSE for one year M.Sc programs.

I've always wanted to study in the UK, but the US offer is pretty hard to beat in the current economic climate.

I won't find out whether I get funding as an international student in the UK until May or June, but I need to let the US school know by April 15.

It's possible that if I do the year-long masters in the UK, when I apply to PhD programs a year later, my chances of getting in to a top-ranked university may be improved.

On the other hand, if I don't get funded in the UK, I will have kissed goodbye a meaty five year scholarship.

I'm in the social sciences.

I'd be really grateful for any thoughts you might have.

Glucklich.

[someDay]

Glucklich,

LSE is certainly on par with Oxbridge in economics, but it might be a slightly different story in the social sciences. I suppose you applied for Gates (/ Rhodes) scholarships at Cambridge and Oxford? If so, you're probably not an American applicant (as you'd have heard back by now). Are you aware that the department have to nominate you for the Gates scholarships and interviews are in early April?

You should also note that, since you'd have to send off your application for US PhDs barely 2 months into your course, there's limited time to get to know any Oxbridge profs which you could then ask for reference letters. You might well find that, unless you delay your application by one year, getting into Oxbridge will not greatly increase your chances at the top US unis.

If I were you, I'd take the fully funded PhD position. Obtaining funding for MA degrees at Oxbridge is a pain in the a** and for precisely this reason the courses are not as competitive as undergrad or research degrees.

sD.

[Nancy]

Hmmm. I'd really appreciate some input on a conundrum I have:

An offer of a five year fully-funded ($20K+ stipend each year) position in a top 3-4 public US college (dept ranking in the twenties)

vs.

offers from Oxford, Cambridge and LSE for one year M.Sc programs.

I've always wanted to study in the UK, but the US offer is pretty hard to beat in the current economic climate.

I won't find out whether I get funding as an international student in the UK until May or June, but I need to let the US school know by April 15.

It's possible that if I do the year-long masters in the UK, when I apply to PhD programs a year later, my chances of getting in to a top-ranked university may be improved.

On the other hand, if I don't get funded in the UK, I will have kissed goodbye a meaty five year scholarship.

I'm in the social sciences.

I'd be really grateful for any thoughts you might have.

Glucklich.

Hey,

I'd seriously consider taking the PhD place, I'm from the UK and finding postgrad funding is becoming more and more difficult in the current economic situation. I can totally see the temptation of having the year studying over here, it would be a great experience, but a fully funded PhD is a fully funded PhD, and I wouldn't turn it down without completely guaranteed funding for your masters.

Good luck! :)

[glucklich]

Hey,

I'd seriously consider taking the PhD place, I'm from the UK and finding postgrad funding is becoming more and more difficult in the current economic situation. I can totally see the temptation of having the year studying over here, it would be a great experience, but a fully funded PhD is a fully funded PhD, and I wouldn't turn it down without completely guaranteed funding for your masters.

Good luck!

Thanks sD and Nancy. Your opinions resound with what most people have advised me so far. It really is too bad the US and UK systems can't be a little more in-synch with their graduate program notification times. You can't treat two offers as equals if one comes with funding and the other not yet.