HYP and Oxbridge: Are students taught differently?

[Anonymous]

Meh. DP here. I am an American who studied at LSE, which is very different from Oxbridge, but I dealt with the "they don't like Americans things." It's sorta true, for some profs and admins staff at least. I dealt with it by trying not to care - I was pretty much just there to take some time before law school - but if I'd cared, it would have been annoying. And I am very polite and rather quiet - not an ugly American - and a super independent learner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very different system at Oxford from US. I studied at both. Oxford is very major focused. There are no outside classes, no liberal arts. Lecture and tutorial system. It's also exam based with first year exams and 3rd year exams for final standing.

I like the US system for undergrad and maybe do a 2nd BA at Oxford or Cambridge which will mature to an MA (do they still?).

I've never heard of this before so looked it up. I've got a kid who is a D.Phil candidate at Oxford now. He has mentioned only the Americans there getting M.Phils (a lot of them are biding time since American law schools want to see some maturity after college before coming to law school. So, there's a lot of LSAT prep going on in the grad dorms). Anyhow, the second undergraduate degree is available in medicine, it appears. I don't see any automatic elevation offered to a M.Phil. Check also to see if your federal (US) student loans can apply to that. My kid's Parent Plus loans were applicable to an Oxford D.Phil but I don't know if the U.S. feds will pay for a second undergraduate degree. The literature here says that British funding and loans are not applicable to the second undergraduate degree. https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/applying-to-oxford/second-undergraduate-degree

But, as a warning to other Americans, DPhils are not considered as rigorous as a PhD. I personally think it's BS as the reason is DPhils have to be completed in 3 years whereas American universities can force a PhD to be a student for a decade. So while I think it's total hogwash, there will be that discrimination coming back to the US.

Actually the difference isn't "rigor", it's pedagogy. In the U.S. the doctorate program can drag out for many years during which the applicant tutors undergraduate students and is allegedly "taught" how to teach. That doesn't happen in the U.K. system. It's assumed already that you are smart enough to teach. You are there to take advantage of the libraries and to write a "brilliant" thesis of 75,000 words which you usually have to defend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very different system at Oxford from US. I studied at both. Oxford is very major focused. There are no outside classes, no liberal arts. Lecture and tutorial system. It's also exam based with first year exams and 3rd year exams for final standing.

I like the US system for undergrad and maybe do a 2nd BA at Oxford or Cambridge which will mature to an MA (do they still?).

I've never heard of this before so looked it up. I've got a kid who is a D.Phil candidate at Oxford now. He has mentioned only the Americans there getting M.Phils (a lot of them are biding time since American law schools want to see some maturity after college before coming to law school. So, there's a lot of LSAT prep going on in the grad dorms). Anyhow, the second undergraduate degree is available in medicine, it appears. I don't see any automatic elevation offered to a M.Phil. Check also to see if your federal (US) student loans can apply to that. My kid's Parent Plus loans were applicable to an Oxford D.Phil but I don't know if the U.S. feds will pay for a second undergraduate degree. The literature here says that British funding and loans are not applicable to the second undergraduate degree. https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/applying-to-oxford/second-undergraduate-degree

Sorry, meant to say MPhil rather tfan MA. I'm American and default to that. Mist of my friends doing 2nd BA were on Rhodes or Marshall scholarships or very wealthy. My sistee is British and hot tge MPhil bump out of her BA at Cambridge. But, maybe tjings have changed.

To the person who said UK students take care of liberal arts in high school, I disagree. I taught in further ed in the UK as well as attended Oxford. There just isn't an emphasis on liberal arts. I would say they cover the equivalent of first year coursework in A-levels, but not say they cover 2 years' worth or cover anything liberal arts.

[Anonymous]

Before someone asks, the application requires THREE AP tests of 5 in the proposed area of study. And intense interviews on the subject you plan to study by professors in those fields. A lot of Americans can't meet those two criteria.

You need 1470 on the SAT (or 34 on the ACT), plus three SAT subject test (700 or better) or three APs (5 or better). for history, etc.), following by three interviews with a pair of academics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very different system at Oxford from US. I studied at both. Oxford is very major focused. There are no outside classes, no liberal arts. Lecture and tutorial system. It's also exam based with first year exams and 3rd year exams for final standing.

I like the US system for undergrad and maybe do a 2nd BA at Oxford or Cambridge which will mature to an MA (do they still?).

I've never heard of this before so looked it up. I've got a kid who is a D.Phil candidate at Oxford now. He has mentioned only the Americans there getting M.Phils (a lot of them are biding time since American law schools want to see some maturity after college before coming to law school. So, there's a lot of LSAT prep going on in the grad dorms). Anyhow, the second undergraduate degree is available in medicine, it appears. I don't see any automatic elevation offered to a M.Phil. Check also to see if your federal (US) student loans can apply to that. My kid's Parent Plus loans were applicable to an Oxford D.Phil but I don't know if the U.S. feds will pay for a second undergraduate degree. The literature here says that British funding and loans are not applicable to the second undergraduate degree. https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/applying-to-oxford/second-undergraduate-degree

But, as a warning to other Americans, DPhils are not considered as rigorous as a PhD. I personally think it's BS as the reason is DPhils have to be completed in 3 years whereas American universities can force a PhD to be a student for a decade. So while I think it's total hogwash, there will be that discrimination coming back to the US.

Actually the difference isn't "rigor", it's pedagogy. In the U.S. the doctorate program can drag out for many years during which the applicant tutors undergraduate students and is allegedly "taught" how to teach. That doesn't happen in the U.K. system. It's assumed already that you are smart enough to teach. You are there to take advantage of the libraries and to write a "brilliant" thesis of 75,000 words which you usually have to defend.

That's what American professors think, though, that a DPhil isn't as rigorous and isn't equivalent. I'm not saying that I agree with it, that's just the consensus among people who have a vested interest in keeping foreigners out of academia. It's the "mob" as far as I'm concerned (obviously I think academia is corrupt).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Before someone asks, the application requires THREE AP tests of 5 in the proposed area of study. And intense interviews on the subject you plan to study by professors in those fields. A lot of Americans can't meet those two criteria.

You need 1470 on the SAT (or 34 on the ACT), plus three SAT subject test (700 or better) or three APs (5 or better). for history, etc.), following by three interviews with a pair of academics.

It was 5 APs of 5 when mine applied (could be contingent for Sr year APs)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the very high quality of students overall, how does this reflect in the curriculum? Some cynics say it's mostly about the connections because the undergraduate curriculum is the same at most institutions of reasonable quality. But I would suspect since there's no remedial education going, there's a difference in kind between a bachelor's from HYP/Oxbridge and your more typical bachelor's degree.

Students are very high quality at both, but let’s not pretend they are equal: Oxbridge is an order of magnitude easier to get in. This is true in every subject, but since admission is by course, some subjects — say, languages, humanities, social sciences other than Econ — are easier admits than, say, Emory.

You think an Oxford grad who read history is less knowledgeable than a typical Emory grad?

False. Oxford doesn't like Americans. Only 1.7% of the students are from here. Yet the university is over 50% international students (most from China). From Google "The percentage of students from North America is far smaller at Oxford – only 200 out of 12,000 undergrads (1.7%).Feb 20, 2018"

And dons are hard on Americans. I know of two M.Phil students who didn't score high enough to graduate. No warning. Nothing said from the tutors. Just "sorry - you failed - thanks for your two years of American bucks but your visa is now obsolete, go home". It can be a very tough place for Americans.

This is absurd.

Some Americans expect their hands held and that does not happen. They don’t “dislike” Americans, they treat them like everyone else.

If you don’t have a self-motivated student, it will be a bad fit. But a motivated student will do great.

Sure, some kids used to hand-holding will not be successful, but their helicopter parents should have realized that before they sent them. If you want to be that kind of parent, be responsible enough to realize that isn’t how Oxbridge works.

There's a lot written on this in quora, College Confidential and Reddit. My MPhil kid says they treat Americans as "colonists" and from a distance. They are a necessary unpleasantness but there are surprisingly few. Only 1.7% American at Oxford. 20% Chinese. 52% global. From College Confidential: "The percentage of students from North America is far smaller at Oxford – only 200 out of 12,000 undergrads (1.7%)."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the very high quality of students overall, how does this reflect in the curriculum? Some cynics say it's mostly about the connections because the undergraduate curriculum is the same at most institutions of reasonable quality. But I would suspect since there's no remedial education going, there's a difference in kind between a bachelor's from HYP/Oxbridge and your more typical bachelor's degree.

Students are very high quality at both, but let’s not pretend they are equal: Oxbridge is an order of magnitude easier to get in. This is true in every subject, but since admission is by course, some subjects — say, languages, humanities, social sciences other than Econ — are easier admits than, say, Emory.

You think an Oxford grad who read history is less knowledgeable than a typical Emory grad?

False. Oxford doesn't like Americans. Only 1.7% of the students are from here. Yet the university is over 50% international students (most from China). From Google "The percentage of students from North America is far smaller at Oxford – only 200 out of 12,000 undergrads (1.7%).Feb 20, 2018"

And dons are hard on Americans. I know of two M.Phil students who didn't score high enough to graduate. No warning. Nothing said from the tutors. Just "sorry - you failed - thanks for your two years of American bucks but your visa is now obsolete, go home". It can be a very tough place for Americans.

This is absurd.

Some Americans expect their hands held and that does not happen. They don’t “dislike” Americans, they treat them like everyone else.

If you don’t have a self-motivated student, it will be a bad fit. But a motivated student will do great.

Sure, some kids used to hand-holding will not be successful, but their helicopter parents should have realized that before they sent them. If you want to be that kind of parent, be responsible enough to realize that isn’t how Oxbridge works.

It's not absurd. Americans don't do well on the entrance exams. Their rate of acceptance is lower. Google it. What is the acceptance rate for Oxford for US citizens?
It is low for everyone, but it seems to be slightly lower for Americans. On average Oxford has about a 16% admission rate, but for Americans it is just under 9%. Roughly half the average.Sep 9, 2013:

Are we talking students or dons? Not sure about dons, but students were not keen on Americans politically (Bush Sr presidency) and didn't like posers. So, affected Americans maybe had a tougher time? My friends would rail on America around me which was mostly fine until it was too much, and I burst into tears once with "I'm American, you guys!" And they were all, "oh, right, sorry, we forgot." I was totally American, but because I didn't try to be pseudo British, they forgot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cambridge is the only school that MIT allows the transfers of letter grades from. My friends that did the exchange absolutely loved Cambridge and some went back for post-graduate studies. My roommate still lives there and is married and a British citizen now.

Cambridge is an easier admit for Americans.

[Anonymous]

Interesting how this became an Ivy vs. Oxbridge or US vs. UK discussion (obviously there's differences). My original question is really more along the lines of whether and how a degree from either is better than a "regular" college or university.

I have to admit I'm impressed by HYP and Oxbridge grads. It seems they someone with a bachelor's more than master's holders from middling institutions.

I'm impressed too how far a bachelor's alone goes from these institutions. You'll find serious authors, top level journalists, or prestigious financial jobs on Wall Street and the City of London. That's almost unheard for a BA from say College Park or Penn State (or the red brick unis in Britain).

It sounds elitist, but there does in a way seem to be a case for the tradition of the Oxbridge BA being "updated" to an MA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really you should compare the last two years at HYP to Oxbridge. The high school systems are also different.

True, in America the liberal arts curriculum is done in the first two years of college, while in Britain and Europe you generally take care of that in high school.

One keeps hearing this hogwash and the precise opposite is true: Americans do more, not less of the liberal arts curriculum in high school. And they do even more in college. Brits study 3 and at most 4 subjects the last two years of high school — less than 1/2 their American peers. Top American students have all studied 4 years of math, science, foreign languages, history, and English in high school, amongst other fields. Brits simply haven’t (nor have most European students, though their education is still broader than the Brits).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the very high quality of students overall, how does this reflect in the curriculum? Some cynics say it's mostly about the connections because the undergraduate curriculum is the same at most institutions of reasonable quality. But I would suspect since there's no remedial education going, there's a difference in kind between a bachelor's from HYP/Oxbridge and your more typical bachelor's degree.

Students are very high quality at both, but let’s not pretend they are equal: Oxbridge is an order of magnitude easier to get in. This is true in every subject, but since admission is by course, some subjects — say, languages, humanities, social sciences other than Econ — are easier admits than, say, Emory.

You think an Oxford grad who read history is less knowledgeable than a typical Emory grad?

That’s a different question entirely, though the Emory student might indeed be an Oxford student! As for Oxford proper, since 1/4 of the history applicants get admitted (and the UK rate is considerably higher), I think it is long since past time to compare it to, say, Harvard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oxbridge has a higher floor but lower ceiling. This is due to the stricter requirements, whereas HYP students can enroll in upper level undergrad courses and even graduate courses their freshman year

Upper level courses aren’t necessary “harder”, they are often just more specific. The toughest courses are often lower to mid-level “weed out” classes. The US History survey course was harder to do well in than the course on the Jazz Age, or the one on Vietnam era.

How can this be, given that everyone taking the Jazz/Vietnam course did well I'm the US History survey course? Even if no one failed the upper level courses while many failed the lower level ones, that wouldn't imply that the upper level courses are any easier, because the people passing the upper level courses have already passed the lower level course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:HYPS have nothing similar to the Tripos.

They have PhD level courses which any qualified undergrad can take. The math ceiling at HYP is therefore higher than at Cambridge, while the HYP math floor is also lower.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really you should compare the last two years at HYP to Oxbridge. The high school systems are also different.

True, in America the liberal arts curriculum is done in the first two years of college, while in Britain and Europe you generally take care of that in high school.

A levels are also focused in one's area of future study, and GCSEs are not college level liberal arts classes.