Most intellectual colleges?

[Anonymous]

Earlham
Oberlin
Carlton
Wesleyan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:University of Chicago and also Oxford. My DC just spent a year there and it was a truly unique intellectual experience all around - nothing like it in the states.

Get ready for more statements like this: that Oxford or other foreign universities are better than the US.

Republicans aim to destroy our university system, the best in the world and the driver of the US tech economy. And it’s working.

Nope, kiddo. Oxbridge is extraordinarily unique in the world of higher education. Always has been, always will be. The Ivies were modeled after Oxbridge and are the closest equivalent.

Beyond that the lists of top universities produced by various publications is pretty stable. Dominated by major American research universities. No evidence whatsoever in your completely unsubstantiated claim that the Republicans are out to destroy American higher education.

Anyone who uses the phrase “extraordinarily unique” is not someone whom you should trust to evaluate what constitutes an excellent education.

It isn't really accurate to say Ivy League schools were modeled after Oxbridge. Sure, Yale has colleges and Harvard has houses, but they are much less federated than Oxford, don't use tutorials, were much quicker to develop professional schools (e.g. Penn) and to adopt elements of the German system which fostered the development of modern research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:University of Chicago and also Oxford. My DC just spent a year there and it was a truly unique intellectual experience all around - nothing like it in the states.

Get ready for more statements like this: that Oxford or other foreign universities are better than the US.

Republicans aim to destroy our university system, the best in the world and the driver of the US tech economy. And it’s working.

Nope, kiddo. Oxbridge is extraordinarily unique in the world of higher education. Always has been, always will be. The Ivies were modeled after Oxbridge and are the closest equivalent.

Beyond that the lists of top universities produced by various publications is pretty stable. Dominated by major American research universities. No evidence whatsoever in your completely unsubstantiated claim that the Republicans are out to destroy American higher education.

Anyone who uses the phrase “extraordinarily unique” is not someone whom you should trust to evaluate what constitutes an excellent education.

It isn't really accurate to say Ivy League schools were modeled after Oxbridge. Sure, Yale has colleges and Harvard has houses, but they are much less federated than Oxford, don't use tutorials, were much quicker to develop professional schools (e.g. Penn) and to adopt elements of the German system which fostered the development of modern research.

The American liberal arts model comes closest to the Oxbridge model, and Oxbridge is unique within the UK, which is why it's so sought after. in that country Most of the Ivies were founded on strong liberal arts principles, quite similar to how Oxbridge taught their students, but expanded beyond it (Penn and Cornell were much more universities from the get-go). One can argue that the top American universities offer a good balance between the Oxbridge model and the German research university model, offering the best of both worlds.

Oxbridge is quite unique and special so I disagree with the PP who expressed disdain at the notion of Oxbridge as an example of an excellent education. It may very well offer the best education in the world from a certain perspective. Even if we disagree with that, only people who fall closer to the category of fools rather than intellectuals would pretend Oxbridge does not offer an excellent education or that the Oxbridge model is one of the most recognized, distinctive and intellectual higher educational system in the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:University of Chicago and also Oxford. My DC just spent a year there and it was a truly unique intellectual experience all around - nothing like it in the states.

Get ready for more statements like this: that Oxford or other foreign universities are better than the US.

Republicans aim to destroy our university system, the best in the world and the driver of the US tech economy. And it’s working.

Nope, kiddo. Oxbridge is extraordinarily unique in the world of higher education. Always has been, always will be. The Ivies were modeled after Oxbridge and are the closest equivalent.

Beyond that the lists of top universities produced by various publications is pretty stable. Dominated by major American research universities. No evidence whatsoever in your completely unsubstantiated claim that the Republicans are out to destroy American higher education.

Anyone who uses the phrase “extraordinarily unique” is not someone whom you should trust to evaluate what constitutes an excellent education.

It isn't really accurate to say Ivy League schools were modeled after Oxbridge. Sure, Yale has colleges and Harvard has houses, but they are much less federated than Oxford, don't use tutorials, were much quicker to develop professional schools (e.g. Penn) and to adopt elements of the German system which fostered the development of modern research.

The American liberal arts model comes closest to the Oxbridge model, and Oxbridge is unique within the UK, which is why it's so sought after. in that country Most of the Ivies were founded on strong liberal arts principles, quite similar to how Oxbridge taught their students, but expanded beyond it (Penn and Cornell were much more universities from the get-go). One can argue that the top American universities offer a good balance between the Oxbridge model and the German research university model, offering the best of both worlds.

Oxbridge is quite unique and special so I disagree with the PP who expressed disdain at the notion of Oxbridge as an example of an excellent education. It may very well offer the best education in the world from a certain perspective. Even if we disagree with that, only people who fall closer to the category of fools rather than intellectuals would pretend Oxbridge does not offer an excellent education or that the Oxbridge model is one of the most recognized, distinctive and intellectual higher educational system in the world.

Again, I would disagree that Oxbridge provides a liberal arts education. Undergraduate students there focus on depth in one area rather than the breadth of a liberal arts program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:University of Chicago and also Oxford. My DC just spent a year there and it was a truly unique intellectual experience all around - nothing like it in the states.

Get ready for more statements like this: that Oxford or other foreign universities are better than the US.

Republicans aim to destroy our university system, the best in the world and the driver of the US tech economy. And it’s working.

Nope, kiddo. Oxbridge is extraordinarily unique in the world of higher education. Always has been, always will be. The Ivies were modeled after Oxbridge and are the closest equivalent.

Beyond that the lists of top universities produced by various publications is pretty stable. Dominated by major American research universities. No evidence whatsoever in your completely unsubstantiated claim that the Republicans are out to destroy American higher education.

Anyone who uses the phrase “extraordinarily unique” is not someone whom you should trust to evaluate what constitutes an excellent education.

It isn't really accurate to say Ivy League schools were modeled after Oxbridge. Sure, Yale has colleges and Harvard has houses, but they are much less federated than Oxford, don't use tutorials, were much quicker to develop professional schools (e.g. Penn) and to adopt elements of the German system which fostered the development of modern research.

The American liberal arts model comes closest to the Oxbridge model, and Oxbridge is unique within the UK, which is why it's so sought after. in that country Most of the Ivies were founded on strong liberal arts principles, quite similar to how Oxbridge taught their students, but expanded beyond it (Penn and Cornell were much more universities from the get-go). One can argue that the top American universities offer a good balance between the Oxbridge model and the German research university model, offering the best of both worlds.

Oxbridge is quite unique and special so I disagree with the PP who expressed disdain at the notion of Oxbridge as an example of an excellent education. It may very well offer the best education in the world from a certain perspective. Even if we disagree with that, only people who fall closer to the category of fools rather than intellectuals would pretend Oxbridge does not offer an excellent education or that the Oxbridge model is one of the most recognized, distinctive and intellectual higher educational system in the world.

Again, I would disagree that Oxbridge provides a liberal arts education. Undergraduate students there focus on depth in one area rather than the breadth of a liberal arts program.

I suspect you know little on the topic. I did not say Oxbridge is identical to the American liberal arts system but the American liberal arts system comes close, for it has its roots in Oxbridge; the founders of the early liberal arts colleges and universities in the United States as well as earliest professors prior to the Revolutionary War were mainly Oxbridge graduates. They brought over that close teaching model and the early American colleges were focused on the teaching of both theology and the Classical subjects, which is what Oxbridge also focused on at the time. The schools expanded the breadth and depth of their offerings in the late 18th and 19th centuries and evolved in separate directions. But the model of a *residential* college with the basis of a close interaction between faculty and students directly engaging with one another in a seminar setting format that we find at American liberal arts schools and universities is a direct offshoot of the Oxbridge tutorial style, unlike the continental education via lecture format, where students traditionally sit in lecture halls and take notes and rarely challenge the authority or knowledge of the instructor. Naturally, we do find this style at American colleges or other British universities, too. Even at Oxbridge. But it remains that Oxbridge style of instruction and teaching and the American liberal arts style of instruction and teaching is very close. Think of them as cousins of each other. And pertinent to this thread, Oxbridge is among the most intellectual universities in the world. There is no disputing this.

I do agree with you there is an advantage to the breadth of a typical Liberal Arts education (in theory, it does depend what you study and how you study it) versus the more narrow subject-specific courses at Oxbridge. At the same time, the Oxbridge approach gives you a greater depth of knowledge in your subject area. So there are pros and cons to both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on our experience with UChicago and MIT, and that of my kids' friends and relatives, MIT and UChicago are more for high achievers than intellectuals.

That “high achiever” label is more illusion created by PR than fact. Without the Chicago PR machine, they would just return to the 50% admit rate it used to be. No one would label a school with 40-50% admit rate high hitters. They can manipulate their admit rate - but they can’t manipulate their mediocre ROI.

ROI is already a measure inversely correlated with intellectual culture. The best way to increase ROI is to send more kids to Wall Street, Business Consulting, and Law school as well as engineering. Schools sending kids for PhDs in history or philosophy or physics will always have a lower ROI.

Good point. Musicians generally don’t have a high income, especially in this gig economy. The problem with Chicago is that it desperately tries too hard. It’s dedinitely not like Reed or St. John’s who don’t give a hoot about the ranking game.

Disagree.

Chicago has trained (and hires) amazing minds. https://www.uchicago.edu/about/accolades/nobel_laureates/ It is a full university. Reed, St. Johns are fine undergraduate institutions with some distinguished alums. But they have generally not made the same mark on the world, for better or worse (thinking of the UC atom bomb developers).

UC Berkeley has produced more nobels than UC, just google wiki. By your criteria, UChicago is a notch below UC Berkeley. And half the students at Berkeley pay no tuition to boot. Ther’s No way UC can beat UC Berkeley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:University of Chicago and also Oxford. My DC just spent a year there and it was a truly unique intellectual experience all around - nothing like it in the states.

Get ready for more statements like this: that Oxford or other foreign universities are better than the US.

Republicans aim to destroy our university system, the best in the world and the driver of the US tech economy. And it’s working.

Nope, kiddo. Oxbridge is extraordinarily unique in the world of higher education. Always has been, always will be. The Ivies were modeled after Oxbridge and are the closest equivalent.

Beyond that the lists of top universities produced by various publications is pretty stable. Dominated by major American research universities. No evidence whatsoever in your completely unsubstantiated claim that the Republicans are out to destroy American higher education.

Anyone who uses the phrase “extraordinarily unique” is not someone whom you should trust to evaluate what constitutes an excellent education.

It isn't really accurate to say Ivy League schools were modeled after Oxbridge. Sure, Yale has colleges and Harvard has houses, but they are much less federated than Oxford, don't use tutorials, were much quicker to develop professional schools (e.g. Penn) and to adopt elements of the German system which fostered the development of modern research.

The American liberal arts model comes closest to the Oxbridge model, and Oxbridge is unique within the UK, which is why it's so sought after. in that country Most of the Ivies were founded on strong liberal arts principles, quite similar to how Oxbridge taught their students, but expanded beyond it (Penn and Cornell were much more universities from the get-go). One can argue that the top American universities offer a good balance between the Oxbridge model and the German research university model, offering the best of both worlds.

Oxbridge is quite unique and special so I disagree with the PP who expressed disdain at the notion of Oxbridge as an example of an excellent education. It may very well offer the best education in the world from a certain perspective. Even if we disagree with that, only people who fall closer to the category of fools rather than intellectuals would pretend Oxbridge does not offer an excellent education or that the Oxbridge model is one of the most recognized, distinctive and intellectual higher educational system in the world.

Again, I would disagree that Oxbridge provides a liberal arts education. Undergraduate students there focus on depth in one area rather than the breadth of a liberal arts program.

DP: But that's not what OP was asking about. True, Oxbridge and other top European universities provide narrower degrees ... and that's exactly how they can go deep and intellectually rigorous.

Vs. the "classroom tourism" in the US model, where students are exposed to much and master little if anything. Heck, why don't spend 4 years watching the whole breadth of Netflix documentaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on our experience with UChicago and MIT, and that of my kids' friends and relatives, MIT and UChicago are more for high achievers than intellectuals.

That “high achiever” label is more illusion created by PR than fact. Without the Chicago PR machine, they would just return to the 50% admit rate it used to be. No one would label a school with 40-50% admit rate high hitters. They can manipulate their admit rate - but they can’t manipulate their mediocre ROI.

ROI is already a measure inversely correlated with intellectual culture. The best way to increase ROI is to send more kids to Wall Street, Business Consulting, and Law school as well as engineering. Schools sending kids for PhDs in history or philosophy or physics will always have a lower ROI.

Good point. Musicians generally don’t have a high income, especially in this gig economy. The problem with Chicago is that it desperately tries too hard. It’s dedinitely not like Reed or St. John’s who don’t give a hoot about the ranking game.

Disagree.

Chicago has trained (and hires) amazing minds. https://www.uchicago.edu/about/accolades/nobel_laureates/ It is a full university. Reed, St. Johns are fine undergraduate institutions with some distinguished alums. But they have generally not made the same mark on the world, for better or worse (thinking of the UC atom bomb developers).

UC Berkeley has produced more nobels than UC, just google wiki. By your criteria, UChicago is a notch below UC Berkeley. And half the students at Berkeley pay no tuition to boot. Ther’s No way UC can beat UC Berkeley.

Berkley is more than twice the size of UC so totals aren’t a fair comparison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on our experience with UChicago and MIT, and that of my kids' friends and relatives, MIT and UChicago are more for high achievers than intellectuals.

That “high achiever” label is more illusion created by PR than fact. Without the Chicago PR machine, they would just return to the 50% admit rate it used to be. No one would label a school with 40-50% admit rate high hitters. They can manipulate their admit rate - but they can’t manipulate their mediocre ROI.

ROI is already a measure inversely correlated with intellectual culture. The best way to increase ROI is to send more kids to Wall Street, Business Consulting, and Law school as well as engineering. Schools sending kids for PhDs in history or philosophy or physics will always have a lower ROI.

Good point. Musicians generally don’t have a high income, especially in this gig economy. The problem with Chicago is that it desperately tries too hard. It’s dedinitely not like Reed or St. John’s who don’t give a hoot about the ranking game.

Disagree.

Chicago has trained (and hires) amazing minds. https://www.uchicago.edu/about/accolades/nobel_laureates/ It is a full university. Reed, St. Johns are fine undergraduate institutions with some distinguished alums. But they have generally not made the same mark on the world, for better or worse (thinking of the UC atom bomb developers).

UC Berkeley has produced more nobels than UC, just google wiki. By your criteria, UChicago is a notch below UC Berkeley. And half the students at Berkeley pay no tuition to boot. Ther’s No way UC can beat UC Berkeley.

Berkley is more than twice the size of UC so totals aren’t a fair comparison.

UC students often pay $75000 + full freight. More than half at UC Berkeley pay no tuition while remaining pay reduced tuition. I guess this is not a fair comparison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on our experience with UChicago and MIT, and that of my kids' friends and relatives, MIT and UChicago are more for high achievers than intellectuals.

That “high achiever” label is more illusion created by PR than fact. Without the Chicago PR machine, they would just return to the 50% admit rate it used to be. No one would label a school with 40-50% admit rate high hitters. They can manipulate their admit rate - but they can’t manipulate their mediocre ROI.

ROI is already a measure inversely correlated with intellectual culture. The best way to increase ROI is to send more kids to Wall Street, Business Consulting, and Law school as well as engineering. Schools sending kids for PhDs in history or philosophy or physics will always have a lower ROI.

Good point. Musicians generally don’t have a high income, especially in this gig economy. The problem with Chicago is that it desperately tries too hard. It’s dedinitely not like Reed or St. John’s who don’t give a hoot about the ranking game.

Disagree.

Chicago has trained (and hires) amazing minds. https://www.uchicago.edu/about/accolades/nobel_laureates/ It is a full university. Reed, St. Johns are fine undergraduate institutions with some distinguished alums. But they have generally not made the same mark on the world, for better or worse (thinking of the UC atom bomb developers).

UC Berkeley has produced more nobels than UC, just google wiki. By your criteria, UChicago is a notch below UC Berkeley. And half the students at Berkeley pay no tuition to boot. Ther’s No way UC can beat UC Berkeley.

Berkley is more than twice the size of UC so totals aren’t a fair comparison.

UC students often pay $75000 + full freight. More than half at UC Berkeley pay no tuition while remaining pay reduced tuition. I guess this is not a fair comparison.

How do half of UC Berkeley students pay no tuition?? Are you certain? I live in CA and didn’t realize this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on our experience with UChicago and MIT, and that of my kids' friends and relatives, MIT and UChicago are more for high achievers than intellectuals.

That “high achiever” label is more illusion created by PR than fact. Without the Chicago PR machine, they would just return to the 50% admit rate it used to be. No one would label a school with 40-50% admit rate high hitters. They can manipulate their admit rate - but they can’t manipulate their mediocre ROI.

ROI is already a measure inversely correlated with intellectual culture. The best way to increase ROI is to send more kids to Wall Street, Business Consulting, and Law school as well as engineering. Schools sending kids for PhDs in history or philosophy or physics will always have a lower ROI.

Good point. Musicians generally don’t have a high income, especially in this gig economy. The problem with Chicago is that it desperately tries too hard. It’s dedinitely not like Reed or St. John’s who don’t give a hoot about the ranking game.

Disagree.

Chicago has trained (and hires) amazing minds. https://www.uchicago.edu/about/accolades/nobel_laureates/ It is a full university. Reed, St. Johns are fine undergraduate institutions with some distinguished alums. But they have generally not made the same mark on the world, for better or worse (thinking of the UC atom bomb developers).

UC Berkeley has produced more nobels than UC, just google wiki. By your criteria, UChicago is a notch below UC Berkeley. And half the students at Berkeley pay no tuition to boot. Ther’s No way UC can beat UC Berkeley.

Berkley is more than twice the size of UC so totals aren’t a fair comparison.

UC students often pay $75000 + full freight. More than half at UC Berkeley pay no tuition while remaining pay reduced tuition. I guess this is not a fair comparison.

How do half of UC Berkeley students pay no tuition?? Are you certain? I live in CA and didn’t realize this.

Got the inf from UC financial:

“It costs less than you think

Most families pay less than the full price of attending UC. In fact, more than half of our undergraduate students pay no tuition at all. Over two-thirds of UC undergraduates receive grants and scholarships, with an average award of around $16,300.”

http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/paying-for-uc/index.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:University of Chicago and also Oxford. My DC just spent a year there and it was a truly unique intellectual experience all around - nothing like it in the states.

Get ready for more statements like this: that Oxford or other foreign universities are better than the US.

Republicans aim to destroy our university system, the best in the world and the driver of the US tech economy. And it’s working.

Nope, kiddo. Oxbridge is extraordinarily unique in the world of higher education. Always has been, always will be. The Ivies were modeled after Oxbridge and are the closest equivalent.

Beyond that the lists of top universities produced by various publications is pretty stable. Dominated by major American research universities. No evidence whatsoever in your completely unsubstantiated claim that the Republicans are out to destroy American higher education.

Anyone who uses the phrase “extraordinarily unique” is not someone whom you should trust to evaluate what constitutes an excellent education.

It isn't really accurate to say Ivy League schools were modeled after Oxbridge. Sure, Yale has colleges and Harvard has houses, but they are much less federated than Oxford, don't use tutorials, were much quicker to develop professional schools (e.g. Penn) and to adopt elements of the German system which fostered the development of modern research.

The American liberal arts model comes closest to the Oxbridge model, and Oxbridge is unique within the UK, which is why it's so sought after. in that country Most of the Ivies were founded on strong liberal arts principles, quite similar to how Oxbridge taught their students, but expanded beyond it (Penn and Cornell were much more universities from the get-go). One can argue that the top American universities offer a good balance between the Oxbridge model and the German research university model, offering the best of both worlds.

Oxbridge is quite unique and special so I disagree with the PP who expressed disdain at the notion of Oxbridge as an example of an excellent education. It may very well offer the best education in the world from a certain perspective. Even if we disagree with that, only people who fall closer to the category of fools rather than intellectuals would pretend Oxbridge does not offer an excellent education or that the Oxbridge model is one of the most recognized, distinctive and intellectual higher educational system in the world.

Again, I would disagree that Oxbridge provides a liberal arts education. Undergraduate students there focus on depth in one area rather than the breadth of a liberal arts program.

I suspect you know little on the topic. I did not say Oxbridge is identical to the American liberal arts system but the American liberal arts system comes close, for it has its roots in Oxbridge; the founders of the early liberal arts colleges and universities in the United States as well as earliest professors prior to the Revolutionary War were mainly Oxbridge graduates. They brought over that close teaching model and the early American colleges were focused on the teaching of both theology and the Classical subjects, which is what Oxbridge also focused on at the time. The schools expanded the breadth and depth of their offerings in the late 18th and 19th centuries and evolved in separate directions. But the model of a *residential* college with the basis of a close interaction between faculty and students directly engaging with one another in a seminar setting format that we find at American liberal arts schools and universities is a direct offshoot of the Oxbridge tutorial style, unlike the continental education via lecture format, where students traditionally sit in lecture halls and take notes and rarely challenge the authority or knowledge of the instructor. Naturally, we do find this style at American colleges or other British universities, too. Even at Oxbridge. But it remains that Oxbridge style of instruction and teaching and the American liberal arts style of instruction and teaching is very close. Think of them as cousins of each other. And pertinent to this thread, Oxbridge is among the most intellectual universities in the world. There is no disputing this.

I do agree with you there is an advantage to the breadth of a typical Liberal Arts education (in theory, it does depend what you study and how you study it) versus the more narrow subject-specific courses at Oxbridge. At the same time, the Oxbridge approach gives you a greater depth of knowledge in your subject area. So there are pros and cons to both.

I suspect you are wrong and rude.

[Anonymous]

But have no facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But have no facts.

Yes, you also have your facts wrong.

You also jump back and forth between when Harvard and William & Mary were founded 300+ years ago and today, and that is causing a disconnect. The founders of Harvard and William & Mary did attempt to model them on the Oxford and Cambridge at that time. But neither Oxford or Cambridge nor Harvard or William & Mary bears much resemblance to that time. The key facts of today are that Oxford and Cambridge have a tutorial system which is used very little at the undergraduate level in the U.S. There may be some of it in honors programs and schools like Williams.

The other clear distinction, as I previously noted, is that Oxford and Cambridge today focus on depth in one subject area. A liberal arts education is much broader, often with distribution requirements.

So you can hang your hat on an argument that 300 years ago they were similar, and that there is some shared tendency to have more residential and more personal experiences, but the type of education is quite different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But have no facts.

Yes, you also have your facts wrong.

You also jump back and forth between when Harvard and William & Mary were founded 300+ years ago and today, and that is causing a disconnect. The founders of Harvard and William & Mary did attempt to model them on the Oxford and Cambridge at that time. But neither Oxford or Cambridge nor Harvard or William & Mary bears much resemblance to that time. The key facts of today are that Oxford and Cambridge have a tutorial system which is used very little at the undergraduate level in the U.S. There may be some of it in honors programs and schools like Williams.

The other clear distinction, as I previously noted, is that Oxford and Cambridge today focus on depth in one subject area. A liberal arts education is much broader, often with distribution requirements.

So you can hang your hat on an argument that 300 years ago they were similar, and that there is some shared tendency to have more residential and more personal experiences, but the type of education is quite different.

+1