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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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). |
It was 5 APs of 5 when mine applied (could be contingent for Sr year APs) |
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%)." |
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. |
Cambridge is an easier admit for Americans. |
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. |
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). |
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. |
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. |
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. |
A levels are also focused in one's area of future study, and GCSEs are not college level liberal arts classes. |