How would British / UK schools stack up against American / US schools?

[Anonymous]

Everyone would agree that Oxford and Cambridge are beautiful but boring places, nothing to do with being a failure.

Also extracurriculars are just not a thing anywhere that isn't the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
EC content is CRUCIAL. Don't let anyone tell you anything different.

Another Brit here who went to Oxford. Unless things have changed a lot, this is nonsense. EC content was totally irrelevant when I applied.

[Anonymous]

OP, I'm not British but I would strongly recommend weighing the long term considerations if sending DC to a UK school (or anywhere abroad, really). It is significantly more difficult to secure employment back in the states compared to an equivalent U.S. college. While there is an air of momentary mystique when it comes to British schools, American employers will, at the end of the day, prefer hires from American schools barring specific technical skillsets. And, well, wages and COL are generally more favorable in the states, and with the uncertainty around Brexit, I'm less bullish on the UK in the mid- to long-term.

There's also a lingering, underlying question if you're American of, "Well, why did they decide to do their undergrad abroad in the first place?" Yes,

If DC wants to settle in the UK, then this is all a non-issue.

I know two Oxbridge grads. One is the daughter of a distant family friend. She didn't get into her first-choice schools here and ended up at Cambridge. She's done well for herself and last I heard is working as a banker in London, with no plans to return back. She seems happy, and the family is happy with their choice.

The other guy I know is Australian, graduated from Oxford, moved here. He spent over a year (!) unemployed and having a tough time finding a job but is now working in consulting, I believe. I have a hard time imagining a Harvard or Yale or Stanford grad finding it difficult to land a job, well, anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I'm not British but I would strongly recommend weighing the long term considerations if sending DC to a UK school (or anywhere abroad, really). It is significantly more difficult to secure employment back in the states compared to an equivalent U.S. college. While there is an air of momentary mystique when it comes to British schools, American employers will, at the end of the day, prefer hires from American schools barring specific technical skillsets. And, well, wages and COL are generally more favorable in the states, and with the uncertainty around Brexit, I'm less bullish on the UK in the mid- to long-term.

There's also a lingering, underlying question if you're American of, "Well, why did they decide to do their undergrad abroad in the first place?" Yes,

If DC wants to settle in the UK, then this is all a non-issue.

I know two Oxbridge grads. One is the daughter of a distant family friend. She didn't get into her first-choice schools here and ended up at Cambridge. She's done well for herself and last I heard is working as a banker in London, with no plans to return back. She seems happy, and the family is happy with their choice.

The other guy I know is Australian, graduated from Oxford, moved here. He spent over a year (!) unemployed and having a tough time finding a job but is now working in consulting, I believe. I have a hard time imagining a Harvard or Yale or Stanford grad finding it difficult to land a job, well, anywhere.

[Anonymous]

There are so many differences that start way before University.
The Brits start to specialize much earlier. Kids heading towards the sciences are taking nearly all science classes by the time they are in HS. The same is true for arts. I think of the MIT type kid as the equivalent pre university student here in this country.
Their sciences are a step ahead because of this.
The tutorial system takes the brightest young adults and gives them relatively intense attention (not for everyone). The idea is not to intimidate though.
They DO NOT CARE ABOUT EXTRA CURRICULAR activities.
Grades will be lower, they are mature enough to know that no one is perfect.
I have never met an incompetent person coming out of Oxbridge.
I have met some incompetent people who have come out of HYP.
Endowments different...socialization of education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are so many differences that start way before University.
The Brits start to specialize much earlier. Kids heading towards the sciences are taking nearly all science classes by the time they are in HS. The same is true for arts. I think of the MIT type kid as the equivalent pre university student here in this country.
Their sciences are a step ahead because of this.
The tutorial system takes the brightest young adults and gives them relatively intense attention (not for everyone). The idea is not to intimidate though.
They DO NOT CARE ABOUT EXTRA CURRICULAR activities.
Grades will be lower, they are mature enough to know that no one is perfect.
I have never met an incompetent person coming out of Oxbridge.
I have met some incompetent people who have come out of HYP.
Endowments different...socialization of education.

Please don't tell me you're saying UK secondary school students are equivalent to MIT students.

And isn't half of Parliament made up of Oxbridge grads? It feels to me like the incompetence is pretty self-evident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
EC content is CRUCIAL. Don't let anyone tell you anything different.

Another Brit here who went to Oxford. Unless things have changed a lot, this is nonsense. EC content was totally irrelevant when I applied.

How old are you? Things have definitely changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are so many differences that start way before University.
The Brits start to specialize much earlier. Kids heading towards the sciences are taking nearly all science classes by the time they are in HS. The same is true for arts. I think of the MIT type kid as the equivalent pre university student here in this country.
Their sciences are a step ahead because of this.
The tutorial system takes the brightest young adults and gives them relatively intense attention (not for everyone). The idea is not to intimidate though.
They DO NOT CARE ABOUT EXTRA CURRICULAR activities.
Grades will be lower, they are mature enough to know that no one is perfect.
I have never met an incompetent person coming out of Oxbridge.
I have met some incompetent people who have come out of HYP.
Endowments different...socialization of education.

I'm one of the Brit PPs who went to Cambridge. This is arrant nonsense. I can only assume you don't know many Oxbridge graduates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I'm not British but I would strongly recommend weighing the long term considerations if sending DC to a UK school (or anywhere abroad, really). It is significantly more difficult to secure employment back in the states compared to an equivalent U.S. college. While there is an air of momentary mystique when it comes to British schools, American employers will, at the end of the day, prefer hires from American schools barring specific technical skillsets. And, well, wages and COL are generally more favorable in the states, and with the uncertainty around Brexit, I'm less bullish on the UK in the mid- to long-term.

There's also a lingering, underlying question if you're American of, "Well, why did they decide to do their undergrad abroad in the first place?" Yes,

If DC wants to settle in the UK, then this is all a non-issue.

I know two Oxbridge grads. One is the daughter of a distant family friend. She didn't get into her first-choice schools here and ended up at Cambridge. She's done well for herself and last I heard is working as a banker in London, with no plans to return back. She seems happy, and the family is happy with their choice.

The other guy I know is Australian, graduated from Oxford, moved here. He spent over a year (!) unemployed and having a tough time finding a job but is now working in consulting, I believe. I have a hard time imagining a Harvard or Yale or Stanford grad finding it difficult to land a job, well, anywhere.

+1

Why is this the first time in this thread that someone is actually acknowledging this? This is the most important people should be paying attention to. Unless your plan is to live in the UK, it's really not advisable to attend university there. Masters and grad programs are maybe a different story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There isn't any emphasis on extracurricular or sports, and you have to be able to write well. The US system has many high stakes multiple choice exams like SAT/ACT but when you take exams in Britain at the secondary level there are more written exams.

Not "many" - just those two and you only take one of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are so many differences that start way before University.
The Brits start to specialize much earlier. Kids heading towards the sciences are taking nearly all science classes by the time they are in HS. The same is true for arts. I think of the MIT type kid as the equivalent pre university student here in this country.
Their sciences are a step ahead because of this.
The tutorial system takes the brightest young adults and gives them relatively intense attention (not for everyone). The idea is not to intimidate though.
They DO NOT CARE ABOUT EXTRA CURRICULAR activities.
Grades will be lower, they are mature enough to know that no one is perfect.
I have never met an incompetent person coming out of Oxbridge.
I have met some incompetent people who have come out of HYP.
Endowments different...socialization of education.

Please don't tell me you're saying UK secondary school students are equivalent to MIT students.

And isn't half of Parliament made up of Oxbridge grads? It feels to me like the incompetence is pretty self-evident.

The kinds of kids who end up at MIT are usually doing heavy sciences in HIGH SCHOOL. Not common for other American kids.

[Anonymous]

16:37 articulated my DC's take-away too.

Most US high schools (and many colleges) are designed to be well-rounded, taking cores in all subjects and just a few electives all the way to age ~18 (HS graduation). The UK counterparts end the well-rounded part at age 16 and then either stop school, go to trade school, or continue a path toward college. That path is specialized, so by the time they get to university, they have mostly been studying in their primary area for the last years of high school.

So the US student interested in studying the same subject at uni has had fewer classes in it and has to do a lot of extra work on the side in the subject (this is where some ECs ARE relevant) -- and yes, you have to know what you want to study before you apply. This works to the advantage of kids in public magnets and against kids in traditional liberal arts schools.

If you apply, all they really care about are your SAT scores, AP scores that are related to your intended area of study -- and you have to get a 5 (3 5s for Ox, 5 5s for Bridge) -- and how well you can respond to questions about the subject in your interview. They don't care about your GPA or other courses you took. They don't care if you took 15 AP classes if 13 of them are unrelated to your college path. If you apply to study physics, they really don't care that you aced AP U.S. History; they want to see everything you've don in math and science, particularly physics -- and one AP Physics class will not be enough.

Also most courses are three years, not the US traditional four (or more). Sounds appealing? The hitch is in what comes after university as others have pointed out. Also, you miss out on getting the US internships that lead to top jobs, unless you scramble to make that happen on your own from afar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:16:37 articulated my DC's take-away too.

Most US high schools (and many colleges) are designed to be well-rounded, taking cores in all subjects and just a few electives all the way to age ~18 (HS graduation). The UK counterparts end the well-rounded part at age 16 and then either stop school, go to trade school, or continue a path toward college. That path is specialized, so by the time they get to university, they have mostly been studying in their primary area for the last years of high school.

So the US student interested in studying the same subject at uni has had fewer classes in it and has to do a lot of extra work on the side in the subject (this is where some ECs ARE relevant) -- and yes, you have to know what you want to study before you apply. This works to the advantage of kids in public magnets and against kids in traditional liberal arts schools.

If you apply, all they really care about are your SAT scores, AP scores that are related to your intended area of study -- and you have to get a 5 (3 5s for Ox, 5 5s for Bridge) -- and how well you can respond to questions about the subject in your interview. They don't care about your GPA or other courses you took. They don't care if you took 15 AP classes if 13 of them are unrelated to your college path. If you apply to study physics, they really don't care that you aced AP U.S. History; they want to see everything you've don in math and science, particularly physics -- and one AP Physics class will not be enough.

Also most courses are three years, not the US traditional four (or more). Sounds appealing? The hitch is in what comes after university as others have pointed out. Also, you miss out on getting the US internships that lead to top jobs, unless you scramble to make that happen on your own from afar.

these are the reasons why my DC (CS major) wants to go to uni in the UK. DC hates the gen ed classes.

Many larger high tech companies recruit from some of the unis in the UK.

And there are *definitely* internships in UK unis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are so many differences that start way before University.
The Brits start to specialize much earlier. Kids heading towards the sciences are taking nearly all science classes by the time they are in HS. The same is true for arts. I think of the MIT type kid as the equivalent pre university student here in this country.
Their sciences are a step ahead because of this.
The tutorial system takes the brightest young adults and gives them relatively intense attention (not for everyone). The idea is not to intimidate though.
They DO NOT CARE ABOUT EXTRA CURRICULAR activities.
Grades will be lower, they are mature enough to know that no one is perfect.
I have never met an incompetent person coming out of Oxbridge.
I have met some incompetent people who have come out of HYP.
Endowments different...socialization of education.

I'm one of the Brit PPs who went to Cambridge. This is arrant nonsense. I can only assume you don't know many Oxbridge graduates.

Seriously. I’m not British, but my sister went to Cambridge (albeit for an MPhil) and I’ve spent a bunch of time over there. Just like any great school, there are smart people graduating from Oxbridge and there are incompetent people there.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think as much of engineers or computer science majors who haven’t done the gen eds. Everyone should be well rounded, even engineers. I mean have you see the way some people write?