I'm telling my kids to go to the UK for undergrad

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

From the Law Society of the UK.

Here are some examples of friends who changed majors at US universities. If you assure me that each of these changes is possible at a UK university, I will stand down

Engineering to Math and Scandinavian Studies
Chemistry to English literature
Biochemistry to Biology
Biology to American History
Political Science to Economics
Physics to physics with an English literature minor

The fact that you can switch from engineering to scandinavian studies tells you how shallow the US undergrad courses are. This is for dilettantes, not a serious education.

I studied history for my undergraduate degree. I became an economist, my friends who studied the subject became lawyers, journalists, producers, script writers, academics. I know people who studied medicine that now work in the City or media. So your statement that you need to choose a career path at 17 is simply incorrect. The purpose of your undergraduate degree is to give you a solid foundation in an area of study, to teach you how to research, to think, and to express your ideas. The subject is irrelevant in the vast majority of cases.

[Anonymous]

I live in London and I can tell you that it is very, very hard to get into top colleges in the UK (I am not even talking about Oxbridge, but such schools as Imperial college or Warwick University). Even children who study in top Grammar or private schools have to work extremely hard to get in, so don't think it will be easy. Yes, you can probably get in some generic University of West Sussex or something like that, but don't kid yourself - getting into a top school is not a walk in the park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am English, and am telling my kids to go to University in the UK anyway, because the education is better. I just don't know if they will be able to get in anywhere good after going through the system here.

Only people from the UK think UK colleges and universities are better. Cambridgea and Oxford are world class schools, but they are still behind a number of US institutions.

http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2015.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

From the Law Society of the UK.

Here are some examples of friends who changed majors at US universities. If you assure me that each of these changes is possible at a UK university, I will stand down

Engineering to Math and Scandinavian Studies
Chemistry to English literature
Biochemistry to Biology
Biology to American History
Political Science to Economics
Physics to physics with an English literature minor

The fact that you can switch from engineering to scandinavian studies tells you how shallow the US undergrad courses are. This is for dilettantes, not a serious education.

I studied history for my undergraduate degree. I became an economist, my friends who studied the subject became lawyers, journalists, producers, script writers, academics. I know people who studied medicine that now work in the City or media. So your statement that you need to choose a career path at 17 is simply incorrect. The purpose of your undergraduate degree is to give you a solid foundation in an area of study, to teach you how to research, to think, and to express your ideas. The subject is irrelevant in the vast majority of cases.

The fact that you can't switch means that you are narrowly educated. You might know your subject very well, but you aren't well educated in other areas. You are missing the cross-pollination of ideas by only studying one field. You are a technician, not an educated person.

[Anonymous]

No one cares where you send your kid. Send them away. It will help balance out the flood of incoming foreign students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

From the Law Society of the UK.

Here are some examples of friends who changed majors at US universities. If you assure me that each of these changes is possible at a UK university, I will stand down

Engineering to Math and Scandinavian Studies
Chemistry to English literature
Biochemistry to Biology
Biology to American History
Political Science to Economics
Physics to physics with an English literature minor

The fact that you can switch from engineering to scandinavian studies tells you how shallow the US undergrad courses are. This is for dilettantes, not a serious education.

I studied history for my undergraduate degree. I became an economist, my friends who studied the subject became lawyers, journalists, producers, script writers, academics. I know people who studied medicine that now work in the City or media. So your statement that you need to choose a career path at 17 is simply incorrect. The purpose of your undergraduate degree is to give you a solid foundation in an area of study, to teach you how to research, to think, and to express your ideas. The subject is irrelevant in the vast majority of cases.

+1. But PP will probably have a tough time understanding what you say.

It is amazing how people who pay so much lip service to critical thinking display so little of it.

(Courtesy, at least part of it, of the shallow US undergrad system)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

From the Law Society of the UK.

Here are some examples of friends who changed majors at US universities. If you assure me that each of these changes is possible at a UK university, I will stand down

Engineering to Math and Scandinavian Studies
Chemistry to English literature
Biochemistry to Biology
Biology to American History
Political Science to Economics
Physics to physics with an English literature minor

The fact that you can switch from engineering to scandinavian studies tells you how shallow the US undergrad courses are. This is for dilettantes, not a serious education.

I studied history for my undergraduate degree. I became an economist, my friends who studied the subject became lawyers, journalists, producers, script writers, academics. I know people who studied medicine that now work in the City or media. So your statement that you need to choose a career path at 17 is simply incorrect. The purpose of your undergraduate degree is to give you a solid foundation in an area of study, to teach you how to research, to think, and to express your ideas. The subject is irrelevant in the vast majority of cases.

The fact that you can't switch means that you are narrowly educated. You might know your subject very well, but you aren't well educated in other areas. You are missing the cross-pollination of ideas by only studying one field. You are a technician, not an educated person.

Did you even read and understand what the PP said? It all went above your head. Not a good sign. Where did you go for undergrad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Considering that private or out of state tuition runs up to $60K per year, I'm thinking the UK is a deal, even if you tack on room and board.

As international students, they don't require you to go through an extra year. I think they just make you take specific exams.

So just go in-state.

Unfortunately, getting into a good in-state univ. here is getting harder and harder, and more and more expensive I might add. I think most univ. have lower standards for international students because they want the money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is UK "better" except the cost?

In the US the students are the customer, to be coddled and treated with the utmost sensitivity. "A"s are handed out like candy at a German carnival. Professors are evaluated according to how sweet and generous they are to the students. The easiest courses attract the most students. Courses are designed to instill pride and a sense of self-righteousness in students. The sports staff are the highest-paid staff members, coaches are worshiped. Colleges are above all businesses rather than centers of learning, and professors are entrepreneurs.

The result of all this is a relentless dumbing-down of the US educational establishment, with students emerging woefully unprepared for the demands of the workplace. Of course, there are many exceptions like MIT, and there are many bullshit courses in the UK - if you go to study media studies at the University of Sunderland then you won't be getting a great education. But generally speaking, courses in the better universities in the UK will demand a level of intellectual rigor that their US equivalents will not.

Absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

From the Law Society of the UK.

Here are some examples of friends who changed majors at US universities. If you assure me that each of these changes is possible at a UK university, I will stand down

Engineering to Math and Scandinavian Studies
Chemistry to English literature
Biochemistry to Biology
Biology to American History
Political Science to Economics
Physics to physics with an English literature minor

The fact that you can switch from engineering to scandinavian studies tells you how shallow the US undergrad courses are. This is for dilettantes, not a serious education.

I studied history for my undergraduate degree. I became an economist, my friends who studied the subject became lawyers, journalists, producers, script writers, academics. I know people who studied medicine that now work in the City or media. So your statement that you need to choose a career path at 17 is simply incorrect. The purpose of your undergraduate degree is to give you a solid foundation in an area of study, to teach you how to research, to think, and to express your ideas. The subject is irrelevant in the vast majority of cases.

The fact that you can't switch means that you are narrowly educated. You might know your subject very well, but you aren't well educated in other areas. You are missing the cross-pollination of ideas by only studying one field. You are a technician, not an educated person.

Did you even read and understand what the PP said? It all went above your head. Not a good sign. Where did you go for undergrad?

I understood it. I just don't agree. Your problem and PP's problem is that you don't know what you don't know.

People who take the UK approach may be well educated in their major and capable of research in their major, but they lack the exposure to other fields to be good critical thinkers. Lots of smart people who haven't worked in a field think they know something about it and have something to say about it. Because they have no training in the entry level work in that field, though, they don't know what they don't know about it. Because they have a college degree, they assume they are smart and they can figure it out. They may figure out bits and pieces, but lacking an entry-level theorectical framework they almost always get it wrong. Lacking the experience of dealing with a field foreign to the main thrust of their training, they lack the humility to understand that they need to grapple with the basics before they start offering opinions.

Lacking knowledge in the field and lacking any understanding that they don't have the knowledge in the field, they are the true diletantes .


US college education includes a broad exposure to a number of fields. Students have to struggle with things they aren't good at. They learn to know when they don't know something and how to approach areas of knowledge that are outside their core training. Their training in their marriage doesn't suffer because they get an entire extra year as an undergraduate to take those liberal arts classes.

The value of the US approach over the UK approach is visible in the international rankings. A handful of UK schools do a fine job, but they're not as good as US schools. Even a second choice school in the US is better than 90% of UK schools .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The UK system excels at helping students learn a specific topic quite thoroughly. The system also is designed around how to take a specific test (A levels). It also means students need to declare their intended career path by approx. age 15.

The U.S. system allows for more flexibility and exposure to other subjects. Knowledge may not be as deep, but the U.S. system seems help people to think in a more broad-based way and to draw from more disciplines, which can help fuel innovation.

This is such rubbish. I'm British and went through the British education system. I had no idea what I wanted to do or be until my final year at university. It didn't matter a jot. I studied the subjects I was interested in and that I wanted to pursue and my tutors taught me how to think and stretch myself. I ended up with a great degree and a cracking job. I have no idea why people are so sure that Brits have to decide what they want to be at 15. Where did that idea come from?

You went to Oxbridge. Oxbridge is Oxbridge, the other schools are not Oxbridge. It's comparing apples and oranges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

From the Law Society of the UK.

Here are some examples of friends who changed majors at US universities. If you assure me that each of these changes is possible at a UK university, I will stand down

Engineering to Math and Scandinavian Studies
Chemistry to English literature
Biochemistry to Biology
Biology to American History
Political Science to Economics
Physics to physics with an English literature minor

The fact that you can switch from engineering to scandinavian studies tells you how shallow the US undergrad courses are. This is for dilettantes, not a serious education.

I studied history for my undergraduate degree. I became an economist, my friends who studied the subject became lawyers, journalists, producers, script writers, academics. I know people who studied medicine that now work in the City or media. So your statement that you need to choose a career path at 17 is simply incorrect. The purpose of your undergraduate degree is to give you a solid foundation in an area of study, to teach you how to research, to think, and to express your ideas. The subject is irrelevant in the vast majority of cases.

The fact that you can't switch means that you are narrowly educated. You might know your subject very well, but you aren't well educated in other areas. You are missing the cross-pollination of ideas by only studying one field. You are a technician, not an educated person.

Did you even read and understand what the PP said? It all went above your head. Not a good sign. Where did you go for undergrad?

I understood it. I just don't agree. Your problem and PP's problem is that you don't know what you don't know.

People who take the UK approach may be well educated in their major and capable of research in their major, but they lack the exposure to other fields to be good critical thinkers. Lots of smart people who haven't worked in a field think they know something about it and have something to say about it. Because they have no training in the entry level work in that field, though, they don't know what they don't know about it. Because they have a college degree, they assume they are smart and they can figure it out. They may figure out bits and pieces, but lacking an entry-level theorectical framework they almost always get it wrong. Lacking the experience of dealing with a field foreign to the main thrust of their training, they lack the humility to understand that they need to grapple with the basics before they start offering opinions.

Lacking knowledge in the field and lacking any understanding that they don't have the knowledge in the field, they are the true diletantes .


US college education includes a broad exposure to a number of fields. Students have to struggle with things they aren't good at. They learn to know when they don't know something and how to approach areas of knowledge that are outside their core training. Their training in their marriage doesn't suffer because they get an entire extra year as an undergraduate to take those liberal arts classes.

The value of the US approach over the UK approach is visible in the international rankings. A handful of UK schools do a fine job, but they're not as good as US schools. Even a second choice school in the US is better than 90% of UK schools .

Ok, keep telling yourself that. I am with the 'shhh' mum above - not looking forward to your invasion here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am English, and am telling my kids to go to University in the UK anyway, because the education is better. I just don't know if they will be able to get in anywhere good after going through the system here.

Only people from the UK think UK colleges and universities are better. Cambridgea and Oxford are world class schools, but they are still behind a number of US institutions.

http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2015.html

says some stupid ranking. i'd put Cambridge and Oxford against ANY U.S. University.

[Anonymous]

"Best Global Universities" - rankings

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings?int=9cf408

[Anonymous]

What about University of Edinburgh?