Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone ever answer the dual residency issue? Our kids are us, uk and eu. Sending them across the pond for college is totally my plan, if things don't change in this country. It's not just the cost of college--our entire health care system is so predatory that I don't see the point in growing old here... for them or for us. (I am the American citizen saying this though. My husband disagrees. Although lately... he's starting to see what I mean.)

This is us, too. Lately, I've been thinking of retiring in the UK, mainly for healthcare costs. But, the NHS is not without issues. My inlaws there have plenty to say about the NHS.

As for residency for "home" tuition rates, you have to have lived there for 3 yrs to be a resident. By that time, the kid will have already graduated since most degrees are finished in 3 yrs. You could take a gap year and then apply. Then you'd have the last year as resident.

If your kid is a dual citizen, the kid could work in the UK for a year during the gap year. Help pay for college costs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm also English and agree with PP. It worries me a lot. UK is better at undergrad. US is better post grad IMO.

From another European country, but exact same impression. Europe is both better and cheaper for undergrad, US is better and truly unique, regardless of cost, for post grad.

As an American who did a number of years in European schools in France, Belgium and Switzerland, including high school and college, I think it's a lot more complicated than that.

Comparing a good U.S. high school and a top 20 U.S. university with good European schools, it's just a different approach. In Europe the work was probably at a somewhat higher level, but there was also a ton of memorization and fact-based learning. It was easy for me to get to the top of the class in Europe because I had more critical thinking skills than my counterparts did. U.S. schools had more out of the box approaches, group strategic work, analysis, emphasis on internships, etc.

The price difference is compelling and of course European education can be excellent, but it isn't necessarily better than U.S. education if you choose the right school and the right major.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm also English and agree with PP. It worries me a lot. UK is better at undergrad. US is better post grad IMO.

From another European country, but exact same impression. Europe is both better and cheaper for undergrad, US is better and truly unique, regardless of cost, for post grad.

Anonymous wrote:Wow, so cheap!

"Tuition in the U.K. ranges from 9,000 pounds to 15,000 pounds in U.K. dollars -- about $14,000 to about $24,000 -- per year, depending on the college and not including room and board". And most undergrad programs are completed in 3 years, without the GE requirements, so they spend more time studying their area of major.

http://news.yahoo.com/5-facts-earning-undergraduate-degree-uk-140000135.html

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone ever answer the dual residency issue? Our kids are us, uk and eu. Sending them across the pond for college is totally my plan, if things don't change in this country. It's not just the cost of college--our entire health care system is so predatory that I don't see the point in growing old here... for them or for us. (I am the American citizen saying this though. My husband disagrees. Although lately... he's starting to see what I mean.)

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone ever answer the dual residency issue? Our kids are us, uk and eu. Sending them across the pond for college is totally my plan, if things don't change in this country. It's not just the cost of college--our entire health care system is so predatory that I don't see the point in growing old here... for them or for us. (I am the American citizen saying this though. My husband disagrees. Although lately... he's starting to see what I mean.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're starting from a pretty racist POV if you *assume* that a process that routinely produces outcomes that favor white men from affluent families is both meritocratic and equitably administered.

Two other possibilities (not mutually exclusive) immediately spring to mind and there's evidence in support of both. The first is that the system itself is rigged. (Cf "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges..."). A second possibility is that there's discretion throughout the system and it is used, consciously or not, in ways that favor affluent white men from the right schools. The Guardian has pointed out how kids who have the same A-level results have very different odds of admission depending on where they went to school. There have also been analyses of how much more likely men were to be given firsts than women in the co-ed colleges. And if you look at the role of the interview in the admissions process, you'll see plenty of room for discretion.

Basically, the UK faces many of the same problems that the U.S. continues to confront wrt elite college admissions -- e.g. a primary/secondary educational system where there are extreme differences in educational resources available to children prior to college admissions, spiraling costs of university education, a history of serving as bastions of hereditary privilege.

1. the male/female ratio in oxbridge is close to 50:50 (it is 54:46), so the process is not favoring men over women, or barely.

2. It is disproportionately accepting people from affluent backgrounds, so it must be racist and rigged? Do you have any idea of the massive disparities in education attainment between middle class and lower class children in the UK, and in pretty much every other country in the world? And this is not about money - DC spends far more per pupil than Montgomery County, for example. So what is it about? More affluent families value education more, their children are exposed to books and richer language, learn better educational strategies, they have less stressors and distractions, and so on. So if you want a system based on merit, you are going to have groups that value and emphasize education over-represented. This is not a british thing - there is not a country in the world where a child of a professor or a CEO is not more likely to go to a good university than the son of a drug dealer or brick layer. How can Universities not face this same reality?

furthermore, you have to understand how uk admissinos work - you have to declare your course of study (major) when you apply and you are competing for slots within majors.

most elite schools in the US don't do this and even the ones that have restrictions are more like upenn, where you apply to colleges (and not specific majors).

What the race study showed with oxbridge is that minorities many times would apply at a much higher percentage to the most popular courses (majors) whereas white kids would apply to a broader range of majors/subjects.

That definitely skews admissions rates. Look at the end of the day, no matter how you spin it, the British application system is much fairer (even with the inequities that are present) than the US system.

Given that Oxbridge has interviews, and given that the work of Nobel Laureate Gary Becker finds that interviewers tend to gravitate toward those that are like themselves, I'm not sure I buy this lack of bias. Perhaps it is true for universities that are making offers on the basis of UCAS forms and predicted A-levels alone.

I didn't say that oxbridge was bias-free - what I said was I feel oxbridge (and most certainly UCAS/A-levels only institutions) practice less bias than t25 privates with 'holistic' admissions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're starting from a pretty racist POV if you *assume* that a process that routinely produces outcomes that favor white men from affluent families is both meritocratic and equitably administered.

Two other possibilities (not mutually exclusive) immediately spring to mind and there's evidence in support of both. The first is that the system itself is rigged. (Cf "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges..."). A second possibility is that there's discretion throughout the system and it is used, consciously or not, in ways that favor affluent white men from the right schools. The Guardian has pointed out how kids who have the same A-level results have very different odds of admission depending on where they went to school. There have also been analyses of how much more likely men were to be given firsts than women in the co-ed colleges. And if you look at the role of the interview in the admissions process, you'll see plenty of room for discretion.

Basically, the UK faces many of the same problems that the U.S. continues to confront wrt elite college admissions -- e.g. a primary/secondary educational system where there are extreme differences in educational resources available to children prior to college admissions, spiraling costs of university education, a history of serving as bastions of hereditary privilege.

1. the male/female ratio in oxbridge is close to 50:50 (it is 54:46), so the process is not favoring men over women, or barely.

2. It is disproportionately accepting people from affluent backgrounds, so it must be racist and rigged? Do you have any idea of the massive disparities in education attainment between middle class and lower class children in the UK, and in pretty much every other country in the world? And this is not about money - DC spends far more per pupil than Montgomery County, for example. So what is it about? More affluent families value education more, their children are exposed to books and richer language, learn better educational strategies, they have less stressors and distractions, and so on. So if you want a system based on merit, you are going to have groups that value and emphasize education over-represented. This is not a british thing - there is not a country in the world where a child of a professor or a CEO is not more likely to go to a good university than the son of a drug dealer or brick layer. How can Universities not face this same reality?

furthermore, you have to understand how uk admissinos work - you have to declare your course of study (major) when you apply and you are competing for slots within majors.

most elite schools in the US don't do this and even the ones that have restrictions are more like upenn, where you apply to colleges (and not specific majors).

What the race study showed with oxbridge is that minorities many times would apply at a much higher percentage to the most popular courses (majors) whereas white kids would apply to a broader range of majors/subjects.

That definitely skews admissions rates. Look at the end of the day, no matter how you spin it, the British application system is much fairer (even with the inequities that are present) than the US system.

Given that Oxbridge has interviews, and given that the work of Nobel Laureate Gary Becker finds that interviewers tend to gravitate toward those that are like themselves, I'm not sure I buy this lack of bias. Perhaps it is true for universities that are making offers on the basis of UCAS forms and predicted A-levels alone.

I didn't say that oxbridge was bias-free - what I said was I feel oxbridge (and most certainly UCAS/A-levels only institutions) practice less bias than t25 privates with 'holistic' admissions.

Actually you, or the PP I was responding to, referred to these schools as a "university heaven" where admissions were meritocratic and applicants were judged on the content of their character and, presumably, the quality of their intellect. I pointed out that (you or) PP "assumed" this about the system despite the fact that it appeared to routinely favor affluent white men from elite prep schools.

And no, it isn't clear that the Oxbridge system involves less bias when women and people who attended state schools are less likely to be admitted than men with the same A-levels who attended elite schools or when the admissions interview plays such a crucial role in the process. That's before we get to how women and people of color are treated once admitted (e.g. awarding of firsts, composition of faculty). Interestingly, your claim that gender bias is a non-issue assumes that the relevant standard is representation roughly proportionate to the general population, but the failure to meet such a standard in the context of race seems to be something you find reassuring. You also seem oblivious to the fact that the historic (and in Cambridge's case contemporary) presence of women's colleges within the Oxbridge universities played a crucial role in achieving this gender balance.