Is Westminster School the best school on Earth? STATESMOM returns

[statesmom]

I have a lot to say, don't know if anyone remembers the thread. Let me know if you want to hear from me.

Arsenal fans are eternal optimists 😂

oxbridge is completely different to the Ivues in terms of selection

This. I believe that a large majority of students currently at Oxbridge wouldn't have got places in the Ivies, and a large majority of students currently at the Ivies wouldn't have got places at Oxbridge, because they select for very different things.

At Oxbridge, the college tutors who will be teaching the students have very significant input in admissions to their courses. IME, they try to admit students who have already demonstrated deep interest in their specific subjects, have prior achievement in the subjects, and, quite frankly, who think like them, because these are the students who will be easier for those admissions tutors to teach.

At the Ivies, admissions is centralized and faculty have little to no input because students are admitted to a 'liberal arts' course and are rarely required to choose a major until their sophomore (second) year. The university admissions committees will require a minimum level of academics but, once that standard is met, they look for other indicators that the students can achieve in areas which are not necessarily academic.

To illustrate, there's a joke at (American) law schools:

1. 'A' students become (law) professors
2. 'B' students become judges
3. 'C' students become... partners (at law firms)

Whilst the top American universities don't mind producing (a few) professors, their main focus is producing judges and partners and their equivalents outside the legal field, and they select students whom they think can develop into those positions. Oxbridge, OTOH, selects much more for students whom they think can become professors. And these will usually not be the same students.

Agree. Oxbridge and the Ivy League have their unique selection processes, and they enjoy considerable flexibility in choosing from a pool of students with top grades. Therefore, it’s inaccurate to claim that Oxbridge’s admissions are purely merit-based and more academically focused while Ivy league isn't.

I'm not sure we are agreeing. I believe that 'merit-based' is an inappropriate term of comparison in this context because the schools define 'merit' in very different ways; it really is apples and oranges. But I do believe that Oxbridge's version of merit and their admissions processes place more emphasis on academics than the Ivy League's.

If you look at my previous post in the thread, you’ll see that I questioned another poster about the definition of ‘merit’ on this topic when they argue Oxbridge is more merit base. Yes, one could argue that Oxbridge places a greater emphasis on academics, which the admissions tutors consider more suitable. This could involve a combination of exam grades, subject interests, and even nepotism.

I was talking to an academic from an Ivy League university recently, who was over in Oxford for a bit. He mentioned how jealous he was of his colleagues in Oxford as they get to teach genuinely bright undergraduates, rather than the mixture of genuinely bright and not-bright-but-rich students to be found at his home institution.

Ivy is more polymath, Oxbridge is more expert, in terms of Admissions. Different forms of intelligence really, but one is not necessarily better than the other. Some would argue the polymath is more suited to overall success in a capitalist society.

I agree that they select quite differently. Oxbridge is pretty straightforwardly about exam success. The Ivies use a more "holistic" process which can be quite squishy. There's good and bad to it: The good is that you have some additional things to look at, especially when you've got a pool of straight-A students, and the info can also help kids from less privileged backgrounds. (I am aware of contextual offers at Oxbridge, but this can help in different ways to just grades.) The bad is that some students get in because their parents can pay to have them do activities and participate in obscure sports or because their families have always gone there, and some don't because they want a mixed cohort and not just well off high achievers.

The problem isn't just merit, though, it's much more baked in to the US system, and again this has good and bad aspects to it. In the UK, Oxbridge are the top of the pyramid. Now you can absolutely argue in favour of other universities in particular subjects especially as it relates to a student's particular interest or the details of a specific course. But across England and Wales, Oxbridge stands out in certain respects. (I am excluding Scotland because it's a different degree structure.) And financially, UK universities only differ by living costs.

In the US, the Ivy Leagues are only a subset of academically prestigious universities and there are many reasons a student with really top notch qualifications might choose elsewhere, more so than the UK. Money is one reason (though perhaps not as much as a non-American might think when it comes to the Ivies specifically) but there are many others and some of them are academic. I don't know if my child could have gotten into an Ivy; I would never venture to guess as it's so chancy. But she did get into several of the top ranked liberal arts colleges. She did not even want to apply to the Ivy League. It was not the academic experience she wanted, much less social.

From a professor's point of view the US system has the downside that you get students in your classes who are not majoring in your subject and aren't terribly interested in it, but have to take a class in that field and wound up in yours. There's also a sort of education-as-commodity problem, where students expect good grades because they've paid for it (and this isn't just the American students). But there absolutely are academically motivated, passionate students. They're not necessarily in the Ivy League. There are students who want an Ivy education, particularly for undergraduate, because they think it's the best stepping stone in a bigger path, not because they think it's the best quality academically.

Oxbridge is pretty straightforwardly about exam success.

This is not true, you've got a pool of straight-A students too.

I don't see how those things are contradictory. The As in school are all in preparation for the exam at the end, on which you are expected to also get an A, and lose your offer if you don't. Yes, it reflects learning in general, but the definition of academic success is more narrowly drawn. That's not all bad (see the downsides of the holistic method) but it is a different definition of merit, even on strictly academic grounds. There are US schools that refuse to do AP exams because they believe it narrows the curriculum too much.

There are way more Oxbridge applicants with straight A results (not predicted) compared to the offers given out. It is not based on exam results or the exam merit you mentioned above.

Right. I oversimplified (I went to university in the UK but not Oxbridge). Still, having gone through both systems, I think the English one in general is much less vague, and while my UK university experience is out of date now, I don't think that non-academic factors can override academic ones the way they can at the Ivies. The other problem with the American system is that because there are no national exams (the SAT isn't really a substitute) it's very difficult to compare students from different schools. They get contextual information about the school, but it's still lacking that external standard to compare to.

I don't think that non-academic factors can override academic ones the way they can at the Ivies.

Try win an Olympics Medal or achievement with similar, there are high chance to override the academic records in Oxbridge just like the one in Ivies.

Absolutely not. Oxford rejects the likes of GB team rowers, prodigious choristers, organists et al. True there are very few premiership footballers applying to them but there are plenty of talented musicians, sportsmen and women rejected every year.

Oxford rejects candidates with insane grade predictions or actual attained grades and the offers are considerably lower than those Cambridge makes. The thinking is whether or not those rejected might already be the ‘finished article’ or indeed did not suit the type of student the tutors want to actually teach. The admissions process is heavily subjective beyond the entrance examination and application and owing to the fact that the interviews are not standardised nor scored in a consistent manner it is impossible to determine what they are actually looking for beyond the fact that the interviewer felt they were a ‘good fit’.

You can’t be dim and have a place at Westminster School any more but IME, the kids who did go off to Ivies were not in general the top of their year in any subject. A great deal were bright but were the progeny of Ivy League alumni so it is fair to assume legacy plays an important part in gaining a place - a bit like Oxbridge was until very recently.

Oxbridge did accept a lot of oversea rowers or sportsman, most of whom also got offers to Ivy Universities.

owing to the fact that the interviews are not standardised nor scored in a consistent manner it is impossible to determine what they are actually looking for beyond the fact that the interviewer felt they were a ‘good fit’.

This is the merit based admission of Oxbridge we are talking about.

I’m referring to uk candidates tbf and specifically OW applicants.

Oxbridge definitely ships in elite sportsmen and women. Toby Flood played in this year's varsity match.

Well this thread is comparing Westminster or UK students applying to Ivy Universities and Oxbridge, they are overseas students for Ivy universities.

but he didn’t actually go to Oxford. We are discussing whether or not elite sports people are given places even if they don’t have the grades to match other candidates. IME, this is not the case.

Other than rowing though, Westminster is not on a par with other elite educational establishments for producing notable sports people. Harrow has a pretty good track record for supporting rugby players but I don’t know their stats at getting them into Oxbridge.

He is in the queens college in Cambridge. Look at MBA class of Oxford or Cambridge you will find loads of rowers or sportsman, year after year.

Ok tbf I’m not looking at masters stats but entry to university straight after school post a level.