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.

Oxbridge at undergraduate level accept non Uk students with SAT score or IB to apply. The minimum entry and average entry score is not much different from the top Ivy league universities.

Above the minimum grades everything else is very subjective.

@Arsenal4Ever they import a handful of world class rowers etc at Masters level but not undergraduate level. And everyone knows the difference

This is because olympic rowing age is average at 23-25+?

Yes, but you still can’t say they’re importing them at undergraduate level – a ton of amazing sports people musicians and so on get rejected every year because they haven’t got the academic heft. And Oxbridge is probably not the right place for them anyway if they want to carry on pursuing their sideline.

All I want to say is for undergrad degree, though there is a minimum academic entry level for admissions, many more applicants meet this minimum requirement than are ultimately accepted. The criteria for selection are subjective and may not be solely based on academics. Beyond this threshold, factors such as sports or other achievements can significantly influence the decision. Admission data for Oxford and Cambridge shows that students are accepted with IB scores of 37-39 or A-level grades of AAB.

I've known many former admissions tutors at Cambridge, albeit mostly in the sciences. The criteria they told me that they applied after considering A Levels were:

1. Internal exam scores
2. Observed interest (passion) for their subject at the interview
3. Observed compatibility in thinking through problems in their subject at the interview

Not one has ever acknowledged placing any weight on extra-curricular achievements. Not in music, sport, drama, etc. They just want to know who's going to be easiest for them to teach and will require the least effort and distraction from their own work. Their nightmares are having to carry an undergraduate who turns out to be not actually interested or not very good in their subject across the finish line.

Most top American schools have (somewhat lower) minimum academic standards but will be interested in students who have achieved exceptionally in non-academic fields. The theory is that a national level swimmer who managed to achieve a reasonable academic record while training 20+ hours a week will be able to keep up with the coursework and, in due course, find some other fields in which to apply their demonstrated discipline and hard work to excel.

1. Internal exam scores
2. Observed interest (passion) for their subject at the interview
3. Observed compatibility in thinking through problems in their subject at the interview

From Oxbridge admission statistics, such as TSA scores in relation to offer and rejection decisions, reveals a significant overlap in the score ranges of accepted and rejected applicants. This suggests that other factors, including the elements you mentioned or other subjective criteria not explicitly acknowledged by tutors, play a crucial role. Super-curricular activities that relevant to the subjects or other Significant Achievements (e.g. Olympiad medalist that can add to the colleges telly count ) are one of these influential factors.

At least for Cambridge maths, they don't look your PS, don't care about EC, it is only maths, maths and maths.

Loads of applicants with super-high exam scores and test scores yes, but honestly all they care about once that's been whittled down is how you perform in interview and they will not be asking you about your rowing experience or grade 8 clarinet. As others have said they rarely look at the PS and if then to pick out academic subjects to discuss in the interview. It's just not what Oxbridge is about and rightly so because they know those extras are often only available to those with privilege. In the past, yes, not today.

Loads of applicants with super-high exam scores and test scores

IB < 40 or AAB at a level is not super high exam scores, no body denied the importance of interview process, in fact this subjective procedure is one of the most important part for Oxbridge admission.

A lot of humanities subjects the interview content are more general than you think, and some drilled to very detail of the PS.

Driling down on a PS will not involve sayng, 'Oh, you rowed for your school, jolly good we'll take you', it will be about an academic argument. Subjectivity will be down to this not that someone sings in a choir. But I'm not continuing to pursue this argument because you've made your mind up. Let's agree to disagree x

I think our disagreement is mostly semantic, specifically about the word 'academic'. You seem to be focusing on IB and A Level results. I consider other factors such as subject-related supra-curricular achievements and demonstrations of interest and ability in the subject to be 'academic', as they relate to how the admissions tutors think the student will do in the course. But, in math and sciences at Cambridge, they really don't care about non subject-related factors.

I think you're correct. I know a few Oxbridge humanities dons and they are broadly only interested in your aptitude for their subject. Historians and Music dons are not that interested in even your other A levels unless they are an enabling subject like MFL which means you won't be limited to English language research. They will be interested in your EPQ if its on their subject and your supra curriculars. If you are applying for eg archaeology they will want to know about artefact experience eg on a dig or in a museum, what exhibitions you have seen etc. They won't be interested in your rugby/county youth orchestra/NYMT etc

Interesting that the OP does not think that Westminster was worth the fees. Given the impressive University destinations, it has always been well regarded, like St. Paul's. I've heard parents there say the same, and fees are only going to go up.

@statesmom did you not look at Sevenoaks if you were interested in US admissions? 170+ offers into US universities this year, which is quite a strong showing for a UK school I thought!

That is very impressive! Didn’t realise Sevenoaks were strong on US admissions.

There is (generally) an order of magnitude difference between the acceptance rate of an Ivy League than and Oxbridge (equivalents).

This is a fact which to me reflects a clear reality that none of the fissiparous and vacuous comments above contradict.

Harvard University 3.4%
Yale University 4.4%
Princeton University 4.5%
Columbia University 3.9%
Brown University 5.1%
Dartmouth College 6.1%
University of Pennsylvania 6.5%
Cornell University 6.9%
University of Oxford 16%
University of Cambridge 24%

But it is not like for like comparison you can't apply Oxford and Cambridge at the same year

@nojudge "There are some serious things to be said about UK vs US educations and quality of life, but OP isn't saying them."

What are they?

I'm genuinely interested but unfortunately the OP just seems to be an insufferable show off who wants to start as many fights as possible with Brits about whether the US is a better country than the UK.

I'm interested in the education system differences for university?
What do you think the pros and cons are?

The admissions rates for American universities are useless because the system (no cap on number of applications) encourages students to apply to more colleges, which feeds a cycle where students see lower admissions numbers and apply to more colleges to raise their chances. Because lower admissions rates look better in league tables, colleges have no incentive to curb the practice. There's some use in comparing institutions, but as an absolute, the percentage means little. There are colleges encouraging hopeless candidates to apply to improve their numbers.

In the UK UCAS only allows 5 and you have to choose between Oxford and Cambridge. Meanwhile every year the US media finds someone who got into all 8 Ivies.

@californiaisdreaming I posted some of the differences. In my opinion, having been to a UK university for undergraduate, a US one for postgraduate, and a child who is a student at an American college.

US:
Flexibility, multidisciplinary studies, very wide variety of types of institution.
4 years, and usually more expensive (certainly so for international students). Students have a major, a core curriculum that can vary from "nothing required" to quite detailed, and then options/electives that you can use to either deepen your main subject or explore more. Most professional degrees are postgraduate. In many cases no specific major is required (for example medical school) as long as the required prerequisite classes are taken.

Top universities have generous aid, which includes living expenses.
Smaller schools in particular tend to be more parental and the social life is more school-organised. For example at private universities you're often expected to live in halls all 4 years and meals are typically catered, though self-catering can exist for the juniors and seniors.

UK (England and Wales): Student applies directly to subject(s), more in-depth in that subject, shorter course, great for specialists. Student life is more independent, even in halls.

Cheaper (usually), with better payback terms on loans, though the student loan does not fully cover living expenses.

The differences between the top US and UK universities are easy to list:

1. In the UK you study 1 subject. Reading math? You'll never take a literature course. In the US broadly you are 1/3 courses in your major, 1/3 in distribution requirements, 1/3 totally free to explore.
2. In the UK it is 3 years, in the US it is 4 years.
3. The top US schools are awash in cash, allowing tons of opportunities and world class facilities. In the UK, they take Chinese students to keep the lights on.
4. In the US you'll pay $400,000. In the UK maybe £80,000.

That is the long and short of it.

For Americans, where you go to school is almost a lifelong part of your identity, for good or for ill. It is also a lifelong relationship. I get about 20 emails a week from my alma mater regarding being a current parent, the news, the fundraising, alumni trips, alumni lifelong learning courses etc.

The UK relationship seems to me more transactional: I pay £9,000, you teach me badly, I get a degree, we never speak again.

It's sort of the difference between a marriage and a Mexican whorehouse.

There is another difference in that Oxford and Cambridge were - like Westminster School - founded by the monarch at the time so were, in their origin, dedicated to the service of the state. They are much more influenced by the agenda set by government. They have a public service ethos. Harvard operates in the interests of Harvard. It doesn't need to worry about what people think as much. I do think the UK model is unsustainable and will eventually crack because, at the end, the state must pay. If it doesn't pay the bills to keep it competitive, the University needs to break away and because more like Harvard in how it funds itself.

And I'd add that it's not all legacy admissions in the Ivies.

We worked with our college consultant over four years, and he shared (anonymously) the results he was seeing with his clients.

There were 2 billionaires (no joke) whose kids did not get into any top school. They got into the Emorys and Northeaterns of the world, but their cash did not buy them in.

He had no reason to lie to me, and we went in eyes open. Applying surely is a years long process and one should start at grade 9 or start of GCSEs latest for maximum effect. It is a crazy process.

Thank goodness I got a first class education at LSE as did DT’s at Warwick and York. DH went to the Harvard of Ivy League in Canada at McGill. All educated in home country without needing to pay for a consultant to get a place!

In the UK you study one course? Possibly in England and Wales. Certainly not the case in Scotland.

I had a friend at uni who took Maths, Geography and Russian in her first year at Glasgow before specialising. (Caveat: there are some who reckon that Maths taken as part of a B.Sc. is more prestigious than Maths taken as part of a M.A., in spite of the fact that the courses are identical.)

We were required to take a broad range of subjects in first and second year before embarking on the honours course (if we made the grade).