Not to burst this bubble for anyone, but although some of these may be top unis, Bristol, Cardiff, Manchester, and Bath are far from (at the moment) being top unis even if they may have once been (Manchester a long time ago, for example). Imperial may be up there, but it does not take a whole lot to get into KCL or Warwick or the other unis mentioned, however they may be ranked. Do not forget there usually isn't an interview unless it's Medicine.

But even a small number going to Oxbridge, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Wharton, Chicago, Columbia etc would be pretty impressive.

BTW it's Johns Hopkins.

That doesn't sound that bad. Considering the hoards of kids who go to Taylor's (4 science A Levels are around MYR 40,000 a year for the <1.5 years of study). And they don't get meals. Or use of laundry machines. Or any of those luxurious facilities, for that matter. Or access to British/foreign born/educated teachers (who have much higher probabilities of being able to converse in English properly than Taylor's teachers). If Taylor's were 2 years, I'd extrapolate the cost to MYR 53,000. So it's less than MYR 14,000 more for 2 years of food, accommodation, and those facilities? Not so bad now is it...

Very true... doesn't seem that all bad... but I'm sure many would prefer to go to Taylor's because they want a more rich people's environment. Taylor's students are mainly private ones and not sponsored fully by scholarship bodies.. to the eyes to normal SPM leavers like me, KYUEM seems like some ulu Malay styled college from the outside unless we enter their campus or see their prospectus and stuff..

But looking at this info I'm now more inclined to recommend KYUEM... except of course it is a boarding school, and most people with other living arrangements would not want to spend an extra RM 14,000, even though they have some wicked facilities.

there are JPA, Petronas, TNB, Shell, etc., scholars studying at Taylors for entrance to top US universities for undergraduate studies. it's a one year program.

You wish.

If it's A Levels it's 2 years. They extend it.

Plus, if you know who they are, they don't normally make it into top US schools.

Obviously you are ignorant of the American degree program in Taylors. Up to you to find it our yourself about the program.

And again, you were wrong about those scholars, some of them make it into top US schools. They are going to start their first year undergraduate school this Fall in UC Berkeley, Univ of Penn, Univ of Mich Ann Arbour, UCLA, Univ Minesota, etc.

Maybe you dont realise that there are others who are more knowledgable about this matter than you. You should get out of this forum, once in a while, and smell the real world out there.

---

Added on April 18, 2012, 4:29 pmAnd one scholar from INTEC (did the same American program) got admitted to MIT this Fall.

This post has been edited by Stamp: Apr 18 2012, 04:29 PM

ADP do not normally land one a place at selective schools even at Taylor's. The usual successful placement is Cornell. On what constitutes as a selective school is opened to debate. The admission rates of public schools are usually much higher than private ones. So does it make UCLA, Ann Arbor, Berkeley in the same league as Caltech and Chicago? It's arguable.

INTEC is not an ADP program. It's a prep program. More precisely SAT prep and normal grade 12 courses that prepares one for the SAT subject tests. All these complemented with essay coaching and counselling.

[/QUOTE]Yeah, one JPA scholar whose parents are doctors. Not to say all doctors are rich but surely they are more deserving ones.



LOL....dat is an understatement actually, nowdays , you can have students with parents whom are millionaires director/MD of thier own company claiming themselves to be "poor" and eyeing on a share of the piece of scholarship cake meant for the hardcore poor and middle-income earners actually.

This post has been edited by acgerlok7: Apr 18 2012, 11:07 PM

I am sorry to bring up this dead thread Richard Feynman but you clearly contradict yourself in the post above, or I may have been misled. You do know that in the US you have Tier one and Tier two leagued schools right? Cornell is in Tier two, along with UPenn and Uchicago, Brown. Caltech is in Tier one, along with the likes of MIT, Stanford etc. To say that Cornell is not on par with UChicago is a joke. Uchicago, if u want, may be slightly more academical than Cornell, but aside from its social science scene, it cannot be compared to MIT Stanford etc.

Now, regarding selectivity, I hope you also realize that Uchicago is one of the 'less selective' ivy standard universities right? It's admission rate is around 16-18%, whereas schools like Berkeley has a 21% admission rate, I wouldn't call that 'a lot higher' would you? Also, I think it's futile to judge a university based on its selectivity. There is such a thing as 'self selective' you know. If you look at chicago's history, its admit rate used to be something like 35% odds...now, using your concept, does that mean that chicago was not as good as UC Berkeley, who had 30% at the time. Does that mean that Berkeley is better than chicago? Again, not at all.

I just find it very hypocritical for one who does not seem to know his stuff well to group universities together and label them, 'not as good' or 'good'. I mean come on, Oxbridge, if you look at its statistics, have a higher acceptance rates than schools like LSE, which boasts to have an admission rate of <10%. Does that mean that it's harder to get into LSE than Oxbridge? Not at all. I would also go as far to say that Berkeley's science and engineering programs trumph that of UChicago, so it just goes on to show that admission rate does not define how good a university is.

I am sorry if I may have misread your intentions, just thought I needed to point out that Cornell is, give or take, on par with Uchicago.

This post has been edited by cardioimpaired: Nov 15 2012, 05:02 AM

Good points. LSE is far easier to enter than Oxford.

But exactly like you say, it all depends on the subject you want to do. LSE is big for Economics in Europe/Worldwide but it wouldn't place near the top in the world overall due to its specialisation in Social Sciences.

Similarly if you only look at Economics and Business then some may say Chicago or UPenn are on par with MIT & Stanford. Or we could go even deeper and focus on the specific schools (like Wharton). Wharton is consistently ranked first in Business. Of course MIT is special because it's big in physical sciences as well as Economics.

Also, I would like to highlight some issues regarding admission rates. Some people, namely prospective students may ask 'why are the admission rates of oxbridge so much higher than that of HYPSM?'. Well, the idea of self selectivity also applies in this case - Oxbridge devised a system to reduce this form of unbiased selection, requiring all of its applicants to have perfect grades and limiting the applicants' selections to either oxford or cambridge, not both. Again, this is not an indication that it is easier to get into Oxbridge than HYPSM, the fact is, more people in Malaysia would apply to Oxford and Cambridge as opposed to those who are applying to HYPSM, because the application (taking interviews out) is easier, i.e. no need to pay extra fees for each uni, no essays etc.

Just to clear things up a little bit, my 5 cents.

This post has been edited by cardioimpaired: Nov 15 2012, 05:28 AM