The cultural difference lies in that US academics are more used to selling (or if you'd like it a little less harsh: advertising) themselves. Let me illustrate

The cultural difference lies in that US academics are more used to selling (or if you'd like it a little less harsh: advertising) themselves. Let me illustrate: A big British university that offers a variety of funding, two of the funding schemes are US-backed/US-based. British: "Awards are made based on academic excellence and potential across all subject areas...". They don't care if you are social, if you do things outside university, what your family does etc etc. You need a research proposal, your CV and 3 recommendation letters from former professors. They focus purely on academic merit and don't care whether you are outgoing or an introvert shut-in. US #1: We "aim to nurture leaders for the world's future who are committed to service, and to promote international understanding and peace." You have to have good marks (of course), but do tell us about how many kittens, children and people you save in your free time (while being academically excellent), how many NGOs you help out, what your hobbies are, what your family is like and how many wars you have prevented. This scholarship needs you to portray yourself not just as a potentially brilliant researcher or scholar, it wants you to be a leader. US #2: The other scholarship asked you: "Please explain how the degree for which you have applied will prepare you to make a contribution to society." Again of course they require academic excellence, but they want to know how your research "makes a contribution to society". This is a scholarship for the Humanities only. The usual answer is always: It won't. However, please do make up some moderately respectable reason why your highly specific research will have an effect on society as a whole... I am by no means saying Americans are academically inferior, but you can see in these hand-picked examples a certain strive for grandeur, it's not enough to be an outstanding scholar, you need to be a leader, you need to change society, at the very least. Truth is, most people's research will never, ever have a profound effect on society as such. What this line of inquiry conditions you to do though is to always make yourself appear larger than life. Your research is of course groundbreaking, you are a leader, the best of the best, you know everything, cannot fail and you have to convey that with every fiber of your being. ---- The above is spiked with hyperbole, but the core remains true. Many other countries don't have a culture where you advertise yourself and where everything you have to do has to be perceived as earthshattering. And that is the point really, it's about perception. The question here would be, were they also actually better, or did they just portray themselves better? It's the same mentality that you can see on Hacker News every day: "THIS PRODUCT WILL CHANGE YOUR WORLD!!!". "WE WILL REVOLUTIONISE THE WAY YOU THINK/TALK/ACT/TYPE/SLEEP!!!".