Personal statement - shall i explain my poor mark at undergrad?

There's three main reasons why I did badly in my first year:

- There was a huge gap in knowledge between myself and my tutorial partners and though they tried incredibly hard, there was only so much my tutors could do about it in the first year

- I was **** at 60% of the course (you could only pick one module) and there was little my tutors could do about that

- Personal stuff, which I'm not gonna go into. First year was hellish and by the time my tutor realised exactly how bad things were, it was far too late to do anything about it.


I don't think the OP's reason is flimsy though. I think people are underestimating the OP's situation.

But most people have issues of some sort, and they don't use it as an excuse not to do well. In fact, 'finding freedom' is one of the most common reasons people mess up at uni, even if they aren't from strict Muslim backgrounds. Some people end up in hospital for months, or experience bereavement, they are true 'extenuating circumstances', not what you are describing.

Suffice to say my circumstances were extenuating enough for me to know that they degraded my performance to the extent that I achieved less than I could have. I wasn't really interested in justifying the ins and outs but the kind of backlash I got from my entire family for moving out and pursuing my education has been pretty close to bereavement.

yes, and I believe you in that!

but if you did nothing to help you then its your own fault.

did you for example go to students services? that would have been the first step i would have taken the last getting professional help.

if you didn, then you cant, ill emphasise again, "prove" you had issues.

nor is it a good thing to advertise, because it basicallt says, hey i have a problem but im too scared to go ask for help about it.

Good point, this is what I was thinking. My useless pride!

no i dont think we are. did you read my post about whether she sought help. mental health is a serious issue, but anyone can say they suffered mental health issues during uni - and a lot of people do at varying degrees without even being actively conscious about it. i believe OP but why should the admissions tutors?

also, given that normally year 3 counts most, (and ok it is also the hardest) it would be interesting to see her modules scores over the 3 years, and if they actually improved in last year - if they did not then it is obvious that OP has not learned to deal with the issues over the 2.5 years of her degree, and there is no reason why she should over the gap year, and even if it does, how it might come back when she does a stressful masters.

Your excuse, once explained properly, does in fact sound pretty reasonable and I do sympathise. I don't think it is quite enough to satisfy the admissions tutors at Oxford, who are pretty rigid about their 3rd year 67% undergraduate requirement (as are Cambridge). Unless you really manipulate it and go for the political correctness/cultural sensitivity track, and get lucky with a liberal admissions tutor who read Brick Lane and wept relentlessly. But you will be fine with LSE and KCL; they take absolutely anybody with 60% and the money for the fees unless you're applying for anything based on economics, or international political economy.

oh really?

i know for a fact 60% is not gonna get you into the management school (any of their programmes, and obviously there may be exceptions from time to time, but i doubt this applies here). thats neither economics nor political economy so what says that your argument holds for all other programmes.

in fact, im also sure that the maths department want at least a high 2:1 and I would be shocked if the finance department asks for just any 2:1 as well. its so competitive that i bet most ppl who get on it got firsts even.

i cant remember OPs course but i think it may not be quite as competitive, but i wouldn bank on it.

... to satisfy the admissions tutors at Oxford, who are pretty rigid about their 3rd year 67% undergraduate requirement (as are Cambridge).

Sorry to be hijacking the thread a bit but I have a question. I'm applying to the MPhil in Politics and graduated with a 65% average from the Sorbonne, thus slightly below the high 2:1 requirement. However, I did experience bereavement (and mentioned it in my PS) but eventually graduated in the top 2% of my class. Do Oxbridge consider marks/GPA or class rankings more (which I believe are more relevant to evaluate a student, especially an international one?).

Yeah, as far as I know they certainly look at rankings more for international students. If you can get that confirmed by a tutor then you should have as good a chance as any, and a bereavement counts as genuine mitigating circumstances, I believe. The 67 thing is pretty much for the UK, and even then it only seems to apply to 'good' (top 10) undergrad unis-you will be asked for a first from anywhere else, it seems. Different criteria for different countries.

oh really?

i know for a fact 60% is not gonna get you into the management school (any of their programmes, and obviously there may be exceptions from time to time, but i doubt this applies here). thats neither economics nor political economy so what says that your argument holds for all other programmes.

in fact, im also sure that the maths department want at least a high 2:1 and I would be shocked if the finance department asks for just any 2:1 as well. its so competitive that i bet most ppl who get on it got firsts even.

i cant remember OPs course but i think it may not be quite as competitive, but i wouldn bank on it.

yes but why should he believe that if she isnt capable of showing it over 3 years?

and, just because someone has potential does not mean that they utilise it fully so even if the referee believes potential is there, why should he give a great reference when this potential, as of so far, has never used.

and, even if referee gives a great reference, saying theres potential, why should the uni admissions tutor take the word of the referee when theres no evidence.

What on earth are you talking about? I got an offer for Strategic Management there, that wanted 'a 2.1.' So did my friend, and he applied with a second year average of 58%. Admittedly we both went to Cambridge, but still. LSE is far more driven by who has a big chequebook than a bit intellect. The absolute retards on my course, who went onto do international relations there...baby jesus wept.

As for Finance, you might need a slightly better grade and quantitative background than for other courses, but its still for rich, odious private/international school kids, bankrolled by their parents.

my friend was at the management open evening for post grads. they said a good 2:1 means above 65%.

Yes, I'm sure that's the case, but that's totally irrelevant to the OPs question. Here are the postgrad entry requirements for the various courses taken directly from 2010 LSE grad prospectus:

MSc Management: 1st or good upper 2nd class bachelor's degree

Msc. Management & Economics: 1st class bachelor's degree

Msc. Global Politics (OPs course app): 2:1 in any discipline

As you can see, there's a big difference in entry requirements between the management school & other programs...

if you had read my post, then you would have read that I said that I didn remember what OPs master was.