What are my chances of getting into one of these unis for Msc finance or similar

Scroll to see replies

HOME/EU Applicants 270 -> Offers 64 (23.7% admission rate)
International Applicants 2053! -> Offers 198 (9.6% admission rate)
The admission rate of international applicants is 2.5 times lower than the one of HOME/EU applicants.
International applicants have much lower chances on average.

Note the key word on average.

Original post by janjanmmm

Your data is meaningless unless you know the QUALITY of applications. It is entirely possible that most of international applicants simply DO NOT MEET THE MINIMUM CRITERIA for admission, after all, language is one of them and their English may not be up to the par.

OK, let's assume that this is the case. For the admission ratios to be the same,
1218 ((2053-198/23.7%= 2053 - 835 = 1218)) of the international students should be applicants, who do not meet the minimum requirements, AND all the UK/EU applicants should meet them. Percentage wise, 60% of international applicants and 0% of UK/EU applicants should not not meet the requirements for the ratios to be the same. Both groups include people who need and who do not need to prove their English skills, almost all applicants need a GMAT, virtually all need 2.1 or equivalent, and for this programme Warwick asks for quantitative undergraduate degrees. That's a lot of requirements. Do you see why your argument is ridiculous?
Even if you argue that EU/UK applicants are of good quality and international applicants are of poor quality ( with both groups meeting the minimum requirements), note the key words I have used ON AVERAGE. Meaning the average international applicant has lower chances.

Original post by janjanmmm

It is called "pre-experience" salary. How is after 3 years "pre-experience"?
Why would all graduates from Bath go to Thailand? Is there any particular reason you can name?
As for criteria- the criteria includes value for money, which is a function of what is invested into what is going to be earned. If you look at the full pdf table, it includes specific value for money ranking, which is one of the criteria for final ranking.

It's not pre-experience salary. It is pre-experienced masters, meaning you don't need experience to do the programme. The salary is still the one after 3 years. See picture below:

Original post by janjanmmm

The numbers he included do not support his conclusion. I have commented with the reason, instead of supplying a reasonable contra argument

It's funny that you say that, because you do not include anything to support your argument. Can you provide any reputable source which supports your argument that (figuratively speaking) the UK/EU applicants have 3.9GPA and the international applicants have 2.8GPA? You are simply stating that the ONLY numbers that we have and the ONLY numbers we could possibly have without being in the admissions team are meaningless.

Original post by janjanmmm

Once again- one school has average applicant from Harvard with 3.9 GPA and accepts 25% of them, another school has average applicant from Community College of Nowhere with 2.8 GPA and accepts 1% of them, which one is more competitive?

Well, you think that this question is rhetorical, but it is not and I disagree with your implied answer. Here is why:
You don't get that many people with 3.9GPA applying to Community College of Nowhere (CCN) and people with 2.8GPA applying to Harvard. Maybe there are such people, but their numbers are negligibly small (let's say 5-10%) and can be ignored for the purpose of the argument. The 3.9GPA guys apply to Harvard and the 2.8GPA guys apply to CCN. So if Harvard has an admission rate of 25% and CCN has an admission rate of 1%, CCN is more competitive. Competitive, meaning that it is harder for the average CCN applicant to get in CCN than it is for the average Harvard applicant to get in Harvard. Of course, the 2.8GPA guy applying to CCN has no chance for Harvard and the 3.9GPA guy will be admitted to CCN, but this does not matter because, in reality, they do not apply to colleges out of their league. Applications cost money and require significant amount of time. Plus, you need references and most professors would not want to hurt their reputation by providing a reference for a 2.8GPA student who wants to apply to Harvard. At the admission stage, which is the stage in question, a competitive programme is not the same as a programme with quality students. It means that there is a lot of competition to get in. If 90% of applicants get in, there isn't much competition at the admission stage, even if all successful applicants are MIT Physics PhDs.
Even if you had a point with the 3.9GPA vs 2.8GPA argument, it cannot be applied to this case, because we are referring to a specific programme at a specific university, with specific minimum requirements. Of course there are people who do not meet these specific minimum requirements (2.1 equivalent), but their numbers will not be that large, and in no way would be close to 60% for 2000+ international applicants from all over the world, and 0% for UK/EU applicants, for your argument to be valid. Of course, you might say that they all meet the minimum requirements (let's say 3.3GPA), but the internationals have 3.31 GPA, whereas the UK/EU have 4.00 GPA. Then, why are they admitting 3 times as many international students? Both groups pay the same fees for this programme, and the UK/EU group has much better chances of employment in the UK because of regulations.

Reply 41

mntrl

Original post by janjanmmm

I have already replied in another thread, but since the same topic is raised here I will repeat:
All this data tells you is that AVERAGE applicant from EU/UK has better chances of being admitted then AVERAGE international applicant.

Well, if you take a look at my initial post this is EXACTLY what I have said, but you seemed to disagree about it then.

Original post by mntrl

The admission rate of international applicants is 2.5 times lower than the one of HOME/EU applicants.
International applicants have much lower chances on average.

Original post by janjanmmm

But what are these averages? Are they the same? Are they different? By how much? Is it really necessary to have some kind of conspiracy among international applicants to apply to top colleges without proper qualifications, as he suggests? Or maybe they are just a lot less knowledgeable regarding their chances in each case, and are more likely to apply to broad range of colleges, INCLUDING the top ones?

Again, you are forgetting that the group is UK/EU and International (rest of the world, including USA, Canada, etc.) What makes you think that the Germans are more knowledgeable to assess their chances than the Americans? Of course, the UK candidates would be probably more aware than the Chinese ones, but the groups are much wider than that and this argument would be based on prejudices. Further, on pretty much every large university's website you can find specific country requirements and can assess your chances correspondingly.

Original post by janjanmmm

Another point is that the numbers are conveniently selected:
Here is the numbers he provided, they are only for one year and one program:
HOME/EU Applicants 270 -> Offers 64 (23.7% admission rate)
International Applicants 2053! -> Offers 198 (9.6% admission rate)
But look, for example, at the totals in THE SAME TABLE:
International applicants 2010: 5,062 offers 923 ( 18.2% admission rate)
International applicants 2011: 5,285 offers 1,249 ( 23.6% admission rate)
Very different math, difference is negligible.

Well of course the numbers are conveniently selected, the original post and the thread was about MSc Finance and I provided statistics about MSc Finance. I do not think the author of the thread would be interested in how competitive MSc Gender Studies at LSE or Public Management and Warwick is.

And, even if the rates for the whole university mattered, you are comparing the wrong numbers. You should compare admission rates among the whole university for international and UK/EU, not among international applicants in two consequent years, which is what you have done.
Comparing the numbers for the whole Business School you still get:
HOME/EU
09/10 973 Applicants 361 Offers -->> 37%
10/11 945 Applicants 407 Offers -->> 43%
OVERSEAS
09/10 5,062 Applicants 923 Offers -->> 18%
10/11 5,285 Applicants 1,249 Offers -->> 23%
Again, the admission rate of UK/EU is twice the rate of overseas applicants.

Reply 42

janjanmmm

Original post by sj27

Ooh. Wow. That really makes you unique among the people who are studying or have studied at Oxbridge, LSE etc. I'm surprised you didn't just apply for tenure at MIT right off the bat.

Who said anything about being unique? I simply do not need you to tell me what economics really is, that's it.

Reply 43

janjanmmm

Original post by mntrl

Note the key word on average.

I see the word, I do not see it as factored into your conclusion.

First, you are using the same data which is very different from totals.

Second, language may not be the ONLY reason why international applicants do not meet the minimum criteria. There may be more confusion about grade conversion (it was on this very board that someone asked about his chances with 2.8 GPA and tried to argue that it is 2:2, not a Third. Many people may simply assume, that their GPA is good enough, without asking anyone, where is for UK students it is rather clear)

Finally, we do not know - maybe 1218 of them indeed do not speak good English, did you know how many Chinese people are there in proportion to UK/EU in this world?

note the key words I have used ON AVERAGE. Meaning the average international applicant has lower chances.

Once again- unless we know what the average means, it is meaningless. We can only speak of chances for EQUALLY QUALIFIED applicants.

If somebody asks "as an international applicant, are my chances higher or lower than UK/EU applicant?" and you will answer "lower" based on some undisclosed average, it will be misleading. Obviously, he is asking about his chances vs. EQUALLY QUALIFIED applicant from UK/EU, not some "average applicant", who he does not care about.

It's funny that you say that, because you do not include anything to support your argument.

You are forgetting something- I am not drawing any conclusions, I am simply questioning yours.

So if Harvard has an admission rate of 25% and CCN has an admission rate of 1%, CCN is more competitive. Competitive, meaning that it is harder for the average CCN applicant to get in CCN than it is for the average Harvard applicant to get in Harvard.

In that case you are not comparing Harvard and CCN, you are separating them into different segments. Therefore saying "Harvard is more/less competitive" and providing data from CCN to support your conclusion makes no sense. Which is exactly what I said.

Reply 44

janjanmmm

Original post by mntrl

Nothing. Which is why I am saying that we can not make conclusions unless we know the exact composition of these numbers, - how many UK applicants are among UK/EU? How many of EU applicants are Germans? What other nationalities do the represent?
How many international applicants are from US? How many from China? What are their stats? Why are they rejected, on what grounds?

Without this information you can not make conclusions based on percentages alone.

Well of course the numbers are conveniently selected, the original post and the thread was about MSc Finance and I provided statistics about MSc Finance.

There are two years quoted, you selected 2010, not 2011. Why? Is it coincidental that numbers for 2011 are not as good for your purpose?

I do not think the author of the thread would be interested in how competitive MSc Gender Studies at LSE or Public Management and Warwick is.

He may be interested in Business or Management.

And, even if the rates for the whole university mattered, you are comparing the wrong numbers. You should compare admission rates among the whole university for international and UK/EU, not among international applicants in two consequent years, which is what you have done.
Comparing the numbers for the whole Business School you still get:
HOME/EU
09/10 973 Applicants 361 Offers -->> 37%
10/11 945 Applicants 407 Offers -->> 43%
OVERSEAS
09/10 5,062 Applicants 923 Offers -->> 18%
10/11 5,285 Applicants 1,249 Offers -->> 23%
Again, the admission rate of UK/EU is twice the rate of overseas applicants.

In your original selection rates were almost three times, not twice higher. And if you look at 2011 it is not even twice - 23% vs 43%.

PS- let me conclude it before we have made everyone mad:

If what you are saying is that AVERAGE international applicant has lower chances of getting in than AVERAGE UK/EU applicant, I agree with you- for this particular program, anyway, numbers do support that. Qualification, again, is that we DO NOT KNOW WHAT THESE AVERAGES are, so if someone asks "do I have higher or lower chances?" we can not answer that since we do not know what to compare him/her with. (This is what I mean when I say "meaningless"- we can not apply this to actual people!)

If what you are saying is that EQUALLY QUALIFIED international applicant has lower chances of getting in than EQUALLY QUALIFIED UK/EU applicant- I disagree and the numbers DO NOT SHOW THAT. We simply do not know, since we do not have any data regarding qualification.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 45

mntrl

Yeah, that's why the author listed 15 MSc Finance courses, because he is interested in Business and Management.

It was 2.5 times, I never said 3 times.
When you start basing your contra arguments false assumptions, changing what I have said and on the fact that I have rounded up 1.9 to 2, I know you don't have much else to say.
43% vs 23%. All I have to say, the difference is big enough. And that's for the whole faculty, in the 'bad year' for my argument.
I'm done arguing with you. Good luck if you are applying somewhere.
The thing is, you cannot be equally qualified to someone else, when you have studied 10,000 miles from each other. That's why they compare UK applicants with UK applicants, Indiands with Indians etc. And when you have 1000 Indians with very similar credentials, considering that the programme director will not admit 100 indians in a class of 200, the chance of an Indian guy is lower. He has to be much better than ~960 indians to be admitted. If there are 300 UK/EU applicants, the UK/EU guys has to be better than ~250 people. Hence, the chance of the Indian guy are lower. He may be better than all the Europeans, but if there are 200 Indians, which are better than him, than he doesn't have a chance.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 46

janjanmmm

Original post by mntrl

The thing is, you cannot be equally qualified to someone else, when you have studied 10,000 miles from each other. That's why they compare UK applicants with UK applicants, Indiands with Indians etc.

Well, in that case the whole comparison is completely useless, isn't it? If you can not compare qualifications between international and UK/EU, then what is the use of quoting these numbers and comparing anything at all? What are you comparing to what?

To sum it up, you have successfully shown that somebody can be better than somebody else and have better chances than that somebody else, provided we do not know who these people are!

Was it worth it?

Reply 47

mntrl

Original post by janjanmmm

To sum it up...

Don't try to summarize something you don't understand.

Reply 48

janjanmmm

Original post by mntrl

Don't try to summarize something you don't understand.

Oh, please, not another smart ass comment!

If you fail to explain it, it is your problem, not mine.

Reply 49

mntrl

I am not being a smart ass. You don't understand what I am trying to say. It can be my fault, it can be yours. Just don't try to summarize my words. I am not trying to summarize yours.

Reply 50

janjanmmm

Original post by mntrl

I am not being a smart ass. You don't understand what I am trying to say. It can be my fault, it can be yours. Just don't try to summarize my words. I am not trying to summarize yours.

I have summarized mine, you can find it in bold black letters above.

I am still to find the summary of yours, so I was trying to be helpful :wink:

Reply 51

sj27

Original post by janjanmmm

Who said anything about being unique? I simply do not need you to tell me what economics really is, that's it.

Knowing "what economics really is" in undergrad terms is actually not knowing what economics really is, but you'll figure that one out for yourself once you've done graduate school and gotten some real-world experience. But if the way you argue here is any indication, expect to find your arguments ripped to shreds by highly intelligent and eloquent individuals along the way. Again, I refer you to the post I said was petulant.

Reply 52

mntrl

Please, let me have my doubts about your good intentions when you were trying to summarize my words.

Reply 53

janjanmmm

Original post by sj27

expect to find your arguments ripped to shreds by highly intelligent and eloquent individuals along the way. Again, I refer you to the post I said was petulant.

The post you said was petulant was not an argument.

As for everything else- yes, I am coming out of a cave, I have never seen an intelligent and eloquent individual along the way. I am sure you are surrounded by them, and probably had many of your arguments ripped to shreds, sorry to hear that :smile:

Reply 54

janjanmmm

Original post by mntrl

Please, let me have my doubts about your good intentions when you were trying to summarize my words.

Again, why don't you try to do it for yourself? What is it YOU are saying?

Reply 55

sj27

Original post by janjanmmm

The post you said was petulant was not an argument.

Precisely. But you presented it as refutation.

And if you had any idea what my cv looks like you'd swallow your last comment very quickly. Good luck wherever you end up.

Reply 56

janjanmmm

Original post by sj27

Precisely. But you presented it as refutation.

And if you had any idea what my cv looks like you'd swallow your last comment very quickly. Good luck wherever you end up.

Boy, you know NOTHING about me, why don't you stop this stupid condescending tone? Have YOU read MY cv? Don't ever assume things you do not know.

Reply 57

sj27

Original post by janjanmmm

Boy, you know NOTHING about me, why don't you stop this stupid condescending tone? Have YOU read MY cv? Don't ever assume things you do not know.

Haha condescending, pot calling the kettle black.

I know that you have 5 years of economics (a bit long for someone applying to masters, but hey), with high honours, that you didn't do well on the quants section of GRE because you couldn't get a drink of water, and that you have a lot of growing up to do. Not sure I need or want to know any more. As other posters have pointed out, there's little point arguing with you so I'm gonna unsubscribe to this thread and let you stew by yourself.