Oxford, Cambridge, LSE: Just the facts, please...
Want to be the next Mark Zuckerberg or Gordon Gekko? Step into our office...
-
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
- Location: Kidderminster
- Warning points: 10
Re: Oxford, Cambridge, LSE: Just the facts, please...Its not UCL's brand, its the fact they cater for too many subjects at undergraduate level and 10-20% of their students aren't quite as "elite" as Oxbridge, Imperial and LSE's.(Original post by Econla)
So true!!!!!!!!, UCL doesn't have a strong brand, which is a shame if you see the caliber of its research. They should invest in branding. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Legend
Re: Oxford, Cambridge, LSE: Just the facts, please...Jealous much?(Original post by Econla)
Man, who cares if you were invited by cambridge, maybe you are a rockstar and not like the rest of the world that needs to apply to more than 1. Try to practice humility!!!.....
P.s: you are too much for Cambridge
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
I only disproved your point from my own personal knowledge. I am sorry if this makes you butthurt...
ps maybe you should try a lesson in humility and not attack a random person over nothing.
pps you want to know the other main reason i didn also apply to oxford? why waste money on an application?Last edited by danny111; 01-07-2012 at 16:34. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: Here
- Posts: 2,671
Re: Oxford, Cambridge, LSE: Just the facts, please...I didn't say everyone applies to both, I said many do. This was in response to what was clearly an undergrad or high school kid confused because at undergrad you can only apply to one. Incidentally sorry to ruin your impressions, but speaking from personal experience, you don't need to come from a top UK uni to be accepted at either; good grades and good LORs will get you accepted.(Original post by danny111)
Not true. I applied to Cambridge only and I know others who only applied to one (they actually wanted to go to. If you come from a top UK uni and you have the grades and you know you will get LORs that are good, then you will get into your uni of choice, unless you are applying to EME from outside LSE). -
- Reputation:
- TSR Legend
Re: Oxford, Cambridge, LSE: Just the facts, please...But you feel the need to neg me because I have an opinion different to yours?(Original post by sj27)
I didn't say everyone applies to both, I said many do. This was in response to what was clearly an undergrad or high school kid confused because at undergrad you can only apply to one. Incidentally sorry to ruin your impressions, but speaking from personal experience, you don't need to come from a top UK uni to be accepted at either; good grades and good LORs will get you accepted.
Oh and I just read your post, when did I ever say that you need to come from top unis?
READ THE POST. I said that if you come from a top uni and have the grades (which give you the LORs) then you know you will get in...I also said that imo not many apply to both. Ofc I left out the imo, as did you when you made your original post. I never assumed you said everyone. I read that you wrote "many" and i posted that because I know that the majority of people I spoke to from my uni did not, i.e. not "many". I may be wrong of course but you don't have figures to back yourself up either so I don't understand your hostility. Especially about the part about "ruining my impressions"...
Where did I say you can't get in if you went to a uni outside top-x (choose x)?
People on this forum are so easily offended. That Econla guy too, didn really read my post and immediately boxed me into the "arrogant" category. You didn't read my post beyond "not true" and immediately had a go at me. You say good grades and LORs matter - read my post in full, the part in brackets, I dare you. What does it say, oh yea, if you have the grades and LORs....Last edited by danny111; 01-07-2012 at 17:25. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: Here
- Posts: 2,671
Re: Oxford, Cambridge, LSE: Just the facts, please...You didn't state "an opinion". You said "not true" as though it was fact - which itself wasn't true. And actually I agree with Econla that you come across as arrogant ...if you don't want to be perceived as such, perhaps think about how you phrase things.(Original post by danny111)
But you feel the need to neg me because I have an opinion different to yours?
Oh and I just read your post, when did I ever say that you need to come from top unis?
READ THE POST. I said that if you come from a top uni and have the grades (which give you the LORs) then you know you will get in...I also said that imo not many apply to both. Ofc I left out the imo, as did you when you made your original post.
Where did I say you can't get in if you went to a uni outside top-x (choose x)?
People on this forum are so easily offended. That Econla guy too, didn really read my post and immediately boxed me into the "arrogant" category. You didn't read my post beyond "not true" and immediately had a go at me. You say good grades and LORs matter - read my post in full, the part in brackets, I dare you. What does it say, oh yea, if you have the grades and LORs....
And if you read the postgrad threads for Cam and Ox you will see that there are indeed many people who apply to both.Last edited by sj27; 01-07-2012 at 17:27. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Legend
Re: Oxford, Cambridge, LSE: Just the facts, please..."which many do".(Original post by sj27)
You didn't state "an opinion". You said "not true" as though it was fact - which itself wasn't true. And actually I agree with Econla that you come across as arrogant ...if you don't want to be perceived as such, perhaps think about how you phrase things.
And if you read the postgrad threads for Cam and Ox you will see that there are indeed many people who apply to both.
that was your post. how is that any different to "not true". you seriously think the two are different? digging yourself a hole imo. cant believe u actually criticise me for something that you did urself...
right, ofc i come across as arrogant now, because i think you 2 are ridiculous. my original post had no arrogance in it, i merely said that from my own knowledge not that many apply to both. if u read that to be arrogant then u have issues. -
- Reputation:
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 347
Re: Oxford, Cambridge, LSE: Just the facts, please...Oh danny, I'm not jealous at all....on the contrary I am happy for you for being admitted to a prestigious university such Cambridge, and I really mean it, believe me.(Original post by danny111)
Jealous much?
I only disproved your point from my own personal knowledge. I am sorry if this makes you butthurt...
ps maybe you should try a lesson in humility and not attack a random person over nothing.
pps you want to know the other main reason i didn also apply to oxford? why waste money on an application?
What bothered me was as SJ27 said, your dissaproving answer "Not true" and your statement justifiying your decission to apply just to one university: " If you come from a top UK uni and you have the grades and you know you will get LORs that are good, then you will get into your uni of choice ".
First, if you say "not true", you're using a strict inequality: what you say is always better or more accurate, which is not. You should use "not always true" which is I believe much more polite and probabilistically accurate in this case.
Second, when you say that IF you come from a good UK uni and blah blah blah....THEN you will get into your uni of choice, any economist would argue that it's a weak argument. What about if in that particular year almost all applicants were from Harvard, Stanford, MIT, etc, and obviously with good grades and LORs. Furthermore, please tell me how do you control 100% your LORs.
Finally, as a future economist you should know that in uncertainty there's always risk. So, if you want to maximize your return (be admitted by a top univ.) you cannot build a portfolio of just one assett, unless you are 100% sure of it's return, which in this case you would only reach that by paying some adcom members or something like that.
I know.....by going to a top univ., 1:1 Grades, terrific LORs, experience as a TA and RA, increase your odds a lot, but never up to 1. This is why the most of applicants use also at least one safe school in their process.
And as SJ27 said, I also think that the OP was asking because she was confused with undergraduate applications or just lack of knowledge on the process.Last edited by Econla; 02-07-2012 at 04:54. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Legend
Re: Oxford, Cambridge, LSE: Just the facts, please...1. As I told Sj27 - he/she wrote "and many do" - that is as much an expression of fact as me saying "not true".(Original post by Econla)
Oh danny, I'm not jealous at all....on the contrary I am happy for you for being admitted to a prestigious university such Cambridge, and I really mean it, believe me.
What bothered me was as SJ27 said, your dissaproving answer "Not true" and your statement justifiying your decission to apply just to one university: " If you come from a top UK uni and you have the grades and you know you will get LORs that are good, then you will get into your uni of choice ".
First, if you say "not true", you're using a strict inequality: what you say is always better or more accurate, which is not. You should use "not always true" which is I believe much more polite and probabilistically accurate in this case.
Second, when you say that IF you come from a good UK uni and blah blah blah....THEN you will get into your uni of choice, any economist would argue that it's a weak argument. What about if in that particular year almost all applicants were from Harvard, Stanford, MIT, etc, and obviously with good grades and LORs. Furthermore, please tell me how do you control 100% your LORs.
Finally, as a future economist you should know that in uncertainty there's always risk. So, if you want to maximize your return (be admitted by a top univ.) you cannot build a portfolio of just one assett, unless you are 100% sure of it's return, which in this case you would only reach that by paying some adcom members or something like that.
I know.....by going to a top univ., 1:1 Grades, terrific LORs, experience as a TA and RA, increase your odds a lot, but never up to 1. This is why the most of applicants use also at least one safe school in their process.
And as SJ27 said, I also think that the OP was asking because she was confused with undergraduate applications or just lack of knowledge on the process.
2. Unrealistic. As an economist you should understand the 95% confidence interval.
3. Yes, I was maximizing my return by not spending money/time on an additional application.
4. Funny thing you mention this, you don't think I had a safety school? Of course I did. My whole point was simply that I do not believe that that many people do apply to both Oxford and Cambridge.
5. Does it matter why the question was asked? I don't see how it does. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: Here
- Posts: 2,671
Re: Oxford, Cambridge, LSE: Just the facts, please...Like I said before, if you browse the postgrad applicants threads for Ox and Cam you will see that there are indeed many people who have applied to both.(Original post by danny111)
1. As I told Sj27 - he/she wrote "and many do" - that is as much an expression of fact as me saying "not true".
...
4. Funny thing you mention this, you don't think I had a safety school? Of course I did. My whole point was simply that I do not believe that that many people do apply to both Oxford and Cambridge.
(Ironically perhaps when I applied it was to Cam only, mainly because I wasn't interested in a 2-year M Phil!) -
- Reputation:
- TSR Legend
Re: Oxford, Cambridge, LSE: Just the facts, please...Thank you. I have never browsed the postgrad forum so I was not aware of that.(Original post by sj27)
Like I said before, if you browse the postgrad applicants threads for Ox and Cam you will see that there are indeed many people who have applied to both.
(Ironically perhaps when I applied it was to Cam only, mainly because I wasn't interested in a 2-year M Phil!) -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: Here
- Posts: 2,671
Re: Oxford, Cambridge, LSE: Just the facts, please...I did say that in an earlier post, perhaps you should take your own advice about reading properly(Original post by danny111)
Thank you. I have never browsed the postgrad forum so I was not aware of that.
-
- Reputation:
- TSR Legend
Re: Oxford, Cambridge, LSE: Just the facts, please...Yes but you did not say it in your original one, had you said that then I would not have written "not true".(Original post by sj27)
I did say that in an earlier post, perhaps you should take your own advice about reading properly
-
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- New Member
- Posts: 9
Re: Oxford, Cambridge, LSE: Just the facts, please...I just sent applications to both schools. There are certainly no physical restrictions to doing so. And to be honest I didn't know there were administrative restrictions on applying to both schools—but maybe that's why Oxford turned me down(Original post by LisaJD)
How did you apply to both oxford and cambridge? O.o
-
- Reputation:
- Full Member
- Posts: 128
Re: Oxford, Cambridge, LSE: Just the facts, please...Hi,
My Query is that I am interested in the Degree of BSc in Economics for 2014. When I was Looking for the Requirements I Read this ext, Which is :
Usual standard offer: For students taking three A levels: grades A* A A with an A* in Mathematics. For students taking four or more A levels: grades A*A A plus a pass in a fourth A level, with an A* in Mathematics. Students taking Further Mathematics to AS level only will be required to achieve grade A.
I was confused by the Underlined text saying that we only have to achieve an 'A' Grade. But it doesn't state in which Maths or AS Further Maths? -
- Reputation:
- Respected Member
- Location: Stratford-upon-avon
- Posts: 174
Re: Oxford, Cambridge, LSE: Just the facts, please...thanks a lot for creating this thread! i am planning to apply for Mphil economics as well. do you mind sharing the conditional offer for Cambridge? pm if you prefer. cheers(Original post by mrory)
I am interested in credible comparisons of the economics masters programs at Oxford, Cambridge and LSE. The consensus appears to be that these three universities are the best in Britain for economics (minority dissenting opinions only confirm the general consensus).
These schools have often been compared on The Student Room, but to me the trouble has always been either a.) that the programs were compared along incongruous lines, or b.) that the arguments brought lacked credibility. Hence this new thread.
To address a.) above, I propose the following distinction:
Best master's degree in Economics
- according to the program's overall reputation (i.e. amongst students, alums, employers, or, say, your mother)
- according to the program's reputation amongst academics (i.e. top 10 us PhD placement)
To address b.) above, I request that contributors only post credible, verifiable information and include sources. For example, some may find interesting that your favorite professor told you that all of the above programs were crap and that a tier three state school in Kentucky was your best bet. Why don't we care in this thread? For one, you're lying. You never asked your professor. And secondly, your professor doesn't know what he is talking about, because he went to some tier three state school in Kentucky.
So let's stick to the facts. Here's what I have found so far:
Overall (or at least not solely academic) reputation
The Times: Oxford > Cambridge > LSE (Source)
US News: Cambridge > Oxford > LSE (Source)
The Guardian: Cambridge > Oxford > LSE (Source)
Overall reputation of the economics faculty
The Times: Oxford > Cambridge > LSE (Source)
US News: LSE > Oxford > Cambridge (Source)
The Guardian: Oxford > Cambridge > LSE (Source)
Reputation in strictly academic terms (i.e. citations and publications)
IDEAS: Oxford > Cambridge > LSE (Source)
Here are some further statistics which might be interesting:
Most recent acceptance rates (intake/applicants, %)
LSE M.Sc. in Economics: (135/1594, 8.5%) (Source)
Cambridge MPhil Economics: (37/254, 14.6%) (Source)
Oxford MPhil Economics: (21/163, 12.9%) (Source)
*Note: these statistics are based on intake, not offers (the difference being that not all offers are eventually accepted by the students who received them).
2006 academic paper ranking schools by post-PhD placement record:
Oxford > LSE > Cambridge (Source)
Obviously the academic ranking statistics above are a little thin, so if anyone is aware of further statistics I would be very interested! Specifically on the following topics:
- Placement statistics for PhD programs (e.g. "x% of the graduating class at M.Sc. in Economics at LSE went on to a top 10 US PhD", or something similar)
- Research/Publications/Citations statistics for economics sub disciplines for each university's economics faculty (e.g. "Cambridge is third in the world for time series econometrics")
If anyone has seen credible statistics along these lines, please post with link to source.
I should also note (full disclosure) that I applied to all three schools this year, with the following results:
Oxford MPhil Economics => Rejection
Cambridge MPhil Econmics => Offer, accepted
LSE M.Sc. Finance and Economics => Offer, turned down -
- Reputation:
- Respected Member
- Location: Stratford-upon-avon
- Posts: 174
Re: Oxford, Cambridge, LSE: Just the facts, please...thanks for the info, a quick question though, what counts as a top UK uni? does it have to be the top 5 that everyone agrees on? if you dont mind, what is your con offer for cam? pm me if you prefer?(Original post by danny111)
Not true. I applied to Cambridge only and I know others who only applied to one (they actually wanted to go to. If you come from a top UK uni and you have the grades and you know you will get LORs that are good, then you will get into your uni of choice, unless you are applying to EME from outside LSE).
cheers -
- Reputation:
- Junior Member
- Posts: 71
Re: Oxford, Cambridge, LSE: Just the facts, please...I am applying to both too. My situation is a bit twisted though ... I already graduated (as top of my class) in Economics from a Dutch University with reasonable reputation and did an exchange with UC Berkeley. This spring, I got rejected by Cam for their MPhil in Finance, so I stupidly continued at my home university with a MSc in Econometrics and Mathematical Economics. I am lacking a lot of preknowledge for this Master's. The usual prepatory Bachelor's is the one in Econometrics, which I didn't attend. Hence, my grades won't be close to my old GPA. I wonder if Oxford will giving me an offer condition on a certain Master's GPA. Any ideas on that?(Original post by 09001904)
thanks for the info, a quick question though, what counts as a top UK uni? does it have to be the top 5 that everyone agrees on? if you dont mind, what is your con offer for cam? pm me if you prefer?
cheers -
- Reputation:
- Respected Member
- Posts: 163
Re: Oxford, Cambridge, LSE: Just the facts, please...Hey guys
Here's my take on the discussion.
I had applied to Oxford, LSE (vanilla), UCL and Warwick.
I was given offer from all four schools: Upper second equivalent for UCL and Warwick, First equivalent for Oxford and LSE.
From the offer condition, I am curious to why people would argue UCL's MSc to be more difficult than the LSE's programme? If that's true then surely UCL would have given a conditional offer tougher or equivalent to the LSE's programme? From what I know, UCL and LSE tends to have similar level of difficulty in its core courses.
At the end, I chose the LSE's course over Oxford's. From what I have heard, the Oxford programme tended to be less technical than the LSE programme. Most of my undergraduate Economics professor recommended me to choose LSE. And Oxford was more interested with keeping its students for its own PhD programme and had sent less students across the Atlantic compared to LSE. I am personally interested in pursuing a PhD in the US which is why I chose LSE. Again, these are what I had heard so they are subjected to debate.
Furthermore, I think people,having little knowledge of MSc level courses, are ignorantly exaggerating the differences in difficulty amongst different UK unis. I have seen MSc course material from other top 10 Econ UK unis. The Micro questions are extremely similar, one may even suspect the same person made them, to LSE's MSc Micro and same materials are taught. You start to find some difference if you choose LSE's Advanced Micro instead. And it becomes some significance difference in LSE MRes Micro. Same holds true for its Econometrics and Macro. The bulk of MSc Econ would be doing MSc vanilla courses. TBH, having Oxford, LSE etc. brand is more about helping to overcome the snobbery of the top Economic departments when its come to PhD applications. -
- Reputation:
- Respected Member
- Posts: 163
Re: Oxford, Cambridge, LSE: Just the facts, please...Think UCL and Warwick are on par with academic rigour. I base this on the fact Warwick Professors, using Warwick material, comes to teach LSE's MSc core courses.(Original post by Mr. Roxas)
Where's Warwick and UCL in the list?
