[RamlakU]

Is there any truth in this or is it mere speculation? (This is for UK postgraduate taught courses in arts/humanities/social sciences)

Some universities charge an application fee, others don't.
Some universities have specific application deadlines, others have rolling admissions up until shortly before the course commences.
Some universities require require two or three references, others only one.
Some universities charge what appears to be a standardised tuition fee rate of around £5000, +/- a few hundred pounds,

Is it fair to assume that those in the latter category (no application fee, rolling admissions, one reference, £5k tuition) practically admit everyone who fulfils the requirement of having a 2.1 in a relevant subject and submits a half-decent statement and reference?

My thinking is based on the fact that:

The application fee is 1) a deterrent and 2) payment for the fact that admissions tutors actually have to sit down and discuss/deliberate about each applicant.
There's no point in bothering to ask for 2-3 references if that's not a deciding point.
There's no way to justify higher tuition fees if it's not a 'highly prestigious/selective' course/university (whatever that means).
The rolling admissions indicates that they want whoever is qualified enough to be admitted onto the course, including those who might have been rejected from others (e.g. Oxbridge).

What do you all think?

[Darius.M]

"Some universities charge an application fee, others don't."

Yes, and LSE is a good example. I think they charge £50 whether or not your application is successful.

"Some universities have specific application deadlines, others have rolling admissions up until shortly before the course commences"

Partly true. Some universities have entry dates twice a year, so the same program starts in Spring, and then next time in Autumn. Otherwise they do have specific deadlines (unless there is a minority of places that are exceptions), otherwise it would be complicated to decide who gets a place in uni. Its just easier for them to allocate places and choose students with most potential when all the applications are at hand. Imagine giving away all places and then you get a student with more potential than 50% of students admitted to the course. Odds are small but it is possible.

"Some universities require two or three references, others only one."

The number of references necessary does differ from place to place. I had to source 2 references, but few of the people I know, had to get 3. Some - only one.

"Some universities charge what appears to be a standardized tuition fee rate of around £5000, +/- a few hundred pounds"

Not sure about this one. In my opinion, its not standardized at all. On the contrary, it is in their interest to keep the fees low to be competitive, unless they are in the ranks of Oxbridge and LSE, where you pay for tuition and the prestige. Times are tough and prices, although not the main factor, have a large impact on choosing a particular uni, so price competition is in place.

Don't assume lack of mini-fees for applications etc. mean the uni allows in everyone. Far from it. Especially because its postgrad territory. Things are much more serious now, and you need to be able to articulate why you are pursuing your postgrad studies to begin with. The fact that you must be able to successfully complete a ~15k word work should say it all. As for 2.1...There are cases when people got in with 2.2 as well, even when the lower limit was 2.1. Why? because the person made a good case why he wants to study in this particular uni this particular subject. And while the overall of his bachelor degree might have been 2.2, he finished a module on the topic he wants to research further, during the Masters, with an overall of high 2.1-1st. At the same time, some folks are bright, have a 2.1 but don;t have a clear vision why they wasn't to study further and are considered the "just for the sake of it" group of students. I know people that did their masters just to extend the uni life experience, not the knowledge itself. Growing up is painful, I know.

Your assumptions are a bit misguided:

1) The application fees are a deterrent, but for the right reasons. Some folks just bomb dozens of universities with their applications without putting much effort in to them, the so called "spray and pray" approach. Why should the uni have to deal with such time-wasters? I agree, though, that fee can be/is aimed to work as an incentive tutors to deal, rather than look through, the application.

2) Yes, the references are necessary. All of them. Even if they don't have an impact, by not providing enough references, you leave your application incomplete. Incomplete application will either be shredded or have to be completed, prolonging the time it takes to receive an answer. What for? Plus if you paid an application fee, you loose money do to your lazynes.

3) You are wrong about the lack of justification. You look at university's prestige as a whole (Oxbridge), but in fact many universities have their specialties. For example University of Essex may not be hitting top rank tables overall, but if you look around, you will see they are big in the field of robotics and sport science, and social sciences. It is also the university that for a long time employed Anthony King. Does the name ring any bells? This specialization principle applies to many universities, so instead of looking at overall "goodness", research the particular areas you are interested in and see how uni stacks up against it.

4) Maybe, maybe not. But i don't buy it, unless the university has no area its good at.

[zippyRN]

taught masters = university cash cow unless there's a specific need (e.g. BEng academic upgrade as part of a pathway to Chartered , or the 'advanced practice' taught Masters for Health Professionals)

[evantej]

(Original post by RamlakU)
Is there any truth in this or is it mere speculation? (This is for UK postgraduate taught courses in arts/humanities/social sciences)

Some universities charge an application fee, others don't.
Some universities have specific application deadlines, others have rolling admissions up until shortly before the course commences.
Some universities require require two or three references, others only one.
Some universities charge what appears to be a standardised tuition fee rate of around £5000, +/- a few hundred pounds,

Is it fair to assume that those in the latter category (no application fee, rolling admissions, one reference, £5k tuition) practically admit everyone who fulfils the requirement of having a 2.1 in a relevant subject and submits a half-decent statement and reference?

My thinking is based on the fact that:

The application fee is 1) a deterrent and 2) payment for the fact that admissions tutors actually have to sit down and discuss/deliberate about each applicant.
There's no point in bothering to ask for 2-3 references if that's not a deciding point.
There's no way to justify higher tuition fees if it's not a 'highly prestigious/selective' course/university (whatever that means).
The rolling admissions indicates that they want whoever is qualified enough to be admitted onto the course, including those who might have been rejected from others (e.g. Oxbridge).

What do you all think?

I think you overemphasis what are, realistically, the practices of only a small number of universities. The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) operate rolling admissions and do not charge admissions fees. Does that make them a bad university, or worse than, say, UCL, who now charge admission fees?

I think you need to be pragmatic about the arts and humanities at postgraduate level. There is no funding which means most offers will never be taken up. Even at the University of Oxford they will give out more offers than they have place for. Likewise, because there is no funding, tuition fees need to reflect who can afford to study. I would expect to see universities in the north charge less than those in the south. It does not mean the courses are worse. It merely acknowledges the fact that their student base is more likely to be local, and more likely to be studying part time etc., etc..

[RamlakU]

(Original post by evantej)
I think you overemphasis what are, realistically, the practices of only a small number of universities. The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) operate rolling admissions and do not charge admissions fees. Does that make them a bad university, or worse than, say, UCL, who now charge admission fees?

I think you need to be pragmatic about the arts and humanities at postgraduate level. There is no funding which means most offers will never be taken up. Even at the University of Oxford they will give out more offers than they have place for. Likewise, because there is no funding, tuition fees need to reflect who can afford to study. I would expect to see universities in the north charge less than those in the south. It does not mean the courses are worse. It merely acknowledges the fact that their student base is more likely to be local, and more likely to be studying part time etc., etc..

LSE charges £50 per application. I'm also not talking about good or bad universities, simply the admissions procedure...

Are you saying that PG admissions in the humanities is significantly less competitive than UG?

[RamlakU]

Firstly I want to say I hope my points below don't come off as being aggressive or negative. I'm grateful for all your views. I simply think that the trends in admissions requirements tells us more about the competitiveness and/or strictness of admissions than we might necessarily think at first sight.

(Original post by Darius.M)
"Some universities have specific application deadlines, others have rolling admissions up until shortly before the course commences"

Partly true. Some universities have entry dates twice a year, so the same program starts in Spring, and then next time in Autumn. Otherwise they do have specific deadlines (unless there is a minority of places that are exceptions), otherwise it would be complicated to decide who gets a place in uni. Its just easier for them to allocate places and choose students with most potential when all the applications are at hand. Imagine giving away all places and then you get a student with more potential than 50% of students admitted to the course. Odds are small but it is possible.

But that is in fact the case at many places, hence my inclusion of the point. I've just had a quick look and Goldsmiths, Birkbeck, Edinburgh don't have a set deadline, and KCL's is so late that it's practically non-existent (end of June for September entry).

(Original post by Darius.M)
"Some universities charge what appears to be a standardized tuition fee rate of around £5000, +/- a few hundred pounds"

Not sure about this one. In my opinion, its not standardized at all. On the contrary, it is in their interest to keep the fees low to be competitive, unless they are in the ranks of Oxbridge and LSE, where you pay for tuition and the prestige.

But that's exactly my point - e.g. Goldsmiths, Birkbeck and Edinburgh all have fees at or around £5k, whereas Oxbridge, LSE, UCL all are £8k+.

[QUOTE=Darius.M;38739913]
Your assumptions are a bit misguided:

(Original post by Darius.M)
1) The application fees are a deterrent, but for the right reasons. Some folks just bomb dozens of universities with their applications without putting much effort in to them, the so called "spray and pray" approach. Why should the uni have to deal with such time-wasters? I agree, though, that fee can be/is aimed to work as an incentive tutors to deal, rather than look through, the application.

This is exactly what I'm arguing. Birkbeck, Goldsmiths, KCL and Edinburgh don't charge a fee whereas UCL, Oxbridge and LSE do.

(Original post by Darius.M)
2) Yes, the references are necessary. All of them. Even if they don't have an impact, by not providing enough references, you leave your application incomplete. Incomplete application will either be shredded or have to be completed, prolonging the time it takes to receive an answer. What for? Plus if you paid an application fee, you loose money do to your lazynes.

I'm not talking about submitting an incomplete application. I'm saying that the universities specifically stipulate e.g. 1, 2 or 3 references. And that there appears to be a correlation between number of references required and competitiveness in admissions. My extrapolated argument is that those with lower _and_ fewer requirements/deterrents are basically going to accept those with a 2.1 and a decent reference+statement.

(Original post by Darius.M)
3) You are wrong about the lack of justification. You look at university's prestige as a whole (Oxbridge), but in fact many universities have their specialties. For example University of Essex may not be hitting top rank tables overall, but if you look around, you will see they are big in the field of robotics and sport science, and social sciences. It is also the university that for a long time employed Anthony King. Does the name ring any bells? This specialization principle applies to many universities, so instead of looking at overall "goodness", research the particular areas you are interested in and see how uni stacks up against it.

Again, this is missing my point. Of course quality and reputation is subjective but the perceived prestige of the institution _and_ course changes the stringency of admissions.

As I see it, without being confrontational or aggressive, my point still stands - it appears at the face of it that apart from Oxbridge, UCL, LSE and those with specialisations or particular strengths (e.g. Goldsmiths MFA, Courtauld, etc.), for most of the MAs at most institutions, a decent 2.1 from a decent university and a decent reference+statement will be enough to get admitted.

[Akkuz]

(Original post by RamlakU)
But that's exactly my point - e.g. Goldsmiths, Birkbeck and Edinburgh all have fees at or around £5k, whereas Oxbridge, LSE, UCL all are £8k+.

Incorrect. For a start, Cambridge have a number of courses which are less than £5k tuition fees.

I applied to two courses, of which one was £3800 and the other £4800.

[RamlakU]

(Original post by Akkuz)
Incorrect. For a start, Cambridge have a number of courses which are less than £5k tuition fees.

I applied to two courses, of which one was £3800 and the other £4800.

That's excluding college fees. With college fees the cheapest courses are at least £6k+.

But we're talking about humanities, arts, and social sciences, where the cheapest are £8k+ including college fees.

[Darius.M]

[QUOTE=But we're talking about humanities, arts, and social sciences, where the cheapest are £8k+ including college fees.[/QUOTE]

I applied for an MA in Kent - £4900 -European Governance. Politics with major emphasis on EU.

[RamlakU]

(Original post by Darius.M)
I applied for an MA in Kent - £4900 -European Governance. Politics with major emphasis on EU.

We were talking about Cambridge fees...

But your tuition fees are in line with the point I was making about ~£5k fees for the places I was mentioning.

[*Corinna*]

(Original post by RamlakU)
That's excluding college fees. With college fees the cheapest courses are at least £6k+.

But we're talking about humanities, arts, and social sciences, where the cheapest are £8k+ including college fees.

Neither Oxford nor Cambridge charged 8K+ for my masters course which is a humanities course. In all fairness Oxford was pretty close to 8 but Cambridge was more than £1000 less than that.

[RamlakU]

(Original post by *Corinna*)
Neither Oxford nor Cambridge charged 8K+ for my masters course which is a humanities course. In all fairness Oxford was pretty close to 8 but Cambridge was more than £1000 less than that.

When was that though? I just checked the list and £4850+2350 is the cheapest it gets.

Anyway my point wasn't necessarily about the exact costs of programmes, more the broad trends.

[gutenberg]

Corinna did her Master's this year (2011-2012) I think?

I've also just finished my Cambridge Master's and it was around £6000 I think, including college fees (though I wasn't paying them, so I didn't add it up! )

Fees do tend to increase year on year, usually somewhat in line with inflation if not slightly above it.

[*Corinna*]

(Original post by RamlakU)
When was that though? I just checked the list and £4850+2350 is the cheapest it gets.

Anyway my point wasn't necessarily about the exact costs of programmes, more the broad trends.

This year. Also you do know that 4850+2350 does not equal 8000 right? The main reason other unis are cheaper is college fees but still the difference isn't as big as you make it sound.

[RamlakU]

(Original post by *Corinna*)
This year. Also you do know that 4850+2350 does not equal 8000 right? The main reason other unis are cheaper is college fees but still the difference isn't as big as you make it sound.

Yeah I know, but it's less than the £1000 below £8000 you mentioned

I was mainly trying to show that Oxbridge, UCL, KCL and LSE are the only places charging more than the £5k which almost all other places are charging.

[janjanmmm]

(Original post by RamlakU)
Is there any truth in this or is it mere speculation? (This is for UK postgraduate taught courses in arts/humanities/social sciences)

Some universities charge an application fee, others don't.

Of course it is true. Oxbridge and LSE charge 50 pounds, UCL charges 25, most others do not charge.

Some universities have specific application deadlines, others have rolling admissions up until shortly before the course commences.

Not exactly.
Some programme have deadlines, and others have rolling admissions. Within the same university you can see both.

Some universities require require two or three references, others only one.

In my experience all universities required two references, except Oxford, which required three. But, again, this is programme specific, not university specific.

Some universities charge what appears to be a standardised tuition fee rate of around £5000, +/- a few hundred pounds,

I pay international fees, so for me it is more like "sometimes they charge over 20 000 pounds, some 17 000, some 13 000", but, again, course specific. Practically all universities have several different fee categories, depending on a type of a programme.

Is it fair to assume that those in the latter category (no application fee, rolling admissions, one reference, £5k tuition) practically admit everyone who fulfils the requirement of having a 2.1 in a relevant subject and submits a half-decent statement and reference?

No. Once again, it is programme specific. There are programmes at Oxbridge that have rolling admission and accept everyone who meets the minimum criteria. There are programmes at a lower level unis that are extremely competitive.


Overall, of course admission fees are deterrent, which is why only top schools charge them. They do not want to waste everybody's time looking at applications of people who clearly do not qualify, but still would like to take a shot at top university "just in case". They know their name alone will bring enough applicants into any programme. However, everything else is programme specific.

[Stilo]

(Original post by RamlakU)
Is there any truth in this or is it mere speculation? (This is for UK postgraduate taught courses in arts/humanities/social sciences)

Some universities charge an application fee, others don't. - I've applied, and been accepted to, a taught Masters in International Studies at Durham. I was not charged an application fee.

Some universities have specific application deadlines, others have rolling admissions up until shortly before the course commences. - I can't speak on the practices of other Universities but Durham definitely has a rolling admission deadline. I applied for my course sometime in late May.

Some universities require require two or three references, others only one. - I was required to submit two references.

Some universities charge what appears to be a standardised tuition fee rate of around £5000, +/- a few hundred pounds, - I'm not certain what the fee is for home students, I think it's £9,000, but my fees come out to about £12,000.

Is it fair to assume that those in the latter category (no application fee, rolling admissions, one reference, £5k tuition) practically admit everyone who fulfils the requirement of having a 2.1 in a relevant subject and submits a half-decent statement and reference? Durham doesn't fit the latter two requirements. However, it doesn't have an application fee, and it does have rolling admissions. With that being said, I don't think the University admits anyone with a 2:1 and a half-assed personal statement. I'm biased but I'm inclined to believe their Masters programmes are relatively selective.

In summation, I think your theory is pure speculation. It's impossible to generalise such things.
---

[evantej]

(Original post by RamlakU)
[...] Are you saying that PG admissions in the humanities is significantly less competitive than UG?

No, that is not what I am saying at all. Some postgraduate programmes are as competitive if not more so than their undergraduate equivalents (e.g. English at Oxford).

What I am suggesting is that you have to be pragmatic about postgraduate admissions. The pool of applicants is self-selecting and relatively more qualified than the one universities deal with at undergraduate level. The issue is really about money. In this sense, you cannot generalise from the practices of less than five universities.

They are all - Cambridge, LSE, Oxford and UCL - good universities that receive lots of applications. But their admission charge is simply about prestige. (The analogy with American universities does not hold, because they often give financial assistance to everyone they admit). The same goes for Cambridge and Oxford requiring three references. It has nothing to do with finding out more about the applicant, but appearing more prestigious (i.e. tougher admissions). They ask for more and charge admissions fee because they can get away with it, because it makes their lives easier dealing with fewer applicants. The fact the charge is universal suggests as much. There are programmes within these universities that are really not that competitive at all (e.g. area studies at Oxford) and could not justify the idea of an admission charge to cut down on their workload.

[Aberystwyth University]

Dear all,

This is a very interesting conversation. Just to add to the debate, at Aberystwyth University, these are our practices:

We do not charge an application fee although we have considered doing this. Most universities will receive what is known as speculative applications, which are those applicants that never really intend to come to the University and also applications from students that apply to lots of universities. The administration fee is normally to ensure that only serious applicants apply and to ensure that universities attract the most committed students to a particular course. We have chosen not to include an Administration fee as we believe that a fee would put people off applying, especially those students that have just completed their undergraduate studies and are saving rigidly to fund their postgraduate studies.

Some universities have specific application deadlines, others have rolling admissions up until shortly before the course commences.

We have rolling admissions deadlines although we recommend students apply as early as possible especially to be considered for funding. We also have two start dates for postgraduate research students.

Some universities require require two or three references, others only one.

We ask for two references but will process applications on one as long as it clearly demonstrates the ability of the student.

Some universities charge what appears to be a standardised tuition fee rate of around £5000, +/- a few hundred pounds,

We have a three banded fee structure which reflects the costs for us of actually running the course (staff costs, research costs, facilities and resources) combined with the research intensity of the department and its ranking.

If anybody has any thoughts on the processes or would like to discuss postgraduate study we are very happy to help.

Kindest regards,

The Postgraduate Admissions Team.