[Hashshashin]

(Original post by soempty)
Reading is not a problem for me... I would read that in about 10-15 days.

You wouldn't take anything of value in that quickly though.

[soempty]

(Original post by Hashshashin)
You wouldn't take anything of value in that quickly though.

This is true, but i don't think i am skim reading it. I was reading a lot when i was young (i read less now, but still) do and as a result of that i am at quite fast reading speeds.

[Acerbic]

(Original post by soempty)
Reading is not a problem for me... I would read that in about 10-15 days.

Lol, you clearly haven't seen how dense Capital is, both linguistically and conceptually. If you storm through it then you'll understand nothing.

[soempty]

Due to the amount of modules i would have done by the end of last year in school i would need to do D1 in order to get as grade for Add FM. Would it make my appication better if i had Add FM AS grade (predicted one obviously) or would they not care at all? Is it worth doing?

Can i just tell my teacher that i intend to do D1 and get prediction on my application, but don't actually do the module because it is not going to be included in my offer anyway?

[Ray_Han]

I would generally say ceteris paribus the more maths modules you take, especially pure and stats, the better, simply because it means you will be better prepared for the degree. I am not sure how much D1 will actually help you. I guess topics like linear programming might help you to understand optimisation and constraints, but you might as well take it as it isn't much work and you can get an extra qualification out of it.

Note that I am not necessarily saying that taking an AS in AFM will give you an advantage in the admissions process (I'm not an admissions tutor), but rather that it will help you out in terms of preparing for the course if you do get an offer.

Also, if you commit to doing a module, I would do so, even if it means turning up to the exam totally unprepared. They would have the right to rescind an offer if you drop any modules without their permission, and it's not going to make the best impression.

[bhogs001]

I have a practice economics interview for cambridge on wednesday. Can anyone give me any tips?

[lp386]

(Original post by bhogs001)
I have a practice economics interview for cambridge on wednesday. Can anyone give me any tips?

Yes! You may be asked your opinion on current economic issues (most likely the Eurozone, probably not Barclays as it isn't really relevant) so make sure you know a bit about those. Practice by talking about your subject to anyone who'll listen.

Secondly, if the interviewer is any good, THERE WILL BE MATHS. Expect it, work through it methodically and talk through what you're doing.

It would help to know your personal statement (if you've done one) and what you've read, and maybe be ready to talk about a book.

Also, there's months to go, so don't panic if this one doesn't go as well as you'd hoped. Good luck.

[bhogs001]

(Original post by lp386)
Yes! You may be asked your opinion on current economic issues (most likely the Eurozone, probably not Barclays as it isn't really relevant) so make sure you know a bit about those. Practice by talking about your subject to anyone who'll listen.

Secondly, if the interviewer is any good, THERE WILL BE MATHS. Expect it, work through it methodically and talk through what you're doing.

It would help to know your personal statement (if you've done one) and what you've read, and maybe be ready to talk about a book.

Also, there's months to go, so don't panic if this one doesn't go as well as you'd hoped. Good luck.

Thanks for your help!

I have read so much about the eurozone, read 3 books but i havent prepared for general questions. I assume you have read around the eurozone.

Do you reckon

1. I will be asked the benefits/costs of the eurozone

2. or about yields, bonds, eurobonds and **** like that?

[lp386]

(Original post by bhogs001)
Thanks for your help!

I have read so much about the eurozone, read 3 books but i havent prepared for general questions. I assume you have read around the eurozone.

Do you reckon

1. I will be asked the benefits/costs of the eurozone

2. or about yields, bonds, eurobonds and **** like that?

I've been too busy cramming for the degree to follow the Eurozone closely, but I think 1 is entirely possible and 2 is very unlikely. It comes up a little bit in the course but you're really not expected to understand any of it before you apply.

[bhogs001]

(Original post by lp386)
I've been too busy cramming for the degree to follow the Eurozone closely, but I think 1 is entirely possible and 2 is very unlikely. It comes up a little bit in the course but you're really not expected to understand any of it before you apply.

Ok thanks. Good luck for your degree!

[bhogs001]

(Original post by Groat)
I had a lengthy discussion about the eurozone and the debt crisis in my interview.

Thanks! So, like to join the eurozone

A country's debt must be less than 60%
A country's government defecit must be less than 3%

Which q's about debt crisis?

[Blutooth]

(Original post by Groat)
I had a lengthy discussion about the eurozone and the debt crisis in my interview.

Do you think Greece should leave the Euro?

[Oxy-moron Prodigy]

Is anyone going to the Open Day tomorrow?

[lp386]

(Original post by Oxy-moron Prodigy)
Is anyone going to the Open Day tomorrow?

How did you find it? I'm a current student (about to start final year, scarily) so if you have any questions please shout.

[Pandin]

Hey,

I'm a German student wanting to read Economics at Cambridge for 2013 entry. What I don't quite understand is why this course is so competitive, with an applications/offer ratio of about 6.9 in 2011, whereas, say, NatSci has one of 3.7. Can't Cambridge just add another 50 places to satisfy the obviously great demand for the subject or are the other 5.9 applications/offer of "substantially lower quality"?

[alex_hk90]

(Original post by Pandin)
I'm a German student wanting to read Economics at Cambridge for 2013 entry. What I don't quite understand is why this course is so competitive, with an applications/offer ratio of about 6.9 in 2011, whereas, say, NatSci has one of 3.7. Can't Cambridge just add another 50 places to satisfy the obviously great demand for the subject or are the other 5.9 applications/offer of "substantially lower quality"?

It's an interesting question; while it isn't that easy to "add another 50 places" (the department would need more lecturers, and colleges would need to accommodate and cater for more people [unless places are taken from less competitive subjects]), I can see that it would be feasible. I guess the department has decided that this is the optimal number that balances the current demand and the supply of high quality candidates. Having said that, even amongst those who are accepted there is quite a significant range, to the extent that it would not be impossible to argue that there are too many places rather than too few.

[Hashshashin]

(Original post by alex_hk90)
It's an interesting question; while it isn't that easy to "add another 50 places" (the department would need more lecturers, and colleges would need to accommodate and cater for more people [unless places are taken from less competitive subjects]), I can see that it would be feasible. I guess the department has decided that this is the optimal number that balances the current demand and the supply of high quality candidates. Having said that, even amongst those who are accepted there is quite a significant range, to the extent that it would not be impossible to argue that there are too many places rather than too few.

They find it very difficult to get decent supervisors for some of the papers, (and not just IIB options like ETA but also ones that everyone takes like Part I/Part IIA Maths and Stats, and the Part I History Paper.

[lp386]

(Original post by Pandin)
Hey,

I'm a German student wanting to read Economics at Cambridge for 2013 entry. What I don't quite understand is why this course is so competitive, with an applications/offer ratio of about 6.9 in 2011, whereas, say, NatSci has one of 3.7. Can't Cambridge just add another 50 places to satisfy the obviously great demand for the subject or are the other 5.9 applications/offer of "substantially lower quality"?

I'm not familiar with exactly how the number is determined but there are constraints on both a college and university level.

My college can only take a maximum of 135 students each year as that's all we can provide accommodation for. Every college faces these constraints and to allocate more economics students would require them to take away from other subjects. They might feel that a sixth vet student or a third classicist might be better for them in terms of getting good grades than a ninth economic student. There's a functional constraint too - we take eight per year, but if we added a ninth we'd have to split into three supervision groups rather than two, increasing supervision costs by 50%.

As Alex has already said, there's also university constraints - providing lectures and classes, as well as centralised supervisions. For popular optional courses, you'd have to put a cap on numbers, and you'd probably have to offer more options - again increasing costs.

And there is already a significant variance in quality between people who fly through the course and people who just barely scrape a third. I don't have any evidence about whether we're taking everyone that could reasonably cope with the course or just a fraction of them, and I also don't have any evidence as to whether the people the university picked are actually the people who would do best. But the university doesn't have that counterfactual either and can't easily judge whether expansion would be useful.

With regards to your NatSci comparison - the entry requirements are more stringent, having strict requirements on specific subjects (so lower applications), and it represents multiple subjects at most other universities, hence the extremely large total number of students (600 v 170). Economics also sees a lot of international applicants; I suspect this is relatively true for the sciences but I'm not sure if it's to quite the same extent.

But, to be brutal about it - the university doesn't need to expand places, they'd gain little from doing so, and they'd very possibly lose in terms of both the quality of students and prestige. The incentives aren't in favour of expansion, unfortunately, much as I'd like to see other good applicants have the same opportunities I've had.

Good luck with your application though.

[Colmans]

(Original post by Pandin)
Hey,

I'm a German student wanting to read Economics at Cambridge for 2013 entry. What I don't quite understand is why this course is so competitive, with an applications/offer ratio of about 6.9 in 2011, whereas, say, NatSci has one of 3.7. Can't Cambridge just add another 50 places to satisfy the obviously great demand for the subject or are the other 5.9 applications/offer of "substantially lower quality"?

Economics is very competitive in the UK with ten universities making A*AA offers whereas in some subjects offers drop to AAA or even AAB after the top five or so. I think it is because the job prospects are so good and many people see it as a route into investment banking and other high paid careers.

The problem is probably that other courses don't want to give up the numbers as their course or dept becomes less viable and also the sheer practicalities of space in the lecture theatre or number of supervisors. (Although none of my supervisions have as many as four students, it is usually two and occ three.)

[amg_22]

D1 is the most stupid maths module ever made and is only there as 'another use of maths'

it will consist of you drawing diagrams and applying simple algorithms. therefore im pretty sure the admission tutors will give you absolutely no credit.