LSE corrupt?

I will be suspect all i want. With how the LSE operates it would be completely ignorant not to. Unless you can convince me otherwise i don't see what more you bring to the table.

Again, presenting your case as being applicable to all countries from which.

In regards to my qualification, LSE does not only ask for high GCSE grades, they ask for a very high "overall mark". That means, GCSE + AS + A level. So basically - only GCSE is not enough and only A-levels are not enough, because in my qualification all levels are counted. That means, you cannot "relax" on any level at all, or else it will "drag down" your overall. In addition to this, they want certain grades at highest level which is equal to A-level.

I am surprised that only 80% is enough in the UK to get an A, and 90% to get an A*. In my country you need 99% to get the highest grade possible. You need to be near perfect.

In addition to this, many have to take the Entrance Exam and that is very hard. Furthermore, everyone has to score at least 7 in all four bands of the IELTS exam. This is something no UK applicant need to worry about.

Let me give you some cold and hard numbers, these are application numbers for 2012 entry from The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jan/30/university-applications-subjects-age-poverty

LSE: 15,399 applicants for 1,200 places

Cambridge: 15,675 applicants for 3,000 places

Oxford: 17,945 applicants for 3,000 places

http://www.ox.ac.uk/about_the_university/facts_and_figures/index.html

Now, who do you think can choose among the best? It's LSE that can choose among the best. Many courses at LSE are a lot harder getting admission to than at Oxford or Cambridge.

Check it out here:

http://university.which.co.uk/

Again, please allow me to use myself as an example. I didn't applied to LSE because I knew that there is a 91% chance that I will get a rejection, only 9% recieve an offer for the course I was interested in.
Furthermore I mentioned Entrance Exam and in addition to this my other choices would have suffered if I applied to LSE, because I would have to write my PS totally different just to make LSE "happy" in the way they want the PS to be.

But according to you, I would have a huge chance of getting an offer from LSE just because I am overseas, well that is NOT true. Because there are somewhere between 7,500 - 8,000 other overseas applicants which I have to compete against. So I am pretty much toast, and other 91% will also be a toast, only 9% will get an offer.

Furthermore - many international students does not apply to Oxford or Cambridge for undergrad degrees because the application process is even worse than at LSE. No one understands what TSA test is, and then there is a IELTS exam to thinks about and not to mention that many are basically not ready for the interview, they don't understand the mentality of the tutors and what they will ask them for.

And then there is another thing. In my country, and in many other countries, a MA/MSc is considered better than BA/BSc degree because it is at a HIGHER level and it is a Masters level. BA/BSc is considered as a good "starting point" for the "real stuff" which is MA/MSc/MBA/MPhil/MRes.

So in another words, there is no point stressing out with undergrad applications to Oxford or Cambridge in you are overseas student when you can get equally good BA/BSc from UCL, Warwick, LSE, KCL or Imperial and then go on for a Masters degree at LSE, Oxford, Cambridge, etc.

So to sum this up. I already got an offer from an excellent uni and that uni has a LOT lower number of overseas students, but according to you, I would have had better chance applying to LSE, which is not the case.

If you wish to be critical of some universities, be critical of those universities that have "study agents" to recruit students on behalf of them. I can give you proof of which unis I am talking about, so maybe you should be skeptical of those unis. Please do tell if you need proof, will provide it gladly, and LSE is definitely NOT on that list.

I really hope OPs not applying there

I suspect OP got rejected and is now trying to justify this.

My post was not aimed at convincing you otherwise.

That's why your original post held no real value to me, at least try convincing me i'm wrong instead of saying i am.

the numbers you posted do not mean much as LSE pretty much offers only "commercial" courses by which i mean they don't have classics, languages and this kind of stuff.

also, the stuff about grades is nonsense imho, 99% of what? if the exam is not the same you obviously can't say that getting 99% is harder than 95%...

Really, they don't mean much? Why don't you take a look at "university which" link and let's see how high percentage of admission does Economics or Politics have at Oxford and Cambridge versus LSE ?

It's just about equally hard for Economics, and it's harder for IR at LSE compared to History/Politics/PPE.

Classics have NOTHING to do with this, because we are talking about how hard it is to get admission to LSE. And the fact is, it's as hard as Oxford and Cambridge, and in many cases harder.

99% perfect of the qualification from the country they are asking for. Admission officers are not stupid and they do know how hard it is to get certain grades from certain countries. This should be logical for you to understand. LSE have had students from all around the world, thus they have alumni in those countries, and they do know what kind of level is required from each country.

finally, many of the top end students only apply to oxbridge, at least there are 5 in my college (All got a first in the first year)
so your reasoning on "choosing between the best" is not necessarily true.

So the top end students leave 4 choices blank?????

some of them.

i did for example even tough i'm not a "top end" student.

I have never heard of this before and that includes me, and some people who got 45 points in the IB. In fact no one I spoke to at my Oxford interview had only applied to Oxford. I don't know why you even mention it.

you don't know many then, in maths is quite common, obviously if you are english it does not make sense.
but i wouldn't have left my country for a second tier university.

You consider Warwick and Imperial second tier for mathematics?

yes, at least i did when i applied.

So really what you are saying is you are a glory hunter. All you care about is the Oxford/Cambridge name?

I have never heard of this before and that includes me, and some people who got 45 points in the IB. In fact no one I spoke to at my Oxford interview had only applied to Oxford. I don't know why you even mention it.