Economics applicant thread UCAS 2014

apologies, I think its pretty much impossible to get that ums if your under AQA

You don't need further maths for anywhere?

I actually disagree. I think it's advantageous for LSE (maybe very advantageous) and (some colleges at) Cambridge. Not sure I would say very advantageous. I think people assume causation when it's a matter of correlation. If someone's realky good at maths they will have usually taken fm, but if they haven't they could probably still cope with most interview questions and come across as very competent (reference probably helps a bit here too). Think of it this way, someone who has done all maths modules by the end of year 12 (perhaps they started in year 11) but does not do FM and someone who does FM but their school structures it so that they do all maths modules first have done exactly the same amount of maths by application stage. I don't see why the latter should be preferred.

I would say for LSE and Cambridge it makes a difference because there's more complusory hardcore maths in their courses. With Cambridge the interview will enable someone without fm to show they're good. At Oxford, I don't think tutors care that much (at most colleges). Warwick gave stated they treat fm like any ither subject. Can't remember UCL's stance

Edit: to be clear I'm talking about getting an offer. In terms of actually doing the course the FP2/3 I've been doing will help a lot and I would therefore advise anyone reading this to take FM

I don't really see how this argument holds? For a heavily maths based course I.e Bsc economics at ANY university they will prefer students who are more mathematically capable and by having a good grade in further maths you are showing them that you are.

Long story short, further maths is a more relevant subject for economics than any other facilitating subject after maths and economics.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

LSE it's strongly preferred - and they said the only reason not to do it is if not offered by your school.
Some Camb colleges require it - but for others it's still strongly preferred.
I'm guessing other Unis like UCL, Bath and Bristol really like it but by no means required.

I actually disagree. I think it's advantageous for LSE (maybe very advantageous) and (some colleges at) Cambridge. Not sure I would say very advantageous. I think people assume causation when it's a matter of correlation. If someone's realky good at maths they will have usually taken fm, but if they haven't they could probably still cope with most interview questions and come across as very competent (reference probably helps a bit here too). Think of it this way, someone who has done all maths modules by the end of year 12 (perhaps they started in year 11) but does not do FM and someone who does FM but their school structures it so that they do all maths modules first have done exactly the same amount of maths by application stage. I don't see why the latter should be preferred.

I would say for LSE and Cambridge it makes a difference because there's more complusory hardcore maths in their courses. With Cambridge the interview will enable someone without fm to show they're good. At Oxford, I don't think tutors care that much (at most colleges). Warwick gave stated they treat fm like any ither subject. Can't remember UCL's stance

Edit: to be clear I'm talking about getting an offer. In terms of actually doing the course the FP2/3 I've been doing will help a lot and I would therefore advise anyone reading this to take FM

I don't really see how this argument holds? For a heavily maths based course I.e Bsc economics at ANY university they will prefer students who are more mathematically capable and by having a good grade in further maths you are showing them that you are.

Long story short, further maths is a more relevant subject for economics than any other facilitating subject after maths and economics.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Yes but you dont 'need' it. Certainly for Cambridge, if there are colleges where its not an issue (i think Hebbamundo is Downing) then its not a problem is it?
I dont understand the foundations for your 'guess' to be completely honest.
Bath says: Preference will be shown to students who are taking any of the following as second and third subjects:

Economics
Further Mathematics
Physics
Chemistry
Geography
History
Biology
Modern Language
A girl from my school with a C in Further maths got an offer from Bristol... (she didnt have stellar gcses or even PS either)
UCL you could possibly be right but i cant see any preference on their site and i know someone with ACCC, without FM who got an offer
see below

I don't really see how this argument holds? For a heavily maths based course I.e Bsc economics at ANY university they will prefer students who are more mathematically capable and by having a good grade in further maths you are showing them that you are.

Long story short, further maths is a more relevant subject for economics than any other facilitating subject after maths and economics.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

My friend purplemind got high ums under AQA

apologies, I think its pretty much impossible to get that ums if your under AQA

My guess is their courses is really mathematical they would really like it since it offers good prep. UCL said they liked it in an email and I understand Warwick treat it as any other A Level.

Hence why I said some colleges at Camb. It's best to check individually and I guess it wouldn't be a problem say if you got 97%+ in A Level Maths.

That person with ACCC didn't declare all the grades so it don't count

i think this is important to note, i would say an A in physics woud be prefered to an A in Further Maths. this started because someone was talk to a poster who does Physics and Chem (?) without further maths, i really dont think thats a big deal at all. FM is CERTAINLY not 'needed'. I would say it's advantageous (not very, which is the point i tried to make in my post) for some universities and will have no effect on your application to others

An A in Physics is much harder to get than an A in Further Maths

Yes, I'm doing it under OCR but have a friend who's doing edexcel and apparently they have multiple choice questions and everything! And the longest question is worth 8 marks or something like that?
OCR has an 18 marker on each paper but I've heard AQA has a 22 marker?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

yes thats understandable, but my point is that when Bath clearly state n their website that FM isnt preferred, how can you make that guess? theres actually evidence to the contrary

Thank you, i actually acknowledged that you said some. My point is as long as you can apply to cambridge, whats the big deal? that's what you have failed to reply to....
Exactly, maybe more than 97, i cant be sure.

Didn't have FM though, and only had one 'A' to their name

I've spoken to someone who's currently at Bath doing Econ and she said that they like seeing FM and a strong prediction in it will put you in a good steed (she was doing an open day thing at Bath). But she got in without it so yh.

Well there's nothing stopping anyone from applying regardless the grades and subjects but obviously some things are more advantageous than others.

Yes, but I'm sure a good prediction in any of the subjects on te list would put you in good stead. It's not particularly difficult to get an offer in the first place.

Ceteris paribus, yes, FM would be advantageous at some universities. Let's not over estimate the size if that advantage though. You can get into any university in this country without fm - I know people who have done it (yes, even LSE)

Of course you can, like I said if a person's school doesn't offer FM then it isn't their fault and that's totally acceptable

even if the school (my school) offers it

Edit: think about it this way, of LSE wants FM becaus it's good prep, if someone hasn't done it thy won't be prepared whether their school offers it or not. Of they occasionally let people in without it, becaus their school doesn't offer it, it's shows they are prepared to take people without it. Unless you're suggesting that they punish applicabts who were 'stupid' enough not to take FM?

Edit2: if someone had 98-100% in maths, econ, phys and Chem you think they'd be rejected from LSE?

I'd say the reason people don't take FM is that they don't enjoy Maths and are only taking Maths because they need it.

Funnily enough that is EXACTLY the same combo my friend at school is taking and he DISLIKES maths yet wants to do Econ at LSE

And don't LSE have a questionnaire thing asking why it's not taken?

They might not take it because they enjoyed other subjects, didn't know they wanted to apply for econ, school didnt let them, school ha a policy that you can only do it as a fifth and they didn't want to take 5.

I almost took history instead of FM. That doesn't change anything about how much I like maths or how good I am at it. The assumption you made is far to over simplified for me. It can be much more complicated