The Student Room Group
Learning at Imperial College London
Imperial College London
London
Reply 1
Not sure why people care so much about these statistics and rankings and what have you. They mean absolutely nothing.
Learning at Imperial College London
Imperial College London
London
Reply 2
I hope you're not at Imperial. Saying that statistics mean nothing is possibly the most ignorant thing I've ever heard.
When I applied to Civil Engineering, the 2010 Prospectus said they have an applicant ratio of 11:1

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 4
Original post by mnajjar10
I hope you're not at Imperial. Saying that statistics mean nothing is possibly the most ignorant thing I've ever heard.


I am at imperial. I repeat again. These statistics mean **** all. People (mostly directed at postgrads here) should attend university to LEARN. Because they have a PASSION for learning/ researching and even teaching. Not because they want to get certain titles or status among their family peers.

If I had the power to change the way science has evolved into a publication-fest frenzy, then I would. Just because it exists, doesn't make it right nor does it mean you have to go the same way,
(edited 9 years ago)
Were there even people that were arguing about things like this?
Although, I'm surprised that 8.5 was the highest last year. Rejection rates this year were much higher.
8.5 is really low... Besides applicant/place ratio doesn't tell the whole story. You could have a uni that everyone picks as a backup and that no one wants to go to and you can have a very high ratio while you could have a uni everyone has as 1st choice and that everyone who gets accepted goes to and you'll have a low ratio.
Number of applicants per place tells you bugger all about how competitive the course is. What matters it the quality of the competition, not how many people are applying for each place. The average UCAS tariff of people entering the course is probably a better indicator, in which case Chemical Engineering wins.
Original post by Chlorophile
Number of applicants per place tells you bugger all about how competitive the course is. What matters it the quality of the competition, not how many people are applying for each place. The average UCAS tariff of people entering the course is probably a better indicator, in which case Chemical Engineering wins.

Totally agree with your reasoning.
Original post by Chlorophile
Number of applicants per place tells you bugger all about how competitive the course is. What matters it the quality of the competition, not how many people are applying for each place. The average UCAS tariff of people entering the course is probably a better indicator, in which case Chemical Engineering wins.


I agree with this. At my college, candidates applying to Mech Eng or Electrical Eng, mostly have entry requirements (A*AA, A*A*A). The students applying for Chem Eng, Physics and Maths have 3/4 A* with very strong UMS. This may be only at my college but it shows offers to applicants ratio means nothing. Its the quality of applicants that matters.
Original post by ItsWhiteHat
I agree with this. At my college, candidates applying to Mech Eng or Electrical Eng, mostly have entry requirements (A*AA, A*A*A). The students applying for Chem Eng, Physics and Maths have 3/4 A* with very strong UMS. This may be only at my college but it shows offers to applicants ratio means nothing. Its the quality of applicants that matters.

Exactly, plus when I went to the Imperial Chemical Engineering Open Day talk they basically said they will dismiss your application if you do not meet the typical entry requirements which are pretty high requiring one mainly two A*s and most solid applicants will exceed these hence they will be more fierce neck to neck. I've also observed from my personal experience that the typical academic portfolio for someone applying for Chemical Engineering is stronger to other engineerings.
The average UCAS score of Physics undergrads is 588? I doubt I'd get more than 540 :frown:
Original post by Wissenschaft
The average UCAS score of Physics undergrads is 588? I doubt I'd get more than 540 :frown:


Don't worry, good universities like Imperial don't care about UCAS points. They won't care about the Grade 8 music qualification. As long as you have proven yourself academically and have the A*s, you should be competitive.
It's between Mech Eng and Medicine under offer rates - they're both identical


Mech Eng has higher reqs, while medicine has BMAT - apples and oranges
Original post by Kyber Ninja
It's between Mech Eng and Medicine under offer rates - they're both identical


Mech Eng has higher reqs, while medicine has BMAT - apples and oranges


The economists must be baffled, I'm guessing the elasticty of demand for economics at LSE is pretty elastic haha.
Original post by Anagogic
The economists must be baffled, I'm guessing the elasticty of demand for economics at LSE is pretty elastic haha.


Economics? At Imperial? Maybe at postgraduate.


I would've thought at LSE it would be Law, no?
Reply 16
Original post by Kyber Ninja
It's between Mech Eng and Medicine under offer rates - they're both identical


Mech Eng has higher reqs, while medicine has BMAT - apples and oranges


Even 4 years later?
:wink:
Original post by Doonesbury
Even 4 years later?
:wink:


TSR should add a pop up when you're about to post on an inactive thread - would go a long way :biggrin:
Original post by Kyber Ninja
Economics? At Imperial? Maybe at postgraduate.


I would've thought at LSE it would be Law, no?


I just find it ironic that it's "London School of Economics and yet Economics isn't the most popular course.

It's like having the University of life but it mainly deals with funerals.
Reply 19
Original post by Kyber Ninja
TSR should add a pop up when you're about to post on an inactive thread - would go a long way :biggrin:


Yup :biggrin:

Now closed...

Latest