Choose my offer order and predict my scores!

Hi all!

Just wanted to leave a thread open for discussion. How should I rank my University chocies, I have:

UCL
Sheffield
Leeds
Birmingham
Hull

I know that majority will say that UCL will be the top choice, and Hull shall be my insurance. My main issue is those bastard middle 3! I've visited all and I love each one of them, great accomodation, great law department, great city! The difference between them is negligible (and obviously dependent on offers!)

How would you rank them?

(Also, I have doubts about UCL. Say I get an offer from them of AAA, and I get AAB, they are less likely to let me in than the 'middle 3' if I receive AAB for example, I know it's not guaranteed, but there's probably more leniancy in the others... I would obviously rather go to the other 4 than Hull, but if I get an offer do I pick UCL or one of the other...)

What do you think on firm choice?

ABBB @ AS (English, Business, Media, Drama)
(Predicted) AAAA @ A2 (English, Business, Media, Politics -> Self Teaching Politics this year, extremely doable though as I am not an official A2er, I'm just re-sitting my Eng,Med,Bus A2 exams as I had severe migitating circumstances last year. I'm in essence on a gap year so Politics is being self-taught... and really 'revising' for the other exams...
Decent P.S (Member reviewed it on here and said my "opening was one of the best he'd ever seen and the rest was very strong")
Decent Reference (Obviously subjective but it had all the right elements...)
LNAT (Who knows, it's in January ha! 25/42 and 27/42 on practice exams)

Views on what offers I'll get...?

Thank you all, its so appreciated!

Also, just to add, if you get AAB, I can't see you getting into UCL for any course, really. I know people with 6A*s at A level who were turned down. AAA is pretty much the bare minimum, even if one or two of their courses ask for AAB. They're like Imperial in that sense; they have a couple of AAB subjects, but they only accept people with much higher scores, really.

Is Hull really better than Leeds and Sheffield

INTJ, you got owned in that thread the other day.

Stop comparing Imperial and LSE to ucl.

No, I didn't. Not in the slightest. On what point specifically was I "owned"? Don't say "teh whole thing, lolz". The very fact that there were people proving my point in the same thread (as well as polls on the site itself) suggests that he was owned, if anything.

As for me comparing them, I am not the only one who compares them...everyone I know does, employers do, the general public does.

Ill keep this nice and factual for you.

Maths UCL A*AA, Imperial A*A*A
Physics UCL ABB, Imperial A*AA
Chemistry UCL BBB, Imperial AAA
Biology UCL AAB, Imperial AAB
Computing UCL AAB, Imperial A*AA
Chem, Aero, Civil, Mech, EEE Eng UCL AAA-ABB, Imperial A*AA

I have given you facts. There are more courses but the trend is the same. In fact I only found biology and medicine to have equal requirements.

On your own criteria you cannot compete. You are now owned by me on this thread.

Ill keep this nice and factual for you.

Maths UCL A*AA, Imperial A*A*A
Physics UCL ABB, Imperial A*AA
Chemistry UCL BBB, Imperial AAA
Biology UCL AAB, Imperial AAB
Computing UCL AAB, Imperial A*AA
Chem, Aero, Civil, Mech, EEE Eng UCL AAA-ABB, Imperial A*AA

I have given you facts. There are more courses but the trend is the same. In fact I only found biology and medicine to have equal requirements.

On your own criteria you cannot compete. You are now owned by me on this thread.

Is Hull really better than Leeds and Sheffield

UCL>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then the other three, depending on what course you want to do. Why is Hull above Leeds and Sheffield? What is it you want to study?

I would pick UCL and nothing else. Don't insure Hull, I'm sure you can make the grades for the other 3.

So you think it's a fair comparison comparing Imperial's toughest subjects with those that UCL is not that renowned for? Again, you are making the same mistake the other guy did. UCL's most competitive courses cannot be compared to Imperial because IT DOESN'T OFFER THEM. It's an unfair comparison seeing as the subjects that UCL is the best in the world for are not being thrown into the equation.

Furthermore, if you're going to quote the entry requirements for a few subjects (a really pathetic way to justify your view) how about we look at the offers people are given? Because I know, know of and have seen countless students being given lower offers at Imperial than UCL.

Your argument really is so weak it's laughable. Quoting a few subject requirements is like me quoting some rankings and coming to a conclusion based solely on that. Okay, then: UCL is ranked higher in several world rankings, therefore it is better. That makes sense? No, it doesn't.

For Math/Science I'd rather come from Imperial than UCL. For law, economics and government I'd rather come from LSE than UCL. Therefore LSE/Imperial is better than UCL.

For Math/Science I'd rather come from Imperial than UCL. For law, economics and government I'd rather come from LSE than UCL. Therefore LSE/Imperial is better than UCL.

For Math/Science I'd rather come from Imperial than UCL. For law, economics and government I'd rather come from LSE than UCL. Therefore LSE/Imperial is better than UCL.

So those are the only subjects that exist? Imperial and LSE's specialities? Yes, that makes sense. What about all the humanities, other social sciences, other subjects in general? UCL is considered better than, or as good as, Cambridge for English now; it is second only to Oxford. Similarly, while Imperial is great for many subjects, most people would not argue that it is better than Cambridge for them! So, you see, for the subjects that the LSE, UCL and Imperial excel in, they are all regarded as just below Oxbridge (particularly Cambridge). You can't say "well, some of the sciences at Imperial are better and economics is better at LSE, therefore they are the best overall". I could then say, for English, Neuroscience, history, ancient history, psychology, archaeology, history of art, philosophy etc etc, UCL is obviously much better (either as good as, just below, or even better than Oxbridge for several of those subjects).

Also, saying LSE is better for Law than UCL is HIGHLY debatable. If you know anything about the subject, you will know that UCL is regarded as one of the absolute best of the best for it.

Considering UCL is ranked higher than LSE for Law by both The Times Online and The Guardian, why would you rather come from LSE? Student satisfaction and graduate prospect levels are both higher at UCL than at LSE, so coming from UCL with a Law degree would be best...

So those are the only subjects that exist? Imperial and LSE's specialities? Yes, that makes sense. What about all the humanities, other social sciences, other subjects in general? UCL is considered better than, or as good as, Cambridge for English now; it is second only to Oxford. Similarly, while Imperial is great for many subjects, most people would not argue that it is better than Cambridge for them! So, you see, for the subjects that the LSE, UCL and Imperial excel in, they are all regarded as just below Oxbridge (particularly Cambridge). You can't say "well, some of the sciences at Imperial are better and economics is better at LSE, therefore they are the best overall". I could then say, for English, Neuroscience, history, ancient history, psychology, archaeology, history of art, philosophy etc etc, UCL is obviously much better (either as good as, just below, or even better than Oxbridge for several of those subjects).

Also, saying LSE is better for Law than UCL is HIGHLY debatable. If you know anything about the subject, you will know that UCL is regarded as one of the absolute best of the best for it.

Clearly you didn't catch the sarcasm in my post. Wasn't being serious.

But since you ask...LSE is far more reputable internationally for law. I don't think UCL has caught up yet with its ranking in law.

You yourself have perfectly illustrated that LSE, UCL and Imperial are very difficult to compare because of the huge discrepancies in the subjects they offer. The fact is that each of those unis has courses they excel in, which are equal/comparable or possibly even superior to the corresponding Oxbridge course in standard. To compare individuals courses at LSE/UCL or at UCL/Imperial is at least approachable, but still highly approximate. Comparing the universities as a whole just doesn't make sense because UCL is a multi-faculty university while LSE/Imperial are highly specialised. Can we leave it at that?

Not sure why you wasted your time with this diatribe. Look at what I bolded to the post I responded to. Sarcasm my friend.