Is fair that top unis accept internation students over uk students?

OP

Original post by de_monies

Exactly. At my chosen university there is a ratio of about 89:11 or something like that. Does that mean that the university prefers male students?

No, but i dont know there admission tutors soo... or why people apply there, maybe girls r put off

Reply 122

SayonaraSamm

Original post by Lewroll

Whats up with the font size?

Font size and nerd rage have a proven correlation.

Reply 123

The Patriot

14

Top universities want the best students, be they from the UK or elsewhere.

Reply 124

Original post by ssalomov

Interesting point.
I am an international student rejected by LSE.
My grades were A*A*A*A (Math, FM, Eco, History)
Do you think it is fair ?
I think it is fair.
I am not moaning everywhere that the system is wrong or whatsoever.
Don't forget that international students at this point, pay about 4 times more than home students.
And even next year, the tuition fee for an international student will be more than 20k at Oxbridge and Imperial, and about 15k at LSE, UCL, Warwick.

And don't forget that the most leading universities in the world as HYP( Harvard, Yale, Princeton ) do encourage international student to apply to those. More students, better quality.

I got 4* 2 A's, and rejected by 3 unis. Trust me, everyone applying to top 10 unis have grades like you. There are just to many applicants and we all have good grades, international or home. :s-smilie:

Reply 125

OP

Original post by Princess of Hearts

This thread is silly. Go on the Cambridge website, and it will tell you that because of funding and limitations, the competition for international students is even more fierce. Why do you think Oxbridge are constantly being accused of racism? (of course Oxford only accepted 5 black students last year...). Ok barring Oxbridge who really do not need the extra dosh (donations) other elite universities are more willing than ox and cam to accept internationals but again, there are always less places for them, eg the economics with something course at UCL has 70 places: 8 of those for internationals. in conclusion, it is not, and never will be easier for internationals to get into top universities. It is like me saying I got rejected because I am a girl and less boys apply to uni, and so its easier for boys to get.

Well 70 is a lot of places when theres about 300 places avaliable, whic is too much when not that many UK students are not getting offers. And we arent talkin about applications based on sexes but on how there are too few places for uk students at top uni's, while theres a lot on offer for international students. And its not silly, its a very good question from next year theres gonna be a restriction on students, which links in with current affairs.

Reply 126

OP

Original post by Princess of Hearts

I got 4* 2 A's, and rejected by 3 unis. Trust me, everyone applying to top 10 unis have grades like you. There are just to many applicants and we all have good grades, international or home. :s-smilie:

This is from recents stats on unistats, which states at lse the international population is 60% plus. I do believe that is very unfair i realise not all unis do this but unis like lse should hav no right to do that.

Reply 127

OP

Original post by ssalomov

Interesting point.
I am an international student rejected by LSE.
My grades were A*A*A*A (Math, FM, Eco, History)
Do you think it is fair ?
I think it is fair.
I am not moaning everywhere that the system is wrong or whatsoever.
Don't forget that international students at this point, pay about 4 times more than home students.
And even next year, the tuition fee for an international student will be more than 20k at Oxbridge and Imperial, and about 15k at LSE, UCL, Warwick.

And don't forget that the most leading universities in the world as HYP( Harvard, Yale, Princeton ) do encourage international student to apply to those. More students, better quality.

I'm not moaning, i'm stating the unjust atwhat some uni's especially lse who prefer to take internation students over home grown students. And i dont believe that how much a student pays should be taken into account which lse does and therefore has a 60%+ international student population. And i dont think u realise how dire the university system is in the UK, where last year more than 100, 000 students in the uk were left without a place. These unis are uk unis, they get millions of pounds worth of grants and then go on to take loads of international students, i dont think thats fair at all.

And we are talking about uk uni, not american ones where there campuses are huge, with a lot more space in comparison to UK ones
and with fees which are the sme for everyone and not to mention very high.

Reply 128

maghreblover

1

Original post by Princess of Hearts

I got 4* 2 A's, and rejected by 3 unis. Trust me, everyone applying to top 10 unis have grades like you. There are just to many applicants and we all have good grades, international or home. :s-smilie:

the person you quoted was not complaining about being rejected. They stated that they thought it was fair. They were trying to show the OP that the OP is moaning unnecessarily.

Reply 129

Original post by Iqbal007

Well 70 is a lot of places when theres about 300 places avaliable, whic is too much when not that many UK students are not getting offers. And we arent talkin about applications based on sexes but on how there are too few places for uk students at top uni's, while theres a lot on offer for international students. And its not silly, its a very good question from next year theres gonna be a restriction on students, which links in with current affairs.

Im sorry but you are missing the point. Firstly, The UCL course that I was alluding to (economics and something cant quite remember; joint honours) only has 70 places in total- 8 for internationals, and 62 for Home applicants. Hence, no internationals are not, as this thread posits, stealing all our places. And as I clearly outlined in my previous post, there is not "a lot on offer" for international students at top unis.
Secondly, I was merely using the gender bias argument as an example of a rejectee's paltry and pathetic attempt at blame-shifting, other than this "all the the foreigners stole my place!" one.
Thirdly, your link with current affairs about how from next year there will be restrictions-you obviously dont realise that even nowadays all universities are subject to very strict limitations and fines regarding numbers of Home and international students, especially the latter.
It will always be easier for a British student to get into UK universities (I admit, perhaps certain mathematical courses may be exceptions {I know its a stereotype}).
If you need prove, take a look at the number of International students vs Home at Oxbridge.
And finally, universities set out quotas which they have to meet regarding the fee statuses of their students. If we use the UCL course mentioned above as an exemplar, internationals compete for those 8 places, Home students compete for the rest. The places are not free for all- they are reserved for Home, and international respectively to keep in line with government outlines. So no, "the foreigners" are not nicking our places. The best they can do is raise the bar in terms of the calibre of the successful applicants, which, frankly, is a good thing.
Oh and one last point, if someone can be bothered to research the numbers of British students studying at Ivy league unis, I think that might just about drive my point home.
This thread is verging on racism. What would you like to do next, expel all the internationals out of uni/ the country/the universe so you can get your offer? That doesnt ring a bell (think Nazi).

Reply 130

Aminaubah

11

Original post by Iqbal007

Do you think its fair that in many top universities, such as LSE, Imperial, etc prefer to accept international students over Domestic students at a time where Domestic students are unable to compete at graduate level jobs when there international equivalent?

Do think its right for universities to say having international students is more beneficial to the Uk economy, when these internail students leave once they have passed, while Domestic students are struggling to get into degree courses which causes in the long-term falling qualified domestic workers?

How many of you agree that Domestic students should have preference over international students when these universities are UK based and are being funded by UK taxpayers for there children and not for international students?

I realise that international students do give substantial fees and provided about £5 billion to the Uk economy, however i feel it is in the short-term and that long-term prosperity requires UK students to recieve Top education into creating a more stable and more than qualified supply of workers?

What I feel makes this case even worse is the fact that there is a current shortage of university places for local students, shouldn't the government look to maxsimise local students into university rather than being political and allowing foreign students into Uk universities as not many Uk students opt to go abroad due to the high cost in some countries with top universities such the USA.
(Im not being racist or anything, just wanna what people think and my opinion is that UK students should come first as these are UK universities with funding from UK taxpayers money)

If they have the better qualifications, then yes. If foreign students didn't, then more academic UK students would have taken the places anyway.

Reply 131

maghreblover

1

Original post by Iqbal007

I'm not moaning, i'm stating the unjust atwhat some uni's especially lse who prefer to take internation students over home grown students. And i dont believe that how much a student pays should be taken into account which lse does and therefore has a 60%+ international student population. And i dont think u realise how dire the university system is in the UK, where last year more than 100, 000 students in the uk were left without a place. These unis are uk unis, they get millions of pounds worth of grants and then go on to take loads of international students, i dont think thats fair at all.

And we are talking about uk uni, not american ones where there campuses are huge, with a lot more space in comparison to UK ones
and with fees which are the sme for everyone and not to mention very high.

Unis like LSE and other UK universities have a quota on the number of home students they can take in. This is because the government subsidises their fees, lowering it by (as at 2010/11 academic year) as much as 75-80%. The government has a limit on the amount of money that it can give to these unis per students, because, quite obviously, there are other parts of society which the government needs to fund. As such, it places a quota to make sure it can actually pay for the students.

International students are on a separate quota, determined largely by the uni itself but following guidelines. This, as well as the quality of applications that the unis receive from international students, is partly why the percentage of international students vary across unis.

At the end of the day, for unis like LSE, it is not necessarily who they 'prefer' to take on that reflects their student statistics. LSE might want, and provided they receive all the fees, be able to accommodate 1000 students a year. And they wouldn't mind 800 of them to be qualified home students. However, the UK government places a quote on home students, ensuring that the maximum number of home students LSE can admit is 300, because that is all the government can afford to subsidise.

LSE will then accept the home students it deems to be the most deserving of a place, and this may or may not reach the maximum of 300, but most likely will. LSE still has 700 places left over for that year, and thousands of applications from deserving international students. With the facilities that LSE has and needs to maintain, it would be illogical for them to decide that they need to have more home students and therefore admit only 150 international students. The uni would hardly function because not enough funds would be coming in.

As such, LSE admits 700 international students. The international student thus does not prevent the home student from being admitted, rather the UK government restricts the number of home students that can be taken in for justified reasons.

So, unlike you've stated, unis do not 'prefer' international students. And at the same time, international students do not prevent home students from getting a place.

You've also mentioned that UK unis receive taxpayer moneys which is then used up by international students. The truth is, the taxpayer money given to UK unis are the subsidies from the UK government for the home student. So in our fictitious LSE admission class above, the UK government will pay, to the uni, the rest of the fees which the home students have not paid (essentially the point of a subsidy). This is to pay for the education of the home students ALONE. The international student, on the other hand, pays their entire fees, which in LSE, for example, is £13,000+. They thus pay the full price of their own education.

All of the money received from both home students (whether direct fees or subsidy) as well as international students is used to manage the uni, including new buildings. So if you argued that international students shouldn't use facilities paid for by the UK taxpayer, at the same time, the UK taxpayer shouldn't use the facilities also paid for by the international student. The buildings should thus be used by no one, which is obviously quite silly.

EDIT: Just thought I should add, I am an international student at the LSE.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 132

Original post by maghreblover

Unis like LSE and other UK universities have a quota on the number of home students they can take in. This is because the government subsidises their fees, lowering it by (as at 2010/11 academic year) as much as 75-80%. The government has a limit on the amount of money that it can give to these unis per students, because, quite obviously, there are other parts of society which the government needs to fund. As such, it places a quota to make sure it can actually pay for the students.

International students are on a separate quota, determined largely by the uni itself but following guidelines. This, as well as the quality of applications that the unis receive from international students, is partly why the percentage of international students vary across unis.

At the end of the day, for unis like LSE, it is not necessarily who they 'prefer' to take on that reflects their student statistics. LSE might want, and provided they receive all the fees, be able to accommodate 1000 students a year. And they wouldn't mind 800 of them to be qualified home students. However, the UK government places a quote on home students, ensuring that the maximum number of home students LSE can admit is 300, because that is all the government can afford to subsidise.

LSE will then accept the home students it deems to be the most deserving of a place, and this may or may not reach the maximum of 300, but most likely will. LSE still has 700 places left over for that year, and thousands of applications from deserving international students. With the facilities that LSE has and needs to maintain, it would be illogical for them to decide that they need to have more home students and therefore admit only 150 international students. The uni would hardly function because not enough funds would be coming in.

As such, LSE admits 700 international students. The international student thus does not prevent the home student from being admitted, rather the UK government restricts the number of home students that can be taken in for justified reasons.

So, unlike you've stated, unis do not 'prefer' international students. And at the same time, international students do not prevent home students from getting a place.

You've also mentioned that UK unis receive taxpayer moneys which is then used up by international students. The truth is, the taxpayer money given to UK unis are the subsidies from the UK government for the home student. So in our fictitious LSE admission class above, the UK government will pay, to the uni, the rest of the fees which the home students have not paid (essentially the point of a subsidy). This is to pay for the education of the home students ALONE. The international student, on the other hand, pays their entire fees, which in LSE, for example, is £13,000+. They thus pay the full price of their own education.

All of the money received from both home students (whether direct fees or subsidy) as well as international students is used to manage the uni, including new buildings. So if you argued that international students shouldn't use facilities paid for by the UK taxpayer, at the same time, the UK taxpayer shouldn't use the facilities also paid for by the international student. The buildings should thus be used by no one, which is obviously quite silly.

EDIT: Just thought I should add, I am an international student at the LSE.

Thank you! I repd you (read my post to see why) :smile:

Reply 133

The_Internet

20

Also, consider the fact that the more international students, the more money is available to the university; hence more money can be spent on departments or in the forms of bursaries etc...

Reply 134

Original post by de_monies

Also, consider the fact that the more international students, the more money is available to the university; hence more money can be spent on departments or in the forms of bursaries etc...

Again, exactly. :smile:

Reply 135

Mann18

15

Original post by wishwash

calm down, there's no need for name calling.

and of course IB is harder than A levels, i agree.
but i meant that two people from my college applied for the same course at the same uni. the international student got an AAB offer whereas the local student got a BBB offer. just saying. and i admit i didnt phrase my sentence right earlier on, i shouldve said often, and not always.

First off the bat, I didn't say IB was harder than A-Levels, and I won't ever say that either. It appeals to different people, that's about all one can really say.

Secondly, I apologise for insinuating you were a douche, that was uncalled for. Thirdly, obviously sometimes local students are given lower offers (read: Edinburgh.) In conclusion, unless we see some statistics, the best we can really do is go off our own experience, and in my own experience, I've seen people get offers for courses like Law at Bristol and KCL with AAB required, and the majority of people with those lower offers have been international students, to I assume, encourage them to accept the offer and boost the coffers of the university.

Not saying that local students don't get lower offers too mind you, I'd say often, that happens too, I'm simply attempting to dismiss the notion that EVERY International student has conquered the impossible to get to university, which is what someone else was purporting.

EDIT: I should add, I'm not against International students at all, and I obviously realise that it may be harder for them to gain entry onto some courses than Home students, I'm just being pedantic really.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 136

username608503

13

I am an international student (American), and I have been accepted at four british universities so far: University of St. Andrews, SOAS, University of Edinburgh, and University College London.

Does this make you mad?

Reply 137

ssalomov

1

Original post by maghreblover

the person you quoted was not complaining about being rejected. They stated that they thought it was fair. They were trying to show the OP that the OP is moaning unnecessarily.

This!

Reply 138