Why are Master's taught courses in the UK so stupidly easy to get into?

I recognise that it's still the minority, especially for graduate schemes. However who knows what the future holds, maybe the standard for graduate schemes will rise from a 2:1.

If you genuinely love what you study and feel that it will benefit your career choices then I don't see why you should be put off taking an MSc in lieu of going straight into the job market.

The 'Golden Triangle' is supposedly Oxford, Cambridge, ICL, LSE, UCL and KCL.

There are a number of masters which you can only get into with a 1st at at least the first 4.

If you had said Russell Group, it would have been more sensible.

Pretty much anyone with a 2:1 can get into a golden triangle uni, even Billy from Midlands Polytechnic.

Hell I know someone who got a 3.0 GPA in the US, failed his IB diploma and still got into UCL for a taught master's in economics.

And the more important question - do employers know this?

Only Oxbridge require 1st for courses.

Only Oxbridge require 1st for courses. KCL for pure maths msc are happy to accept 2:2 and even 3rd with a graduate diploma.
UCl also widely accept 2:1

Try to get into ICL Petroleum Geology with just a 2.1, or Fundamental Forces and Fields with anything less than a 1st, regardless of work experience. Or LSE Econometrics and Mathematical Economics.

"I know one person" ≠ the entire golden triangle application process.

Especially for economics, I've just graduated with a high 2:1 in the discipline and knew that I wouldn't stand a chance in applying for LSE, Cambridge, UCL. My friend who is almost certain to graduate with the best mark on the course applied for various London uni's and his best offer was from KCL.



What about job's that specifically state that a Master's degree is a prerequisite, or at the very least very desirable? With the ever increasing amount of undergraduate's with at least a 2:1, don't you think that an MSc helps to differentiate from the rest?

You state that Master's are cash cows, most non-finance/non London MSc's cost less than £9000, which is the going rate for one year of undergraduate study.

Have you tried though? Alot of people seem to assume that they won't get in, without ever trying.

Good shout from everyone regarding that it's only some degree courses, but the topic was about how easy it is to get in the university itself. I would've thought that elite unis would not want Billy from midlands polytechnic to be associated with them at all (or give him a very dodgy degree, like some form of diploma) but there seems to be a wealth of 'alternatively named' courses in these elites where you can get in with vastly lower credentials but still sound sort of like what employers want to read on the CV, like 'Computing', 'Managerial Science for X', etc.

"I know one person" ≠ the entire golden triangle application process.

Especially for economics, I've just graduated with a high 2:1 in the discipline and knew that I wouldn't stand a chance in applying for LSE, Cambridge, UCL. My friend who is almost certain to graduate with the best mark on the course applied for various London uni's and his best offer was from KCL.

Universities also don't just give out offers to everybody to get money. I applied to a programme at King's College London and they cancelled the programme after several months because of low application rate. Now, I don't think KCL would have problem getting 20 applications, would they?

Oxbridge get 1s and 2:1s, whilst the 'lower' one in the Golden Triangle, ie KCL, would get 2:2s. But it doesn't mean anyone with that can get into it.

The thing about changing career path is that, it's difficult to enter a master's programme in those universities without a relevant degree. I mean, I did a BEd and I attempted to apply to Institute of Education, University of London for a particular master's programme which is in curriculum (ie not too relevant to my degree academically). The stated requirement was a 2:2 and they rejected me. The same institution, however, offered me to do another master's in a field relevant to my undergraduate degree.

I also tried to apply to University of Cambridge for a children's literature programme which obviously is not too relevant to my degree, but sort of a similar direction. They rejected me. Whilst at the same University of Oxford gave me an offer to do a master's in a degree highly relevant to my undergraduate degree.

Universities also don't just give out offers to everybody to get money. I applied to a programme at King's College London and they cancelled the programme after several months because of low application rate. Now, I don't think KCL would have problem getting 20 applications, would they?

And I don't come from some ex-poly either - my university has been the No 1 university in Asia-Pacific, and was No 8 globally in the field of education. We also have higher admission grades in general than Oxbridge for undergraduate studies.

They just want your money. Don't be impressed by job-dodgers who talk of their up-and-coming Masters Degree. Most Unis will only care how you do in it if you apply for a PhD.

Got the cash? Come on down! Just don't forget the cash...

That's odd, my partner did Maths and was accepted onto economics courses at LSE, UCL and Nottingham. I didn't even think they did an Economics masters at Kings. He didn't go in the end because money - the two year course for Mathematicians at LSE costs 40 grand in fees!

I suppose it depends how maths heavy your course was, some are very light on the maths side of things.

I think it's either a fairly new course, or not straight economics, but regardless he has graduated with a Bachelors in economics with a ridiculously high classification mark and couldn't get in to the LSE's and Oxbridge's. Funny you should mention Nottingham as that's where I've chosen to go in September!

Your transcript and how quantitative your undergraduate modules play a big role I'd imagine, but also things like references from recognised, published authors/professors, societies and internships will help separate applicants with similarly high marks.

He didn't really have anything going for him except a very good maths degree to be honest. We were surprised he got an offer from UCL as it said on the website they rarely take people who haven't done an economics bachelor's.

He decided to work in the end because it was just too expensive with the two years he'd have to do in Nottingham and the living costs at UCL!

Hope Nottingham goes well for you!

Are you sure you were rejected just because your undergraduate was less relevant to the subjects you applied for? Didn't they just consider your statements of purpose or references less appealing? By all means, I know nothing about your applications, but unless you received specific feedback that would say why you were rejected, you never know.

They mostly do, if minimum academic requirements have been met, even more so in the less competitive areas. Your example of KCL only serves to prove that - there wasn't enough money so they cancelled it.