Hey, I didn't manage to get an offer last year, I'm now in a first year in other London university, however, I'm trying to get into LSE this year wrote 3 courses: BSc IR and History, BSc Government and History and BSc Government
Wow! Congratz!!!!! I am applying to Management as well. Can I ask what subjects you are doing, the AS grades u got and when you sent your application? How was the process?How did the 2 week, 8 week emails come ?
Wow! Congratz!!!!! I am applying to Management as well. Can I ask what subjects you are doing, the AS grades u got and when you sent your application? How was the process?How did the 2 weeks, 8 weeks emails come ?
I got 4A's at AS, application sent before 15th October, process was fine, there is no rush. Got my offer in my second or third week into 8 week email.
The above statistics would change significantly if one includes the courses with very low intake, for example, Econometrics and Mathematical Economics had 176 applicants for 1 place. Different minimum requirements for different courses too.
Simply put, LSE is just very very competitive to get in.
Thanks for that! But I'm sure more people get an offer, as not everyone actually firms LSE. Most people probably do, but I found a website online that says about 14% of applicants receive an offer for management.. So yes it is competitive, but compared to US universities I guess we can say we're lucky the competition isn't too crazy..
0.14% works out to 1 in 7.14 which for Management will mean 2 offers for each place. That ratio would sound reasonable. Those with offers from Oxford E&M and a few who prefer other universities or other courses, PPE, PE, E&M etc and there are still those who may decide at the end not to study in UK. Then there is also a small percentage who may miss their offers.
How competitive is the US? I thought Harvard was also about 14:1?
34.000 applicants and 2.000 were accepted.. But really, it's the same as LSE's management course for example.. they have about what, 2.000 applicants and take in around 130? Not much of a difference, just different dimensions I guess..
Why is LSE so much more competitive than Oxbridge, which usually have around 6 applicants per place? And how competitive are UCL and KCL in comparison to LSE?
Why is LSE so much more competitive than Oxbridge, which usually have around 6 applicants per place? And how competitive are UCL and KCL in comparison to LSE?
Not really fair or accurate to compare with Oxbridge directly because one can only apply EITHER to Cambridge or to Oxford. Applicants would have applied to both if they were allowed. So, to be fair and accurate, one needs to add numbers from both universities to get a comparable number, for courses that are available in both universities. Oxford E&M has no equivalent in Cambridge and the ratio for that, just from the top of my head, is around 11:1. Essentially, LSE is as competitive as Oxford and Cambridge, in terms of numbers of applicants.
Thanks for your reply. Why is the requirement only AAA? Surely if they get so many applications shouldn't they raise the requirements? Would someone with A*AA or A*A*A etc. have a much better chance of getting an offer?
Thanks for your reply. Why is the requirement only AAA? Surely if they get so many applications shouldn't they raise the requirements? Would someone with A*AA or A*A*A etc. have a much better chance of getting an offer?
I am not from the university or involved in any Admissions so I do not know the reason. But, my interpretation would be that the minimum requirements is set so that they can admit the right applicants, not just the top applicants. Some applicants may have all A* but their PS may reveal that they are not right for the course or the course is not right for them. Some applicants may be perfect for the course and the course perfect for them but their academics may just be AAA. Now, is anyone able to say that someone with AAA is not smart enough to complete most degrees? It is only in highly technical degrees where quantitative subjects like Maths, FM, Physics, Chemistry which also have a higher % of A*, that is not inappropriate to ask for A*AA or even A*A*A and you can see Imperial doing that. For courses that require qualitative abilities, and so the requirements will ask for some writing subjects like History, English, etc where it is also a fact that the % of A* is maybe about half that of quantitative subjects, then it is only right not to demand A* especially if the university desires to admit the right candidates.
And, to answer your question .... of course, if you are predicted A*AA or A*A*A and you satisfy the subject combination and a strong PS, then the answer is YES.
I am not from the university or involved in any Admissions so I do not know the reason. But, my interpretation would be that the minimum requirements is set so that they can admit the right applicants, not just the top applicants. Some applicants may have all A* but their PS may reveal that they are not right for the course or the course is not right for them. Some applicants may be perfect for the course and the course perfect for them but their academics may just be AAA. Now, is anyone able to say that someone with AAA is not smart enough to complete most degrees? It is only in highly technical degrees where quantitative subjects like Maths, FM, Physics, Chemistry which also have a higher % of A*, that is not inappropriate to ask for A*AA or even A*A*A and you can see Imperial doing that. For courses that require qualitative abilities, and so the requirements will ask for some writing subjects like History, English, etc where it is also a fact that the % of A* is maybe about half that of quantitative subjects, then it is only right not to demand A* especially if the university desires to admit the right candidates.
And, to answer your question .... of course, if you are predicted A*AA or A*A*A and you satisfy the subject combination and a strong PS, then the answer is YES.