LSE entry 2015

Original post by gohohome

Yeah, surely that would be Economics, no? :wink:

Original post by Daltohn

Lol at "the most competitive course"

Posted from TSR Mobile

BSc Economics
Applications 2013: 2,747
First year students 2013: 211

BSc International Relations
Applications 2013: 1022
First year students 2013: 63

Reply 2782

jchap9776

7

Original post by benq

BSc Economics
Applications 2013: 2,747
First year students 2013: 211

BSc International Relations
Applications 2013: 1022
First year students 2013: 63

well I see what you're saying but nahhhhhhh, econ all the way #420 #econlyfe #360RoadPricingNoScope

Reply 2783

Original post by jchap9776

well I see what you're saying but nahhhhhhh, econ all the way #420 #econlyfe #360RoadPricingNoScope

ok lol

Reply 2784

jchap9776

7

Original post by benq

ok lol

lol, the stats don't lie in fairness

Reply 2785

MrBowcat

10

Original post by jchap9776

well I see what you're saying but nahhhhhhh, econ all the way #420 #econlyfe #360RoadPricingNoScope

#LSEeconOrDyeTryin' #keepit3hunna #TheGoldmanSachs #MC=MR

Reply 2786

Haha yes Econ is obviously more competitive, the applicant pool is by far the strongest so percentages are irrelevant

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 2787

Mr Inquisitive

16

Original post by MrBowcat

#LSEeconOrDyeTryin' #keepit3hunna #TheGoldmanSachs #MC=MR

#MC=MR lmfao, dead

Reply 2788

Social Anthropology at LSE is more competitive than Cambridge Medicine by your logic lol, everyone knows Econ is the elite

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 2789

Original post by Daltohn

Social Anthropology at LSE is more competitive than Cambridge Medicine by your logic lol, everyone knows Econ is the elite

Posted from TSR Mobile

That's not my logic. LSE Social Anthropology and Cambridge Medicine have absolutely different admission processes so you can't compare them like that without adjusting for it, if you didn't know.

Reply 2790

Original post by benq

That's not my logic. LSE Social Anthropology and Cambridge Medicine have absolutely different admission processes so you can't compare them like that without adjusting for it, if you didn't know.

Why would that matter? Then you have to think that one of them is flawed, because both lead to acceptance or rejection. Explain why it's justified to say that IR is more competitive than Econ solely based on acceptance rate, but not that IR at LSE is more competitive than e.g. Yale and MIT (unless that is your opinion).

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 2791

Original post by Daltohn

Why would that matter? Then you have to think that one of them is flawed, because both lead to acceptance or rejection. Explain why it's justified to say that IR is more competitive than Econ solely based on acceptance rate, but not that IR at LSE is more competitive than e.g. Yale and MIT (unless that is your opinion) .

Posted from TSR Mobile

Because acceptance rate is the only data we have an access to, so making a judgement based on that is the only possible way to reach a conclusion without speculation.

Yale and Harvard have an absolutely different admission system and overall criteria, don't you get it?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 2792

Boy_wonder_95

15

Original post by benq

BSc Economics
Applications 2013: 2,747
First year students 2013: 211

BSc International Relations
Applications 2013: 1022
First year students 2013: 63

First of all those stats are deceiving. They don't say how many offers were made but only how many people actually firmed and met their offers. So if that was your argument you might wanna factor applicants to offers ratio rather than applicants to acceptance.

And even if we did factor those in it doesn't give a fair reflection. For example, what's going to be harder breaking in a course with 5 places and 10 applicants where everyone's set to get A*A*A* or where there's 2 places and 10 applicants where everyone's set to get AAB? Ceteris Paribus. What matters is the quality of the competition not the amount, and I agree with Daltohn under this straight Econ wins.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 2793

Original post by benq

Because acceptance rate is the only data we have an access to, so making a judgement based on that is the only possible way to reach a conclusion without speculation.

Yale and Harvard have an absolutely different admission system and overall criteria, don't you get it?

I think few would disagree that Econ applicants are stronger in general, self-selection occurs when the best students apply to the most prestigious courses. You're the only one that needs data to see that. Instead you completely disregard the relative strength of the applicant pools.

So you can't say it's more difficult to get to play for Man United or Chelsea than your local sunday league team because the recruiting system is different?

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 2794

jchap9776

7

Original post by MrBowcat

#LSEeconOrDyeTryin' #keepit3hunna #TheGoldmanSachs #MC=MR

Lololol

Reply 2795

Original post by Boy_wonder_95

First of all those stats are deceiving. They don't say how many offers were made but only how many people actually firmed and met their offers. So if that was your argument you might wanna factor applicants to offers ratio rather than applicants to acceptance.

And even if we did factor those in it doesn't give a fair reflection. What's going to be harder breaking in a course with 5 places and 10 applicants where everyone's set to get A*A*A* or where there's 2 places and 10 applicants where everyone's set to get AAB? Ceteris Paribus. What matters is the quality of the competition not the amount, and I agree with Daltohn under this straight Econ wins.

I agree with your first point. But I don't think that it matters. We can only assume that they give an equal amount of offers to both Economics and IR applicants. At least I don't see any reason to think otherwise.

Where is the evidence that IR applicants are of such significantly lower standard than the Economics ones? In fact, if we look at the entry standards for Politics at LSE in 2015, it says 545 tariff points. For Economics it is 576. That's quite an insignificant difference. Furthermore, IR applicants usually have way more impressive ECs than economists. Apart from grades that also determines the quality of the applicant. So I wouldn't downgrade IR only because "everybody knows Econ is the elite" as Daltohn was so kind to point out.

Reply 2796

lildchic

1

Original post by benq

To receive an offer for IR at LSE with ABCD at AS? Sounds legit!

•

[INDENT]Hey so I go to school with gohohome and this is all true so there's no need to doubt. Our school in general is very succesful with LSE offers and this year we have people holding econ, law and IR offers.

It's sad and very upsetting for you to try and downgrade her offer when she has (just like every other person applying to LSE worked very hard)

The fact that she had to send her offer to prove it makes me sick, you are not an admissions officer so why do you think you have any more insight into what it takes to get an offer?

Reply 2797

Original post by lildchic

•

[INDENT]Hey so I go to school with gohohome and this is all true so there's no need to doubt. Our school in general is very succesful with LSE offers and this year we have people holding econ, law and IR offers.

It's sad and very upsetting for you to try and downgrade her offer when she has (just like every other person applying to LSE worked very hard)

The fact that she had to send her offer to prove it makes me sick, you are not an admissions officer so why do you think you have any more insight into what it takes to get an offer?

Hi there. There was a need to doubt because it is very unusual for people with such grades to get an offer from LSE. Sorry but that's true. It doesn't matter how good your school is in this case.

I would never try to downgrade her offer, apologies if it appeared that way. Nobody forced her to post the offer over here, I didn't even ask, so you are wrong again - she didn't have to. Lol. What if I am an admissions officer? And even if I am not, I never claimed to have more insight. You are taking it too seriously...

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 2798

lildchic

1

Original post by benq

Hi there. There was a need to doubt because it is very unusual for people with such grades to get an offer from LSE. Sorry but that's true. It doesn't matter how good your school is in this case.

I would never try to downgrade her offer, apologies if it appeared that way. Nobody forced her to post the offer over here, I didn't even ask, so you are wrong again - she didn't have to. Lol. What if I am an admissions officer? And even if I am not, I never claimed to have more insight. You are taking it too seriously...

Well al I can is that I've been following this thread since page 1 and i have browsed last years and people have gotten offers with lower grades and withthe right resits they have been able to go.

You did downgrade her offer when you said 'To receive an offer for IR at LSE with ABCD at AS? Sounds legit!' and yeah well I dont need the apology really she does...

Which brings me on to why I took it so seriously becuse I personally think its rude and disrespectful and I dont like that.

I know she posed that of her own accord but so far every time someone posts the got ab offer someone says 'what are your stats?' So I guess she was saving them the trouble of asking.

Also, you did claim to have insight when you stated your doubts over her offer.

Reply 2799