Universities for Econ

Bath offers year long placements on courses in both Economics and Economics & Politics: http://www.bath.ac.uk/catalogues/2015-2016/es/UHES-AKB03.html

With your A in AS German and the want to do a year abroad you might look at the Economics strand* in http://www.ucl.ac.uk/esps/prospective-students/esps-ba

*sample economics pathway (in this example for w/Spanish): http://www.ucl.ac.uk/esps/docs/pathways/full_economics

Reply 4

Original post by Breakingbank

If you are thinking of applying to LSE you have more chance to get into Cambridge. LSE is probably the most rigorous one to get into with only 1/12 people receiving offers, whilst Cambridge is 1/7. My friend is at Cambridge economics but was rejected by LSE economics.

Several things here...

The quality of candidates applying to Cambridge are above that of LSE. No, LSE students aren't stupid, but Cambridge students are, for the most part, geniuses.

Your sample size is 1 - I don't know anyone in first year economics who didn't receive an LSE offer (I'm sure there are some, but the fact of the matter is that for undergrad the best students pick Oxbridge and for postgrad LSE)

Therefore you stand more chance of receiving an LSE offer and it is more luck-based given that you do not have to interview.

You can draw many conclusions from statistics - you should know that!

Reply 5

azeeeem

OP

Original post by Exceptional

Cambridge, LSE, Warwick, Notts and Bristol. Warwick and Notts would be best if you want to be close to B'ham though if you're willing to travel a bit further, Cambridge and LSE would be great. I'm personally going to Nottingham so I know it offers Econ with Politics (as does LSE) and also the option to go to a partner university or its Asian campuses. However, have you considered PPE? Oxford, LSE, Warwick and Notts offer the course.

I was considering PPE but I don't think I'd be able to get into Oxford for it, and I thought that a pure economics degree would be more useful than a PPE degree from one of those other universities but I'm not sure

Reply 6

Original post by Mike_123

Cambridge students are, for the most part, geniuses.

don't be preposterous, or there are an awful lot of geniuses working in schoolteaching, surveying and chartered accountancy. Cambridge students are very bright and certainly hardworking, but the nation doesn't produce 3000 "geniuses" a year, never mind that they all go to the same university.

Sensibly this is about the last thing the university would endorse for offering to the public, never mind put on a forum for people considering where to make their university applications.

Reply 7

azeeeem

OP

Original post by cambio wechsel

don't be preposterous, or there are an awful lot of geniuses working in schoolteaching, surveying and chartered accountancy. Cambridge students are very bright and certainly hardworking, but the nation doesn't produce 3000 "geniuses" a year, never mind that they all go to the same university.

Sensibly this is about the last thing the university would endorse for offering to the public, never mind put on a forum for people considering where to make their university applications.

To be fair at an Oxbridge Conference I went to recently Cambridge themselves said students generally need 95% ums in all their subjects to gain an offer, which only makes it an option for geniuses and the ridiculously hard working kids who are already quite smart

Reply 8

Shreshth

Good choices, but before you make a decision, look up MMORSE as well mate, it's good alternative to the standard econ degree and will make you very employable. Being a MMORSE grad myself I can say that I learnt a lot out of it and felt much more prepared for the world of work in the city than my peers doing pure econ.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 9

Original post by Breakingbank

If you are thinking of applying to LSE you have more chance to get into Cambridge.

my strong suspicion is that this is wrong and that as much as you're doing is comparing applications to places ratios. This is the same statistical illiteracy that sees Oxford E&M called on here its 'most competitive course' and would see the Great North Run claimed as more competitive than the Olympic Marathon (in which latter "only" 120 compete for the podium places).

There's a very strong degree of overlap in domestic applications for Cambridge Economics and the LSE and as well for Oxford Economics courses and the LSE. That people can apply to one of Oxford and Cambridge but as well to the LSE in either instance is going to increase application rates, but in most instances students accepted at Oxbridge will go there.

True as well is that the LSE Economics course is for many foreign students more attractive than that at Cambridge, specifically because the Cambridge course includes in its first year papers two compulsory essay courses in British Politics & Society and Economic History. If you're quanty Xu Yan with an IELTS score of 6.5, that's the less appealing than a course that looks a lot like only applicable maths.

Reply 10

Original post by cambio wechsel

don't be preposterous, or there are an awful lot of geniuses working in schoolteaching, surveying and chartered accountancy. Cambridge students are very bright and certainly hardworking, but the nation doesn't produce 3000 "geniuses" a year, never mind that they all go to the same university.

Sensibly this is about the last thing the university would endorse for offering to the public, never mind put on a forum for people considering where to make their university applications.

Many of the students who enter Cambridge/Oxford have the potential to become geniuses, it's just a matter of nurturing that talent, but of course many much prefer to choose lucrative careers in the city. The point still stands - Oxbridge students are at the peak of the academic pyramid by self-selection and it would be wrong to say otherwise.

Reply 11

Original post by Mike_123

Many of the students who enter Cambridge/Oxford have the potential to become geniuses, it's just a matter of nurturing that talent, but of course many much prefer to choose lucrative careers in the city. The point still stands - Oxbridge students are at the peak of the academic pyramid by self-selection and it would be wrong to say otherwise.

the "at the peak of the pyramid" point stands, and I put it myself in post 10 on this thread.

But it is not the same point as the first point made here ("many...have the potential to become geniuses") and even that is a very much watered-down version of the initial claim protested at: "Cambridge students, for the most part, are geniuses".

Reply 12

azeeeem

OP

Original post by Shreshth

Good choices, but before you make a decision, look up MMORSE as well mate, it's good alternative to the standard econ degree and will make you very employable. Being a MMORSE grad myself I can say that I learnt a lot out of it and felt much more prepared for the world of work in the city than my peers doing pure econ.

Posted from TSR Mobile

hello sheshu

Reply 13

Original post by cambio wechsel

the "at the peak of the pyramid" point stands, and I put it myself in post 10 on this thread.

But it is not the same point as the first point made here ("many...have the potential to become geniuses" :wink:

and even that is a very much watered-down version of the initial claim protested at: "Cambridge students, for the most part, are geniuses".

Stop trying to being pretentious. There's a difference between potential and realised potential. Oxbridge has dominated for centuries and not without reason.

Reply 14

Original post by Mike_123

Stop trying to being pretentious.

I'm not merely confused by the "trying to be" bit when I wonder what it can possibly mean in this context.

You, who I suppose to be a Cambridge student, claim that "students at Cambridge, for the most part, are geniuses", and yet I am the one who is being - or trying to be - pretentious?

I'm telling you what is the case and what Cambridge admissions would endorse as the case: the large majority of students at the university are very bright and hardworking but no-one should be put off from applying because of the mistaken notion that many or most will be 'geniuses'.

If a person befriends during his Cambridge career someone who is later revealed as a properly a genius then that is rather fortunate circumstance.

Reply 15

Original post by cambio wechsel

I'm not merely confused by the "trying to be" bit when I wonder what it can possibly mean in this context.

You, who I suppose to be a Cambridge student, claim that "students at Cambridge, for the most part, are geniuses", and yet I am the one who is being - or trying to be - pretentious?

I'm telling you what is the case and what Cambridge admissions would endorse as the case: the large majority of students at the university are very bright and hardworking but no-one should be put off from applying because of the mistaken notion that many or most will be 'geniuses'.

If a person befriends during his Cambridge career someone who is later revealed as a properly a genius then that is rather fortunate circumstance.

I'm not sure how I am putting people off applying to Oxbridge...?

Reply 16

Original post by Mike_123

I'm not sure how I am putting people off applying to Oxbridge...?

Tell your DoS that you popped up on Britain's most popular student message board to authoritatively inform decision-making VIth formers that "students at Cambridge, for the most part, are geniuses". He/She won't be thrilled, and especially if as well the admissions tutor.

It is an intimidating message, and is obviously wrong. If Cambridge is every year taking hundreds and thousands of young people who even "have the potential to be" geniuses and processing them into middle-managers at Standard Chartered then that is a national scandal and is not the 'Added Value' the university would hope to be able to claim.

Reply 17

Breakingbank

16

Original post by Mike_123

Several things here...

The quality of candidates applying to Cambridge are above that of LSE. No, LSE students aren't stupid, but Cambridge students are, for the most part, geniuses.

Your sample size is 1 - I don't know anyone in first year economics who didn't receive an LSE offer (I'm sure there are some, but the fact of the matter is that for undergrad the best students pick Oxbridge and for postgrad LSE)

Therefore you stand more chance of receiving an LSE offer and it is more luck-based given that you do not have to interview.

You can draw many conclusions from statistics - you should know that!

I stand by what I said, for economics, LSE > Oxbridge..

In general the quality of students at Cambridge are better to some extent than LSE, but it really depends, in terms of UMS yes they are, but you can't judge someone by their UMS. I didn't say LSE economics students are superior to those at Cambridge economics, I just said how it's more rigorous to get into LSE econ than Cambridge Econ. Are you a Cambridge econ student? My friend is going there and did not receive an offer from LSE. The stats are on their websites, it shows how many applied and how many were given offers each year, the ratio was higher at Cambridge. I think the chance of interviewing is better than without, as long as you meet the entry criteria you will be given an interview with Oxbridge, and that is your chance to stand out. Where as LSE you need an excellent personal statement which, is very difficult to differentiate yourself in the space of 4000 characters. I was rejected by LSE for my fourth subject being AAAB, they said they looked for candidates who showed consistent grades.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 18

Original post by cambio wechsel

Tell your DoS that you popped up on Britain's most popular student message board to authoritatively inform decision-making VIth formers that "students at Cambridge, for the most part, are geniuses". He/She won't be thrilled, and especially if as well the admissions tutor.

It is an intimidating message, and is obviously wrong. If Cambridge is every year taking hundreds and thousands of young people who even "have the potential to be" geniuses and processing them into middle-managers at Standard Chartered then that is a national scandal and is not the 'Added Value' the university would hope to be able to claim.

Geniuses can be by nature or nurtured. I'm by no means a genius by nature (actually I probably fall into the category of not being a genius).

I'm not quite sure why you're using 'Standard Chartered' as an example. I study economics and it has the highest median salary of all degrees in the UK - quite worth the investment if you ask me. If that isn't value added, then I don't know what is. (inb4 "money isn't everything and/or bankers are the devil!!")

My word, you are quite obnoxious. Sorry to break it to you but your green gems do not give you a position of authority either.

Original post by Breakingbank

I stand by what I said, for economics, LSE > Oxbridge..In general the quality of students at Cambridge are better to some extent than LSE, but it really depends, in terms of UMS yes they are, but you can't judge someone by their UMS. I didn't say LSE economics students are superior to those at Cambridge economics, I just said how it's more rigorous to get into LSE econ than Cambridge Econ. Are you a Cambridge econ student? My friend is going there and did not receive an offer from LSE. I think the chance of interviewing is better than without, as long as you meet the entry criteria you will be given an interview with Oxbridge, and there is your chance to stand out. Where as LSE you need an excellent personal statement which, is very difficult to differentiate yourself in the space of 4000 characters. I was rejected by LSE for my fourth subject being AAAB, they said they looked for candidates who showed consistent grades.

I understand why you say that but I think LSE is more luck-based. Also, interviews aren't a breeze when you're competing with 7 other similar candidates. And getting a B at AS would strongly jeopardise your chances of getting into Cambridge as it would lower your UMS average significantly.

Reply 19