Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No, I don't follow! Of course more people get B's at GCSE than get straight A's at A Level. Did I ever say anything to the contrary? All I said was that people who got B's at GCSE were capable of getting A's at A Level. Care to explain?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by savvy10)
    All I said was that people who got B's at GCSE were capable of getting A's at A Level.
    Then obviously such candidates were capable of getting A* at GCSE, but didn't for whatever reason. However it is unlikely that this reason is laziness as it is very hard to achieve AAAA at AS if your lazy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    :rolleyes: I'm sorry, are we on the same planet?! Are you trying to say that if you got As at A level, but B's at GCSE, then you must have been capable of getting A*s at GCSE?! This is ridiculous!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by savvy10)
    :rolleyes: I'm sorry, are we on the same planet?! If you got As at A level, but B's at GCSE, then you must have been capable of getting A*s at GCSE?!
    That's my point!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    NO NO NO NO NO!! I wasn't saying that was true! I was mocking you! I don't understand your reasoning at all! It is significantly easier to get an A at AS than it is to get a string of A*s at GCSE.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpunderaboat)
    Then obviously such candidates were capable of getting A* at GCSE, but didn't for whatever reason. However it is unlikely that this reason is laziness as it is very hard to achieve AAAA at AS if your lazy.
    I dunno, ASs are quite easy. I got AAAA at AS while being lazy and doing very little work. Tried the same at A2 and got AABB, and those 2 As were only because I got 288 and 290 for my ASs, so could get Cs and still get an A overall.

    There's a reason almost no-one (no-one I've ever heard of) moves up grades from AS to A level without retaking modules.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deianra)
    It might also be worth pointing out the the LSE will reject anyone with more than one B at GCSE for L101 Economics, unless with special circumstances. So savvy's comments are partially true and agree with some top institutions.
    I'm not sure that's true. I got accepted and I have 2 Bs and a D. Moreover, I was accepted with a particularly easy offer and a letter from them asking me to go there. Unless that's a new thing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What you quoted Meg was me mocking the other chap about the point in question. It isn't my opinion. I was questioning his original statement, as it seemed absoloute rubbish to me.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deianra)
    Oh well. What was your offer from the LSE, if you don't mind me asking, and when did you get it?
    BBB, although this was for entrance in 2003.

    Those things do sound weird though. I mean, surely getting a B is better than not taking the exam at all? Someone could be a wizz at maths, economics, sciences, etc. but be awful when it came to German, French, technology or RE. Needing an A at GCSE english is also a bit much too. I scraped an A, but went on to get the highest mark at History in my school, above people who got A*s with ease.

    GCSEs are overrated, IMHO, as exams for people going on to uni. They're set up for school leavers at 16, and are more about breadth than an ability in one subject. I know many people with good GCSEs, a few A*s, As, Bs, the occasional C, who've got AAAA at A level and gone on to get top firsts from top universities. Similarly, I know a couple of people with 8+ A*s who struggled at A levels, and while they got onto decent degree courses, have struggled there to. Yes, this is a small population to draw conclusions from, but just taking the exams, I don't think they distinguish well for the top candidates, and people change a lot between GCSE and starting a degree. I was a wizz at maths in my GCSE year - did international maths challenge, got 98% in my GCSE, attended masterclasses at Warwick uni, etc., but struggled in essay subjects. If you went on that, I should have walked onto a maths course, but not been able to for anything essay based. Now I get far higher marks in history and business than I do in maths.

    Also, some people are very good at getting 95%+ on easy exams, but woiuld struggle with a harder exam, while some will always make some mistakes, and get 85-90% on an easy exam, but find harder exams not much worse. It's how people can get 10A*s and struggle at their degree, because when it get's harder, they can't cope, whereas some get mostly As but do well at degree level.

    Sure, GCSEs matter, and they do test ability somewhat, but IMHO, A levels and what you've done since matter far more to how well you do at university, even if admissions tutors look at GCSEs more.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deianra)
    BBB?! :eek: Wow. Wow. Just wow. That's still beneath their average offer, back then it was ABB?
    Yeh. I was a bit surprised though too

    I don't get though how LSE seems to be harder to get into the Oxbridge, yet they say things in their promotional stuff on the open day about people asking why didn't you get into Oxford, as if it's seen as worse. Personally, I know which one I'd choose (I didn't actually use LSE as insurance either, I thought Warwick looked better, and I didn't really like the idea of living in London).

    (Original post by deianra)
    I think this was mainly because they were worried about the number of people who simply couldn't write essays. You've demonstrated with your History AS/A2 that you can, so that's not a problem. I remember them emphasising the importance of 'literary' A-levels like English or History over things like Further Maths or Physics. Plus, the English Language GCSE was another thing to determine ability of English - as many people are aware, a vast number of LSE students are Asian, thus making English ability one of the top criteria in admission.
    Yeh, I can understand that. Many people apply who are great at maths but can't write essays - the opposite of most universities for economics. It makes sense.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Urm I got AAAA at AS level and calling me lazy would be generous. Deianra did too and she's of the same ilk. And I'm far from anything special, just received fairly decent teaching and have enough intelligence to do the straightforward exams.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deianra)
    BBB?! :eek: Wow. Wow. Just wow. That's still beneath their average offer, back then it was ABB? To be fair, they did say all this for 2004/5 entry (I attended the Open Day in Year 11). However, for 05/06 entry, a friend told me that LSE actually said that anyone with less than 5 A*s shouldn't really bother applying for L101. :rolleyes:
    The BBB offer does seem very impressive!

    I was having a look at the UCL prospectus for 2001 entry the other day and was really surprised to see that they asked for ABB (IIRC) and the offer didn't even include maths!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    I have another happy scenario, just to balance out a bit:

    Happy scenario:
    School: Comprehensive
    GCSEs: 2A*s, 6As, 2Bs, D
    ASs: AAAABC (Maths, Econ, History, Business, General Studies and Further Maths respectively)
    Extra-curricular: Quite a lot, from maths challenges to youth councils to sports and music
    Rejected: None
    Accepted: Oxford, LSE, Warwick (x2 - Economics and MORSE), Nottingham and Durham

    But missed my offer, so reapplied:

    A Levels: AABBCU (History, Business, Econ, General Studies, Maths and Further Maths respectively)
    Rejected: LSE, UCL (both of which said they wouldn't accept retakes for economics courses)
    Accepted: Oxford, Warwick, Nottingham and Reading (although all conditional).

    Took Oxford (AAAA) as my firm and Warwick (AABB) as my insurance choice, got AAAAA in retakes, so going to Oxford

    I know it's hard to get in, and somewhat of a lottery, but there are very few 10A* GCSE and 4A A level candidates I've heard of that get refused from more than one or two places. Sure, it's down to much more than that with Oxford and Cambridge, and while LSE, UCL, Warwick, Nottingham, etc. are oversubscribed, but they don't turn away that many straight A candidates (or at least they claim they don't).

    LSE gets a lot more straight A applicants than Oxbridge. Oxbridge gets far fewer applicants per place than LSE, and LSE's A Level entry grades are very close to theirs, identical for subjects like economics, so statistically if you apply to Oxbridge with straight As you've got a better chance of acceptance than if you apply with straight As to LSE.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by W.A.S Hewins)
    LSE gets a lot more straight A applicants than Oxbridge. Oxbridge gets far fewer applicants per place than LSE, and LSE's A Level entry grades are very close to theirs, identical for subjects like economics, so statistically if you apply to Oxbridge with straight As you've got a better chance of acceptance than if you apply with straight As to LSE.

    First of all we all know why you are saying this
    "Statistically" speaking, LSE makes more offers per place than oxbridge because they expect a large proportion of their applicants who were accepted to put down Oxbridge as their Firm Choice. (i.e Over 200 applicants choose Oxbridge over LSE for Economics ever year :rolleyes: ).
    So you can't say "you've got a better chance of acceptance " if you apply to oxbridge and NO LSE IS NOT harder to get into than Oxbridge for Economics because they have to make more offers per place
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by W.A.S Hewins)
    LSE gets a lot more straight A applicants than Oxbridge. Oxbridge gets far fewer applicants per place than LSE, and LSE's A Level entry grades are very close to theirs, identical for subjects like economics, so statistically if you apply to Oxbridge with straight As you've got a better chance of acceptance than if you apply with straight As to LSE.
    As HamaL said, Oxbridge is usually put above, so while Oxbridge gives between 1.2 and 1.5 offers for every person who goes up, LSE gives a lot higher. I didn't realise 200 people choose Oxbridge over LSE, but that seems a reasonable number.

    Moreover, LSE has more straight A applicants? It has more applicants per place, but many of those won't have straight As. Oxbridge has fewer applicants per place than most universities, but does that mean it's easier to get into than Warwick, or York, or Nottingham? No, it means the 4 applicants they have for every place are generally better, due to self-selection (people don't apply to Oxbridge unless they have straight As, in a large part, whereas many use LSE, or many other top universities as 'reach' universities, ones they try for just in case they get in). I have never seen a comparison of the number of straight A students who apply to Oxbridge and LSE.

    Also, LSE has 14 applicants per place for Econ. Trinity college had exactly the same for 2003 entry (and that's only counting the ones they were interviewing). Univ had 7 per place for 2004 entry, and some people were pooled there, meaning it was one of the lowest apps per place in the university. I think the 4 applicants per place quoted as Oxbridge average is vastly under the level for Economics and Management now, since last year it was higher than 7.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I go to a state school, got 6A* and 4A's at GCSE and have loads of extra-curricular stuff but for my AS's I got 3A's and 1C - realistically speaking would Cambridge be interested in a candidate without straight A's at AS as this thread inplys that I shouldn't even think about it.

    Bear in mind that I also be doing an AS in Further maths in June, which I'm predicted an A in.

    FYI my A's were in Maths, history and music, the C was in Physics (due to having no teacher till January)

    I really can't be bothered to retake my physics modules as I'm droping it anyway but do you think I should do this?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    hi,

    if i may offer some advice -- though admittedly i did not plough through this thread thoroughly, so t might have already been said -- but i believe that the easiest way to get into the best schools (my case, LSE) is to try to get into less reputable department.

    for example, this is my profile:

    IGCSE: 1 A* and 4 A's

    IB:

    7 Econ HL
    7 Business Studies HL
    7 English B HL
    7 Physics SL
    6 Mathematics SL
    6 Thai A SL
    Full bonus points

    so total = 43 points (predicted 41ish)

    extracurricular: president student council, etc.

    obviously, i'm an international student (an easy guess as to which nationality i am) but anyhow, i got accepeted into the Philosophy and Economics program at the LSE and the offer was only 36 IB Points.

    Now, in LSE, in the first year, you can actually choose to change your course and department, provided that your marks meet certain requirements, but anyhow, these 'formal' requirements are usually much lower than the standards that some of the rejected candidates could achieve (i.e. the many AAAA's that got rejected).

    in the second year you can STILL choose to change your course/department provided your exams grades in the first year are good enough (i.e. more than 50 in Econ B if you want to change to econ department)

    so, try to get into the school first, then choose the course you want to do!!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bebop)
    I go to a state school, got 6A* and 4A's at GCSE and have loads of extra-curricular stuff but for my AS's I got 3A's and 1C - realistically speaking would Cambridge be interested in a candidate without straight A's at AS as this thread inplys that I shouldn't even think about it.
    Yes, they would. Many people apply with lower grades than that. Especially with 5 subjects and a good reason why the lower grade in physics, i doubt they'd care. The physics definately looks like a blip.

    Let me put it this way, you have better grades than I have/had, and I got an offer in 2003 and 2004 (to Oxford though).

    Anyone with better than AAB and a couple of A*s at GCSE stands a chance, it's far more down to interview and the like once you've ruled out anyone with 'bad' grades. Also, further maths and history together is a very attractive combination for economics. It shows you can write essays and have no problem whatsoever with the maths part. Every admissions tutor I've spoken to has said that's pretty much perfect for an economics degree.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tonnu)
    hi,

    if i may offer some advice -- though admittedly i did not plough through this thread thoroughly, so t might have already been said -- but i believe that the easiest way to get into the best schools (my case, LSE) is to try to get into less reputable department.

    for example, this is my profile:

    IGCSE: 1 A* and 4 A's

    IB:

    7 Econ HL
    7 Business Studies HL
    7 English B HL
    7 Physics SL
    6 Mathematics SL
    6 Thai A SL
    Full bonus points

    so total = 43 points (predicted 41ish)

    extracurricular: president student council, etc.

    obviously, i'm an international student (an easy guess as to which nationality i am) but anyhow, i got accepeted into the Philosophy and Economics program at the LSE and the offer was only 36 IB Points.

    Now, in LSE, in the first year, you can actually choose to change your course and department, provided that your marks meet certain requirements, but anyhow, these 'formal' requirements are usually much lower than the standards that some of the rejected candidates could achieve (i.e. the many AAAA's that got rejected).

    in the second year you can STILL choose to change your course/department provided your exams grades in the first year are good enough (i.e. more than 50 in Econ B if you want to change to econ department)

    so, try to get into the school first, then choose the course you want to do!!
    Yes, unless econ is still oversubscribed, and thus they won't let anyone change. It is a way to do it though. However personally, I'd like the philosophy and econ part. Gives you a bit of breadth

    I'm presuming you're Thai?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    As HamaL said, Oxbridge is usually put above, so while Oxbridge gives between 1.2 and 1.5 offers for every person who goes up, LSE gives a lot higher. I didn't realise 200 people choose Oxbridge over LSE, but that seems a reasonable number.

    Moreover, LSE has more straight A applicants? It has more applicants per place, but many of those won't have straight As. Oxbridge has fewer applicants per place than most universities, but does that mean it's easier to get into than Warwick, or York, or Nottingham? No, it means the 4 applicants they have for every place are generally better, due to self-selection (people don't apply to Oxbridge unless they have straight As, in a large part, whereas many use LSE, or many other top universities as 'reach' universities, ones they try for just in case they get in). I have never seen a comparison of the number of straight A students who apply to Oxbridge and LSE.

    Also, LSE has 14 applicants per place for Econ. Trinity college had exactly the same for 2003 entry (and that's only counting the ones they were interviewing). Univ had 7 per place for 2004 entry, and some people were pooled there, meaning it was one of the lowest apps per place in the university. I think the 4 applicants per place quoted as Oxbridge average is vastly under the level for Economics and Management now, since last year it was higher than 7.

    There are many fallacies in your post. The most glaring is the circular argument about 'self-selection', which boils down to the statement that the people who apply to Oxbridge are the best candidates because they are the best candidates, and they are the best candidates because they apply to Oxbridge etc. There are many straight A candidates who do not apply to Oxbridge (I don't have the exact figures to hand, but it is a very high proportion of those with straight As). There is absolutely no evidence at all that they don't apply to Oxbridge because they think they are not up to it. It is incredible that you should make such a sweeping statement when there is no evidence at all to back it up.

    LSE has far more applicants per place than either Oxford or Cambridge, and even you admit this, and its A Level entry grades are very close to those of Oxbridge) and economics is one of its most popular courses, and because of its international nature, it picks its students from a wider global pool than any British university. To be sure of getting in you will need straight A potential, and you are competing against the pick of students from across the globe, and the extremely high proportion of postgraduates means you will have to survive in an environment in which many of your fellow students already have degrees.

    You mention Warwick and York. What makes you think that these places are comparable to LSE? They are good universities, but they do not have LSE's track record. For that matter, in the social sciences, (which includes economics, as you know), no institution in Britain has matched LSE's performance, and that includes Oxbridge.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: January 29, 2005

University open days

  • University of East Anglia (UEA)
    Could you inspire the next generation? Find out more about becoming a Secondary teacher with UEA… Postgraduate
    Thu, 18 Oct '18
  • University of Warwick
    Undergraduate Open Days Undergraduate
    Sat, 20 Oct '18
  • University of Sheffield
    Undergraduate Open Days Undergraduate
    Sat, 20 Oct '18
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.