Is it easy to get into Oxford's graduate school?

Thanks for everyone's responses, I understand that on paper, Oxford would never admit explicitly that they would disregard "ability to pay" when they're deciding on whether or not a student should be accepted, but I realised that many of these things are unexplainable because we really don't know what goes on in admission offices. I have two friends, both graduated and applied for a MSc course in economics in LSE, one of them had almost a 3.9 and the other had a 3.5. The person with the 3.9 needed funding and the one with the 3.5 didn't, I'm guessing you guys know where this story is heading. The guy with the 3.5 got in. I'm not saying that this outlier is necessarily representative of the entire admissions process, but schools in the UK are evidently underfunded as compared to American institutions, so I wouldn't be surprised that more self-funded students are being accepted in comparison. I would also like to draw a line between taught masters programmes and research masters programmes because the former wouldn't necessarily make the school more or less prestigious. I can understand that a school earns their reputation through research and I'll be a fool if I disagree with that. However for taught masters programmes, it's basically another story altogether. Students are literally just paying to attend a few lessons for two years and then leave the university. I'm from UCLA, and I would say that it's really hard to get a good GPA here because of the competition. It's far more difficult to get a high GPA from a UC than in a private university like Stanford or Harvard where grades are dramatically inflated. I'm in my second year and I have a 3.5, so realistically it can still go either way, of course the ideal situation is for me to be graduating with at least a 3.7 to stand a better chance, but I certainly wish that admission to Oxford/Cambridge is more straightforward than American universities.

I am currently going to school in the US, my major is math and economics and it has always been my dream to study in the oldest university in the anglosphere. Just being a part of that history is enough for me to die without regrets. No matter what anybody else thinks and regardless of rankings, I always held Oxford as the best university in the world. Having that said, I don't have the best of grades, but I have a GPA above 3.5. I know it will be difficult to apply to Oxford because well, it's Oxford am I right? But I'm sure that there are unspoken advantages that one student may have over another and I'm here to rectify some of my beliefs about the system. I will be applying without funding, which might seem odd at first, but since my parents are able and willing to pay for it, I hope that puts me in a better position to be accepted. I mean, how easy it is for Oxford to overlook mediocre grades in favour of a potential self-funded student? Unlike their undergraduate school, Oxford does not have a legal limit as to how many students they can accept for their graduate school, so it seems fairly logical that a self-funded Master's student is easy-money. Reputation and integrity aside, if one were to apply to a taught Masters in Oxford with a GPA around a 3.5 without a need for funding, how goes his chances?

Thanks for everyone's responses, I understand that on paper, Oxford would never admit explicitly that they would disregard "ability to pay" when they're deciding on whether or not a student should be accepted, but I realised that many of these things are unexplainable because we really don't know what goes on in admission offices. I have two friends, both graduated and applied for a MSc course in economics in LSE, one of them had almost a 3.9 and the other had a 3.5. The person with the 3.9 needed funding and the one with the 3.5 didn't, I'm guessing you guys know where this story is heading. The guy with the 3.5 got in. I'm not saying that this outlier is necessarily representative of the entire admissions process, but schools in the UK are evidently underfunded as compared to American institutions, so I wouldn't be surprised that more self-funded students are being accepted in comparison. I would also like to draw a line between taught masters programmes and research masters programmes because the former wouldn't necessarily make the school more or less prestigious. I can understand that a school earns their reputation through research and I'll be a fool if I disagree with that. However for taught masters programmes, it's basically another story altogether. Students are literally just paying to attend a few lessons for two years and then leave the university. I'm from UCLA, and I would say that it's really hard to get a good GPA here because of the competition. It's far more difficult to get a high GPA from a UC than in a private university like Stanford or Harvard where grades are dramatically inflated. I'm in my second year and I have a 3.5, so realistically it can still go either way, of course the ideal situation is for me to be graduating with at least a 3.7 to stand a better chance, but I certainly wish that admission to Oxford/Cambridge is more straightforward than American universities.

Thanks for everyone's responses, I understand that on paper, Oxford would never admit explicitly that they would disregard "ability to pay" when they're deciding on whether or not a student should be accepted, but I realised that many of these things are unexplainable because we really don't know what goes on in admission offices. I have two friends, both graduated and applied for a MSc course in economics in LSE, one of them had almost a 3.9 and the other had a 3.5. The person with the 3.9 needed funding and the one with the 3.5 didn't, I'm guessing you guys know where this story is heading. The guy with the 3.5 got in.

Your funding capacity is irrelevant, except to the extent that if you don't have some means of funding your studies, you won't be able to take your place. The academic threshold doesn't change.

Have you seen the size of Oxford and Cambridge's endowments? Granted, they're not as much as the Ivy League has between themselves, but it's preposterous to suggest that universities with endowments that large would take somebody with lower academic achievement just to get a few thousand pounds.

I'm just worried whether an offer may be withdrawn if I do not have sufficient funds to pay for postgraduate tuition fees, accommodation and living expenses? Do you guys have any personal experiences to share? I am an international applicant by the way. I am not from a developing country, not from one of the BRICS and not from the US or EU.

I really don't know why you're asking if you're already so sure that what you already know is true. You don't seem to understand that practically all the top universities in the UK are public universities, not private ones, which is unlike what you have in the United States. Please stop claiming this kind of thing without any real evidence. There's no aspect of 'on paper, they won't admit it' -- there is no paper to admit it on. There's no way for them to know your financial situation before they've made you an offer unless you wrote about it in your personal statement or your referee mentions it on the reference.

Also, I would like to remind you that the LSE isn't Oxford, and that you're disregarding all factors other than academic achievement and ability to pay in using your friends as an example of preferential admission based on ability to pay. GPA is not the only non-shady factor that influences admissions -- unless all other parts of their applications were judged to be equally excellent, you really don't have a case.



You're honestly starting to live up to the stereotype of the clueless American. Have you seen the size of Oxford and Cambridge's endowments? Granted, they're not as much as the Ivy League has between themselves, but it's preposterous to suggest that universities with endowments that large would take somebody with lower academic achievement just to get a few thousand pounds.

An institution is underfunded when it doesn't have the money to do all the things that it would consider essential and desirable -- this is not true of Oxford. It's pretty silly to suggest that any institution with less money than another institution is 'underfunded' by comparison.

I don't think you're here to listen to anybody's answers. You came here with an idea already in mind and wanted validation for it. Sorry, but you won't get it. Add to that the condescending manner in which you refer to UK universities (whom you continue to call 'schools' despite being told that that's not what they are), and you're really not going to go down well on a website such as this where the majority of users are British students.



It is more straightforward -- it isn't based on all sorts of rubbish like whether your dad is a former alumnus or can afford to pay for your studies like admissions to quite a lot of top US universities. If you want to continue to fool yourself into thinking that you have a better chance of being admitted because of your financial situation, by all means do so. Don't, however, waste other people's time by pretending that you're actually here to learn something about postgraduate admissions to Oxford.

I'm just worried whether an offer may be withdrawn if I do not have sufficient funds to pay for postgraduate tuition fees, accommodation and living expenses? Do you guys have any personal experiences to share? I am an international applicant by the way. I am not from a developing country, not from one of the BRICS and not from the US or EU.

I got rejected for undergrad studies there despite having near perfect grades, extra curriculars etc - so I''ll try to not let my bitterness prevent mefrom being objective about you're chances lol.

I'm no expert, but if you're planning on doing a postgraduate course in something maths/econ related, it's incredibly competitive. Oxford won't be short of people with very high marks in their degrees who can also self-fund. So no, I don't think you being able to self-fund is going to put you at any advantage. Besides, Oxford admit people based upon merit and the perceived talent of the candidate (they aren't desperate for money, they have plenty of funding - admitting lot's of students reduces the courses prestige/exclusivity). I'm not saying you have no chance, but it will certainly be v.difficult for you with you're GPA.


If you get rejected, you could always do a masters at another institution, and if you do really well, apply to do a PhD at Oxford - this way you'll be spending three years in Oxford's vibrant atmosphere as opposed to just one.Also, I really don't think you should place the brand name of a university as the deciding factor as to whether you want to study there.Both my parents and grandparents went to Oxford uni and I grew up in Oxford - it's a nice place to live and an excellent institution to study at,but what it's actually like to study there is dramatized massively - I mean you only have to interact with the students for this to become obvious.

Take into consideration the field you want to specialize in and if there are suitable lecturers who will be well-equipped to supervise you. For someone who wants to specialize in microeconomics for example, they would be daft to choose Oxford over a place like UCL - which is the best institution in the world for that particular sub-discipline. I hope you get my jist. Good luck!