Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blakevanderbilt)
    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'm really confused. When I applied for Masters, my offers were conditional on academic requirements (applied in my final year of undergraduate), and demonstrating sufficient finances. If you didn't have enough money, you simply gave up the offer. Whether you could self-fund or not had no implication on whether you got an offer per se, only on whether you could take up your place. In fact, Oxford got some flake a while ago about the financial requirements it set for postgraduate offer holders: http://www.theguardian.com/education...rd-wealth-test

    Also, how did LSE know that the student required funding? Did he make this explicit in his application (eg wrote it in his personal statement)? I didn't apply to LSE, but of the schools I applied to, there wasn't a box that you had to check saying that you needed financial assistance (unlike say US undergraduate applications).

    I think you need to be careful about broadly claiming that research > taught. In my faculty (Law), I would probably say that our taught Masters (the BCL aka Oxford's LLM) is actually the flagship postgraduate course, as opposed to the research MSc/ MSt/ DPhil, and certainly more renowned. I'm inclined to say that the admission requirements are probably stricter for the BCL (A First is a necessity), if anything.

    More specifically, I think you need to drill down into EXACTLY which Masters course you want to apply to. If you can tailor your application specifically to those courses (eg getting relevant work experience, research papers), it might well be able to make up for a less than stellar GPA.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blakevanderbilt)
    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?
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blakevanderbilt)
    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.
    That's the LSE. You might want to read up on the story between them and Gaddafi's son. Oxford, on the other hand, rejected his application.

    Other considerations might include (a) the possibility it's a coincidence and (b) the availability of merit-based scholarships for people who exceed the entry requirements. I don't know your friends, though.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by blakevanderbilt)
    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 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.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    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.
    (Original post by blakevanderbilt)
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by subtilis)
    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.
    There have been a few stories that made the national media about students who could not show that they have the funds to study not being allowed to start. I certainly would not expect to be allowed to matriculate if you could not show you had 1st year's tuition + £12k (may be more these days).

    There are unlikely to be any new stories of the kind since brits can now borrow to fund their postgrad degree.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    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.
    Hydeman is absolutely correct and said all I wanted to say.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by subtilis)
    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 did my postgrad at Oxford last year as an international student - they will not withdraw your offer if you do not have sufficient funding. Funding is irrelevant as regards who gets an offer, and offers won't be rescinded once they're given out (barring extreme reasons like lying on your application or academic dishonesty).

    Unfortunately, not having funding will probably mean that you won't be able to take up your place - proof of sufficient finances is typically a condition of enrollment. If I recall correctly, you also need to demonstrate finances for visa purposes (even if you come from a low risk country, you still need to declare that you do have sufficient finances and can provide documentary proof if the Home Office asks for it).
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

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.