Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ellie4)
    :rolleyes: You're telling me this information wouldn't bother you if you didn't have an offer? Please. This post doesn't say that everyone with x amounts of A's gets rejected from x y and z, purely that there are some excellent candidates who get 0 offers, and that it could happen to any of us. You just happen to be one of the people that it didn't happen to.
    That's not quite true. What I took issue with was the statement that Economics is a lottery; no point denying some great candidates get rejected, it's a fact. But to general the 5/6 cases Deinara has there into a statement saying "Economics admissions is a lottery" is, as some scientists would say, so unscientific as to not even be wrong.

    And yes, it did bother me before applying. Not because I felt the admissions process was a lottery, but because I knew it was a human process and therefore made mistakes (fortunately, I never had to contend with worrying about not being good enough).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deianra)
    Give me an offer, I'll eat my slippers without sauce!
    I thought the deal was I could push you in the Isis?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deianra)
    All I am doing is showing that Economics is a very competitive subject and that great candidates get rejected. It is a lottery in the aspect that not the best are necessarily given offers. Thus, a system without lottery would be one where the best get in and this is not the case.

    Economics: Very competitive. Hard to get offers.
    How is Economics distinct from any other competitive course then?

    I fail to see how the underlying message of this thread can be anything other than a detterent to prospective Economics students.

    How were those mentioned necessarily the 'best candidates'?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbdeeprob)
    How were those mentioned necessarily the 'best candidates'?
    Didn't say they were, but you have to admit, they look pretty good. It's not different from other competitive subjects, but it is competitive. It's not meant to deter anyone, and if they like economics as much as they need to, they wouldn't be put off by this thread.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ellie4)
    Didn't say they were
    No, you didn't, but it was intimated in a previous post that this was the case - if you read between the lines:

    "All I am doing is showing that Economics is a very competitive subject and that great candidates get rejected. It is a lottery in the aspect that not the best are necessarily given offers."


    (Original post by Ellie4)
    but you have to admit, they look pretty good.
    I don't have to admit anything.
    Granted, on paper, I can see a grouping of individuals who have excelled at their public examinations, and appear to have a raft of extra-curricular activities. That is all - I can only guess at the remainder.

    (Original post by Ellie4)
    It's not different from other competitive subjects, but it is competitive.
    Not surprising really!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbdeeprob)
    Not surprising really!
    Well you're reading between the lines too much, and I think most people will be surprised by just how competitive the subject has become, which was the point of this.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The underlying point that deianra is trying to make is that in some cases a candidate can have everything going for them and still get rejected - it leaves the very best pondering what they need to do to get an acceptance from a top 5 uni. These unis reject scores of applicants who could easily get a 2:1 on the course, and sometimes their choices for offers aren't the most logical. Just a caveat for anyone thinking of applying for Economics who may believe themselves to be an excellent applicant - you probably are but that doesn't guarantee you anything.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deianra)
    Argh. Good point. That should be Cambridge, LSE, UCL and Warwick.

    Oxford: 6 to 1
    Cambridge: 6.5 to 1
    LSE: 16 to 1
    Bath: 18 to 1 (I think. High 'teens anyway)
    Warwick: 22 to 1
    err.. u sure about the warwick stat? i got an offer from them and tbh my personal statement was not all that even if i do say so myself :P hmm maybe county sports stuff helped.
    and same with bath now that i look at that!i think any1 whose predicted AAB and has maths and econ will get an offer from them no question. maybe high ratio is due to ppl not having the 'right' a levels.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (This isn't directed at anyone in particular, but I feel the need to counter some of the assumptions being made in this thread).

    Why must 10A*+ equate to a brilliant degree level economist?

    The best economist in my year, by a country mile, got 5A* 5A. I would consider it a travesty of justice if he were to be rejected over a less able economist who had all starred-As.

    The biggest criminals in this game are places like the LSE - rejecting people for having more than one grade B is ridiculous. What is to stop somebody with mediocre GCSEs from gaining a first-class degree and going on to be director-general of the CBI/LSE/Bank of England?

    Admittedly, in such an oversubscribed marketplace (which hinges on some rather weak indicators of academic aptitude) - there are going to be casualties.

    In defence of, seemingly, the indefencible - admissions tutors aren't completely foolish. They have an unenviable task and often go about it with great vigour, looking to take into account a broad range of information during candidate selection. You tell me a 'logical way' of selecting candidates then, using all the (often limited and incomprehensive) information currently available to an admissions tutor.

    I'm sure there would be an uproar if, for 2005 admission, places like the LSE upped the stakes to 5A* 5A minimum entry for its Economics course. This would not guarantee that they attracted the best economists around - it would perhaps even serve as a bar to entry for many of them!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Personal statements are very subjective - your opinion may be that his is a bad personal statement and mine is that it is horrible but someone else thought it was incredible and most importantly LSE went for it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    That's quite a negative view guys, good people get rejected; very good people get rejected; in fact, outstanding students get rejected. Economics is no more competitive than any other established academic subject, if you decided to apply too the big universities you take your chances, same as every other student for every other subject.

    It's all well and good having hundreds of A's and loads of extra curricular stuff, and well done to that individual on there achivements, but 9.5/10 the reason people are rejected, whatever their grades (et al) may be; is because the Tutors don't think they're good enough - that's not to say they aren't good enough, but the Admission Tutors think they are, and that's what matters.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deianra)
    All of the people mentioned are known by either Ellie4, Amrad or me. We know these people - they are not stupid, they are good Economists. And some of them just happen to have 10A*s. I didn't realise that was a crime?

    A spread of A*s across the board often equates to being fairly good, academically. However, GCSEs are not the only indicator, but they are only one indicator and most be used in conjuction with other proof. Nevertheless, many universities like their students to be good at many things and have very diverse subjects, thus lots of A*s is good evidence for this.

    LSE is a bit dodgy. Someone with this Personal Statement got into it and in my very humble opinion, the Personal Statement could be a lot...lot better. I think he got 9/10 A*s though.

    Admissions tutors are not stupid, but they're not flawless.



    This guy's currently at Cambridge and he was so thankful to get through his first year, barely scraping a 2:2. Now, I believe there were candidates at the interviews who, had they received offers, would have got 2:1s in Part 1, but they chose him.

    Your friend has 5 A*s and 5 As. Let's say my friend has 10 A*s. Their personal statements are just as good, as are the references. How do we know which is the better Economist? *shrugs* We don't. I don't envy the Admissions tutors.
    It's not a crime, but it isn't necessarily a passport to the top institutions, god-forbid the day it becomes de rigeur!

    I admit, I'm nothing other than a journeyman economist - who took it on as a fourth AS option. Looking at the linked PS though, I can't see that much wrong with it! Infact, it seems like quite a decent one to me!

    The dichotemy: several equally qualified candidates, too few places, woefully inadequate indicators of aptitude being used for selection. Result: A minority of exceptional candidates being rejected by several institutions.

    I firmly believe that somebody receiving zero offers, after applying to multiple institutions, is a very rare occurance though.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    But the problem that arises is what does make someone good enough? How can they show their ability?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amrad)
    But the problem that arises is what does make someone good enough? How can they show their ability?
    Under the present system, they can't, and therein lies the lottery.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deianra)
    Very true. But in most subjects good candidates wouldn't get rejected from all of their 6 choices. The only time I've ever heard anything like that happen is in Medicine and that's notoriously difficult to get into.

    We're all worried and waiting anxiously for our results, nightmares galore. I think we're allowed to have a moan about the injustices of UCAS and the admissions system.
    And I couldn't name you a person with 10A*'s, 4 A's and the rest who got rejected from all 6 universities for Economics. And I imagine that I know far more Economics applicants that you 3 put together. But I could name you equally deserving candidates who got rejected from 6/6 in their respective subjects.

    To get rejected from 6/6 is very rare, but it happens, and it happens in every subject; Economics isn't any different.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Those students were possible unlucky, but to be honest, more than likely they just weren't good enough. They application may have had major weaknesses, they may of had a crap interview, they may have sent in substandard written work or they may have cocked up the test; there's normally a very obviously reason for getting 6 rejections, and I doubt they are any different.

    Sorry I'm always very critical of people who get rejected from a university and come up with all these reasons for it, in the process bash the admission system.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BazTheMoney)
    Those students were possible unlucky, but to be honest, more than likely they just weren't good enough. They application may have had major weaknesses, they may of had a crap interview, they may have sent in substandard written work or they may have cocked up the test; there's normally a very obviously reason for getting 6 rejections, and I doubt they are any different.

    Sorry I'm always very critical of people who get rejected from a university and come up with all these reasons for it, in the process bash the admission system.
    Baz, you're using the word "university" here when really you mean "Oxbridge". Most universities don't have interviews, and don't request written work. The real complaints of injustice aren't when someone doesn't get into Oxbridge (because the large majority of applicants don't) but rather doesn't get into any, or very few, top universities. And there's little doubt in my mind that certain aspects of the general university process are deserving of critcism.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    most people whos doing 6 AS are just super geeky
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheWolf)
    10a* and 4as is just super geeky
    :rolleyes: Are you calling deianra a geek wolfy? Cos that's what she'll get!
    And I'll have 6 AS's! Though not 'cos I'm a geek, I just picked the wrong subjects!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheWolf)
    the person whos doing 6 AS is just super geeky
    Have you ever tried doing it? I did 6 AS's while doing more extra-curricular stuff than almost anyone in my year of 170 people. I realise this thread started with a somewhat baseless generalisation, but that doesn't mean you have to continue in that vein.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: January 29, 2005

University open days

  • Staffordshire University
    Everything except: Midwifery, Operating Department Practice, Paramedic Undergraduate
    Sun, 21 Oct '18
  • University of Exeter
    Undergraduate Open Days - Exeter Campus Undergraduate
    Wed, 24 Oct '18
  • University of Bradford
    Faculty of Health Studies Postgraduate
    Wed, 24 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.