Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why are Master's taught courses in the UK so stupidly easy to get into? Watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frith27)
    I recognise that it's still the minority, especially for graduate schemes. However who knows what the future holds, maybe the standard for graduate schemes will rise from a 2:1.

    If you genuinely love what you study and feel that it will benefit your career choices then I don't see why you should be put off taking an MSc in lieu of going straight into the job market.
    Obviously if you want to study for its own sake go for it but if your thinking about getting an edge in the job market its not usually the way to go.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    The 'Golden Triangle' is supposedly Oxford, Cambridge, ICL, LSE, UCL and KCL.

    There are a number of masters which you can only get into with a 1st at at least the first 4.

    If you had said Russell Group, it would have been more sensible.
    Only Oxbridge require 1st for courses. KCL for pure maths msc are happy to accept 2:2 and even 3rd with a graduate diploma.
    UCl also widely accept 2:1
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sadhukar)
    Pretty much anyone with a 2:1 can get into a golden triangle uni, even Billy from Midlands Polytechnic.

    Hell I know someone who got a 3.0 GPA in the US, failed his IB diploma and still got into UCL for a taught master's in economics.

    And the more important question - do employers know this?
    It depends on what subject.e.g Economics masters will always be harder to get into anywhere you apply hence why they are so expensive. Something like e.g pure maths, statistical modelling or aeronautical engineering (just random examples) will be very easy to get into.

    There is a massive shortfall of people with maths skills in the uk. The govt would rather have a retard doing postgraduate maths than noone at all if we are to compete on the global stage. Think about how many people do a bsc in maths, physics or chemistry. Then think about how many of those people complete their degree and can be arsed to study something even more difficult. Then out of those how many people can afford to fork out nearly 10 grand after being in so much debt from undergraduate.
    Hence its no wonder places like imperial are still open for applications in stuff like applied maths for this year. Would they rather let a place go to waste or give it some retard and get 10 grand or more from him. A uni is a business.

    Lastly unis want their reputation to be enhanced and this is done by people getting good jobs at the end. SO work experience counts for a lot. If you had an applicant come to you with i.e goldman sachs or a top engineering firm on his cv, you would be stuid to let him go no matter what his grades. It says on UCL site "if you do not meet the entry requirement but have relevant work experience than you are ok" (paraphrasing a little but you get the gist haha)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathmatician)
    Only Oxbridge require 1st for courses.
    Not for all the courses. It's either a First or a 2.1.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathmatician)
    Only Oxbridge require 1st for courses. KCL for pure maths msc are happy to accept 2:2 and even 3rd with a graduate diploma.
    UCl also widely accept 2:1
    Try to get into ICL Petroleum Geology with just a 2.1, or Fundamental Forces and Fields with anything less than a 1st, regardless of work experience. Or LSE Econometrics and Mathematical Economics.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Try to get into ICL Petroleum Geology with just a 2.1, or Fundamental Forces and Fields with anything less than a 1st, regardless of work experience. Or LSE Econometrics and Mathematical Economics.
    Ok, I was generalising a bit, obviously some popular courses will have higher requirements.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    And just a general remark: grade boundaries have seldom to do with the relative difficulty of the course but the amount of applicants. That's why some years ago you got into Oxbridge or Imperial or ... with lower grades.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frith27)
    "I know one person" ≠ the entire golden triangle application process.

    Especially for economics, I've just graduated with a high 2:1 in the discipline and knew that I wouldn't stand a chance in applying for LSE, Cambridge, UCL. My friend who is almost certain to graduate with the best mark on the course applied for various London uni's and his best offer was from KCL.



    What about job's that specifically state that a Master's degree is a prerequisite, or at the very least very desirable? With the ever increasing amount of undergraduate's with at least a 2:1, don't you think that an MSc helps to differentiate from the rest?

    You state that Master's are cash cows, most non-finance/non London MSc's cost less than £9000, which is the going rate for one year of undergraduate study.
    Have you tried though? Alot of people seem to assume that they won't get in, without ever trying.

    Good shout from everyone regarding that it's only some degree courses, but the topic was about how easy it is to get in the university itself. I would've thought that elite unis would not want Billy from midlands polytechnic to be associated with them at all (or give him a very dodgy degree, like some form of diploma) but there seems to be a wealth of 'alternatively named' courses in these elites where you can get in with vastly lower credentials but still sound sort of like what employers want to read on the CV, like 'Computing', 'Managerial Science for X', etc.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sadhukar)
    Have you tried though? Alot of people seem to assume that they won't get in, without ever trying.

    Good shout from everyone regarding that it's only some degree courses, but the topic was about how easy it is to get in the university itself. I would've thought that elite unis would not want Billy from midlands polytechnic to be associated with them at all (or give him a very dodgy degree, like some form of diploma) but there seems to be a wealth of 'alternatively named' courses in these elites where you can get in with vastly lower credentials but still sound sort of like what employers want to read on the CV, like 'Computing', 'Managerial Science for X', etc.
    I would have tried but there's no way I'd be able to afford the living costs of London, that leaves Oxbridge who, for Economics at least, would be looking for a 1st at minimum.

    I don't really see why an elite university wouldn't want to be associated with former polytechnic students. It's not as if an employer will see BSc at X poly followed by, MSc at KCL and think any less of Kings because of the applicant's previous university. Why should someone who went to a poly or lower ranked uni be denied the chance when they meet the entry criteria?

    A 2:1 is the minimum requirement, getting 60.00% might not cut it if the course has a high number of applicants per place or their references aren't particularly glowing.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Oxbridge get 1s and 2:1s, whilst the 'lower' one in the Golden Triangle, ie KCL, would get 2:2s. But it doesn't mean anyone with that can get into it.

    The thing about changing career path is that, it's difficult to enter a master's programme in those universities without a relevant degree. I mean, I did a BEd and I attempted to apply to Institute of Education, University of London for a particular master's programme which is in curriculum (ie not too relevant to my degree academically). The stated requirement was a 2:2 and they rejected me. The same institution, however, offered me to do another master's in a field relevant to my undergraduate degree.

    I also tried to apply to University of Cambridge for a children's literature programme which obviously is not too relevant to my degree, but sort of a similar direction. They rejected me. Whilst at the same University of Oxford gave me an offer to do a master's in a degree highly relevant to my undergraduate degree.

    Universities also don't just give out offers to everybody to get money. I applied to a programme at King's College London and they cancelled the programme after several months because of low application rate. Now, I don't think KCL would have problem getting 20 applications, would they?

    And I don't come from some ex-poly either - my university has been the No 1 university in Asia-Pacific, and was No 8 globally in the field of education. We also have higher admission grades in general than Oxbridge for undergraduate studies.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frith27)
    "I know one person" ≠ the entire golden triangle application process.

    Especially for economics, I've just graduated with a high 2:1 in the discipline and knew that I wouldn't stand a chance in applying for LSE, Cambridge, UCL. My friend who is almost certain to graduate with the best mark on the course applied for various London uni's and his best offer was from KCL.
    That's odd, my partner did Maths and was accepted onto economics courses at LSE, UCL and Nottingham. I didn't even think they did an Economics masters at Kings. He didn't go in the end because money - the two year course for Mathematicians at LSE costs 40 grand in fees!

    I suppose it depends how maths heavy your course was, some are very light on the maths side of things.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    Universities also don't just give out offers to everybody to get money. I applied to a programme at King's College London and they cancelled the programme after several months because of low application rate. Now, I don't think KCL would have problem getting 20 applications, would they?
    They mostly do, if minimum academic requirements have been met, even more so in the less competitive areas. Your example of KCL only serves to prove that - there wasn't enough money so they cancelled it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I don't call a masters from Bristol Uni stupidly easy
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    Oxbridge get 1s and 2:1s, whilst the 'lower' one in the Golden Triangle, ie KCL, would get 2:2s. But it doesn't mean anyone with that can get into it.

    The thing about changing career path is that, it's difficult to enter a master's programme in those universities without a relevant degree. I mean, I did a BEd and I attempted to apply to Institute of Education, University of London for a particular master's programme which is in curriculum (ie not too relevant to my degree academically). The stated requirement was a 2:2 and they rejected me. The same institution, however, offered me to do another master's in a field relevant to my undergraduate degree.

    I also tried to apply to University of Cambridge for a children's literature programme which obviously is not too relevant to my degree, but sort of a similar direction. They rejected me. Whilst at the same University of Oxford gave me an offer to do a master's in a degree highly relevant to my undergraduate degree.

    Universities also don't just give out offers to everybody to get money. I applied to a programme at King's College London and they cancelled the programme after several months because of low application rate. Now, I don't think KCL would have problem getting 20 applications, would they?

    And I don't come from some ex-poly either - my university has been the No 1 university in Asia-Pacific, and was No 8 globally in the field of education. We also have higher admission grades in general than Oxbridge for undergraduate studies.
    Are you sure you were rejected just because your undergraduate was less relevant to the subjects you applied for? Didn't they just consider your statements of purpose or references less appealing? By all means, I know nothing about your applications, but unless you received specific feedback that would say why you were rejected, you never know.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M'Ling)
    They just want your money. Don't be impressed by job-dodgers who talk of their up-and-coming Masters Degree. Most Unis will only care how you do in it if you apply for a PhD.

    Got the cash? Come on down! Just don't forget the cash...
    I don't think all masters students are job dodgers - especially in vocational subjects such as finance. After my economics degree, I was thinking of doing an Msc in Risk Management - aiding a career in Compliance, Analyst, Risk Management or Risk Consultancy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    That's odd, my partner did Maths and was accepted onto economics courses at LSE, UCL and Nottingham. I didn't even think they did an Economics masters at Kings. He didn't go in the end because money - the two year course for Mathematicians at LSE costs 40 grand in fees!

    I suppose it depends how maths heavy your course was, some are very light on the maths side of things.
    I think it's either a fairly new course, or not straight economics, but regardless he has graduated with a Bachelors in economics with a ridiculously high classification mark and couldn't get in to the LSE's and Oxbridge's. Funny you should mention Nottingham as that's where I've chosen to go in September!

    Your transcript and how quantitative your undergraduate modules play a big role I'd imagine, but also things like references from recognised, published authors/professors, societies and internships will help separate applicants with similarly high marks.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frith27)
    I think it's either a fairly new course, or not straight economics, but regardless he has graduated with a Bachelors in economics with a ridiculously high classification mark and couldn't get in to the LSE's and Oxbridge's. Funny you should mention Nottingham as that's where I've chosen to go in September!

    Your transcript and how quantitative your undergraduate modules play a big role I'd imagine, but also things like references from recognised, published authors/professors, societies and internships will help separate applicants with similarly high marks.
    He didn't really have anything going for him except a very good maths degree to be honest. We were surprised he got an offer from UCL as it said on the website they rarely take people who haven't done an economics bachelor's.

    He decided to work in the end because it was just too expensive with the two years he'd have to do in Nottingham and the living costs at UCL!

    Hope Nottingham goes well for you!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    He didn't really have anything going for him except a very good maths degree to be honest. We were surprised he got an offer from UCL as it said on the website they rarely take people who haven't done an economics bachelor's.

    He decided to work in the end because it was just too expensive with the two years he'd have to do in Nottingham and the living costs at UCL!

    Hope Nottingham goes well for you!
    People are often surprised at how quantitative economics is, obviously not as much as physics/engineering etc, but certainly more than the business and finance courses that it sometimes gets mistaken for. Therefore having a very good Maths/Physics degree will ensure that they have a grasp of the maths and all they need to get up to scratch on is the economic theory.

    I had some offers in London as well but also decided that the living costs were far too much, luckily Nottingham is much more reasonable!

    Thank you!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ivanka)
    Are you sure you were rejected just because your undergraduate was less relevant to the subjects you applied for? Didn't they just consider your statements of purpose or references less appealing? By all means, I know nothing about your applications, but unless you received specific feedback that would say why you were rejected, you never know.
    I was rejected from one programme from the IoE, but offered in another. Same institution, same statements, same background, same results, same references.

    Of course it can also be that the first programme was more experience-focused or popular, therefore I also threw out the Oxbridge examples.

    I didn't ask for feedback from anyone, but my friend did with his application to Imperial earlier. Imperial told him that his undergraduate degree was not relevant enough.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maskofsanity)
    They mostly do, if minimum academic requirements have been met, even more so in the less competitive areas. Your example of KCL only serves to prove that - there wasn't enough money so they cancelled it.
    So you're saying that KCL has trouble finding 10-20 applicants?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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