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

Announcements
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the greatest)
    I'm a citizen and native of the UK, so I know the system well and in the UK a UG degree incorporated with a masters in architecture and engineering is more than sufficient to attain a good job. Worldwide is a different story as this is UK student forum mainly discussing UK student issues or topics so HK, Aus etc is irrelevant.


    Again your topic of discussion is all subjective of how relevant and competitive it is but like you stated yourself " And that is also the reason why fewer people go for postgraduate degrees, because whilst it might give you a (slight) advantage in most every position, it is not needed; not having one wouldn't lead you to not having the job. And then the additional costs."

    this is why I feel is one of the reasons why master courses in this country are not so difficult to get into. As I keep mentioning we can discuss with a PM how competitive and relevant you find master programs, but thats a a different topic. Your last paragraph has no basis for this topic, we are not discussing why we shouldn't base so much on statistics of competitiveness for master courses, but why they are so less competitive = more easy to get into.

    however you feel about masters courses is your own opinion and tbh I dont really care, I was answering a question based on the topic. I was using a general notion that most jobs dont need a masters, and the ones which do in this country as the industries mentioned can be attained at UG level. More graduate employers have a general requirement as either a BSc or a PhD and that is a reason IMO why one year master courses are easier to get into and like u said less competitive.
    My last paragraph has everything to do with this question: Fewer numbers of applicants do not mean it is less 'competitive' when the minimum requirements are set high. The average person applying to a master's programme is undeniably more qualified than the average person applying to a bachelor's programme.

    It is, as I've said, trying to suggest that it is less 'competitive' to go for Chinese presidency than a job at McDonald's because the former had a 100% success rate.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maskofsanity)
    They are official postgraduate statistics form the horse's mouth.

    Your bizarre comparison is irrelevant. The statistics show that their courses are not actually competitive for UK graduates. You can either accept this objective admission provided indirectly by Oxbridge themselves, or you can carry on this mundane argument on your tod.
    It is not irrelevant, but it seems you have failed to understand that.

    Just because 1 in 2 got in does not mean it is necessarily less competitive than somewhere where 1 in 4 got in. You are ignoring the mere fact that master's programmes set a way higher requirement than bachelor's programmes.

    The comparison is only bizarre as your logic is. Since you are suggesting that fewer numbers of applications in proportional to places offered means it is less competitive, ie easier to get in; than somewhere where 1 in 1 got in (eg Chinese presidency) must be easier than somewhere where not 100% of applicants got in (eg McDonald's).

    British applicants going to master's programmes have to have gone through bachelor's already, so the 'competitiveness' in this case is the competitiveness of their bachelor's plus the one for the master's, not 50%. How many bachelor's applicants got a 2:1 degree? Almost 0 if not exactly that. How many master's applicants at least pass three GCE? More than bachelor's applicants.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    Yes, so it's anything but a 'guarantee'. It is certainly not just any 2:1 from anywhere in anything under any circumstances can do, and that there are other factors being taken into account when making offers.
    Nobody suggested it was.

    I do not know whether you are misunderstanding the colloquial use of "competitive". In the sense folk have used it here they do not mean every situation where the number of applicants exceeds the number of places. That of course would be literally correct. They are describing courses as being competitive when there are a lot more applications than places available. By that standard many Oxford masters are not particularly competitive.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Nobody suggested it was.

    I do not know whether you are misunderstanding the colloquial use of "competitive". In the sense folk have used it here they do not mean every situation where the number of applicants exceeds the number of places. That of course would be literally correct. They are describing courses as being competitive when there are a lot more applications than places available. By that standard many Oxford masters are not particularly competitive.
    But if that definition is to be adopted, you need to be consistent about it. Why is 1 in 2 getting into Oxford less competitive when 1 in 1 becomes the Chinese president is not if that is the only factor everybody is looking at?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maskofsanity)
    The courses aren't really competitive at Cambridge though - have you actually looked at their graduate admissions statistics? The only reason the stats appear somewhat competitive at first blush is simply because they are heavily skewed by the huge proportion of international applications. For Oxford they made up over 75% last year; for Cambridge over 60%. If you look only at the UK students, the applicants to offer ratios is over 50%. In my book, that is not competitive.
    I partially agree with you here, with at least two caveats: (i) that minimum course requirements are frequently 67% and occasionally 70% in itself refutes the assertion of the OP. I should also add if you take the equivalent band of pre-university achievement (A*A*A* & A*A*A), the admission statistics are similarly generous: 57% and 26% acceptance rates respectively; (ii) funding is a very strong barrier (and thus disincentive) to most applications comparatively absent at undergraduate.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    But if that definition is to be adopted, you need to be consistent about it. Why is 1 in 2 getting into Oxford less competitive when 1 in 1 becomes the Chinese president is not if that is the only factor everybody is looking at?
    Because colloquial use of English is not consistent.

    On a hot day the temperatures will be in the 80s. On a cold day, it will be -2. The British measure heat in degrees Fahrenheit and cold in degrees Celsius.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Because colloquial use of English is not consistent.

    On a hot day the temperatures will be in the 80s. On a cold day, it will be -2. The British measure heat in degrees Fahrenheit and cold in degrees Celsius.
    Then those who claim whether getting into a taught master's programme in the UK is 'easy' or that it's not 'competitive' will first need to establish a valid comparison with other programmes.

    For example, if they are to compare it with undergraduate programmes, then they will need to look at the qualities of applicants first. It is simply not just '2 persons went for this and 1 person got in so it must be easier to get in than this programme which had 10 persons applied but only 1 got in'. The claim is even more ridiculous when there are undergraduate programmes at Oxford which have an acceptance rate of like 40%.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    Then those who claim whether getting into a taught master's programme in the UK is 'easy' or that it's not 'competitive' will first need to establish a valid comparison with other programmes.

    For example, if they are to compare it with undergraduate programmes, then they will need to look at the qualities of applicants first. It is simply not just '2 persons went for this and 1 person got in so it must be easier to get in than this programme which had 10 persons applied but only 1 got in'. The claim is even more ridiculous when there are undergraduate programmes at Oxford which have an acceptance rate of like 40%.
    Just to muddy the waters further, I think you (and possibly others) may be confusing "competitive" with "selective".

    For example, when I applied for my Masters course, it had an 8:1 application-to-offer ratio - for every 8 people who applied, only 1 was made an offer. This didn't mean that there were 8 people applying for every 1 place (competitive). Rather that for every 8 applicants, only 1 was seen as having an academic background, skillset and demonstrable interest which were compatible with the course syllabus (selective).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Klix88)
    Just to muddy the waters further, I think you (and possibly others) may be confusing "competitive" with "selective".

    For example, when I applied for my Masters course, it had an 8:1 application-to-offer ratio - for every 8 people who applied, only 1 was made an offer. This didn't mean that there were 8 people applying for every 1 place (competitive). Rather that for every 8 applicants, only 1 was seen as having an academic background, skillset and demonstrable interest which were compatible with the course syllabus (selective).
    The stuff in bold, well said. Speaking to a few post grad admission tutors, they are so so picky about the modules that you do. Not having the right prerequisite knowledge will screw you over at post grad
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What's the Masters in Political Communication like at Cardiff?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Misovlogos)
    I partially agree with you here, with at least two caveats: (i) that minimum course requirements are frequently 67% and occasionally 70% in itself refutes the assertion of the OP. I should also add if you take the equivalent band of pre-university achievement (A*A*A* & A*A*A), the admission statistics are similarly generous: 57% and 26% acceptance rates respectively; (ii) funding is a very strong barrier (and thus disincentive) to most applications comparatively absent at undergraduate.
    I'd agree with you, if the 67% and 70% statistics didn't come out of your ass.

    I just met up with a PhD guy doing Mathematics in LSE and he actually have already started work even though he's supposed to still be doing his PhD for another year and a half. He admitted that he just smoked everyday, devoted a few hours a day to the thesis then still completed it early. Now he's still in the course so they keep paying him the stipend xD
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jelly1000)
    Those are for international students or people wanting to study abroad. Here in the UK there are no specific scholarship schemes for UK students to do a one year taught masters at home.
    Yes there are. Cambridge was offered full scholarships to the UK/EU students for the masters course I am on.

    Also, let's not forget that many, many students do 'undergraduate masters' - ie 5 year programmes in Scotland and 4 year in England. It's really the way to go as it gives an extra year for internships, and many students pay reduced fees (eg EU students in Scotland won't pay fees at all and get a 5 year undergraduate masters with 5 summers to do internships around the world...).

    Masters in the UK offer excellent opportunities for those that come from abroad - often the price tag is worth it when you consider that there are many high paying jobs internationals go on to nab in the UK. What's wrong with this? Everyone wins. Be happy that the UK is considered such a reputable place for higher education across the globes thanks to this.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MartinMorrison)
    Yes there are. Cambridge was offered full scholarships to the UK/EU students for the masters course I am on.

    Also, let's not forget that many, many students do 'undergraduate masters' - ie 5 year programmes in Scotland and 4 year in England. It's really the way to go as it gives an extra year for internships, and many students pay reduced fees (eg EU students in Scotland won't pay fees at all and get a 5 year undergraduate masters with 5 summers to do internships around the world...).

    Masters in the UK offer excellent opportunities for those that come from abroad - often the price tag is worth it when you consider that there are many high paying jobs internationals go on to nab in the UK. What's wrong with this? Everyone wins. Be happy that the UK is considered such a reputable place for higher education across the globes thanks to this.
    I mean there is nothing like student finance where you can get money for tuition fees and maintenance. It's largely university specific.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    This is a really interesting thread and I find it curious that the finance/economics degrees seem to be the ones in focus.

    As a sport scientist, I have to undertake a MSc in order to get accredited status, something which is required for all the jobs that aren't glorified PTs. Additionally undertaking a one-year MSc gives me the chance to network with employers more voraciously than I did as an undergrad.

    I'm not saying it's right for everyone, and I've taken a year out (yes, working and gaining experience) before applying for it, but in the sports science field I think that a MSc course is certainly not a cash cow...finance degrees where they think it's acceptable to charge ludicrous amounts, may be a completely different story!
 
 
 
  • 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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • 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.