Postgraduate at top unis easier to get into than undergraduate courses?

Playboy King

Are postgraduate courses easier to get into than undergraduate courses? I've always wondered because for most specialist postgraduate courses there isn't the high level of competition like there is for undergraduate ones. Also, there aren't tuition fee caps so home students can then be 'paying their way in' to the courses at great unis.

You need good requirements, usually at least a 2:1 so provided you meet them, are the chances of getting in much greater because there's less competition? Now obviously I know if it's a course for say masters in finance or acturial science etc. at Judge, Said, LSE then it'll be extremely difficult but I'm talking about the more specialist postgraduate courses that only a few people would apply to for example Photonics or Computing with artificial intelligence at Imperial...or nanotechnology at UCL and even Linguistics at Oxford? (just picking random courses by the way, assuming that they are unpopular with very few applicants wanting to do these specialist courses). For these courses would just meeting the requirements alone be enough to pretty much get you in or do you still get incidents like with undergraduate courses where students who even surpass the requirements get rejected due to the great competition?

Well, postgraduate admissions can be difficult, since you have to actually get a 2:1 or a first at uni in order to stand a good chance of getting accepted - so that is difficult in itself. Courses that are less subscribed to do have a higher acceptance rate, but you'll still need to be a good fit for the course/program (i.e. research interests, language skills, etc.). And, of course you will still have to make a good case as to why that course/program should accept you in your Statement of Purpose. Essentially, it may look easier, but it is still difficult to do.

Reply 3

Oxford and Cambridge will always be tough to get into purely because of their name and reputation.

Something can be said on the whole about being able to pay yourself, especially if student numbers are down but you still have to meet the requirements of your offer. Getting a high 2:1 (normally 65+ but some unis do spcify 67+) isn't actually that easy to do! Saying that, PG applications are far more about the all round student and what else they bring. Compared to UCAS where it's a 600 word PS with both academic and extra-curricula within the one piece, for postgrad, especially for PhDs, you're looking at being an academically able student, very good references (hopefully from the bigger names in your respective field), publications, research experience etc etc.

Whilst numbers per course may be lower, although I'm not so sure given the mass increase in people applying instead of trying to find a job, PG applications on the whole are still quite tough. There's also a big international factor with a lot of students coming over, more so than for UG.

Reply 4

shiny

12

Postgrad is much more of a mixed bag than undergrad so it is hard to make any sweeping generalisations. The only thing I can say is that competition for funded places is usually fierce.

Reply 5

shiny

Postgrad is much more of a mixed bag than undergrad so it is hard to make any sweeping generalisations. The only thing I can say is that competition for funded places is usually fierce.

This is a very good point to raise. If you take self funded students out of the equation the stats for number of applying and number of people actually getting funding would send quite a few people running for the hills.

Before the AHRC quota system came in, success rate was something like 23%

Reply 6

AfghanistanBananistan

6

Whereas at undergrad loads of people apply who probably dont stand a chance, i would say that at postgrad there is a better standard of applicant. For example, a politics masters at LSE may only have 5 applicants per place compared to 15 at undergrad, but no doubt those 5 applicants are of a high standard. Also, lest not forget, beating off 4-5 other people is still pretty tough and you need at least a high 2:1 (67+) to be considered.

All the UK postgrads i know at top uni's like Oxbridge, Imperial and LSE, tend to come from uni's like Warwick, Durham, Edinburgh, Nottingham, Oxbridge, e.t.c and have a high 2:1 in a related subject. At Oxbridge, everyone has a 1st. Therefore the standard is high, half because the courses are demanding and it is not in the uni's interest to accept just anyone.

Reply 7

hobnob

14

In addition to what everybody else has said, obscure and highly specialised courses are not usually the only course offered by a department and there are no fixed quotas for each course (as far as I know, anyway), so if there aren't enough good applicants to fill all the places for one of the less popular courses, they can just make up the numbers by accepting a few more for one of the more popular courses which attract more - and therefore more high-quality - applicants. So I doubt that universities will be desperate to fill all of their places on the less popular courses no matter what - at least not universities like the ones that you mentioned, which are otherwise very popular with applicants.

Reply 8

Angelil

There's not much I can add to what you've already been told above, but since you mention postgraduate linguistics at Oxford, I can tell you that while the ratio of applicants to those who were accepted onto research degrees in the department was almost 2:1 (13 applicants to 6 places, the grad prospectus tells me), chances for taught degrees in this department are slimmer: 72 applicants to 18 places results in a ratio of 4:1 (if my maths is right!). This is more competitive than undergraduate chemistry at Oxford, where I heard that the ratio of applicants to acceptances is 2:1 (if someone could correct me if I'm wrong then that would be great).

Reply 9

AfghanistanBananistan

At Oxbridge, everyone has a 1st.

No they don't.

Reply 10

AfghanistanBananistan

6

apotoftea

No they don't.

Well for all 'top' courses the minimum entry requirement is a first. Im talking IR, History, Politics, Econ, Management, Finance, Most sciences, e.t.c

Reply 11

AfghanistanBananistan

Well for all 'top' courses the minimum entry requirement is a first. Im talking IR, History, Politics, Econ, Management, Finance, Most sciences, e.t.c

For History, the minimum entry requirement is a 2:1, not a 1st. But, it wouldn't hurt to have a 1st though.

Reply 12

faith2323

If you're a bright student with a genuine passion for the subject which you want to study postgrad (which should therefore shine through in your application and at interview) you shouldn't have a problem.
At undergrad, I got accepted into 2/6 unis I applied to (with AAB at A level). At postgrad, with a low 2:1 (i.e. 61%) I got accepted into all 5, including UCL (so not **** ex-polys I mean).

Reply 13

faith2323

At undergrad, I got accepted into 2/6 unis I applied to (with AAB at A level). At postgrad, with a low 2:1 (i.e. 61%) I got accepted into all 5, including UCL (so not **** ex-polys I mean).

Other than UCL, what schools did you apply to?

Reply 14

AfghanistanBananistan

6

rmn002

For History, the minimum entry requirement is a 2:1, not a 1st. But, it wouldn't hurt to have a 1st though.

It says a first in my prospectus

Reply 15

AfghanistanBananistan

It says a first in my prospectus

You're talking about Oxford right? If so then I'm confused.

Reply 16