The Student Room Group

admissions: cambridge vs lse vs america

cambridge: significantly easier to get into than LSE?

http://www.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/statistics/colleges.html#churchill

i.e. mostly > 20%.

2008 LSE UG econ yield: 236 students out of 2,861 applicants = 8% (source http://www.lse.ac.uk/resources/undergraduateProspectus2009/courses/Economics/L101.htm)

2008 LSE UG history yield: 42/615 = 6.8%
(source http://www.lse.ac.uk/resources/undergraduateProspectus2009/courses/International_History/V146.htm)

(also i realize that the cambridge stats are applications and offers, not yield, yet the dichotomy between LSE and Cambridge selectivity numbers seems nevertheless large; even assuming a 80% LSE matriculation rate that would still give LSE's history and econ courses a sub-10% selectivity rate)

--------------------------------------

only 1 or 2 cambridge colleges go beneath 20% selectivity. can that possibly be right? in america at least 30-40 colleges are more competitive at the UG level.

-------------------------------------

am i missing something? surely the distinguished Cambridge University, founded ca 1200 AD is more difficult to get into than the numbers suggest?
Reply 1
Cambridge place a lot of importance on the interview, and many students are too inimidated by the whole Oxbridge thing to even apply. Plus the 15th october deadline means that a lot of A level students are still dithering about with UCAS. If your grades are reasonable, and your personal statement and imterview are outstanding, chances are youll be offered a place. LSE go on the basis of your UCAS form.
think size of country vs. size of colleges, and you'll start to see why selectivity doesn't really mean a thing.
Reply 3
51% of LSE Undergraduates are non-EU/British.
Reply 4
bobby_Zz

am i missing something? surely the distinguished Cambridge University, founded ca 1200 AD is more difficult to get into than the numbers suggest?


Upon closer examination, you will find that you have answered your own question: Many people think exactly that and hence don't apply to Cambridge because they don't think they stand a chance whereas they believe to get lucky with LSE. The percentage of people accepted does not matter at all since you have no information about the people applying.

For the US, they don't have UCAS, hence everyone can apply to more than 5 universities, therefore making the applicants/places ratio a lot smaller overall.
In UK - an applicant is allowed to apply to only 5 unis. In US - an applicant can apply to as many as one wishes. So comparing application statistics is a mute thing.

And one more thing. if all the people who apply to Oxford were allowed to apply to Cambridge - then the number of applicants would straight away double.
Reply 6
Dumb Economist
In UK - an applicant is allowed to apply to only 5 unis. In US - an applicant can apply to as many as one wishes. So comparing application statistics is a mute thing.

And one more thing. if all the people who apply to Oxford were allowed to apply to Cambridge - then the number of applicants would straight away double.


Those two reasons plus the fact that very few people apply to Oxbridge, and even fewer Cambridge where they ask for your UMS scores, on the off-chance that they'll get an offer.

There is a whole ordeal of forms, extra tests and interviews to go through so it's usually only those who want to go to these universities and are willing to put the effort into their application who apply. The standard is pretty high and about 95% of Cambridge applicants are said to have 'a realistic chance of admission' whereas quite a few LSE applicants aren't up to scratch and can be dismissed quite easily.

Statistics like those really paint a skewed image of the difficulty and competition at universities in real terms.
Reply 7
This is what I think:

The figures usually denote the applicant + place (enrollment) percentage.

I'm pretty sure that 95%+ of successful oxbridge applicants place Oxbridge as their immediate firm choice. And the vast majority of them make the grade.

In the USA, you are able to apply to however many universities as you wish. Including all Ivy league schools, should you want to.

A successful UPenn applicant, for instance, might also have an offer from MiT for engineering ~ thus, he/she would typically select MiT instead. He might even have a caltech offer, so he might lean towards that instead of MiT or UPenn.

With regards to LSE - Sure, they have a lower % of applicant:tongue:laces. But as someone has mentioned, the majority are international students. And may be more inclined to attend a top university that they have an offer from in their own country.

OP you really have to think deeply about the universal applicants:tongue:laces ratio. I hope you get my drift. :s-smilie:
Reply 8
RBarack

With regards to LSE - Sure, they have a lower % of applicant:tongue:laces. But as someone has mentioned, the majority are international students. And may be more inclined to attend a top university that they have an offer from in their own country.



disagree completely. this would be understandable for US applicants. but for every other country in the world, i find it hard to imagine ppl would choose their country over LSE.

so this leaves the US, and for them, the majority of US students at LSE are general course students. so tbh im not sure how many of them apply to LSE as a first year undergrad in the first place.
Reply 9
danny111
disagree completely. this would be understandable for US applicants. but for every other country in the world, i find it hard to imagine ppl would choose their country over LSE.

so this leaves the US, and for them, the majority of US students at LSE are general course students. so tbh im not sure how many of them apply to LSE as a first year undergrad in the first place.


It depends on the course. Sure, if you get an offer for economics, accounting, mathematics or law there is initiative to spend sacks of money on a degree at the LSE. But there is often much less initiative to spend much more money at the LSE on any of the other degrees when you could read it at a much cheaper, nationally prestigious university at home.

Case: My friend who had an offer to study Mathematical finance at Imperial College. He declined this to study Mathematics at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology because he had a scholarship that covered all his tuition fees. Alternatively, he would have to pay 18,000 odd pounds a year for 4 years at Imperial College.
Reply 10
RBarack
This is what I think:

The figures usually denote the applicant + place (enrollment) percentage.

I'm pretty sure that 95%+ of successful oxbridge applicants place Oxbridge as their immediate firm choice. And the vast majority of them make the grade.

In the USA, you are able to apply to however many universities as you wish. Including all Ivy league schools, should you want to.

A successful UPenn applicant, for instance, might also have an offer from MiT for engineering ~ thus, he/she would typically select MiT instead. He might even have a caltech offer, so he might lean towards that instead of MiT or UPenn.

With regards to LSE - Sure, they have a lower % of applicant:tongue:laces. But as someone has mentioned, the majority are international students. And may be more inclined to attend a top university that they have an offer from in their own country.

OP you really have to think deeply about the universal applicants:tongue:laces ratio. I hope you get my drift. :s-smilie:


I get it, but it doesn't change my opinion that prestigious US universities are harder to get in to than British ones. That may be because 1) the US simply has a larger population (though you would think UK unis especially LSE would be an aspirational destination for students from throughout the entirety of the former empire), or 2) it may reflect the peculiarities of the application process, specifically in the sense of you can only apply to 5, to either Oxford OR Cambridge, etc.

However I find those two reasons not convincing enough to change my original opinion. Of US universities' applicant pools, probably 75% stand a solid chance of admission (a number plucked from out of the blue). Yet for almost all prestigious US universities, of which there are probably 40 or 50, admissions rates hover around 20% and, in the case of at least 30 of them, go below (sometimes wayyy below). Therefore, just as Oxbridge turns away a ton of qualified applicants, so do most US schools. This is important to refute the notion that a bunch of stupid people wing applications at Harvard because of the Common App and this distorts statistics; the vast majority of people who apply(ied) to Harvard, myself included, were well-qualified yet still got owned in the end. The admissions stats of the Ivy League, which would be most analogous to Oxbridge in terms of prestige, fall into the sub-10% range, while Cambridge's chill in the mid 20's.

Furthermore, what you have to remember is that the manifold special interests which exercise a disproportionate amount of influence in the American college admissions game - specifically athletics departments, affirmative action initiatives, and legacies - simply do not exist in Britain, or at least do so in much reduced form. In America, these special interests combine to positively influence the applications of probably 30% at least of the admitted students (10% URMs, 10% athletes to get the big donors to maintain their ties to the school by coming to games and thereby keep those donors' money flowing in, 10% Board of Trustees' sons/daughters). These special interests therefore get at least 30% of the spots in your average university class, yet they make up probably 5% or less of the applicant pool. That leaves the rest of the applicant pool, probably 95% (of whom probably 75% could conceivably stand a chance being admitted) to compete for the remaining 70% of leftover spots.

Let me quantify this to make this easier. Say we take a relatively prestigious (not Ivy, but "very good" lower 1st tier uni) that says it has an admissions rate of close to 20%. 500 spots. 2500 applicants. Yet the special interests get 165 (30%) of the spots. That leaves 2,335 applicants (of whom 75%, or 1750-odd, are probably eligible for admission) to compete for the remaining 335 places. Thus the stated admissions rate of 20% in reality is, for someone without special connections, 335/2335= 14%. That's theoretically Ivy territory; imagine the process at work in Ivy admissions, and 14% goes down to 7, or 7% goes down to, God knows what, 3%? So US college admissions rates are even lower than advertised; yet even using the advertised rates, the rates are still lower than in Britain.

Allz I'm saying is that it's harder to get into prestigious US universities than UK ones. Don't flame me yet. I never said the quality of the EDUCATION you receive at prestigious US schools is better than at equivalent British ones on account of the more-competitive student bodies they have. I haven't formed a general opinion on which system is superior to which once you've gotten in the door and actually arrived at university. All I've said is that I think US universities are harder to get into.
Reply 11
bobby_Zz
I get it, but it doesn't change my opinion that prestigious US universities are harder to get in to than British ones. That may be because 1) the US simply has a larger population (though you would think UK unis especially LSE would be an aspirational destination for students from throughout the entirety of the former empire), or 2) it may reflect the peculiarities of the application process, specifically in the sense of you can only apply to 5, to either Oxford OR Cambridge, etc.

However I find those two reasons not convincing enough to change my original opinion. Of US universities' applicant pools, probably 75% stand a solid chance of admission (a number plucked from out of the blue). Yet for almost all prestigious US universities, of which there are probably 40 or 50, admissions rates hover around 20% and, in the case of at least 30 of them, go below (sometimes wayyy below). Therefore, just as Oxbridge turns away a ton of qualified applicants, so do most US schools. This is important to refute the notion that a bunch of stupid people wing applications at Harvard because of the Common App and this distorts statistics; the vast majority of people who apply(ied) to Harvard, myself included, were well-qualified yet still got owned in the end. The admissions stats of the Ivy League, which would be most analogous to Oxbridge in terms of prestige, fall into the sub-10% range, while Cambridge's chill in the mid 20's.

Furthermore, what you have to remember is that the manifold special interests which exercise a disproportionate amount of influence in the American college admissions game - specifically athletics departments, affirmative action initiatives, and legacies - simply do not exist in Britain, or at least do so in much reduced form. In America, these special interests combine to positively influence the applications of probably 30% at least of the admitted students (10% URMs, 10% athletes to get the big donors to maintain their ties to the school by coming to games and thereby keep those donors' money flowing in, 10% Board of Trustees' sons/daughters). These special interests therefore get at least 30% of the spots in your average university class, yet they make up probably 5% or less of the applicant pool. That leaves the rest of the applicant pool, probably 95% (of whom probably 75% could conceivably stand a chance being admitted) to compete for the remaining 70% of leftover spots.

Let me quantify this to make this easier. Say we take a relatively prestigious (not Ivy, but "very good" lower 1st tier uni) that says it has an admissions rate of close to 20%. 500 spots. 2500 applicants. Yet the special interests get 165 (30%) of the spots. That leaves 2,335 applicants (of whom 75%, or 1750-odd, are probably eligible for admission) to compete for the remaining 335 places. Thus the stated admissions rate of 20% in reality is, for someone without special connections, 335/2335= 14%. That's theoretically Ivy territory; imagine the process at work in Ivy admissions, and 14% goes down to 7, or 7% goes down to, God knows what, 3%? So US college admissions rates are even lower than advertised; yet even using the advertised rates, the rates are still lower than in Britain.

Allz I'm saying is that it's harder to get into prestigious US universities than UK ones. Don't flame me yet. I never said the quality of the EDUCATION you receive at prestigious US schools is better than at equivalent British ones on account of the more-competitive student bodies they have. I haven't formed a general opinion on which system is superior to which once you've gotten in the door and actually arrived at university. All I've said is that I think US universities are harder to get into.


I went to an international school in Hong Kong. There were about 10 - 20 Oxbridge applicants. All failed. There were about 5 - 10 Ivy league school applicants. 1 got into Cornell, the other into Brown. And US schools are supposed to be harder to get into for international students, whilst British schools are lenient towards international students.

EDIT: Then again, Cornell and Brown aren't in the same league as Oxbridge. Still Ivy though.

Further EDIT: Also, no one in my school got into UPenn/Harvard/Berkeley/MiT/Caltech/Columbia/Stanford. Meh. =/
Reply 12
Check this out OP:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/759114.stm

That's how gruelling the Oxbridge admissions process is.
Reply 13
LSE doesn't have an 80% matriculation rate. About 10% of people given offers miss them, and probably a larger percentage are given offers but turn it down.
Reply 14
even the most generous assumption for matriculation rates leaves the selectivity rate below or around 10% i.e. much lower than cambridge and more in line with the ivy league.
RBarack
Check this out OP:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/759114.stm

That's how gruelling the Oxbridge admissions process is.


This is not about how difficutl the admission/selection process is! The article it is about the potential bias in selectivity against state schools, u missed the point of the article!

It says nothing about how hard it is to get into oxbridge it shows how it may be a bit dodge!
Urban Scholar
This is not about how difficutl the admission/selection process is! The article it is about the potential bias in selectivity against state schools, u missed the point of the article!

It says nothing about how hard it is to get into oxbridge it shows how it may be a bit dodge!


Je - it is NINE year old article.... Things have changed since then.
Reply 17
Totally different admissions systems - can't compare. I know kids who've been accepted to Harvard/Yale/Princeton & been flat out rejected from Oxford and vice versa. At the end of the day, Oxbridge looks for passion & talent for one subject whereas Ivies are much more into "well rounded individuals" (whatever the hell that means). Also, Oxford and Cambridge don't have centralised admission, they have subject/college specific admission which totally changes the numbers game because you're only competing against people who want to study your subject at your college...