Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by melbourne)
    so you're saying a 2.1 from Goldsmiths College is equivalent to a 2.1 from LSE, UCL or Imperial? oooooooooook
    I didn't "say" it. The University of London's Statutes said it. You, or the masses, may say otherwise, but I was just reminding the general public that there is such as thing as the UoL Statute and the Subject Board committee that oversees this sort of standard/quality thing. And the people who made up the Committees are the professors from across all the London colleges.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JustaGuy)
    I didn't "say" it. The University of London's Statutes said it. You, or the masses, may say otherwise, but I was just reminding the general public that there is such as thing as the UoL Statute and the Subject Board committee that oversees this sort of standard/quality thing. And the people who made up the Committees are the professors from across all the London colleges.
    I doubt vey much that employers bother to read the UoL statute...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I wish I'd applied to UCL. Almost definitely wouldn't have got in though (for Law, anyway).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beekeeper)
    So *generally* a 2:1 from LSE, UCL, IC is regarded higher than one from QM?

    Lets face it, if IC, for example, is *generally* seen to recruit better students, and top employers chose them because of this, surely their degrees are more valuable.
    You totally didn't get my point, but whatever :rolleyes:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JustaGuy)
    You totally didn't get my point, but whatever :rolleyes:
    lol, really? Then what was your point? Very rarely do I have problems understanding something that is logical and well explained.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beekeeper)
    lol, really? Then what was your point? Very rarely do I have problems understanding something that is logical and well explained.
    Very rarely do I repeat explaining things to people who couldn't for their life get a simple point the very first time
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JustaGuy)
    Very rarely do I repeat explaining things to people who couldn't for their life get a simple point the very first time
    I may not have got your obscure point, but you still failed to answer my very simple question.

    Is it not the response you were looking for?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I've made it more paletable for you:

    It is given that people who get into LSE, UCL, Imperial *generally* have higher A level grades. And it certainly is generally more competitive to get an offer at these colleges. No one disputes that.

    And yes, the colleges are not "equal" in so many ways. Who doesn't know that?

    But we are talking about the *standard* of a 2:1 from any of the UoL colleges. As mentioned, there is the Subject Board Committee that oversees these sort of quality/standards thing. In fact, the University statue states that "Candidates granted degrees shall have attained the same academic standard irrespective of mode or place of study or examination"

    And also, that "The Council may revoked any degrees granted by the University and all privileges connected therewith, if it shall at any time be discovered and proved to the satisfaction of the Council that there was any irregularity in the events or circumstances leading to the grant of that degree"

    The fact that Goldman Sachs does not actively recruit at QM does NOT mean that the 2:1 standard at QM is not the same as at LSE, UCL etc. How hard is it to see this logic?

    It only means that Goldman Sachs is looking for people with very good A level grades *as well as* a good 2:1 or 1st degree. Given that there are many more people with very good A level grades at LSE, UCl, Imperial, is it that surprising that Goldman Sachs does not "actively recruit" at QM? It only means that it is more unlikely to find many QM 2:1 grads with good A level grades too. That is all to it. But the 2:1 standard is still the same as a 2:1 standard at LSE, UCL etc.
    What I am suggesting is that, from the information you have supplied, evidently a 2:1 from Imperial; UCL; LSE is more valuable than the equivalent fom QM, given that employers take into account the 'typical characteristics' of students from such universities, and often recruit on that basis.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Are A levels so important to employers? It sounds interesteting that something you did in high school has relevance once you've finished university. It may have to do wuth yur degrees having a 3 year duration...
    (i'm not british)
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Well i know for a fact that employers at major firms prefer lse economics students over queens mary students. My friend phoned up major firms to find out before he applied to university.

    Justaguy is what you are, you are just a guy who is making up ******** because you see the UoL status. You do not even understand what UoL means, you are just making it up as you go along just because it seems logically. This is an extremly weak and invalid arguement to argue matters in which factual information is given.

    FACT
    Employers prefer a 2:1 from LSE than a 2:1 from Queens mary.
    L100 @ LSE is harder to get a 2:1 than Queens mary

    How do i know this?
    From employers & open days that i attended to when i wanted to make sure what degree i wanted to commit my self to.

    You think just because the ucas code is the same [degree is the same] that the structure and exam papers are the same...lol .. no... Universities make their own exam papers for their students, the course is taught different at different universities hence the different course structures and content.

    Part of the reason AAA is required for LSE discarding the fact its more competitive at LSE as this is one of the best places in the world to do straight economics, is that the course is harder.

    Seeing as you haven't even read up on UoL and you are just making up rubbish just because you think it's logically, i suggest you do some research and come back apologise to those people you said are dumb [including myself lol] because the only dumb person here is you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anabelle)
    Are A levels so important to employers? It sounds interesteting that something you did in high school has relevance once you've finished university. It may have to do wuth yur degrees having a 3 year duration...
    (i'm not british)
    Yes, it is very common to find top employers asking for at least 24 UCAS points at the A levels, as well as at least a 2:1. If you don't meet this academic requirement, it is very unlikely that you will get an interview, though not impossible.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JustaGuy)
    Yes, it is very common to find top employers asking for at least 24 UCAS points at the A levels, as well as at least a 2:1. If you don't meet this academic requirement, it is very unlikely that you will get an interview, though not impossible.
    24 UCAS points? What decade are you living in? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beekeeper)
    24 UCAS points? What decade are you living in? :rolleyes:
    err, living the decade of employers?

    http://www.kpmgcareers.co.uk/Graduat...ndex.cfm?qId=4

    http://www.ey.com/GLOBAL/content.nsf...c_requirements
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Thats the old system, tariff points changed in 2001 in-line with the introduction of the AS level. The employers in question are probably using the old system as an attempt to phase in the new Point scores.

    Notice how in the following extract (that you supplied), the old tariff is in brackets:
    320 (26) UCAS points (excluding General Studies) and a 2.1 Degree
    Maths A-level Grade A (Pure or Applied)
    Grade A or B for GCSE Maths and English Language
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    LSE is better than UCL for social science, IC is better than UCL for science. Simple as that :p:

    (that being said, a degree from UCL will still get you just as far, ultimately, if you have the talent)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Kool thread

    To the original poster, I can't comment on the quality or reputation of the economics courses at either institution, but go to UCL. It's in a nicer area (the Strand isn't that great.. I went there a couple of weeks ago to check out LSE & KCL and see "what I'd missed" .. wtf!?).

    Fresh croissants at one of the refectories, too.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edders)
    LSE is better than UCL for social science, IC is better than UCL for science. Simple as that :p:

    (that being said, a degree from UCL will still get you just as far, ultimately, if you have the talent)
    UCL > LSE (and certainly ICL :p: ) for law.

    'ave it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onearmedbandit)
    UCL > LSE (and certainly ICL :p: ) for law.

    'ave it.
    and for economix

    oh yes.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This is worse than watching my baby brother argue with his friends over which power ranger is the best :eek:

    Yes, an economics degree from LSE is looked upon more greatly by employers than an economics degree from Queen Mary's. HOWEVER, don't elude yourself, if the person from Queen Mary's has lots of work experience and a decent set of A-Levels, then he / she has more of a chance of getting the job than a person from LSE with no work experience or extra curricular activities.

    The graduate employment market isn't an exact science, where you can say that a person with an X degree is more employable than a person with a Y degree. It involves much more than that! Once the entry standards have been met then its an open ball park - the person who is more well rounded and more likely to fit the job criteria will get the job!

    I think what "JustAGuy" is trying to say is, that the examining criteria at all of the University of London colleges are the same, as they are all marked by external examiners. However the point he is missing (I think) is that the actual course content of the degrees are in fact different between the universities. The economics course at LSE is more mathematically inclined and is regarded more difficult than the course in Queen Mary's, but yes the marking standards are the same at both institutions.

    Please can we stop all this bickering on which uni is the best for what, because its quite futile resulting in tedious arguments. ... Even my 5 year old brother and his friend were able to reach a consensus that both the power rangers are equally good in different ways
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nas7232)
    UCL>ICL [Medicine]
    :eek:
    I don't think so. Whaddya make of this
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_H...e_for_medicine
    Not that I really care anyway, most people at Imperial despise the medical students for being arrogant w*****s.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: July 21, 2005
Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process

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.