Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I mean, seriously - they DONT interview, meaning anyone who doesn't even have an interest in the course could just write it in words and have a good chance assuming they have the grades.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovmHfMKHuY8

    I didn't know this until I watched that video and was shocked, LSE is suppose to be one of the best ever yet it doesn't bloody interview?! So basically anyone who is a social retard, can't speak to anyone and witht he worst personal qualities and traits can get into LSE? For the top courses like Medicine, you undergo some killer interview procedure yet LSE doesn't give fudge all about the acutal people.

    Therefore, I value Oxbridge and any other university who interview for the 'same' course at LSE to be far more better.

    Can anyone justify this for me?
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Not interviewing doesnt mean it's not good.

    LSE gives very very high offers though, A*AA for Law, as I saw from the other thread.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    No, justify your view for yourself. Whoever LSE accept, by the time they graduate they are highly employable individuals, hence LSE has a good reputation. If the quality of LSE graduates was bad, then employers would not rate LSE as highly as they currently do. So clearly, not interviewing, has no bearing on the quality of graduates LSE produce.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by street.lovin')
    Not interviewing doesnt mean it's not good.

    LSE gives very very high offers though, A*AA for Law, as I saw from the other thread.
    Thats the whole argument, all you have to do is work to get A*AA and your 80% there? Most other top unis, getting the entry req is liek the first little step!

    (Original post by zxh800)
    No, justify your view for yourself. Whoever LSE accept, by the time they graduate they are highly employable individuals, hence LSE has a good reputation. If the quality of LSE graduates was bad, then employers would not rate LSE as highly as they currently do. So clearly, not interviewing, has no bearing on the quality of graduates LSE produce.
    In other words, they may be good employees but they don't contribute to their society, are social retards and have no qualities once again.

    Been good at your job is first step, been very good at your job requires more then just 'academia' or 'knowlege'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nation)
    I mean, seriously - they DONT interview, meaning anyone who doesn't even have an interest in the course could just write it in words and have a good chance assuming they have the grades.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovmHfMKHuY8

    I didn't know this until I watched that video and was shocked, LSE is suppose to be one of the best ever yet it doesn't bloody interview?! So basically anyone who is a social retard, can't speak to anyone and witht he worst personal qualities and traits can get into LSE? For the top courses like Medicine, you undergo some killer interview procedure yet LSE doesn't give fudge all about the acutal people.

    Therefore, I value Oxbridge and any other university who interview for the 'same' course at LSE to be far more better.

    Can anyone justify this for me?
    Firstly, I doubt anyone can't actually speak at all, even if they aren't the life of the party on every friday night.

    Secondly, I can understand that that decent social skills are a must for a course like medicine where you're going to be communicating with people in sensitive situations. But for pretty much any other degree course, surely intelligence and effort are the only absolutely necessary prerequisites to do well.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    You sound like an LSE reject.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nation)
    Thats the whole argument, all you have to do is work to get A*AA and your 80% there? Most other top unis, getting the entry req is liek the first little step!



    In other words, they may be good employees but they don't contribute to their society, are social retards and have no qualities once again.

    Been good at your job is first step, been very good at your job requires more then just 'academia' or 'knowlege'.
    Don't contribute to society? LSE graduates generate their employers huge sums of money - so they contribute to society far more than the average graduate.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nation)
    Thats the whole argument, all you have to do is work to get A*AA and your 80% there? Most other top unis, getting the entry req is liek the first little step!



    In other words, they may be good employees but they don't contribute to their society, are social retards and have no qualities once again.

    Been good at your job is first step, been very good at your job requires more then just 'academia' or 'knowlege'.
    In most cases I think you'll find being good at your job = contributing to society.

    Also you contradict yourself when saying they may be 'good employees' but have 'no qualities'. Obviously they must have the qualities that make them good employees :confused:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by braceface)
    You sound like an LSE reject.
    Didn't apply, I'll be doing a science course else where.

    (Original post by W.H.T)
    Firstly, I doubt anyone can't actually speak at all, even if they aren't the life of the party on every friday night.

    Secondly, I can understand that that decent social skills are a must for a course like medicine where you're going to be communicating with people in sensitive situations. But for pretty much any other degree course, surely intelligence and effort are the only absolutely necessary prerequisites to do well.
    I can see how theres a bigger needed in coursesl like medicine but surely, lets look at Accounting and Finance. SURELY someone who has the ability to present well, talk to other staff/customers, comes across as a good person is far better and more approcable compared to someone who has just brains?

    (Original post by ArsLongaVitaBrevis)
    Don't contribute to society? LSE graduates generate their employers huge sums of money - so they contribute to society far more than the average graduate.
    In other words, IM NOT SAYING ALL, but a majority of students at LSE are in it for themselves, agreed?
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Nation)
    Thats the whole argument, all you have to do is work to get A*AA and your 80% there? Most other top unis, getting the entry req is liek the first little step!
    Do you think it is that easy to get A*AA ?
    It's also about strong personaly statement, general knowledge shown on there.
    It is not easy to get in, many people got accepted from Oxbridge but rejected from LSE. :dontknow:
    Does it mean it is easier to get in Oxbridge? NO.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Most of us AREN'T social retards, thank you very much
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by francescafrancesca)
    In most cases I think you'll find being good at your job = contributing to society.

    Also you contradict yourself when saying they may be 'good employees' but have 'no qualities'. Obviously they must have the qualities that make them good employees :confused:
    Not neccesarily, been 'good employee' is someone who has the brain for it. A 'very good employee', the highest rank, will show finer human traits other than 'smartness'.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Because it's got Economics in the title. :awesome:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nation)
    I can see how theres a bigger needed in coursesl like medicine but surely, lets look at Accounting and Finance. SURELY someone who has the ability to present well, talk to other staff/customers, comes across as a good person is far better and more approcable compared to someone who has just brains?
    They can train people to present well and talk the talk. However, you cannot train a retard who is simply confident and knows how to talk to have brains.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by street.lovin')
    Do you think it is that easy to get A*AA ?
    It's also about strong personaly statement, general knowledge shown on there.
    It is not easy to get in, many people got accepted from Oxbridge but rejected from LSE. :dontknow: Does it mean it is easier to get in Oxbridge? NO.
    Source? or are you just making that up.

    You just proved my argument, all you have to do is get A*AA, which isn't easy but many social retards could get this with ease if not 3A* - research on google.com what to insert into the personal statment.

    I met this guy who goes LSE who had a personl tutor JUST to help him write his personal statment. If he truly loved his courses, he wouldn't need to do that?

    (Original post by Mastermind007)
    Most of us AREN'T social retards, thank you very much
    I never said everyone, im just saying majority of the people I know/have seen in experince are total *******s and there all about the grades. Do a 9-9 monday to friday revising, what idiot couldnt get A*AA by doing that?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    it's a social sciences university. In other words, it's not good
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    do a real degree. we don't need more lawyers
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nation)

    I can see how theres a bigger needed in coursesl like medicine but surely, lets look at Accounting and Finance. SURELY someone who has the ability to present well, talk to other staff/customers, comes across as a good person is far better and more approcable compared to someone who has just brains?
    Well thats a matter for the individual and potential employers when he/she applies for a job after uni.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pi!)
    Because it's got Economics in the title. :awesome:
    I lol'd.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nation)
    I mean, seriously - they DONT interview, meaning anyone who doesn't even have an interest in the course could just write it in words and have a good chance assuming they have the grades.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovmHfMKHuY8

    I didn't know this until I watched that video and was shocked, LSE is suppose to be one of the best ever yet it doesn't bloody interview?! So basically anyone who is a social retard, can't speak to anyone and witht he worst personal qualities and traits can get into LSE? For the top courses like Medicine, you undergo some killer interview procedure yet LSE doesn't give fudge all about the acutal people.

    Therefore, I value Oxbridge and any other university who interview for the 'same' course at LSE to be far more better.

    Can anyone justify this for me?
    You sound like a hater lol. You do realise that this video is meant to be comical, hence the obvious exaggeration. Just look at LSE's ridiculously high employment figures and salaries - do you really think social retards could achieve what LSE graduates go on to do? LSE is the most competitive university in the UK (in terms of applicants per place) and one of the most competitive in the world - it'd be impossible to interview effectively...especially as 50% of undergrads are international students
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

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.