(Original post by Elles)
hmm, although the 2003-2005 direct college applicants-offers ratio table in the most recent prospectus suggests more
Medicine applicants per offer - 5.0 v. 4.6!
With regards to the confound of open applications in that table - 2005 entry there were 3 more open E&M applications - although if this is a rapidly closing gap might account - given we're talking about 3 year averages?
Another explanation for the apparent discrepancy could be Open Offers, Medicine definitely utilises but E&M apparently doesn't & presumably these aren't counted in the the prospectus table, BUT as strategic over-offers to compensate for missing grades/not fulfilling the additional occupational health hoops we have to jump through - counting these in terms of "subscription" to the course places represented numerically by the specified college offers...?
i'd like to see applicants *per place* before i grant you the life afirming status
of claiming "most oversubscribed course" without any comment.
I personally think apps per place is a silly measure. It's why Bristol can have 10 apps per place for a some economics courses, but under 2 apps per offer. Apps per - place would make it seem very hard to get into, when it really isn't. I have to admit I don't know apps per place, but to me, most oversubscribed course is about the % of people who are successful, as defined by the university.
Moreover, 2003-2005 measures wouldn't give an accurate position, considering how applications have shifted in that time. I know economics courses are a lot harder to get in for now than when I applied, with universities across the board upping grades needed to cope with too much demand.
I think you could make a case for each. Give they publish on the website that more medicine students, as a percentage, are successful, I feel it's quite easy to justify E&M as being more oversubscribed. Easier to get in for, almost certainly, but more oversubscribed.