This discussion is closed.
sixthirtythree
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#21
Report 17 years ago
#21
Min, I'm glad you've made up your mind at last I can honestly say you've probably done the right thing. Good luck!
0
WILKO
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#22
Report 17 years ago
#22
(Original post by mg84)
As I said in a previous thread, I wouldn't say that UCL making AAA offers necessarily indicates higher demand. Referring to the Times University Guide, the A-Level entry standards for Economics of 27.4 (just below AAB) are surprisingly low considering the reputation of the department. This suggests that UCL are reasonably lenient on applicants who do not achieve the required grades to meet their offer.
UCL only increased its standard offer to AAA last year, so thats why entry standrads at that low. i expect this year for them to be a lot closer to 30points, cos at open day we were told, no AAA no entry onto course.
Also, enough brown-nosing LSE, we all know its good
0
rah
Badges:
#23
Report 17 years ago
#23
(Original post by TheWolf)
if you are not sure about the teaching standard or the quality of university etc, im sure to go for ucl, as it is in the G5.
i've only seen this 'G5' name touted around the messageboard in the past couple of weeks and as quite a few people have said the idea that ucl is the fifth best university in the country is simply wrong. lse and imperial shouldnt necessarily be seen as intitutions in their own right as they both offer a limited range of subjects. plus three of the G5 are within london where realistically only people living in london already are likely to want to live.

i really wouldn't choose ucl simply on the basis of a silly term that no one of importance really seems to use. warwick has simply got a better reputation for economics and better international prospects than ucl, period.
0
Mysticmin
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#24
Report Thread starter 17 years ago
#24
(Original post by J.S.)
UCL certainly isn't 'the place to go' for economics. It's very good but nowhere even near as good as the LSE, nor Cambridge or Oxford either. After that, it's up there along with Warwick, Nottingham and the like.
You'd honestly say oxford? Despite their research ranking only a 4? I'd agree with the Cambridge and LSE comment though.
0
mg84
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#25
Report 17 years ago
#25
(Original post by TheWolf)
if you are not sure about the teaching standard or the quality of university etc, im sure to go for ucl, as it is in the G5.
Since when has G5 had anything to do with teaching standards or the quality of the university? In fact, UCL is outside the top 15 for average TQA scores and LSE is even lower. G5 is about funding disputes and not much else. Certainly not a reason to choose a university!

(Original post by WILKO)
UCL only increased its standard offer to AAA last year, so thats why entry standrads at that low. i expect this year for them to be a lot closer to 30points, cos at open day we were told, no AAA no entry onto course.
Most universities have increased their standard offers in Economics and many other subjects in the last few years. At Nottingham and Warwick open days I was told that nobody predicted less than AAA would get an offer for Economics, so it seems that all top universities are taking a similar approach.
0
rutera
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#26
Report 17 years ago
#26
(Original post by ct123)
hey! i also got an offer from UCL and Warwick 4 economics... EVERONES told me that UCL is the place to go for eco, topping oxbridge who have the pulling power from their names! (sorry, got rejected from oxford so im bitter!) haha. Also got rejected from LSE... sounds like a few ppl are in the same boat... Are you guys international students? I live in spain... did igcse's n all that but im doing the IB now, not A levels... what were your offers from UCL??
Hiya, I'm living in Madrid too... Which school do you go to? ICS, Kings, ISM...? I'm at hastings. Are you an international student? I'm guessing you're european so if you are LSE might have rejected you coz you'd be paying EU fees not international fees...
0
Mysticmin
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#27
Report Thread starter 17 years ago
#27
(Original post by rutera)
Hiya, I'm living in Madrid too... Which school do you go to? ICS, Kings, ISM...? I'm at hastings. Are you an international student? I'm guessing you're european so if you are LSE might have rejected you coz you'd be paying EU fees not international fees...
ARRGGGHH the fees...i know higher fees is the only way to sustain the university system but picking students based on that seriously pisses me off.

I'll grant that some UCL departments are definitely not strong (i mean it offers a degree in dutch and scandanavian studies for crap's sake). But the economics department is 5*A and has 24/24 for teaching. The maths department I'm not so sure about.
0
Mysticmin
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#28
Report Thread starter 17 years ago
#28
(Original post by Gnostic)
J.S. granted UCL is a little overrated, but nothing compared to how Warwick, the 1960s poly, is overrated. But I wouldn't claim, as you did in a previous post, that Oxford is better for economics than UCL - again I grant that for economics UCL is full of LSE rejects, but Oxford has never had a tradition of economics - all the greatest economists have been at Cambridge and the LSE.
I'm a LSE reject...but I still maintain better LSE than oxford. I agree with Gnostic. In retrospect do people think I should have just applied for one of their less popular courses like Environmental Policy or Economic History? (actually scrap environmental p...i really wouldn't even go to LSE to do that).
0
Mysticmin
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#29
Report Thread starter 17 years ago
#29
(Original post by Gnostic)
Mysticmin, don't pick Warwick over UCL - Warwick is so hyperinflated by A-level students that it must be a joke from the gods. UCL is a strong, respectable institution. Warwick is a poly, it's only famous alumni being Timmy Mallet.
Lol, so you keep saying.
0
sixthirtythree
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#30
Report 17 years ago
#30
I want to apply to LSE for Economics and Economic History though straight Economics is the supposed 'better option.' I just like the Economic History course. I reckon I can take on most of the competitors - that's not the problem. But Economic History is just lovely and I would adore it.
0
Mysticmin
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#31
Report Thread starter 17 years ago
#31
(Original post by deianra)
I want to apply to LSE for Economics and Economic History though straight Economics is the supposed 'better option.' I just like the Economic History course. I reckon I can take on most of the competitors - that's not the problem. But Economic History is just lovely and I would adore it.
Yeah with your results you'll be fine! Go for economic history!
0
TheWolf
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#32
Report 17 years ago
#32
(Original post by Mysticmin)
Yeah with your results you'll be fine! Go for economic history!
but then with these excellent grades, wouldnt you want to do straight economics at lse
0
sixthirtythree
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#33
Report 17 years ago
#33
(Original post by TheWolf)
but then with these excellent grades, wouldnt you want to do straight economics at lse
That's the whole point of the post. I choose Economic History over straight Economics. There is nothing inferior about it - count the A*s. Pah.

(Original post by Gnostic)
What is beautiful? An oriental girl smiling. That is something to love and adore. Not Economic History
They're beautiful in their individual ways. Economic History can be adored, loved at the most whereas Economics at Cambridge or Oxford's PPE can be idolised. You can love subjects too, not just people.

I gave up smiling long ago (to the extent that New Years' resolution was to smile once a hour). It didn't work, because I'm rarely that happy and smiling does scar me so. One of the last smiling pictures I have of me is in the profile - perhaps the only smiling photo.

Meh. I'm rambling, sorry all.
0
J.S.
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#34
Report 17 years ago
#34
(Original post by Gnostic)
J.S. granted UCL is a little overrated, but nothing compared to how Warwick, the 1960s poly, is overrated. But I wouldn't claim, as you did in a previous post, that Oxford is better for economics than UCL - again I grant that for economics UCL is full of LSE rejects, but Oxford has never had a tradition of economics - all the greatest economists have been at Cambridge and the LSE.

As far as I am concerned, UCL is overrated by some margain. It is not a selective university, its place is 10th in the A level a/v scores, and that is where I'd put it. Although, it's not a joke like Kings though-only god knows where that lies. As for Warwick, it's the 6th most difficult university to get into, also it has an exchange scheme with Wharton, which I think reflects the progress it has made and the recognition it now has. Incidentally, Wharton is perhaps the most highly regarded Business School in the world. I think you seem to have difficulty understanding the word 'progress', which is probably why you regard Kings so highly, which seems to have everything on its side, aside from progress.

For Economics at Oxford, I think you're way off, even more so than usual. Oxford has 9 Nobel Prizes in Economics, but yet it lacks tradition in this field? I think you need to do a little more research on this. Also, Oxford has one of the most respected graduate programmes in the world, which really helps increase/preserve its status in the field. Also, for journal citations it was rated as the 2nd best econ. department in the UK, ahead of Cambridge but slightly behind LSE (this was by Economic Review). The department for undergraduate level is one of the most selective in the country (for PPE and especially for E/M), second place behind Cambridge-I'd imagine, but certainly well ahead of the other competition. Also, it has the tutorial system and they actually seem rather more keen on teaching their students than other research led universities.

Also-mysticmin, Oxford Economics has an RAE score of 5, not 4. The RAE isn't really always so useful, compare the 5 given to Oxford History with Brookes receiving 5* in 2001.
0
Mysticmin
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#35
Report Thread starter 17 years ago
#35
(Original post by J.S.)
Also-mysticmin, Oxford Economics has an RAE score of 5, not 4. The RAE isn't really always so useful, compare the 5 given to Oxford History with Brookes receiving 5* in 2001.
So why does an institution so strong at Economics not offer a straight degree in economics, why is their degree a BA in economics? I can understand the BA at cambridge because even science graduates end up with a BA (exception is engineering).

Perhaps I've just missed the oxford equivalent of Keynes, or Marshall :rolleyes:
0
llama boy
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#36
Report 17 years ago
#36
(Original post by J.S.)
RAE isn't really always so useful, compare the 5 given to Oxford History with Brookes receiving 5* in 2001.
Perhaps that would be because the RAE measures research output rather than reputation?
0
Mysticmin
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#37
Report Thread starter 17 years ago
#37
(Original post by llama boy)
Perhaps that would be because the RAE measures research output rather than reputation?
It's supposed to reflect the quality of research an institution produces, and to gain a 5*A 90% of the department has to be open for assessment. I only know this because my father happens to be a University Lecturer.
0
J.S.
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#38
Report 17 years ago
#38
(Original post by Mysticmin)
So why does an institution so strong at Economics not offer a straight degree in economics, why is their degree a BA in economics? I can understand the BA at cambridge because even science graduates end up with a BA (exception is engineering).

Perhaps I've just missed the oxford equivalent of Keynes, or Marshall :rolleyes:

I should think it's rather difficult to just miss 9 Nobel Prizes in Economics if you've done serious research on the matter; that's amongst the highest in the world, pretty damn impressive for an institution that is having its research credentials questioned. They do offer a 'straight degree' at graduate level, so it's not due to a lack of expertise or anything. Perhaps you should phone them up and ask why they're not offering this at undergraduate level.
0
HammaL
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#39
Report 17 years ago
#39
(Original post by J.S.)
I should think it's rather difficult to just miss 9 Nobel Prizes in Economics if you've done serious research on the matter; that's amongst the highest in the world, pretty damn impressive for an institution that is having its research credentials questioned. They do offer a 'straight degree' at graduate level, so it's not due to a lack of expertise or anything. Perhaps you should phone them up and ask why they're not offering this at undergraduate level.
9 nobel prizes....impressive...
LSE has also got 9 nobel prize winners...do u know how many nobel prizes cambridge has got in the bag? (for economics)
0
Sunnyt
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#40
Report 17 years ago
#40
(Original post by J.S.)
UCL certainly isn't 'the place to go' for economics. It's very good but nowhere even near as good as the LSE, nor Cambridge or Oxford either. After that, it's up there along with Warwick, Nottingham and the like.

warwick is excellent for economics my mate got a first and got recruited at their careers fair!
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How do you prefer to get careers advice?

I like to speak to my friends and family (0)
0%
I like to do my own research online using careers specific websites (7)
63.64%
I like speaking to the careers advisors at school, college or uni (2)
18.18%
I prefer to listen watch videos or listen to podcasts of people in my chosen career (1)
9.09%
Something else (let us know in the thread) (1)
9.09%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise