This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Is LSE harder to get into than Oxbridge?

The title suggests the question. Ive come across so many people who've got rejected by LSE but accepted by Cambridge/Oxford. Is it really harder to get into for courses like Law, Economics etc.

Reply 1

Knogle

16

Well to be fair, there are lots of people rejected by Oxbridge who were accepted by LSE.

I don't think you can really put a figure to this, or say for sure which is easier to get into.

It's generally safe to assume that as far as programmes like Politics, Economics, and Law are concerned, those offered by LSE and Oxbridge rank at the very top and are not discriminated against by employers.

No.

No. Don't forget LSE dont do hardly any interviews so its ALL down to your grades. Which isnt necessarily the best selection method. Also I think they sometimes reject oxbridge applicants on purpose so that people go around saying 'I got into Oxford but not LSE'. I know someone who got rejected from everywhere she applied to with AAAAA last year, and good extracurrics, I am sure its cos they knew she applied to cambridge.

No

Admissions to the two are completely different kettles of fish. I got rejected from LSE (for Government & Economics) even though I had good grades (10 A* & AAAA predictions). I got into Oxford. I have no idea why I was rejected from LSE, maybe they didn't like my personal statement (?).

I know this is a controversial statement to make (and one I would get absolutely flamed for on the LSE board :rolleyes:

) but I think Oxford's admissions system is much more meritocratic / rigorous. For Oxford, I had to submit/undertake

•

UCAS form (inc. GCSEs, A Levels, PS, ref. etc)

•

2 marked school essays (to show standard of written work)

•

Pretty demanding 1hr PPE test at interview

•

Intensive 45min Philosophy & Economics interview

•

Intensive 30min Politics interview

For LSE, all they had to go on was my UCAS form. LSE's admissions policy is also decidedly less transparent that Oxford's, who offer feedback to (at least the schools of) unsuccessful applicants.

Some people have suggested that the LSE favours international applicants over EU applicants due to the financial incentives involved. I do not wish to take away the achievement of any international applicant who successfully got into the LSE. However, it is not a ridiculous statement to make.

Reply 6

Alan Smithee

allymcb2

I know someone who got rejected from everywhere she applied to with AAAAA last year, and good extracurrics, I am sure its cos they knew she applied to cambridge.

That's unbelievable.

Where did she end up?

Reply 7

Alan Smithee

In my opinion, interviews are only good if you can ensure a lack of discrimination i.e. impossible.

It should be down to:

UCAS
Written exam - under conditions.
Written essay - They give the topic.

I don't think they should meet you personally.

Reply 8

kitsune

12

i girl from my school got rejected for Law from every university she applied to (i think...), including Cambridge, except for LSE!!!

No.

Knogle

I don't think you can really put a figure to this, or say for sure which is easier to get into.

I think you can:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8405-1246616,00.html

Reply 11

sjuthani

6

OppressedMass

I think you can:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8405-1246616,00.html

You can, technically, but I would take figures like this with a pinch of salt. I know of people who have decided to give places like LSE "a shot" on the off-chance that they'll get in, which is fair enough. Oxbridge, on the other hand, has far fewer people doing this- the application process is so much more effort (in terms of deadlines, possible written work, possible tests) and the thought of interview is daunting to many. Oxbridge also has sterotypical impressions for many, which means that potential candidates don't apply simple because they don't seem good enough. Plus, Oxbridge require a small fee for applying (I think it was about £10-£15), which puts off frivolous candidates.

And then you get people like a mate of mine who applied to uni for medicine. His subjects were Bio, Chem, Maths and Economics. As he was only allowed to put down 4 choices, he later added LSE economics as a joke. Obviously he was rejected (his personal statement being geared towards medicine) but he'll be another statistic for the applicants-to-offers ratio.

Reply 12

wanderer

2

With a pinch of salt? Interpreting those figures that way puts Stirling harder to get into than Oxbridge. Although Stirling has a really beautiful campus.

Oxbridge has a very low applicants to place ratio. However, when you go for Oxbridge, you know that the vast majority of the other applicants are at the very top of their game.

Reply 13

Evil Phoenix

2

manthi

The title suggests the question. Ive come across so many people who've got rejected by LSE but accepted by Cambridge/Oxford. Is it really harder to get into for courses like Law, Economics etc.

I got offers from both. All my friends (who applied) except one got offers from LSE, while only around 10 got Oxbridge offers... the acceptance rate is higher in LSE overall. That said, the Economics course, as well as politics and others, are very prestigious and often extremely selective, and given that now they have introduced a quota for international students, it might be harder to get into those courses in LSE than oxbridge.
Also, Oxbridge requires at least 2 interviews, while LSE does not, and my LSE offer is lower than my Oxbridge offer, so i wouldn't say it's harder to get into than Oxbridge.

Reply 14

emily87

9

lettherainfalldown

I got offers from both. .....
Also, Oxbridge requires at least 2 interviews, while LSE does not, and my LSE offer is lower than my Oxbridge offer, so i wouldn't say it's harder to get into than Oxbridge.

I got into both too, but my LSE offer was higher than my Cambridge offer. However, I don't think individual cases (
or a group of friends) is a good enough sample group to make any kind of conclusion from. If you looked at my record you might conclude that Warwick (highest offer) was the hardest to get into, UCL KCL LSE and Nottingham were all almost as hard to get into as Warwick, and Cambridge is the easiest.

Maybe it depends a lot on what kind of a person you are, with the different systems for assessing applicants, the two universities may well be looking for different things apart from a good academic record.

Reply 15

SevenDeuceOff

14

No, as I found out. :rolleyes:

Different selection criteria result in different perceptions of the same candidate. For me, a twenty-minute interview just doesn't cut it. I realise that long interviews would be impractical, but if the decision is swayed by ostentation, reached at total discretion, and often contingent on--let's face it--luck, I'd rather they stick to the facts on paper.

I know my performance at interview and in the on-site test for PPE was rather lacklustre, and I partly attribute that to not being on form in general on the day, and not getting any sleep as a result of some annoying people on my floor who decided to talk and play music throughout the night before. :P

No

bluefuture

No

Revelation of the century. :rolleyes:

You could have said more, or nothing at all.

Reply 18

Esquire

1

Does it really matter? Methinks not... If you get to study law or economics at LSE or Oxford you are a lucky individual either way. It concerns me far more that only a fifth of the world's population is literate...

Reply 19

Manellowzworth

1

Esquire

Does it really matter? Methinks not... If you get to study law or economics at LSE or Oxford you are a lucky individual either way. It concerns me far more that only a fifth of the world's population is literate...

What does that have to do with this??

It concerns me that free trade is a mask for unfair practices but I dont mention it when asked unrelated things. :p:

Is LSE harder to get into than Oxbridge?

Related discussions

Articles for you