Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jade Goodey)
    Oh God no, why didn't they teach me at school that interrogating "rarely" is equivalent to defeat. Damn, I rarely screwed up today.
    It's called focusing on specific words to avoid the main point, in case you hadn't noticed. For someone making such bold claims of their knowledge, it's pretty disappointing that you're missing the basic points.

    (Original post by Jade Goodey)
    You used the 2013 entry data to conclude that today QMUL takes in a lot of people under AAA, even though its entry data is equivalent to your own uni which doesn't take in a lot of people under AAA. Certainly it takes some in, but it's not representative of your cohort. Even if we're to conflate the entry standards of today with the entry standards 3 years ago, your point does not follow.
    The thread is about QMUL generally. Reputation is not made in one year. The fact that QMUL may not have taken many students with AAB or less last year (which we both know they did) does not mean anything. The only reason you focused on that point is because I said they asked for AAA last year and you wanted to divert the original point into this joke.

    Even if QMUL had full A*AA students last year, it means nothing when they took students with AAB the previous years.

    Also, the Independent UCAS points cannot for obvious reasons be taken to be fully representative. Firstly they are distorted by those who take the IB, and secondly they are distorted by student numbers; Bristol takes 400 students on average, while QMUL takes about half of that. The independent UCAS points ranking does not factor these in.

    (Original post by Jade Goodey)
    And being in Clearing does not mean you take in a lot of people at AAB. In 2014 (when they were ****), they filled about 5 places.
    Source?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jade Goodey)
    I don't mean to be awkward, but that wasn't specific. Please, try again.
    haha awful excuse but I'll play along. Why don't you explain how your following comment is correct?

    ''Everyone who applies to LSE will be predicted A*A*A* and in fact many will be predicted A*A*A*A*, or 45 777, or D1 in every subject. Again, if you don't understand law applications to the best unis, don't offer your opinion.''
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by guest115)
    haha awful excuse but I'll play along. Why don't you explain how your following comment is correct?

    ''Everyone who applies to LSE will be predicted A*A*A* and in fact many will be predicted A*A*A*A*, or 45 777, or D1 in every subject. Again, if you don't understand law applications to the best unis, don't offer your opinion.''
    Everyone who applies to LSE is predicted A*A*A*? Based on my knowledge of people who have applied to LSE. What are your predicted grades? I know Stefan's were A*A*A*A*, but sadly he just missed them and ended up at Bristol.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jade Goodey)
    Everyone who applies to LSE is predicted A*A*A*? Based on my knowledge of people who have applied to LSE. What are your predicted grades? I know Stefan's were A*A*A*A*, but sadly he just missed them and ended up at Bristol.
    I was predicted A*AA, my school generally don't give A* predictions unless you get 100ums. Many schools actually follow a similar policy, and some just lie. Which is why LSE will take much more notice of your AS scores, and other factors when accepting candidates. The minimum requirements are A*AA, and people who are predicted A*AA receive offers for LSE law. To say you need 3 or more A* predictions is preposterous.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    It's called focusing on specific words to avoid the main point, in case you hadn't noticed. For someone making such bold claims of their knowledge, it's pretty disappointing that you're missing the basic points.



    The thread is about QMUL generally. Reputation is not made in one year. The fact that QMUL may not have taken many students with AAB or less last year (which we both know they did) does not mean anything. The only reason you focused on that point is because I said they asked for AAA last year and you wanted to divert the original point into this joke.

    Even if QMUL had full A*AA students last year, it means nothing when they took students with AAB the previous years.

    Also, the Independent UCAS points cannot for obvious reasons be taken to be fully representative. Firstly they are distorted by those who take the IB, and secondly they are distorted by student numbers; Bristol takes 400 students on average, while QMUL takes about half of that. The independent UCAS points ranking does not factor these in.



    Source?
    So I focussed on the specific to distract from the general? I don't think that is a reasonable position considering I have engaged your arguments wholly. If we were to focus on the general, the issue at hand is whether Manchester has superior reputation than QMUL's. I argued forcefully that this was not the case, and I cited their being an A*AA course to back that up. Now you might want to dispute that by appealing to entry information from 2014 or 2013, but it's not relevant to the current cycle. You might want to say that there are some people who got in with AAA in 2015, but it's not relevant to this cycle nor does it disprove my point.
    If we're to focus on the specific, then let's focus on the specific.

    It was my cycle. They left Adjustment in about 2 days.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by guest115)
    I was predicted A*AA, my school don't give A* predictions unless you get 100ums. Many schools actually follow a similar policy, and some just lie. Which is why LSE will take much more notice of your AS scores, and other factors when accepting candidates. The minimum requirements are A*AA, and people who are predicted A*AA receive offers for LSE law. To say you need 3 or more A* predictions is preposterous.
    Well, we have another person who cannot read, boys and girls. His mummy and daddy would be disappointed.

    If you look super closely at that quote, the quote you have brought up twice now, I never said that you needed 3 or more A* predictions to get into LSE.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jade Goodey)
    Well, we have another person who cannot read, boys and girls. His mummy and daddy would be disappointed.

    If you look super closely at that quote, the quote you have brought up twice now, I never said that you needed 3 or more A* predictions to get into LSE.
    I'm actually bored of your rubbish now. I have brought it up, and you said - again:

    ''Everyone who applies to LSE will be predicted A*A*A* and in fact many will be predicted A*A*A*A*, or 45 777, or D1 in every subject. Again, if you don't understand law applications to the best unis, don't offer your opinion.''

    If everyone who applies will be predicted A*A*A*, and many A*A*A*A* - then logically you would need at least A*A*A* to get a place at LSE. I'm only continuing this so people know your clueless, I can't stand arguing with you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by guest115)
    I'm actually bored of your rubbish now. I have brought it up, and you said - again:

    ''Everyone who applies to LSE will be predicted A*A*A* and in fact many will be predicted A*A*A*A*, or 45 777, or D1 in every subject. Again, if you don't understand law applications to the best unis, don't offer your opinion.''

    If everyone who applies will be predicted A*A*A*, and many A*A*A*A* - then logically you would need at least A*A*A* to get a place at LSE. I'm only continuing this so people know your clueless, I can't stand arguing with you.
    That post was about the disconnect between predictions and reality -- in following posts I explained that most people fail to meet their predictions and unis don't take predictions seriously for that reason. It would only suggest that A*A*A* is required if you never read the post in context, which is why we adults refrain from posting quotes out of context. It makes you look quite silly if you do that.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jade Goodey)
    So I focussed on the specific to distract from the general? I don't think that is a reasonable position considering I have engaged your arguments wholly. If we were to focus on the general, the issue at hand is whether Manchester has superior reputation than QMUL's. I argued forcefully that this was not the case, and I cited their being an A*AA course to back that up. Now you might want to dispute that by appealing to entry information from 2014 or 2013, but it's not relevant to the current cycle. You might want to say that there are some people who got in with AAA in 2015, but it's not relevant to this cycle nor does it disprove my point.
    If we're to focus on the specific, then let's focus on the specific.
    QMUL does not have a superior reputation to Manchester - no employer would say "let's pick the QMUL grad over the Manchester grad". No one.

    As I said, reputation is not made in one or two years. Even if QMUL had A*AA only students last year, this would not increase the reputation of the uni. And the same applies to Manchester and any other uni. In order to properly assess its strength from an entry requirements point of view, it is necessary to see way past the last cycle.

    It was my cycle. They left Adjustment in about 2 days.[/QUOTE]

    Surely you'd appreciate how anecdotal this is for me to actually trust - and I was referring to clearing, not adjustment.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jade Goodey)
    That post was about the disconnect between predictions and reality -- in following posts I explained that most people fail to meet their predictions and unis don't take predictions seriously for that reason. It would only suggest that A*A*A* is required if you never read the post in context, which is why we adults refrain from posting quotes out of context. It makes you look quite silly if you do that.
    No, universities accept the vast majority of applicants before results. Therefore regardless of what you said after that post, it is incredibly misleading. Regardless of what students actually achieve, if 'everyone is predicted A*A*A* - A*A*A*A*', then no one else would have a chance of getting an offer.
    Your posting false information in a forum for prospective applicants, for once just admit it was a silly comment to make.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    QMUL does not have a superior reputation to Manchester - no employer would say "let's pick the QMUL grad over the Manchester grad". No one.
    That is really what the post is about, unfortunately when I said this earlier the guy had to argue again. The reputations are similar, as we all agree, candidates from these two uni's applying to a law firm will be picked on their own merits. As I've said, manchester and qmul students can receive interviews at top law firms.

    I think this is the information the OP was looking for, so Goodey we don't need to get petty over wording or tiny differences in tariff points.

    Thanks Stefan for calling this guy out, what he says is misleading at best.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    QMUL does not have a superior reputation to Manchester - no employer would say "let's pick the QMUL grad over the Manchester grad". No one.

    As I said, reputation is not made in one or two years. Even if QMUL had A*AA only students last year, this would not increase the reputation of the uni. And the same applies to Manchester and any other uni. In order to properly assess its strength from an entry requirements point of view, it is necessary to see way past the last cycle.

    It was my cycle. They left Adjustment in about 2 days.

    Surely you'd appreciate how anecdotal this is for me to actually trust - and I was referring to clearing, not adjustment.
    I never said they would take a QMUL over a Manc grad. Again, people, stop reading quotes out of context. I have already explained this point in this thread.

    The reputation of the course is indeed not made in one or two years. The argument I made about the state of admissions today does not transpose to the state of admissions in 2014. I made a very specific point about the uni today i.e. few people below A*AA get in; and I made a general point about the reputation of the uni it is an A*AA course. I know it's easy to conflate issues, to suit your own end, but you must be mindful to avoid it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by guest115)
    No, universities accept the vast majority of applicants before results. Therefore regardless of what you said after that post, it is incredibly misleading. Regardless of what students actually achieve, if 'everyone is predicted A*A*A* - A*A*A*A*', then no one else would have a chance of getting an offer.
    Your posting false information in a forum for prospective applicants, for once just admit it was a silly comment to make.
    Indeed they do. How does that correspond to the point I made?

    Again, that quoted post from that thread was about the disconnect between predictions and results. It is you who has conflated results and predictions, and now you're arguing with me about how illogical it is to conflate the two. What on earth do you put in your cornflakes in the morning? You're high af.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jade Goodey)
    Indeed they do. How does that correspond to the point I made?

    Again, that quoted post from that thread was about the disconnect between predictions and results. It is you who has conflated results and predictions, and now you're arguing with me about how illogical it is to conflate the two. What on earth do you put in your cornflakes in the morning? You're high af.
    I am seriously shocked. You said: 'everyone is predicted A*A*A*, mostly A*A*A*A*'. This is wrong information, there is no alternative way around this. You cannot say that everyone who applies to lse receives these predictions. It is wrong in every circumstance. That is one of the most illogical statements I've ever read, of course most lse law students are not predicted A*A*A*A*. If they were, then I wouldn't have an offer, and neither would a hell of a lot of successful candidates.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by guest115)
    I am seriously shocked. You said: 'everyone is predicted A*A*A*, mostly A*A*A*A*'. This is wrong information, there is no alternative way around this. You cannot say that everyone who applies to lse receives these predictions. It is wrong in every circumstance. That is one of the most illogical statements I've ever read, of course most lse law students are not predicted A*A*A*A*. If they were, then I wouldn't have an offer, and neither would a hell of a lot of successful candidates.
    So you've gone from saying that I said that you need A*A*A* to get in to now trying to attack another statement. It seems you disagree with me as a person, for calling you out on posting nonsense, rather than the content of my posts. It's disappointing.

    Again, there is a disconnect between predictions and results. Unis are wise to this, so you don't need A*A*A* predictions to get in and you don't need A*A*A* results to get in -- as I explained in the thread you took that quote from. Do most people who apply to LSE get A*A*A* predicted? Yes. Do all of them? No. Does Manchester have a better reputation than QMUL? No. I am glad we have been able to sum up this little discussion so easily.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jade Goodey)
    So you've gone from saying that I said that you need A*A*A* to get in to now trying to attack another statement. It seems you disagree with me as a person, for calling you out on posting nonsense, rather than the content of my posts. It's disappointing.

    Again, there is a disconnect between predictions and results. Unis are wise to this, so you don't need A*A*A* predictions to get in and you don't need A*A*A* results to get in -- as I explained in the thread you took that quote from. Do most people who apply to LSE get A*A*A* predicted? Yes. Do all of them? No. Does Manchester have a better reputation than QMUL? No. I am glad we have been able to sum up this little discussion so easily.
    When you say, 'Everyone is predicted A*A*A*, mostly A*A*A*A*'. The fact you can't see that this may deter people from applying who are predicted less, is staggering. This forum should be used to give people advice, not wrongly scare them from applying. No, most LSE students are not predicted A*A*A*, certainly most arent predicted A*A*A*A* as you stated earlier. And take note that not one person has agreed with you on this whole post.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by guest115)
    When you say, 'Everyone is predicted A*A*A*, mostly A*A*A*A*'. The fact you can't see that this may deter people from applying who are predicted less, is staggering. This forum should be used to give people advice, not wrongly scare them from applying. No, most LSE students are not predicted A*A*A*, certainly most arent predicted A*A*A*A* as you stated earlier. And take note that not one person has agreed with you on this whole post.
    It'd deter people if they were stupid enough to read the quote out of context, wouldn't they? Thankfully, there's no one autistic enough on this site to do that.

    How do you know most LSE students aren't predicted A*A*A*?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jade Goodey)
    I never said they would take a QMUL over a Manc grad. Again, people, stop reading quotes out of context. I have already explained this point in this thread.

    The reputation of the course is indeed not made in one or two years. The argument I made about the state of admissions today does not transpose to the state of admissions in 2014. I made a very specific point about the uni today i.e. few people below A*AA get in; and I made a general point about the reputation of the uni it is an A*AA course. I know it's easy to conflate issues, to suit your own end, but you must be mindful to avoid it.
    I'll leave this here - you're making this too easy on your own.

    (Original post by Jade Goodey)
    I simply said that if anyone's gonna be looked down upon by firms, it's going to be Manchester.
    (Original post by Jade Goodey)
    And in saying that you said Manchester has better rep, which it doesn't. That's what I am commenting on here about. And the difference is not minimal -- not at all. Manchester is an ABB–AAB course, whereas QMUL is chiefly (link to what I said) an A*AA course.May. Supposition from someone who's never worked in the grad market. You would really give someone advice about their future based on conjecture?
    (Original post by Jade Goodey)
    You're an applicant, so I can understand your ignorance. If you had been around this scene for a few years, you'd see the countless people accepted on results day with AAB and below for the Manchester course. There is a difference between de jure and de facto. Watch and learn, young one.
    The comparisons you made were not based on last year alone. The only reason you focused on last year specifically was because I said that last year it happened to ask for AAA in clearing rather than AAB.

    So, it seems that someone else needs to be careful before trying to sway things to their own end.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jade Goodey)
    It'd deter people if they were stupid enough to read the quote out of context, wouldn't they? Thankfully, there's no one autistic enough on this site to do that.

    How do you know most LSE students aren't predicted A*A*A*?
    There is no context for that quote to be taken in. 'Everyone is predicted A*A*A*, mostly A*A*A*A*' means the same thing in any context. It means, everyone is predicted A*A*A*, mostly A*A*A*A*. Which is complete rubbish. No context can make your comments remotely accurate.

    Common sense, of course most applicants (over 50%) are not predicted A*A*A*. Although, being true to your first word, you said all of them are predicted A*A*A*, and most A*A*A*A*. Which is somehow even more inaccurate than the rest of your comments.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    The comparisons you made were not based on last year alone. The only reason you focused on last year specifically was because I said that last year it happened to ask for AAA in clearing rather than AAB.
    As I said, I made two points. One about QMUL being an A*AA course (general) and one about QMUL not taking in people below AAA (present-specific). My general comparison was over many years, but my specific comment was not over many years. Again, sweet child, do not conflate the two.

    (Original post by guest115)
    There is no context for that quote to be taken in. 'Everyone is predicted A*A*A*, mostly A*A*A*A*' means the same thing in any context. It means, everyone is predicted A*A*A*, mostly A*A*A*A*. Which is complete rubbish. No context can make your comments remotely accurate.

    Common sense, of course most applicants (over 50%) are not predicted A*A*A*. Although, being true to your first word, you said all of them are predicted A*A*A*, and most A*A*A*A*. Which is somehow even more inaccurate than the rest of your comments.
    I never said "mostly A*A*A*A*". Let's get that clear. I know you have issues with reading comprehension and all, but let's be absolutely clear -- I never said that.

    Your point was that if most everyone is predicted A*A*A*, then it would create the impression that one would need A*A*A* on results day to be accepted. That was the framing of your first argument. The context of that comment explained that this was not true. Now you're attacking the argument I made about most people having A*A*A* prediction. Slight hyperbole on my part, but still majority of people who apply to LSE (i.e. people who don't happen to go to your school) do apply with A*A*A* predictions. Does this harm their app? No because universities are wise to this ruse (as explained in that thread).

    You're trying to argue another point entirely just to cover up your mistake about Manc's reputation, and failing on that separate argument as well. Don't you think it time to step away from the keyboard?
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,911

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year

University open days

  1. Bournemouth University
    Clearing Open Day Undergraduate
    Wed, 22 Aug '18
  2. University of Buckingham
    Postgraduate Open Evening Postgraduate
    Thu, 23 Aug '18
  3. University of Glasgow
    All Subjects Undergraduate
    Tue, 28 Aug '18
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?

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.