Oxford PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics) Students and Applicants

You'd need an A in GCSE maths if you're not doing the A level.

It's definitely not true that you need a Maths A-level to do PPE; I know plenty of PPEists without it. However, it is true that if you can't handle the content of A-level Maths, you'd probably struggle with first-year Economics.

(I'm not a PPEist, by the way - but both my boyfriend and one of my housemates are. Neither of them have Maths at A-level, for what it's worth).

Ah okay, thanks.
That's very reassuring.

Do you know of any colleges who refuse to admit students without A level maths for PPE?

Cheers

I think, based on what I've read, that PPEists are expected to have good mathematical skills, as Economics is a mathematical subject at that level. If maths isn't your strongest point, and therefore you'd find economics hard, you could always consider applying for History and Politics...?

It's not necessarily that I'm poor at maths, I simply do not have A level maths...

I never said you were.

Perhaps No Logo by Naomi Klein would be better for anti-globalisation. I really, personally, did not rate Chomsky's Hegemony and Survival

No worries. I'm afraid I don't know of any colleges with that policy off the top of my head; it'd probably be worth emailing colleges that you're interested in, to find out individual policies. Some might even have that information on their websites.

I think, based on what I've read, that PPEists are expected to have good mathematical skills, as Economics is a mathematical subject at that level. If maths isn't your strongest point, and therefore you'd find economics hard, you could always consider applying for History and Politics...?

Would taking Maths up to AS be beneficial in the application? Or would the College's see it simply as not taking it the full way?

I've read the first three chapters of Stiglitz' Globalisation and its discontents, is it just me or is it really inaccessible?

Its written in a more conversational, easy reading style, but the result just seems to be him repeating over and over again the same points, I think the sentence "trade liberalisation has theoretical merit, however the IMF pushes for it to happen before countries are ready, pushing the washington consensus." must have been repeated about 20 times in one form or another...