Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Lulz at OPs comment about FM in the Mathematics comment.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by azhao)
    Lulz at OPs comment about FM in the Mathematics comment.
    yes i know it was pretty obvious
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    lol why OP? are u drawing up a maximising prestige short-list for urself?

    if so get in for medicine and ull never look back!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JW92)
    http://timesonline.typepad.com/schoo...8/09/post.html for the official stats.
    What a dreadful article
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prudy)
    Why not look at the application stats?
    (Original post by Mr Nonsense)
    I think it is E&M at Oxford, well, in terms of percentage success rate
    (Original post by illy123)
    Economics has one of the lowest admissions % and applicants have very high academic credentials.
    (Original post by JW92)
    http://timesonline.typepad.com/schoo...8/09/post.html for the official stats.
    Can I just point out that 'official stats' really don't tell you how 'tough' or 'competitive' a subject is because they give an indication of its popularity and its popularity alone, there is nothing relating to the actual quality of the applicants. So for E&M, whilst there may be a 10% success rate, this doesn't mean its tougher to get into than law, especially since its a subject which people tend to self-select less from.

    The classic example is medicine (not going to name the school because people get upset)... but medical school X has around 10 applicants per offer, it regularly ranks low in the THE/Guardian tables, and the university is otherwise rather poorly rated. Oxford has around 4 applicants per offer. From the stats alone you can't infer that its more competitive applying to X, and we can probably assume that the level of competition is significantly greater at Oxford.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by RichE)
    What a dreadful article
    :ditto:
    Looking at the Norrington table and application statistics for subjects will hardly "maxise your chances of getting in".
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by j_w)
    Can I just point out that 'official stats' really don't tell you how 'tough' or 'competitive' a subject is because they give an indication of its popularity and its popularity alone, there is nothing relating to the actual quality of the applicants. So for E&M, whilst there may be a 10% success rate, this doesn't mean its tougher to get into than law, especially since its a subject which people tend to self-select less from.

    The classic example is medicine (not going to name the school because people get upset)... but medical school X has around 10 applicants per offer, it regularly ranks low in the THE/Guardian tables, and the university is otherwise rather poorly rated. Oxford has around 4 applicants per offer. From the stats alone you can't infer that its more competitive applying to X, and we can probably assume that the level of competition is significantly greater at Oxford.
    Quite, however it does bring some level of objectivity into what I thought at the time would be another TSR thread preoccupied by people arguing the toss with no justification for their POV.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hunty91)
    Which college was that? Trinity told me that the main reason I didn't get an offer was my GCSEs (which were similar to yours).
    Hang on. Don't LSE also perv over the straight A* GCSE students? :confused:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr. Cool)
    Hang on. Don't LSE also perv over the straight A* GCSE students?
    They do indeed. I was puzzled, to say the least. I thought I'd be more likely to get into Cambridge than LSE, to be honest, but instead the opposite happened. I'm not going to complain, mind :p:.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hunty91)
    They do indeed. I was puzzled, to say the least. I thought I'd be more likely to get into Cambridge than LSE, to be honest, but instead the opposite happened. I'm not going to complain, mind :p:.
    Win! :yes:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by j_w)
    Can I just point out that 'official stats' really don't tell you how 'tough' or 'competitive' a subject is because they give an indication of its popularity and its popularity alone, there is nothing relating to the actual quality of the applicants. So for E&M, whilst there may be a 10% success rate, this doesn't mean its tougher to get into than law, especially since its a subject which people tend to self-select less from.
    Why do you think people are less self-selective for E&M than for Law? Do you have anything to back up this claim?

    And just to set the record straight, Oxford gave offers to about 6% of E&M applicants this year.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Roundabout)
    Why do you think people are less self-selective for E&M than for Law? Do you have anything to back up this claim?

    And just to set the record straight, Oxford gave offers to about 6% of E&M applicants this year.
    Not conclusively, but it has a high rate of international applicants who are known to self-select less than home students, and in being a more popular subject in general (as a subject across the whole country, not just in Oxford), it can again be assumed that there is less of a degree of self selection simply because many people apply to it with a view to their future career rather than the actual subject (trust me on this one, I've met so many applicants interested in E&M that seem to have no idea what the course is about).

    So no, I'm not going to pretend that I definitively know this, but whether I'm right or not the point remains the same... that there is no evidence to claim that it is more competitive based on no. applicants to offers alone. Competition is entirely subjective, so whilst 94% are rejected, the 6% who aren't are not necessarily comparatively better than the xx% who get accepted for a different subject. It seems intuitive that it should be and probably is, but the numbers alone are not sufficient to make that claim.

    I'm not attempting to demean yours or anyone else's offers, but reducing something to numbers without any indication of context is very misleading - and something you'll have to learn quickly when you get here!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by itszednotzee)
    For law especially, you don't need amazing gcse's (i.e. cambridge said my gcse's were fine as long as i was predicted 3 A's - A*AAABBBBBC) but most of the time you do need great a-levels - AAA+
    Really? As I know somebody who was predicted 4 As (and went on to get 4 As) but was rejected from Cambridge a couple of years ago and in the correspondence his school had with the Cambridge College, they said that it was his relatively poor GCSE performance which let him down and showed a narrow intellect rather than a sufficiently broad one to study law. He had 4 A*s and 6 As, whereas almost every other person given admission had 8+ A*s.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by RichE)
    What a dreadful article
    This
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

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.