<p>That previous post was just a quick one outlining the main principles behind the demographics. Give me six hours (I have to go to class) and I'll find the numbers to support it. The real issue is thus whether or not you believe Princeton to be truly need blind. Anecdotal evidence (the admissions office not caring if you haven't filled in your financial aid form, etc.) suggests that it is, but there are always those who disagree. I don't think there's much evidence either way.</p>
<p>"As I said there is no statistical or independent evidence to suggest that LSE's students are of lower calibre than those at Oxbridge."</p>
<p>Hash's excellent post stand correct. The statistical evidence is that the average entry points of all new students for Oxford and Cambridge are higher than LSE: 29.5, 29.3 and 28.3 respectively. In 2004, there are a total of 3225 (Oxford), 3326 (Cambridge) and 1360 (LSE) new students. The statistical evidence is there.</p>
<p>"There is a very slight difference in A Level grades but this is cancelled out by LSE's desire to take a higher proportion of disadvantaged and mature students, who have the potential but not always the highest grades"</p>
<p>This is a grossly incorrect statement. Cambridge has a higher proportion of mature students than LSE. Cambridge has 5.5%, LSE 4.2% and Oxford 3.4% (source: Sunday Times) Are you sure it is LSE's desire and not your desire?</p>
<p>@cevonia to be honest i dont actually care that much, you dont have to research and reply unless you want to (would be fine with me of course). why dont we leave it at this: for some people oxbridge is a better deal, for some people princeton is.</p>
<p>ps. (to others: still no answer why oxbridge yield is much higher than lse's if its not considered better)</p>
<p>Are the Oxbridge lovers also claiming that Oxbridge takes as many disadvantaged students as LSE? If you factor in LSE's much higher proportion of disadvantaged students, and also students from a lower social class (not necessarily the same thing -but it's been demonstrated that their exam grades tend to be lower than students of the same ability from more prosperous homes) and add this to the mature students, then you will see how it works (LSE has even deliberately set aside places for gifted students who achieve lower grades, as has been reported): in any case the statistical difference between an average of 28 points and an average of 29 is insignificant. Such a small disparity in A Level entrance grades is not in itself enough to support a claim for inbuilt superiority, which is what is claimed. Consider additionally the fact that LSE takes large numbers of overseas undergraduates who have foreign entry qualifications that are not strictly comparable with A Levels, so that A Levels are only a partial index of the nature of the undergraduate intake.</p>
<p>Don't forget either the much higher number of applicants per LSE place: this gives LSE the chance to pick its talent from a much wider pool, both nationally and internationally, and to spot a wider variety of ability, over a larger range of qualifications and even grades. </p>
<p>Secondly, there are serious doubts in any case about A Levels as an index of ability, which is one reason why LSE is sceptical about them and places less faith in them as a measure of potential. Grade inflation (extra points for the loss of a pet), unfair coaching (Ie Prince Harry's art exams) and so on, are a persistent worry. This is why last week the head of admissions at Cambridge called for a complete rethink of the whole A Level system as a means of judging university potential. Even Oxbridge, which in the past has bought heavily into A Levels as a qualification, is beginning to realise that they are pretty dodgy.</p>
<p>hatingtonyblair:</p>
<p>I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. If it's that lse is better than oxbridge, then you're only fooling yourself. Nobody in their right senses would agree with you - not even other LSE students (who themselves would have gone to Oxbridge had they gotten in).</p>
<p>Perhaps LSE has an equal/better economics course to that of Oxbridge, but that's where it stops. Oxbridge win in every other department (always have done, and always will do).</p>
<p>it's this kind of mentality that scares me: "Oxbridge win in every other department (always have done, and always will do)."</p>
<p>Why? OK, Oxbridge may not necessarily dominate schools like LSE in the distant future, but it certainly has done to this date. There is nothing "scary" about what I said.</p>
<p>"If you factor in LSE's much higher proportion of disadvantaged students, and also students from a lower social class (not necessarily the same thing -but it's been demonstrated that their exam grades tend to be lower than students of the same ability from more prosperous homes) and add this to the mature students, then you will see how it works"</p>
<p>This is not correct. LSE may have 64% of its students from the 'disadvantaged sector', but it does not actually widened its access.</p>
<p>In fact, LSE actually discriminates against disadvantaged students more. The acceptance rate is only 7% for this group of people, whereas it is 10% for the rest. So it is even harder for a disadvantaged student to get into LSE! Note that 70% of all applications to LSE is from the disadvantaged group and yet acceptance rate is only 7% for this group compared to acceptance rate of 10% for the remaining 30% of applicants.</p>
<p>Clearly, with the high number of overseas students in LSE, one can only conclude LSE is after the money that international students pay more at the expense of disadvantaged students ...</p>
<p>Oxford, on the other hand, has an acceptance rate of 26% for disadvantaged students versus 25.7% for the rest. </p>
<p>(source: Offa, UCAS, Oxford pages)</p>
<p>"Even Oxbridge, which in the past has bought heavily into A Levels as a qualification, is beginning to realise that they are pretty dodgy."</p>
<p>Oxbridge has never "bought heavily" into the A levels "in the past" - the interview process has been around for a long long time, with its sole purpose to weed out the very brightest from all the straight A applicants. There is also the written tests, and LNAT etc in addition to the interview. At least 3 A grades at A level is merely a pre-requitsite for application - what counts most is the interview and your written tests. So Oxbridge does not 'rely heavily' on A levels. It never did, and I don't think it ever will.</p>
<p>"Perhaps LSE has an equal/better economics course to that of Oxbridge, but that's where it stops. Oxbridge win in every other department (always have done, and always will do)."</p>
<p>The London colleges do have many excellent departments, several of them on par or even slightly ahead of Oxbridge. (Mechnical Engineering at Imperial comes to mind)</p>
<p>This does not mean Oxbridge is slipping: it just means Oxbridge set the standards and the others are catching up fast. What it needs to do is not be complacent and move ahead. Indicators have shown that Oxbridge is still ahead of the game though, and the clear target is to get more funding to 'fight' internationally, with American Ivies, for example.</p>
<p>"it's this kind of mentality that scares me: "Oxbridge win in every other department (always have done, and always will do)." "</p>
<p>There is nothing scary about this mentality. Every other kid on CC or elsewhere who is proud of where they come from will say the same thing about their university.</p>
<p>haha don't know if anyone mentioned this yet but...</p>
<p>JRR TOLKIEN WENT TO OXFORD (on scholarship, if I remember correctly...) AND he was professor there of anglo-saxon..</p>
<p>DUHH no wonder oxford is better known!!! : )</p>
<p>JKH lives in a fantasy world when it comes to statistics. </p>
<p>The point stands, however. Let's put it in simple terms that won't confuse him. LSE goes out of its way to admit gifted students who have lower grades. This explains the small disparity in A Level grades between LSE and Oxbridge.</p>
<p>Secondly A Level grades, as Oxbridge admits, are not in themselves that good an index of ability (which is one reason LSE places less faith in them).Also given LSE's high proportions of overseas and postgraduate students, A Levels are only a partial guide to the students it has on site at any one time. </p>
<p>Thirdly nobody in their right minds would claim that LSE has ever been behind Oxbridge in social sciences. LSE started and for many years sustained the social sciences in the UK. It's hard to think of one social science field, apart from maybe economics, in which Oxbridge has made a contribution equal to that of LSE: that's not surprising given that LSE was set up to do social science- something Oxbridge only really got into post-war. </p>
<p>Nobody hates Oxbridge: we just prefer the real Oxbridge, with all its real strengths and weaknesses, to the paradise of your imagination. Of course Oxbridge is world class. But we're talking just about some ancient universities, not heaven on earth (to paraphrase one of your very recent opponents on TSR).</p>
<p>So why do you hate LSE? I notice that on the TSR website there's now a thread discussing why so many of you Oxbridge types seem to feel so resentful of LSE. The place really gets under your skin. Chill out. Get over it.</p>
<p>"Secondly A Level grades, as Oxbridge admits, are not in themselves that good an index of ability"</p>
<p>You sure contradict yourself pretty fast eh. First you insisted it was Oxbridge that "relied heavily" on A levels, now you say Oxbridge "admits" it does not. Make up your mind. And because LSE doesn't has that kind of interviews and written tests at Oxbridge to screen off applicants, LSE will always be relying much heavier on just A levels grades (or IB etc) alone.</p>
<p>"So why do you hate LSE? I notice that on the TSR website there's now a thread discussing why so many of you Oxbridge types seem to feel so resentful of LSE. The place really gets under your skin."</p>
<p>Nobody here hates LSE! People only "hate" you, for all your unfair, un-informed and unhelpful comments on Oxbridge or Warwick (or any other universities that you "hate" for that matter). Say how great you think LSE or Sussex are - that's fine, just don't use your inferiority complex to lash out at others. It will only make you look even worse and reflect badly on LSE. In one recent message on TSR, an American asked why was it that students from non-LSE colleges that he spoke to when in London are all bad-mouthing LSE. From a reader's point of view, one can't help but get the impression that LSE is the "London Snobs and Elitists" and you are yourself in your own fantasy world out there where everyone should 'kow-tow' to LSE for its social science. Nobody really care, so get down to earth, deal with it and get over it.</p>
<p>And by the way, I don't even subscribe to TSR, let alone have a username in there LOL</p>
<p>"JKH lives in a fantasy world when it comes to statistics. "</p>
<p>The statistics say it all. It just shows you choose not to believe in numbers even when they come from Offa or UCAS as in your own small world, your precious LSE is always the most perfect example for others to 'follow'.</p>
<p>It is harder for a disadvantaged student to get in to LSE than at Oxbridge.</p>
<p>You're spot on jkh. hatingtonyblair has a serious inferiority complex which he can't overcome. LSE is respected by everyone. Equally, everyone knows that Oxbridge is more prestigious and difficult to get into (making it better in most people's eyes).</p>
<p>The problem for JKH/uWarwick is that he has to come to terms with what is plainly his/her deep rooted resentment of LSE. As has been noted the gratuitous digs at LSE were completely unprovoked, in threads supposedly dedicated to other topics. And as for the inflated claims about Warwick University...oh my god...</p>
<p>And even to suggest that Oxbridge is less than perfect means being accused of hating these two institutions...And as for constructive criticism,forget it. One thing you don't get from these clowns is informative discussion..</p>
<p>Hatingtonyblair - is it true that you are now at LSE but were rejected at oxbridge? And dont you think its really hypocritical to knock oxbridge's "arrogance" towards lse but at the same time arrogantly belittle universities such as warwick?</p>
<p>"And as for constructive criticism,forget it. One thing you don't get from these clowns is informative discussion.."</p>
<p>So you are saying your idea of 'constructive criticism' is using terms like "Oxbridge luurvers"/"LSE haters"/"Uriah Wieep"/"clowns"/etc as opposed to statistical data from Offa, UCAS?</p>
<p>Or that how you singled out Warwick and whined and moaned about it being only 'fashsionable' and having 'inflated claims'?</p>
<p>We get it - that's your idea of 'constructive criticism' and 'staying on topic' in this thread.</p>
<p>Hatingtonyblair: What's your problem?!?</p>
<p>The guy has a massive complex about getting rejected from oxbridge! Lol people say its really easy to hide your intentions on the internet, but this guys so obviously bitter its funny!</p>
<p>And dont know why he slagged off my university! Warwicks not an "inflated" average uni, its always been a top 10 british univeristy.</p>
<p>"haha don't know if anyone mentioned this yet but...</p>
<p>JRR TOLKIEN WENT TO OXFORD (on scholarship, if I remember correctly...) AND he was professor there of anglo-saxon..</p>
<p>DUHH no wonder oxford is better known!!! : )"</p>
<p>Yeh but you can say that about Cambridge as well.</p>
<p>Like EVERYONE knows who Stephen Hawking is, and he's a prof at the moment at Cambridge.
Or how about Isaac Newton, you heard of him? How about Charles Darwin?</p>