<p>So, I came across something interesting in my application process to UK schools (for a 3rd BA) and was wondering if anyone else found it a bit odd?</p>
<p>For the program I'm applying for:
(1) Cambridge has an average acceptance rate of 23%. To the college I'm applying to (Cambridge is of course collegiate) it's 30% or higher on average.</p>
<p>(2) UCL had an acceptance rate of 5.5% (this past year)</p>
<p>(3) LSE had an acceptance rate of 5.7% (this past year)</p>
<p>(4) KCL had an acceptance rate of 7.5% (this past year)</p>
<p>Is there any particular reason that Cambridge's acceptance rate is substantially higher than the other three? I thought it might be because of the rule only allowing student to apply to Cambridge or Oxford, but not both. But, even if all Oxford applicants also applied to Cambridge, the acceptance rate would still be 11%. </p>
<p>On a side note, if one applies to Cambridge as is rejected, given those acceptance rates, would it be at all likely to get into UCL, LSE or KCL? Or would be a waste of time to apply to any of them after being rejected from Cambridge?</p>
<p>From what I know, getting accepted to Cambridge or Oxford is extremely difficult for international students and those that get accepted get very little financial aid. There are also very specific requirements depending on which college of Cambridge you’re applying to (regardless if you’re an international student).</p>
<p>International students generally do not get any financial aid - I’m already aware. That’s not a problem. I also already looked up all the requirements and at least satisfy them.</p>
<p>Then I would apply to Cambridge first (if it’s your first choice that is) and if you get rejected apply to your 2 favorites from your list or all them if you have time. You never know what can happen.</p>
UCAS makes it simple to apply to multiple colleges at the same time. Perhaps the closest analogue would be the joint application for the UC system.</p>
<p>Incidentally, the deadline for Cambridge and Oxford is October 15 (today). If you’re applying this year, get that application in!</p>
<p>I submitted my app. earlier this week.
Do you have any idea what the standards are for ‘mature’/‘affiliated’ students? If I fulfill their requirements for graduate study, does that make me a competitive applicant for an affiliated student place?</p>
<p>Where did you find those statistics? I assume you overlooked something. For example, in case of KCL </p>
<p>“In 2011 some courses, such as English, Law and Business Management, had 15 or more applicants per place or an acceptance rate of less than 7.5 percent”.</p>
<p>That’s three subjects, out of…dozens? Their acceptance rate is a way higher than 7,5%, as only their top programs have these acceptance rates, not the undergrad. admissions as a whole; I’m under the impression that the same goes for UCL and LSE. I find it hard to believe that they would be that selective (more selective than Oxbridge, HYPSM, etc) - in some subjects, surely, they are extremely selective. But, just in case of KCL, this doesn’t reflect the overall admission statistics.</p>
<p>Moreover, you can only apply for 5 universities through the UCAS. As a result, most people simply do not apply to Oxbridge, as they would lose a valuable place and, as everybody needs to have safeties, etc, so having 5 choices is not much. (You can find many articles in the British media as regards students, especially from state schools do not even try to apply to Oxbridge.) In the US, you can apply as many universities as you want, it’s just a matter of time and money.</p>
<p>I said the specific program I’m applying for has the following acceptance rates. So no, I did not give wrong admissions statistics. Those are in fact the correct statistics.</p>
<p>And for Cambridge, roughly 80% of applicants get interviews. The 30% rate was in fact the acceptance rate for the particular college/program I’m applying for.</p>
<p>Be as it may, Cambridge is a way more selective than all the mentioned institutions - just look at the UCAS scores for example, and the overall A-level demands. Cambridge demands more than any other institutions in the UK. Moreover, self selectiveness is a powerful force, especially in case of Oxbridge. </p>
<p>It’s not quite representative -lol-, but I never ever met an undergrad who got rejected from UCL, and got accepted to Cambridge. Strange things could happen, nevertheless it’s basically the other way around. (For graduate studies, the same applies.) </p>
<p>OP, the reason why Cambridge has a relatively lower admit rate is because the university’s applicants are self-selective. Meaning, no one is allowed to apply simultaneously to both Cambridge and Oxford. And each applicant is only allowed to apply to 5 universities in a single year. So, if you like Cambridge, you apply there and enroll in one of the colleges when you get accepted. Smart applicants aren’t in the habit of applying to universities that do not really appeal to them. As a result, both Cambridge and Oxford have a very high enrollment yield. Cambridge’s enrollment yield rate will blow Harvard’s yield rate out of the water.</p>
<p>Do not be fooled by Cambridge’s high admission rate. Cambridge requires that their applicants possess superior intellectual abilities. They require at least A<em>AA at A-Levels for the easiest program that one can possibly get onto. And, the university conducts interviews for those short-listed applicants, to check if you’re a fit for the program and the university or not. A lot of A</em>A*AA applicants are admitted. But a lot of applicants having the same stats are also turned down. In my personal experience, it is easier to get into Columbia than to get into Cambridge. I’m sure it isn’t the same case for some students. But the vast majority of those international students I know at Cambridge have also been accepted to a top US school.</p>
<p>Not to mention that all of the American graduate students at Cambridge come from top-notch institutions (HYP are extremely well-represented). On the other hand, however, I firmly believe that it hurts the interest of Oxbridge that their acceptance rates are (on paper) a way higher than those institutions of the Ivy League. </p>
<p>People look at the acceptance rates, and not the reasons behind (cannot apply to both, one can apply to a maximum of 5 universities in the UK, extremely high self-selectiveness). Surely, the whole process is cheaper, as people can only apply to 5 universities, and cannot apply to both Oxford and Cambridge,( and students cannot expect to have scholarships from their unis in the UK) but it’s in fact a terrible PR for Oxbridge.</p>
<p>“Terrible PR”? lol, please. Very few people even know what the acceptance rates for individual courses are at Oxbridge, and of them, even fewer care. And maybe a tiny subset of that subset would also be aware of the acceptance rates at the most selective American universities. And within that small group you may or may not be able to find a single person who thinks the acceptance rate for Land Economy at Cambridge reflects badly on Cambridge as a global scholarship nexus.</p>
<p>I am talking about prospective applicants who, in fact, are quite interested in acceptance rates and world/national rankings. Not all of them, of course, but many. It’s most obviously true that “CC =/= the real world”, however many of the applicants are somewhat closer to CC then to the “real world”.</p>