Oxford -- PPE or Economics with Management

[shockthemonkey]

This is the question one of my charges is struggling with.

We all know how hard PPE at Oxford is -- but its acceptance rate at 15% appears better than for Economics and Management at the same uni, with just 7% of applicants accepted.

Whilst he's looking closely at course content, and discovering more about the other four choices he'd be going for in either scenario (PPE or Econ with Mgt), does anyone have any thoughts about the programme choice?

I have no reservations about his academic level nor his commitment to doing what it takes to give him the very best chances. I just know, though, that he'll ask me whether one is "easier" to get in for than the other.

Before looking at the acceptance rates, I would always have said PPE is harder. Even looking at the 15% vs 7% I still think this may be the case -- Econ and Mgt may be attracting more "borderline" candidates than PPE because I cannot imagine schools in the UK encouraging anyone other than their very brightest to go for PPE.

Does anyone have any experiences to share? Thanks!

At the end of the day, with French candidates, you have to take into account the likelihood of them getting Ginette/Louis-le-Grand etc as well. Fair enough to take a bet on Oxbridge when their back-up plan on APB is pretty certain.

Halved fees

"I would never in a million years suggest my DS could Maths at uni."

DS thought the same but actually he is taking many of the same courses as peers in the maths faculty. And often doing better. Oddly he's realising that though he did not get the greatest UMS in FM at A2 (though still an A*) he probably could have coped with a maths degree. In contrast others who were far better at school are finding University level maths surprisingly hard.

One advantage of the Britiish system over that in other countries is that Universities normally only accept candidates who they believe will thrive. Theere is non mass chucking out at the end of the first year. Add in intense competition for places and you have a situation where good candidates are rejected. A single question mark, such as a relatively low maths score, might be sufficient. Universities have a duty of care. And particuarly so where the maths demands can be more than people expect.

It becomes very easy to guess why any particular candidate has been rejected. Prejudice against French Bac, IB, private schools, whatever. Luckily each University is looking for slightly different things. It might be that the Warwick degree is able to offer more non-economics options than some others. It might be that their tutor system is able to offer more support to those who are struggling than elsewhere. Or simply that other Universities have had a few failures from students with 5s in HL maths and so want to avoid future problems.

Don't worry. If you son could/should have done better he will be able to show this at University. Warwick is highly regarded and one reason it does so well in league tables is that it achieves high student satisfaction rates. LSE's are poor, and, more surprisingly, so are Cambridge's. My guess is that low rates are pretty unavoidable for London Universities, but that both suffer from offering very technical degrees that some students find they don't enjoy.

NeedMoreSleep - I don't think that universities are prejudiced against the French bac. That isn't my experience. However, the French bac prepares candidates differently to the way A-levels prepares them and this matters more at some universities than others.

Some universities - I am thinking of Warwick, Exeter, Bath and Royal Holloway - have a reputation among French bac candidates of being a "sure thing" if candidates meet the published entrance requirements. Others are more tricky. It's good to know this and good to use this information when advising French bac candidates on their five choices.

I cant speak for maths but in my department (humanity), we're reluctant to make A* offers because the marking at A level can be flakey.

And TBH, when applicants are going all out for an A*, they are often less ambitious/more cautious.

We feel we have enough to go on to choose the right candidates (many of who do get A*s of course)...GCSEs, AS (including raw score), school predictions, additional testing, interviews etc. We simply don't have equivalent data for those applying from some other jurisdictions.

Well I can tell you now, SheGot, that French bac marks for French lit and Philosophy are highly reliable: the worse the mark, the better the candidate . Bear it in mind!

Ha .

I don't have anything to do with the level of offers made. Just who we make them to.

Shock, how good a fit is the LSE approach to teaching to the system French students are used to? DS was at a very selective private school where there was a lot of teaching beyond the syllabus (extra lessons in problem solving etc) plus lots of other opportunities to extend: essay competitions, societies etc. My understanding (I too read economics at LSE, DH PPE at Oxford - we disagree strongly on which is better though he will acknowledge that my maths is better) is that teaching at Oxbridge is very different. At LSE you can get huge numbers in lectures, making them very easy to skip, and class sizes tend to be reasonably large, certainly far larger than an Oxbridge tutorial. DS has been surprised that there seems to be a convention that students don't say anything but leave the cleass teacher to do all the talking. You are then left to do a lot on your own.

Where DS' schooling has put him in good stead is that there are lots of opportunities to do more, say contribute to the economics society, do some origional research in a small group encouraged by a supportive lecturer, and with input from senior members of staff. Plus visiting speakers, presentations by research students etc. I expect to get flamed. (Bonsoir has expressed her strong negative views about the education provided by English private schools. Its not a particuarly rewarding debate so not one I want to repeat.) but its a genuine question. DS seems to be thriving because he is used to a level of self-starting and is genuinely interested in his subject. But LSE can be an odd and lonely place for those who find it difficult. Even amongst British students a very high proportion seem to come from within the M25. Might it be that French students simply do better at Warwick or Oxbridge where there might be more encouragement/supervision.

(In my day we used to feel that the LSE education left us more street-wise and thus more employable. It may be the same now.)

In terms of good candidates left hanging, though unpleasant, I think it is inevitable. All candidates have to be given equal treatment and Universities want to get their numbers right. Ucas does not close till late Jan. The places like LSE will ask some candidates, eg from countries whose exam systems don't provide sufficient differentiation, to sit an exam. By the time this is organised and the papers marked you are effectively in March. DS did not hear from UCL, Warwick, or LSE till late March. It does seem to be easier (for both the candidate and the University) if you are applying with actual rather than predicted grades. Which is presumably why DS' school talks about treating it as a two year process, and also accepting that if you are applying to top Universities there is an element of chance. I also think that as well as Oxbridge and medical schools other very sought after courses shoud be allowed to have an early deadline. The long wait through the important final year of school was very difficult.

It also seems that French students may not understand how different, and competitive, things are in the UK. They want courses which don't chuck out at the end of the first year but then find it difficult to accept the level of initial selection.

Making slightly lower offers (AAA rather than A*) gives admissions tutors more flexibility to choose the candidates we believe have the most potential rather than being dictated to by A-level markers.

NeedMoreSleep - I cannot possibly let your misrepresent my opinions like this, at such length! I think that English private education is sometimes poor value for money, not poor education per se. And French students are far more autonomous than British students (Terminale classes of 37 pupils? You are on your own) and therefore find British universities cosy and caring, across the board, compared to what they are used to.

Bonsoir, that's what I meant. Which is why I would prefer not to have a debate. Despite your views, I am happy with the decisions I have made.And you clearly feel your DC have benefitted from the decisions you made.

Interesting to learn that French students are more autonomous. From the outside the process can look quite prescribed. My point was simply that LSE does require a student to be a self starter, so fine.

I do understand, however, how annoying it must be when you have paid an awful lot of hard-earned income in fees when students waltz in from other countries with far cheaper education systems and do just as well - if not better - than your DC in the university/career competition. Globalization, eh? :)

Ehhh?

My understanding is that Universities want to recruit the most able. I think is right. Were the complaints not about the apparent inabilty to recognise the strength of non-A level qualifications. And the answer being that selection is about more than grades. There is no need to be rude.

I'm not being rude. I'm being sanguine. Life's a (global) competition and it is bloody annoying to sweat one's guts out for oneself/one's DC in one's own system just to discover that people from other countries got to the same point more cheaply and/or easily. Of course it is. But that is globalization for us and we all need to be aware of it.

I thought one of the gripes was that French Bac students find it tough to get places like LSE where needs DS is studying?

Now they're waltzing in?

Ehhh?

LSE was always hugely international. Back in the day I was the only Brit on my course. London is also hugely international. Both DC are absolutely used to mixing with people from all over the world. They would not want it otherwise.

It seems very odd for a French person to come onto a board and accuse the British of insularity. Have you visited London recently? The strength of the British teritary education system is in part its openness and its willingness to embrace talent whereever that might come from. (Piketty has recently been appointed to the LSE!) Or are you suggesting that the reason why British students are not lining up to study in France is because they are frightened of the competition.

^However, I do feel that a 5 is more than good enough for PPE/econ (and Warwick agree with me - even for their pure econ course).

Maybe they agree with you, or maybe they just can't find enough students with higher maths grades to fill their course. As several others on this thread have said, economics at the top universities requires high levels of maths.^

spinoa What Warwick struggle to fill their Econ courses? Which are currently 2nd best in the country? Methinks they simply agree with me :)

Also you didn't answer my point about an A at A level ordinary Maths (Not an A* and without having done Further maths) leaving too big a step up at Uni. to study Maths.

"French bac marks for French lit and Philosophy are highly reliable: the worse the mark, the better the candidate."

Absolutely right, Bonsoir.

Sleep, yes you are right -- French candidates are surprised at the degree of selection that happens during applications... and stunned to find out that you are practically certain to finish the course you embark upon. And I don't really have the data for your first question regarding how well French students do in the smaller tutorial groups other than to guess that it's a welcome change from their school experiences.

I am bitter about Imperial's treatment of one of my charges simply because I was able to compare and contrast the distinctly preferential treatment Imperial gave (that same year and for the very same course), to an obviously inferior candidate.

Student A submitted his application in November, his PS had all the elements Imperial wanted, his reference and predicted grades were stellar, and he waited six months... a week after Imperial hinted to his father that he was still in the running, he was rejected. (As an aside, when he asked for feedback he was given suggestions that made it clear that his PS had not been read properly).

Student B submitted his application on the 13th January and had an interview offer in the space of three weeks. His reference was wishy-washy, his predicted grades OK but not great, his PS was devoid of any work experience or independent reading around the subject (because his choice of course, Computing, was the result of an eeny-meeny-miny-mo session the night before -- and this showed in his PS).

Needless to say student B did not make his offer grades and student A far, far exceeded what Imperial asks for in the bac S. Unbelievable difference in treatment. Student B, by the way: prestigious and highly selective private school in Paris, very posh surname. Student A: unheard-of lycée in the provinces, name obviously of north African persuasion. I still get angry.

shock, thanks.

There is a high degree of randomness. What made DS' long wait so hard was that he saw other applicants get early offers and, yes, then not make them. The numbers applying are so huge that you really cannot decide on one institution, but hope for one out of the top four. We saw some absolutely stunning candidates being rejected from Oxbridge, yet some quite dull ones get places. And it really does seem easier with actual grades.

We also saw Oxbridge reject a good candidate whose parents had been long time and significant donors to the College. I dont think its about that either.

Honestly it happens. The only way is to reapply with the best PS/grades possible or to accept that there will be plenty of other good departments, and being a big fish in a small pond has its advantages.

I don't think Warwick struggle to fill their economics courses but I don't think they could afford to insist on As in maths as it would shrink their pool too much. (What does it mean to say they are 2nd in the country anyhow - this is highly subjective, as many would put Cambridge, LSE etc ahead of them. The latter do insist on A in maths.)

The top 10-20 maths courses ask for at least A* in maths so your question is redundant. The top five to ten maths courses in practice insist on FM at A2 or at least at AS, and MAT/STEP.

I agree spinoa - league tables are not all that relevant.

However from what you are saying at top Maths courses they ask for FM - or a 7 at IB HL Maths. (with good STEP/MAT scores)

So extrapolating from that a 5 would be equal to an A at A level (no FM)

QED. :)

If you want to think 5 equals A, that's fine. You admit yourself though that academics who deal in admissions all the time don't agree with you. Even top maths courses often have to take extra students in clearing, as maths is undersubscribed. They might drop to 6 in HL maths/A in Maths A level (particularly for Maths with A Minor courses) but academics would be really reluctant to drop to 5 in HL maths.

Very interesting about Imperial, shockthemonkey. Completely independently of this conversation DSS2 (who has spent today doing admin for his UCL place) was talking at supper about his friends who had Economics offers for UCL and LSE for next year. UCL makes more offers with harder conditions than LSE to French bac candidates but strangely enough the UCL candidates have all met their conditions (some choose to remain in France nonetheless) whereas the LSE candidates are random (one only got 13/20 in Maths in her bac).

Really my argument is not with Maths courses - though I still think anyone who achieved A (not A*) in only A level Maths - no FM, would struggle just as much as someone who achieved a 5 at HL. Personally I don't think either should be admitted to a Maths course.

However I do argue that other less or non-Maths courses should not be asking AAA and then glibly 666 when - as I said earlier- there is ample proof that 775 is just as good - esp when Maths is one of the HLs

halvedfees - what is the difference between your argument that IB 666 is just as good as IB 775 and the argument that AAA is just as good as AAB at A-level?

none :)