Wow. GBP 24,500 vs 16,750.

Bristol almost look cheap for Eng assuming my figures are correct, since non-Eng, non-lab science subjects at LSE cost GBP 15,200 each, and the same at Warwick probably costs upwards of GBP 13,000. But I have never paid any mind to Engineering fees so I don't know what other schools charge, except that if you do Engineering at a regular public university in Australia it roughly costs the same as an LSE degree, which means instant savings vs schools like Bristol.

It's simple Economics. Are you willing to spend that 50% more (8000 pounds!) for the benefit you perceive? Is it too much? At this point all you have is reputation and rankings, unless you have visited the school and faculty. You have nothing concrete. Maybe you have friends there. I could say the same for any of these schools that partially rely on internationals.

I don't know if Bristol is anywhere near as prestigious as Imperial, but that's 32,000 pounds over the length of an MEng. That's two years at Bristol, almost 1.5 years at Imperial. And it's Imperial, not Cambridge which at least has a far bigger name (honestly, few outside of academia really know about Imperial, except maybe students like you who find out about unis - sometimes Imperial comes higher, sometimes UCL, and in England, sometimes Warwick, but nobody knows them!).

Are you wealthy enough? You buy the best food you can afford, up to the point where it is no longer "worth it" (such as special pills with claimed health benefits that may cost hundreds of dollars for a tiny container, or expensive, small dose drugs) or affordable. So I suppose you extend this to all purchases, determining how much value each good/service represents.

Try to get a scholarship - very hard, but it'll be worthwhile. Quite simply, if you can easily afford to go to Imperial and do not expect to need the almost 40,000 pounds (that's the value after tuition hikes and time value is accounted for) for near-future use (medical, property etc), go there.

It's not always straightforward, but the minimum requirement is usually all they ask for.

That doesn't mean you are very certain to get a place if you exceed it (get A*A*A*A* for a subject needing A*AA or AAA).

Besides, if you already have A Level results, you'll either get an unconditional offer, or a rejection. I don't think they would bother asking someone who already has results to do more/achieve something else (do more exams, other subjects, improve grades etc).

In case you weren't aware, courses like Economics are highly competitive in the UK, and any of the big courses (Economics, Accounting and Finance, Actuarial Science, Law etc) at LSE are equally so, if not more so.

LSE might not conduct interviews for international students, but there are similar schools teaching similar courses that do. We're talking about courses like Actuarial Science, Mathematics, Statistics, Economics, Operational Research.

Why does it surprise you that straight A students get rejected? AAA can be straight As, and that means little if the minimum requirements are A*AA or A*AAa.

There are many intricate factors... limited number of places presents the need for careful selection, and subject combinations, past results, nationality, and sometimes the personal statement matters.

They get a lot of high quality applicants.

They also consider subject combination. A*A*A*A* isn't necessarily superior to A*A*AA or even A*A*A when they are selecting candidates for a particular degree. And the latter person has more than surpassed the minimum requirements, which are all that they use in conditional offers... they give out offers in rounds, sometimes before all the other offers come in. If an A*A*A looks good and they give out an offer, that's one place fewer for the A*A*A*A*a guy whose application reaches them the next day.

The examples you pointed out for UCL and Imperial are true, but note that their entry requirements for those courses are not particularly high, nor is entry particularly competitive... Economics at LSE would be more competitive than Engineering at UCL, and Biomedical Engineering has lower requirements relative to many other Engineering courses.

There is a UCAS deadline. Although in fact there is a further deadline, although due to competition it serves little purpose and no one pays attention to it.

Applications via UCAS are assessed as soon as the universities want to assess them.

Many universities (I would say the majority) do not wait until after the deadline. In fact, they give out offers well before the deadline. For candidates they like, offers can be received within several weeks of having sent out the application.

So most of them give out offers almost continuously, starting from when they start receiving applications... but for some like LSE, about half of those accepted can expect their offers to come after March or April, well after the domestic deadline.

Do you even know about the process?

You can send in applications as early as the opening date.

Some students don't have their AS Levels when they apply, because they did their AS exams in November and the results only come out at the end of January, past that initial deadline.

AS Level results are not required when sending in an application - the candidates will be considered when their results are reported but will not be rejected just because their results aren't in yet.

---

Added on May 16, 2012, 2:36 pmSubject combination is quite important for Business and Finance related courses.

Economics at Cambridge? Economics, Actuarial, Statistics with Finance, Business Maths and Stats, Mathematics and Economics at LSE? MMORSE, Mathematics and Economics at Warwick?

These are all Business and Finance related courses. Many of these require an A or A* grade in Maths outright, and specify that they highly prefer Further Mathematics, and give secondary preference also to Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Economics. If that isn't taking subject combination into account, I don't know what is. A long way off from "never at all".



This post has been edited by LightningFist: May 16 2012, 02:36 PM

I think LSE is hard to beat when it comes to Economics. If in Britain, maybe Cambridge, but some would argue LSE is still top and number 2 would still be quite far off. But if it's all undergraduate, the competition is not hard to beat.

Weird how UCL is preferred for Engineering. Golden Triangle, pretty established, very high ranking, but not a force in Engineering... although it has decent requirements for Maths. Imperial is crazy expensive.

Ivies are used too sweepingly by some others... plenty non-Ivies are so much more reputable.

Truthfully, many people are nationalist. (Many) Brits will believe they have the best universities (and they do have very fine, world class ones), or that many of their "good" universities are the best. And there are always advantages and disadvantages when it comes to international students and immigrants. Nationalism, racism, and the social environment/upbringing makes people against immigration, makes them underestimate the economic benefits (like the massive contribution international students made relative to domestic students before the fee cap was raised). The ones other people know to be reputable (Golden Triangle, Warwick etc) wouldn't normally do this (take in CCC students when AAB is required). Sure, there have been controversies (LSE and donations, doctorates etc) but sometimes what makes a good story isn't necessarily factually accurate. Plus no names are in here, so it's not like defamation or libel is very likely.

True Story.

Some/many "scholars"... sometimes don't end up at a very reputable university at all. Or when they do make it to a top 30, they do badly. It's just unfortunate that these horror stories overshadow the genuinely ambitious students with potential and integrity.

Nottingham has (sometimes) lower requirements for International Students than for Home Students (in England). But not as drastic as straight Cs swapped for AAB or straight As. The universities that do this should be ashamed. So many British universities have no trouble filling places with high quality students (or at least students with more than satisfactory grades)... considering how much cheaper it can be relative to other developed Western countries.

Well, I really only consider the above average ones when doing comparisons (McGill, ANU, Melbourne University, Sydney, UNSW, anything that is at least as reputable as Warwick University). Depends on subject too, and variations from school to school. If you pick the right Australian school, Engineering could be cheaper than in Britain, but more expensive if you choose otherwise. Similarly I believe Commerce at McGill is more expensive than a comparable course in Britain or Australia depending on where, but there are always exceptions (Imperial is crazy expensive, and a 3 year Bachelors degree at LSE is almost a 4 year undergraduate Masters degree elsewhere in England).

I did some UK vs Australia comparisons before and the difference was more than I used to believe. Australia is likely more expensive (tuition wise, living expenses depends highly on accommodation preferences and lifestyle) for most subjects, much more than I originally thought. This is of course when we only consider the better schools (which are concentrated in Melbourne and NSW/ACT). Don't have much experience on the North American side of things.

I guess there is some prejudice... there are plenty of other schools overseas to compare with... but categorically, these "above average" schools aren't all elite, don't all have extremely high requirements, are achievable, and equally or more affordable (yes, better schools - ranking/reputation - that cost less than their counterparts), so it would be silly to not at least consider them if one is going overseas to study.

The discussion isn't extended to the Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium etc because in Malaysia we don't seem to have a sizeable French/German/Dutch speaking population anyway.

You can probably afford it. If you have a wealthy family that doesn't need the money for something else, don't have to sacrifice their lifestyles, food, investment opportunities etc, then it's good enough for me.

Who knows, maybe it will be the best thing to go to Imperial? It is quite famous and at the top of a number of rankings. In terms of targets it is up there with Oxbridge and LSE, plus you're doing Engineering or Maths I'm guessing.

For a lot of Malaysians, it is a lot to study overseas. Financially. The currencies (GBP, AUD, USD, NZD, CAD). Even with a tuition scholarship, when you look at cost of living in MYR prices, it's a lot. A Malaysian living paying for a Western student's lifestyle. Developing country salary for developed country expenses. So you need to do well, learn, grow, and make sure you can justify it all by the end. This is what many struggle with...

One thing's for sure, you'll get some exposure (at such a big, famous school) that you'll not get in Malaysia. They also attract more qualified academic staff. But it is also normal for their assessments to be tough. And you'll have very competent competition.

Well, really depends on the individual too. For some people, even studying in such a place is not too different from studying in Malaysia... not just the name, I mean there are places where you get a different experience (the Gold Coast, or a vibrant city like London, for example).

I wouldn't call it mid rank. Even some in the "Russell Group" (like Queen's Belfast) are barely mid rank. Notthingham is mid rank. SOAS, probably. Sheffield Hallam is probably "low rank". And considering all this is just within Britain.

Ppl don't really care about rankings. You may not have heard of some unis even though they are in the top 30 in the world. They really (sometimes) care about branding and reputation.

My view is that go to the best and highest you can afford... going to Britain, Australia, America etc incurs great expense (for me), so while a better school doesn't instantly translate to better quality teaching or a better paid job, it probably contributes considering there are firms which are highly selective.

---

Added on June 30, 2012, 5:35 pmRankings...

Uni rankings get C for confused: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-edu...er+Education%29

This post has been edited by LightningFist: Jun 30 2012, 05:35 PM

Also Finance, Management Consulting. Some firms in the IT business too.

Lecturer quality isn't guaranteed even at UCL.

Besides, universities may be strong in different areas. Finance is something you can't do at Cambridge for undergrad I think.

Most people I know in England have very bad food from their catered halls. Just as well since most of these people no longer stay in catered halls.

It's true that they (residential hall/college caterers) often fail when trying to cook Asian-style or inspired meals... but that is not to say that the Western dishes cannot fail catastrophically time and time again. I guess in the catering business, cooks may sometimes choose not to adapt, not to make alterations to their menus (if you see something go largely uneaten or which is grossly unpopular, you know it's probably because it's disgusting, so you shouldn't continue to make it all the time), to the disappointment of the consumers.

I guess the lesson of the story is you never know what you're gonna get if you're going for catered halls, but you can always leave (or, if you can't get out of a contract, tolerate it for a few months).

A good thing with catering is that you don't have to eat out all the time, saving expenses associated with restaurants and takeout or delivery. Because people who cook at home for themselves may still eat out quite often.

So while it is more expensive than home cooking, you could (if lucky) get decent food at an acceptable rate.

HSBC is a British bank, as well as one of the biggest banks in the world.

It's probably more convenient to use a bank that will be accessible in your area... even if you do not pick HSBC for whatever reason (high fees, inaccessibility etc), it doesn't have to be an international bank - I believe transaction fees are not ridiculously high. Simply enquire with a bank (or its website would have the fees stated clearly - Western banks are very sophisticated).

Midland Bank is defunct only because it was eventually renamed by HSBC. What its current network is like matters, not what it grew from.

History and origin may be important but not relevant here because HSBC as it stands today is one of the biggest British banks with sizeable retail operations in Britain. As a retail deposit-taking institution, it's also probably one of the safest in the UK.

I think it's one of the big ones that didn't need bailouts/financing packages from the British government in 2008-2009.

Oh ok. That's reasonable, it wouldn't be difficult to mistake HSBC for a foreign bank in Britain.

What do you mean?