Jump to content

Mark

VIP
  • Content Count

    272
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-2 Nonexistent

Profile Information

  • Country
    Poland

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Mark

    Master's degree

    I'm going to attend HKU starting from September 2009. I am also aiming for a Master's degree at one of America's mose prestigious universities. But I don't know if I should focus on learning for the GMAT and get into Business school or focus on GRE and get into a graduate school for a Master in Economics Can someone tell me the difference between a Master in Economics and attending Business school? I'd love to know Thanks!
  2. Actually SAT scores DO matter. I asked all US universities that rejected me as to why they rejected me and ALL of them said because my SAT scores were low, and the few top ones like Yale, Duke, Harvard etc said that they rejected me coz of low SAT scores & Low IB scores
  3. Mark

    Hong Kong University

    Oh right, I applied for Bachelor of Economics and Finance Programme. Sure I'll be at a huge disadvantage if my mandarin/cantonese or japanese will be very unsatisfactory by the time I'm going to apply for a job in China/Japan. I am however determined to learn mandarin and Japanese if I go to HKU (and I'd be determined to learn Japanese whether I go aswell) But do you think a degree at HKU would look good if I decide to work in let's say USA/Canada/UK/rest of Europe? Oh and I've never been to HK ever. I mostly heared good things about the place, the only bad things I heared are that it's hot (suits me) a lot and that people mostly speak Chinese (fine with me). Oh and I heared there are some real gangsters going around city daily like in Los Angeles - don't know how true this is though. Is there anything else I'd have to watch out for?
  4. I got a conditional offer at Hong Kong University. The university is ranked as 26 best in the world as of 2008 according to Times Higher Education rankings with a score of 90 out of 100 for Employer Review Score. I however have doubts as to how good the uni is. The conditional offer they gave me was only 33 points in IB overall with a 4 in English A1 HL (which seems very very low for a great university). Furthermore I heared that THE rankings are not fully accurate I wonder if I should go, as my aim in the future is to get a good well paid job Another hunch I have is that a degree from HKU may only be very good if applying for a job in Asia (and not in Europe/North America) do you think this is true? I would love to work in either Europe, USA for Japan in the future
  5. Mark

    MIT Decision

    I also got rejected, i'm not surprised though And SATs do matter, because you virtually have no chance of getting in if your SATs are low, like below 1800
  6. Mark

    MIT Decision

    So am I, but I wouldn't be surprised if I got rejected. But then again I, and everyone else, must never lose hope
  7. It should be from teachers who know you well. No matter if they teach you HL or SL or whether or not they teach you the subject you're currently interested in doing at uni. Note: I got this information from an admissions officer from Boston University through the phone
  8. Economics with Political Science
  9. [quote name='Max' post='37773' date='Feb 22 2009, 02:59 PM']I wouldn't say so. Protectionist policies are imposed to prevent foreign take-over of local markets and companies, while an embargo is only imposed due to military or political reasons. You could say, however, that it has a similar effect upon the economy as protectionism would.[/quote] Thats perfect! Thanks a lot; i'll do just that!
  10. [quote name='Chelleee' post='37660' date='Feb 22 2009, 12:41 AM']i learnt embargoes as a type of protectionism along with tariffs and quotas i'll type out the block of text from my text book for you (once i find it...) Embargo This is a total ban on trade. it may be imposed from outside the country or by a domestic government itself. imposition from the outside is likely to be for [b]political[/b] or [b]military reasons[/b]. thus it might be done to put pressure on a regime abusing human rights (the next bit is all about a diagram - if i have time i might scan my book for you later and upload it) An embargo is most effective where the country cannot easily produce the embargoed goods itself, or only at a very great cost. hope that helps you [/quote] Thanks Chelleee, but scanning is not neccessary since that's the same description as in Glanville's Economics from a global perspective. So as a definition, I wouldn't write that an embargo is an extreme quota (it is, but this wouldn't suit my commentary), but rather that an embargo is a total ban on trade. So embargo definitely fits under ''International Economics'', and since the opposite of free trade is protectionism... could we say that therefore an embargo on exports is also protectionism?
  11. Me neither, but remember this 50/680 is for PPE at Warwick, other courses at Warwick are less competitive
  12. In the Oxford Economics Course Companion by Blink an embargo for political reasons is not even mentioned, but in Glanville's Economics from a global perspective an embargo for political reasons is listed under Protectionism Whatever the case, i'm sure an embargo for political reasons must fit somewhere under economics, it can't just be ignored, rite?
  13. I personally love 20th century history, especially ww1 as well as the run up to ww2. For your question whether or not the western front was seen as the only front that would decide the end battle by 1916 you would need to mention why the other fronts kinda sucked; The entente's hopes to defeat the ottoman empire and eventually austria-hungary through the balkans was shattered after the gallipoli campaign failed in 1915. Although Russia managed to get a spectacular victory through the Brusilov Offensive in mid 1916, they failed to exploit their victory effectively, and have since then been losing out on the Eastern front, so the Eastern front wasn't much help in defeating central powers, from the entente's point of view The italian front between italy and austria-hungary kept a pretty low profile, with neither side making any spectacular gains, so that front couldn't be counted on The african campaigns.... although interesting and great they were (and significant in that britain/france could not send as many troops from africa to fight in europe because the german south east africa protectorate was more resistant than expected), ultimately did not decide the outcome of ww1, i.e. if entente or central powers would've won the war theatres in east asia (between small german colonies in china/polynesia vs japan) and the middle eastern campaign (as shown partly in the film Lawrence of Arabia) also wouldnt decide the war This is because it was clear for both powers that victory would only be secured if the senior member of each alliance would be defeated, i.e. Germany from Central Powers and France from Entente. By the end of 1916 was also the time when the Battle of the Somme started n ended. The battle in itself is now considered to have been indecisive, but British field marshal Haig believed it was a great success because the allies advanced 8 km closer to Germany (despite allies losing 620,000 when Germany lost 460,000). Haig believed that the greatest advancements to victory could only be made on the western front. Hope that gives you a solid starting bullet for your essay [quote name='abel' post='37486' date='Feb 21 2009, 01:44 AM']To be honest, economics is easier than history in IB... since I take both[/quote] I also take both (at HL) and I find History easier. It really depends on the person taking the course
  14. For my IA i'm writing about an article that illustrates an outside embargo onto another country, i.e. country A does not export the good X to country B due to political reasons. How do I define this embargo in economic terms? Is it even protectionism? According to my textbook an ''embargo'' is only when a country ceases all of its imports. But really an embargo can also mean not exporting goods, right?
  15. I finally received feedback from Warwick about my rejected application. I applied for PPE and this is what they said: ''Dear Mark Thank you for your email. I have taken a look at your form and the Course Selector has indicated that your personal statement and GCSE (or equivalent) profile was not as strong as other applications we have received. This year we have received about 680 applications from home students for approximately 50 places. This gives you some idea of the high level of competition for places. As previously stated the majority of these applications will more than meet our academic entrance requirements and as such selection comes down to strength of personal statement and even GCSE profile as compared to the rest of the applicant pool. We recognise that this does mean some very good applicants will be unsuccessful because of this competition for places.'' and ''However if your application was not considered strong enough with regard to your personal statement the Course Selectors would not have needed your SAT results to make this decision.'' 50/680? Wow thats less than 10%! I didn't know, but yeah now i'm not surprised. My Personal statement was focused on politics and economics and only briefly mentioned philosophy (i made a note about TOK) so yeah I guess in that regard my PS wasn't that adequate. I applied for PPE at Warwick because I wanted to apply to Warwick for Politics and Economics but they didn't offer it, so I took the subject that was closest related. As for my GCSE profile, it was good, however not excellent, I only got 3 A*s whereas some people get at least 5 A*s. I'm surprised that they didn't say that my predicted grades for IB were too low, and I find it odd that they even bother putting weight on GCSEs
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.