Is Northeastern harder to get into than UCL?

Neither is categorically harder to get into: UCL and Northeastern are both highly selective, but the difficulty depends much more on your intended course and academic profile than on the school name alone. UCL admissions are especially course-specific, while Northeastern uses a broader U.S.-style review of the whole application.

At UCL, you apply directly to a particular degree program, and the published entry requirements are a major part of the decision. Many programs expect specific advanced coursework and very strong results in relevant subjects; highly subscribed fields such as economics, computer science, engineering, and some social sciences can be particularly difficult even for applicants who meet the stated standard. Your academic reference and UCAS personal statement should demonstrate sustained interest and preparation for that exact subject.

Northeastern evaluates grades and course rigor alongside essays, activities, recommendations, and the context of your school and opportunities. Its applicant pool is large, and outcomes can also vary by intended college, application round, and the university location or program offered. Meeting strong academic expectations does not make admission predictable because the review is not based on a fixed set of subject qualifications.

For a realistic comparison, look at the requirements and competitiveness of your exact UCL course, then compare your full academic and extracurricular profile with Northeastern’s applicant expectations. UCL may be the tougher target if you lack required subject preparation; Northeastern may be less predictable if your academics are strong but the rest of your application is not distinctive.