LSE and international students

^ Think you mean post grad.

Oh well, LSE is mostly known in Econ for its post grad course anyway. A Bachelor econ degree from anywhere else is just as good.

But for your question though its hard to say as I had quite a few friends who tryed for LSE along with Imperial,UCL etc. They're all asians by the way from singapore, india etc. Almost all of them got into Imperial,UCL but none into LSE. I suppose a majority of their intake is from inside the EU in general.

You are joking right, if anyone wants to get into graduate training programme. LSE is one of the uni to go for your first degree specially if you want to read Economics.

Perhaps it is the best in London or maybe even the UK but it is by no means the one everyone goes to. The united states have their own universities and most employers there regard them higher then LSE.

Singapore has its own national university which again many in their own country consider it the best in the world and it probably is the best in asia aswell. Talking about NUS btw.

Canada has its 3 universities- UBC, Toronto, McGill. It is significaly easier for a person from canada to get entry into oxbridge or LSE then it is for them to get into McGill. Oxbridge/LSE ask only for 85% odd while this asks about 93%+

MIT and McGill's Econ Course is pretty much master level economics by third and fourth year so its quite advanced stuff.

So you see its all very subjective. There is no clear best especially at the undergrad level. The only real undisputed best courses would be the post grad courses at HYP such as Law, Medicine etc.

I'm not dissing LSE but your statement kind of makes me laugh tbh. An Econ undergrad education in econ will be pretty much the same from any of the universities I mentioned above. Keep in mind the profs teaching it are also the top in their field. LSE does not have a monopoly on them. There's a reason its 60% outside the UK for ug and 85% for postgrad. The PG course is regarded much higher by the world and employers at large.

Mcgill is not harder to get into than Oxbridge - that's what a Singaporean at Mcgill thinks. LOL

I pretty much agree with everything you've said except this line. Minimum requirement does not equal difficulty of getting in, especially for Oxbridge where grades are just the starting point and aptitude tests/the intense academic interview are what pinpoint the candidates to choose. The vast majority of successful applicants get significantly higher than the minimum requirement.

I'm not saying you're wrong that it's harder to get into McGill for econ, just that you've made the comparison a bit simplistic, especially considering the extra hassle for a Canadian applying abroad could be considered a 'difficulty'. The higher education philosophies in different countries can vary greatly. (This is why economics and management at Oxford is so oversubscribed - an admissions tutor told me that they get so many international applicants who don't realise what British universities focus on and so are rejected pretty sharpish).

You clearly missed the point of my post. A person from singapore does not apply with canadian high school grades now does he? He would apply with Cambridge A Levels if I remember correctly. My post simply stated that canadian universities generally require a higher average from its own residents then oxbridge does. I made no statement about requirements for internationals. As sacchi clearly pointed out above, oxford also requires something like 90-93% from Indian students now which apparantly isnt so hard to achieve.

I speak only of grades here though, the interview and aptitude tests are another matter. Although I do think they have tests and interviews for some courses like Law.




Yes, your right in that sense. I was talking only about academic requirements in specific. Considering everything oxbridge would be harder to get into and probably by a large margin too as interviews and stuff are hard to set up and do well on. Although I cant comment much on LSE as they have no interviews and tests if I remember correctly. But yeah, I hope everyone understands that its not the be end of all. There are other universities with profs at a similiar or higher level that give the same education.

LSE definitely favours internationals at undergrad. If you get fewer than 9a* at GCSE you'd find it very hard to get into the LSE econ programme as a non-intl fee paying student. However, I have quite a few itl friends who have obtained 5a* or less in their gcses and got into LSE. LSE is a university that likes to milk the itl students for every last penny they've got. In doing so they reject plenty of well qualified British students.

Oh, and I might just FOI the individual course breakdowns for the number of itl and non-itl students, if I can be bothered.

Not true. I'm living outside of the UK, and about twenty people in my year applied to LSE. They ALL got rejected- and we're talking excellent, top notch, well qualified IB applicants with predicted grades of 38+ and all A*s and As at IGCSE. Even the guy who got into Cornell got rejected from LSE. Only one boy got an offer, and it was 40 points.

So yeah, I'm pretty sure LSE takes the best of both British and international students. Yes, they reject plenty of well qualified students, but the rejected aren't all British- LSE's incredibly prestigious and competition is tough for everyone.

There, you said it. I am talking about British students who got all a* and no as at GCSE, and other British students who got offers from Oxbridge but rejections from LSE.
I think it is even stated somewhere that for straight econ you need 10 a*+ at gcse. How then do you then explain the many itl students with 5/6 a*? I know of at least 3 itls who got offers with just 6 a*s for straight econ.

On the econ course fewer than 15% of students will be white British. However, for foreign students who have applied without gcses/ A-levels, I do believe the competition is a bit more intense.