Msc Finance Cass vs MSc Accounting and Finance LSE

the logic is not that its better because its older but that it was the program(along with economics) that earned the ib reputation for lse so it cant be a bad course.finance n econs was introduced recently in 2006.the only difference is that with the former you do a compulsory course in acc. Whiles with the later you do financial economics.the rest of the curricullum are almost a carbon copy.your take on the dissertation even betrays you.there is a dissertation option.you can choose it if you want to.go back and read the program page. As for your take on cass and warwick programs being better, what is your yardstick?for me job prospect is the most important and i hope you are not saying a warwick graduate has better prospects than one from lse?why dont you choose cass over cam?it seems to have a better course structure!

`In terms of job prospects, employers view warwick and cass on the same level. A&F probably earned the reputation but dat does not make it as good as F&E or Finance. You have to face the fact that A&F is not as good as F&E or pure finance. Just look at the admission rate. You know many people get rejected from the Finance/F&E but they get accepted to the A&F programme. Doesn't that speak volumes?? Anyone with knowledge of finance would see that the course struture at warwick and even cass is better, I know you think so too but your judgement is skewed as a result of your love for LSE!!!!!! Concerning the similarity in the course structures, they ae far different, I think you need to revisit the LSE website

Warwick and Cass on the same level?I doubt.The fact is that in the Uk, once you are in one of the target unis( warwick, oxbridge, lse, ucl, imperial) of the banks, you stand a good chance, so there is no problem.But once you leave the shores of UK, international reputation kicks in, and that is where warwick seriously loses out to Oxbridge/lse.With respect to the course structure, I honestly think Warwick and Cass appears to have a better course structure than all the finance related programmes at LSE(including the pure finance).But I also think those schools have a better course structure than that of Cam(so would you choose them over Cam?).
I even think the 4 elective courses at LSE are too few and I am actually worried about that.But then, a question sets in, how come LSE has a big name in the IB industry with finance programmes which appear to be shallow?And as I have been repeating, reputations are not built in 5yrs, it takes decades and centuries to do that, and so acc and fin. which played a major part in earning that reputation could suddenly not become a bad course.In fact big LSE personalities in the industry are more likely to be Acc. and fin graduates than graduates of fin and econs(which started 2006) and Finance(which started in 2008).I am not saying acc and fin is better than these programmes but it is not a bad course either.
About the entry requirements, a careful study of the lse programmes will reveal to you that the new programmes tend to have tighter entry requirements than the established ones.for example, msc economics has an intake of almost 12% whiles finance has 2.5%, so is finance more rigorous than economics?Intake for fin and econ keeps increasing over the years( currently standing at about 6%).intake percentages has more to do with demand and supply rather than how rigrous a programme is.finance is not more rigrous than fin and econs.
I compared the curricullum of acc and fin with that of fin and econs.(finance has a bit of a different curricullum).here is the evidence.

Ok, the electives are basically the same. I am not saying that A&F is a bad course. As you said it is well established. I am saying that warwick and cass may have a better course structure, so ultimately the international reputation of LSE may make it a better bet. I am also very concerned about only four electives, whereas cass and warwick have many more courses in their curriculum thus providing better rounded MSc Finance. I wounder why LSE has only 4 electives and 2 core courses. Would that put you at a disadvantage? Finally, I think you are forgetting that LSE is not a cfa partner, which its major competitors such as imperial and warwick are using to attract students. Why aren't they a cfa partner and don't you think that makes a difference??

How can you even compare CASS and LSE? Cass for starers is not a target school and hardly anyone from there gets a FO job. Seriously man do your research before you speak.

CFA partner means **** all. Oxford and Cambridge are not CFA partners either.

How can you even compare CASS and LSE? Cass for starers is not a target school and hardly anyone from there gets a FO job. Seriously man do your research before you speak.

CFA partner means **** all. Oxford and Cambridge are not CFA partners either.

I do know oxford mfe to be a CFA partner but Cambridge isn't. But i dont think CFA partnership means a lot.LSE and CAM can join the body any day they feel like, they just dont deem it necessary now.As CFA partners, we will still not enjoy any exemptions so whats the point? I feel the course selections are not enough but then again who am I if the employers keep on showing good faith in LSE graduates?

I was simply comparing the course structure with cass. I was really comparing warwick and LSE. I did extensive research. Unlike you, I do not take everything at face value. Maybe all you care about is the reputation of LSE. I was not talking about the ovreall unis, just the finance courses offered. The CFA partnership does count for something..

Reputation is all that matters. Do you think a 1 year MBA at LBS is not as good as any 2 year MBA in the US because LBS graduates don't learn as much?

that is exactly what I am trying to get across to Adri2010.the course stuctures of warwick and cass and indeed many other schools like manchester and edinburgh look better than that of LSE and Oxbridge yet still, the employers say they get their best materials from these schools so who are we?

I am not trying to undervalue LSE. I agree with you and prspectivEEconomist.I know LSE has an impeccable reputation worldwide...I was just concerned about the courses it offered but I guess at the end of the day LSE is a safe bet and with its international reputation students can have a global perspective when looking for jobs

I have really enjoyed this long debate and hope you have too.@prospectivEEconomist, you have a lot of facts but dont force your opinions on people, tone down a bit please, u sound a bit harsh.just lay down the facts out, they are mature enough to draw their own conclusions.

I enjoyed the debate also, and I learned new facts from it. So I take it you will be attending LSE MSc A&F in september??

Yes, but unlike you it was actually my first choice so I was happy to get in.I had fully convinced myself the course was the right one for me.I had read a lot of stuff about the uk education system which seem to stampede people into programmes and dont really give room for career switchers, so i felt continuing with the accounting portion(i did acc undergrad) was better than venturing into a new area of economics.

don't want to reheat debate but i think i will pick Imperial MSc Finance > LSE A&F. Just because of the restrictive electives and some C++ possibility. I also don't think it matters alot if you plan to work in London where you go to, I will jsut learn more from Imperial.

I don't think CFA accredition matters if you are LSE or OXbridge. But it will matter if you are a low ranked university.

No it isn't, i havent made a decision yet but i am leaning towards it.

I am also sitting CFA hopefully get lvl 3 before masters finish. Or well atleast level 2.