Why is LSE so good?

Not interviewing doesnt mean it's not good.

LSE gives very very high offers though, A*AA for Law, as I saw from the other thread.

No, justify your view for yourself. Whoever LSE accept, by the time they graduate they are highly employable individuals, hence LSE has a good reputation. If the quality of LSE graduates was bad, then employers would not rate LSE as highly as they currently do. So clearly, not interviewing, has no bearing on the quality of graduates LSE produce.

I mean, seriously - they DONT interview, meaning anyone who doesn't even have an interest in the course could just write it in words and have a good chance assuming they have the grades.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovmHfMKHuY8

I didn't know this until I watched that video and was shocked, LSE is suppose to be one of the best ever yet it doesn't bloody interview?! So basically anyone who is a social retard, can't speak to anyone and witht he worst personal qualities and traits can get into LSE? For the top courses like Medicine, you undergo some killer interview procedure yet LSE doesn't give fudge all about the acutal people.

Therefore, I value Oxbridge and any other university who interview for the 'same' course at LSE to be far more better.

Can anyone justify this for me?

Thats the whole argument, all you have to do is work to get A*AA and your 80% there? Most other top unis, getting the entry req is liek the first little step!



In other words, they may be good employees but they don't contribute to their society, are social retards and have no qualities once again.

Been good at your job is first step, been very good at your job requires more then just 'academia' or 'knowlege'.

Thats the whole argument, all you have to do is work to get A*AA and your 80% there? Most other top unis, getting the entry req is liek the first little step!



In other words, they may be good employees but they don't contribute to their society, are social retards and have no qualities once again.

Been good at your job is first step, been very good at your job requires more then just 'academia' or 'knowlege'.

You sound like an LSE reject.

Firstly, I doubt anyone can't actually speak at all, even if they aren't the life of the party on every friday night.

Secondly, I can understand that that decent social skills are a must for a course like medicine where you're going to be communicating with people in sensitive situations. But for pretty much any other degree course, surely intelligence and effort are the only absolutely necessary prerequisites to do well.

Don't contribute to society? LSE graduates generate their employers huge sums of money - so they contribute to society far more than the average graduate.

Thats the whole argument, all you have to do is work to get A*AA and your 80% there? Most other top unis, getting the entry req is liek the first little step!

In most cases I think you'll find being good at your job = contributing to society.

Also you contradict yourself when saying they may be 'good employees' but have 'no qualities'. Obviously they must have the qualities that make them good employees

I can see how theres a bigger needed in coursesl like medicine but surely, lets look at Accounting and Finance. SURELY someone who has the ability to present well, talk to other staff/customers, comes across as a good person is far better and more approcable compared to someone who has just brains?

Do you think it is that easy to get A*AA ?
It's also about strong personaly statement, general knowledge shown on there.
It is not easy to get in, many people got accepted from Oxbridge but rejected from LSE. Does it mean it is easier to get in Oxbridge? NO.

Most of us AREN'T social retards, thank you very much

I can see how theres a bigger needed in coursesl like medicine but surely, lets look at Accounting and Finance. SURELY someone who has the ability to present well, talk to other staff/customers, comes across as a good person is far better and more approcable compared to someone who has just brains?

Because it's got Economics in the title.

I mean, seriously - they DONT interview, meaning anyone who doesn't even have an interest in the course could just write it in words and have a good chance assuming they have the grades.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovmHfMKHuY8

I didn't know this until I watched that video and was shocked, LSE is suppose to be one of the best ever yet it doesn't bloody interview?! So basically anyone who is a social retard, can't speak to anyone and witht he worst personal qualities and traits can get into LSE? For the top courses like Medicine, you undergo some killer interview procedure yet LSE doesn't give fudge all about the acutal people.

Therefore, I value Oxbridge and any other university who interview for the 'same' course at LSE to be far more better.

Can anyone justify this for me?