[wockadoo]

Hi everyone!

I am also a student currently studying the MSc Management course at UCL, and have a lot of experience dealing with both my fellow students and the department staff, so I hope I can provide some useful insights into the current and future structure of the course.

First of all, congratulations to the people on this thread who have received offers to study! All the universities mentioned are very high class institutions.

Ok, I think the first post by emmalu mentioned the reputation of LSE vs UCL in the business field. I think you're right, emmalu, that LSE has a better reputation currently, and so may be the better choice. Personally, I'm not sure to what degree reputation is taken into account with job applications (I presume this is your main concern!) However, a lot of graduate schemes take students from any discipline and look at the reputation of the university as a whole (rather than for a specific discipline), and your degree classification. In terms of overall reputation, I'd say that UCL and LSE are both excellent.

Regarding the HELO consultancy projects, this was also an important part for me, since I also had very little work experience before starting the course. I completed a market research based project last term and found it to be highly interesting (despite the fact I did mine with a tiny, unknown start-up). The HELO team provide a mentor who has had considerable experience in industry to provide help, and I found this process to be highly rewarding. Although I think I would have been able to contribute to the company more had I started the project in term 2 (after doing some of the more applicable modules i.e. marketing!).

Since completing the HELO project (and largely thanks to the help and advice of the careers consultants), I have secured a full time job with a London based consultancy firm. I'm even doing my dissertation project with this company (and being paid for it too ).

Regarding the length of the course, I definitely needed my MSc to be one year long - any more and I wouldn't have been able to afford it! However, it has been a very busy year so far, and I can definitely see the appeal of a two year course!

Alright, now onto more about the course in general.

I think it's been established that the UCL MSc Management course has been designed for students without prior theoretical business knowledge. I think this is the standard for many Masters in Management programs. However, I do know that the Management department are working to develop the program for next year to be appropriate for students who have already studied Business. I heartily agree with train84's comment that the course "is not a finance, accounting, economics, strategy or marketing specialization".

However, this is only the second year that the course has been running. This comes with disadvantages and advantages. It is true that the course has been going through some teething pains and some changes have been made since last year. No doubt additional changes will be made for next year. I think this is why information is a little sparse on the course webpage. But this also means that, after many discussions with the department, I really feel that the staff are dedicated to making the course the best it can be, and have been particularly sensitive to issues raised by the students. Personally, I cannot praise the careers consultants enough: I cringe when I look at the CV I had before the careers classes!

Regarding the large amount of reading given to the class for each lecture: this was purposefully done to mimic MBA programs where part of the experience is to learn how to deal with a huge amount of information by selecting the relevant parts. I find it interesting that in one post me_1419 raised the concern that we are given a lot of reading ("some courses have around 100 pages per lecture"), yet in another said "I just wanted to learn new things"...

Additionally, I'd say that me_1419 is being a little cynical to suggest that the department is lying to the students. Perhaps miscommunication is a better (and more plausible) explanation for the discrepancy in marking criteria?

I'd say that the teachers on this course were, on the whole, very good. Like any degree program, some teachers are poor whilst others are better. After 4 years of university lectures, I'd say that some of the best teaching I've experienced I received on this course. Laura Cousins has already been mentioned as an excellent lecturer. I also say that the teaching in Accounting was also exemplary, as well as in Finance (which my colleague was not so fond of) and in Organisational Behaviour. Also the careers consultants have been unbelievably helpful. Overall, I'd say that even the best universities in the world don't always have the best teachers, and a lot of this is down to personal preference.

Regarding the issues raised about the mark scheme, I know that the British university system is somewhat different to that found in other countries, and perhaps this is the cause of problems. I found the marking in this course to be similar to what I experienced at undergraduate level (which I did at another Russell Group university).

To answer LSEfreak's question about the ethnicity of the course, UCL's program was designed to be a mixture of home, EU and international students to provide a mixed and balanced cohort. I think there are 12 Chinese students, 9 UK, 5(ish) German, 2 South Americans... and many others!

I think that's everything. Sorry for the essay, but I really wanted to be comprehensive. Ultimately it's up to you to decide what is best for you, and it's great that you're looking for extra (unofficial) information about the courses. With that in mind, please don't hesitate to message me with any other questions!

Right... that's it!

[zziippoo]

(Original post by wockadoo)
Hi everyone!

I am also a student currently studying the MSc Management course at UCL, and have a lot of experience dealing with both my fellow students and the department staff, so I hope I can provide some useful insights into the current and future structure of the course.

First of all, congratulations to the people on this thread who have received offers to study! All the universities mentioned are very high class institutions.

Ok, I think the first post by emmalu mentioned the reputation of LSE vs UCL in the business field. I think you're right, emmalu, that LSE has a better reputation currently, and so may be the better choice. Personally, I'm not sure to what degree reputation is taken into account with job applications (I presume this is your main concern!) However, a lot of graduate schemes take students from any discipline and look at the reputation of the university as a whole (rather than for a specific discipline), and your degree classification. In terms of overall reputation, I'd say that UCL and LSE are both excellent.

Regarding the HELO consultancy projects, this was also an important part for me, since I also had very little work experience before starting the course. I completed a market research based project last term and found it to be highly interesting (despite the fact I did mine with a tiny, unknown start-up). The HELO team provide a mentor who has had considerable experience in industry to provide help, and I found this process to be highly rewarding. Although I think I would have been able to contribute to the company more had I started the project in term 2 (after doing some of the more applicable modules i.e. marketing!).

Since completing the HELO project (and largely thanks to the help and advice of the careers consultants), I have secured a full time job with a London based consultancy firm. I'm even doing my dissertation project with this company (and being paid for it too ).

Regarding the length of the course, I definitely needed my MSc to be one year long - any more and I wouldn't have been able to afford it! However, it has been a very busy year so far, and I can definitely see the appeal of a two year course!

Alright, now onto more about the course in general.

I think it's been established that the UCL MSc Management course has been designed for students without prior theoretical business knowledge. I think this is the standard for many Masters in Management programs. However, I do know that the Management department are working to develop the program for next year to be appropriate for students who have already studied Business. I heartily agree with train84's comment that the course "is not a finance, accounting, economics, strategy or marketing specialization".

However, this is only the second year that the course has been running. This comes with disadvantages and advantages. It is true that the course has been going through some teething pains and some changes have been made since last year. No doubt additional changes will be made for next year. I think this is why information is a little sparse on the course webpage. But this also means that, after many discussions with the department, I really feel that the staff are dedicated to making the course the best it can be, and have been particularly sensitive to issues raised by the students. Personally, I cannot praise the careers consultants enough: I cringe when I look at the CV I had before the careers classes!

Regarding the large amount of reading given to the class for each lecture: this was purposefully done to mimic MBA programs where part of the experience is to learn how to deal with a huge amount of information by selecting the relevant parts. I find it interesting that in one post me_1419 raised the concern that we are given a lot of reading ("some courses have around 100 pages per lecture"), yet in another said "I just wanted to learn new things"...

Additionally, I'd say that me_1419 is being a little cynical to suggest that the department is lying to the students. Perhaps miscommunication is a better (and more plausible) explanation for the discrepancy in marking criteria?

I'd say that the teachers on this course were, on the whole, very good. Like any degree program, some teachers are poor whilst others are better. After 4 years of university lectures, I'd say that some of the best teaching I've experienced I received on this course. Laura Cousins has already been mentioned as an excellent lecturer. I also say that the teaching in Accounting was also exemplary, as well as in Finance (which my colleague was not so fond of) and in Organisational Behaviour. Also the careers consultants have been unbelievably helpful. Overall, I'd say that even the best universities in the world don't always have the best teachers, and a lot of this is down to personal preference.

Regarding the issues raised about the mark scheme, I know that the British university system is somewhat different to that found in other countries, and perhaps this is the cause of problems. I found the marking in this course to be similar to what I experienced at undergraduate level (which I did at another Russell Group university).

To answer LSEfreak's question about the ethnicity of the course, UCL's program was designed to be a mixture of home, EU and international students to provide a mixed and balanced cohort. I think there are 12 Chinese students, 9 UK, 5(ish) German, 2 South Americans... and many others!

I think that's everything. Sorry for the essay, but I really wanted to be comprehensive. Ultimately it's up to you to decide what is best for you, and it's great that you're looking for extra (unofficial) information about the courses. With that in mind, please don't hesitate to message me with any other questions!

Right... that's it!

Thank you very much for your post. Could I ask something? The department told me that you can choose pathway. but on the website I cannot find any relevant information. is that true?

[SVW247]

Hey,
I will apply to LSE Msc Management this year and would like to know how good my chances are to get an offer from LSE:
Here is my profile:
Degree: Bachelor in business administration in Germany
2:1 degree
Gmat: 660 (quant: 47; verbal: 660; 81%)
Experience: 2 Internships in investmentbanking (each 3 months), one internship at Industry Corporation (2 months)
Age: 22

Thanks in advance!

[wockadoo]

(Original post by zziippoo)
Thank you very much for your post. Could I ask something? The department told me that you can choose pathway. but on the website I cannot find any relevant information. is that true?

When did you speak to the department about the pathways? I know that when I applied there was some talk about there being different pathways, but that seems to be for last year's cohort.

I have heard rumours that there is going to be a larger cohort next year split into two groups based on previous management knowledge/experience. But like I said, just a rumour so far.

Currently there are 7 core modules - Accounting, Business Economics, Strategy, Decision + Risk Analysis, Finance, Markets + Customers, and Organisational Behaviour.

And one optional module from - Leadership + Ethics, Operations, Forensic Accounting, Innovation Management, and Project Management.

Hope that's some help!

[rydio]

(Original post by me_1419)
To be honest there's one reason I posted on this forum. Last year when I applied there was no information whatsoever about this course (neither good nor bad), which means students are at a disadvantage when making their choice. I would say UCL is a great uni, but our department cannot really be compared to others. They lie to people to a great extent (with regards to the marking scheme: the department recently made a statement about their marking policy saying that assignments are marked on a 0 to 100 scale, however the lecturers admit during class that they can't give us more than 70 as they are not allowed to). Lecturers are sincere, whereas the department is clearly lying. Also, there are lots of people that share my opinion, however most of them are reluctant to admit on a public forum. Some of them do not want to talk about it, just because it might affect the reputation of the course, and consequently the actual degree. Personally, I don't care! I just wanted to learn new things and don't really care about the future of the course. Also, I should add that around 75% of the class is still job hunting and hope that this degree will help them secure employment - very unlikely to happen in my opinion). And lastly, UCL is not a business school, and I doubt that it will get closer to that in the next 10 years.

Hi,

Looking for something totally unrelated I bumped into this thread. I didn't want to post, after all these are opinions and therefore all perfectly valid, but I decided to do so when I read the above quoted, simply because it is not true. I think calling someone a liar is too serious to let it go by, and it's very easy to show it's not true: In order to get a distinction you need an average in every module of 70 or above, and I think 3 people got a distinction last year. You would just need to ask the department for the exact information.

I was part of the first cohort of the MSc Management at UCL, and my highest mark for coursework was an 82, of which I'm immensely proud, but a few really smart classmates would consistently hit the 90s. I also got a 70 for my dissertation, and I am very aware that although I put a huge number of hours in it, there was plenty of room for improvement. If I remember correctly, if you get a 100 is basically because your submission is almost 'journal ready', ie. new, original knowledge ready for submission to a relevant journal for peer review.

However marks are just a convention, a reference point. It doesn't even matter what grades you achieve if you are not open to gain something from the experience. I believe it all comes down to expectations, and what it is that you are looking to get/gain/learn.

From reading Me_1419's post, I get the impression that s/he would've been more satisfied with a more technical specialization course and/or getting higher marks, which is perfectly fine, but has nothing to do with wanting to learn. If someone had nothing to learn from most of the modules, I can only assume they just didn't have the right attitude and were completely closed to anything but what they assumed was the right thing or the right way to teach.

A few of my classmates also had this kind of attitude, and I think it speaks of the maturity of some of the students. There seems to be a sense of entitlement, where some think that they should get certain grades and get a job offer because they are doing a masters degree in a highly reputable institution.

I believe that it comes down to the person, because you won't get hired only because you studied at UCL or LSE. Your credentials might open you some doors for interviews and such, but it won't change you. And the other way around is also true, I'm sure you must know someone who studied at a small local college and is now very successful. Chances are that if you didn't learn anything while at uni, you won't want to learn at a job either, and interviewers will catch that right away. Universities are not a magic spell, chances are they won't turn you into the perfect candidate if you don't want to.

As an international student I could not be happier with my decision of doing the MM at UCL. I learned loads, the quality of the lecturers is amazing (as is their willingness to interact, and not taking the opportunity to engage with them is a very silly thing to do), and I met great people.

There is plenty of space for improvement (probably starting with the selection process), and I'm sure things will continuously improve. There seems to be huge efforts in place to make the programme better and better, and being open to discussing things with the right attitude, can take you a long way. Personally, I'd much prefer to be a part of the improvements than of the problems.

Just thought it would be fair for you to hear from a happy alumnus

Cheers!

[emmalu]

Thanks for the helpful suggestions and comments posted by all of you. I now believe that both programmes in UCL and LSE are great ones and I just have to choose one more suitable for me. For your information, I have decided to go for the MSc Management in LSE because I've always preferred to do a two-year programme. Since LSE has granted me a 7000pounds scholarship per year which has greatly reduced my economic burden (my only concern), I would choose LSE. Thanks again!

[Origin89]

Hello good people,

I am currently applying for the Management MSc at UCL. I just want to know from people who are familiar with the course how mathematical it is?

What is going to be required for this programme? (Besides Finance)


Thank you.

[Econla]

(Original post by zziippoo)
I believe that UCL is one of the best universities but not for business. KCL is really good as well but it has not connections with the industry. If you want to study something in business in London, choose LSE/ IMPERIAL/ CASS/ LONDON BUSINESS SCHOOL.

Actually, isn't LBS the best in business related programmes?

[zziippoo]

(Original post by Econla)
Actually, isn't LBS the best in business related programmes?

Yes of course! I agree with you ... But if you cannot study at LBS then LSE, CASS, IMPERIAL.. still are really good!

[daisicong]

(Original post by Hanshen)
Interesting to hear the other side. I don't mean to be rude in the slightest, but how would you respond to your classmates criticisms directly?

I don't think anyone is assuming that any school has, as you posit, the 'perfect program[me]' but in terms of a direct comparison between the schools it would be good to get the other side, seeing as UCL seems to have taken quite a beating on this thread thus far.

This house believe that MSc Management in UCL is hell of a good programme. Or is it.

Sorry Lol, it just reminds me of those debating union. quick enjoy the friendly environment here