MSc Management！LSE vs UCL？

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?

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.

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?

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.