[cl_steele]

(Original post by WalkerPrince)
I am not sure if I'd rather enjoy my time more, or whether I'd do well in an LSE environment. I'm starting to annoy myself, I just want to choose.

well as theyre both part of UoL you can mix and match your course structure a bit between the two, i think UCL said when i went there that 25% of your course you can take at a constituent college so if you like LSE ? good luck with the choice though!

[0snape0]

(Original post by Frenchous)
A few points to consider:

....
- You "loose" one year during which you could have gotten a master's from cambridge or whatnot.

Yeah, go to lse, get a masters at oxbridge or LSE. Puts you on a much higher utility than a year abroad imo.

[Purehakkai]

I applied both to UK and US universities, and now I firmed the UCL with a year abroad course. I was rejected from almost all the universities that I applied to in the States. It's so hard to get into an undergraduate programme there, so to get a chance to study at somewhere like Chicago or Columbia really is an amazing opportunity.

[TheMeister]

Maybe I'm being a bit dense here but couldn't you do LSE undergrad and then do a Master's at one of those American universities?

[Tsunami2011]

(Original post by TheMeister)
Maybe I'm being a bit dense here but couldn't you do LSE undergrad and then do a Master's at one of those American universities?

I'm sure that would cost upwards of 20,000. Is that really worth it, just for the LSE name, when he can get a degree from an 'almost' equally as good university in UCL.

[Purehakkai]

(Original post by TheMeister)
Maybe I'm being a bit dense here but couldn't you do LSE undergrad and then do a Master's at one of those American universities?

I guess it depends on how much you want to go to the US. There is no guarantee that you will definitely get a postgrad place. It is a lot more competitive then people make it out to be

[TheMeister]

(Original post by Tsunami2011)
I'm sure that would cost upwards of 20,000. Is that really worth it, just for the LSE name, when he can get a degree from an 'almost' equally as good university in UCL.

I don't doubt the status of the UCL degree, it's an eminent institution after all.... but if LSE is as respected for its Econ department as everyone always makes out (I'm between the Government and International History ones so I don't really pay much attention to it), then surely this would be an excellent springboard for an application for study in the US? And would not the cost be offset by the earnings in the immediate years afterwards? I don't know the monetary mechanisms needed to secure funding for study in NA (apart from Fulbright) so this might just be a wrongly-assumed foray into advice but it would be the best of the both worlds, surely.

[mgarthwaite1330]

I did a MSc at LSE and am now doing a MSc at Imperial / UCL.

I love UCL, but my programme is small compared to that of LSE.

On balance I would not change either...

So do a MSc at either once you have graduated from...

[WalkerPrince]

At the moment, I've swung completely to LSE, firming it tomorrow. I'm just not convinced that the gap between LSE and UCL isn't huge in terms of reputation and the sort of economists they create. I want to be a good economist, naturally the best place to go is LSE.

[Tsunami2011]

(Original post by WalkerPrince)
At the moment, I've swung completely to LSE, firming it tomorrow. I'm just not convinced that the gap between LSE and UCL isn't huge in terms of reputation and the sort of economist banker they create. I want to be a good economist, banker naturally the best place to go is LSE.

fixed.

only kidding

[Frenchous]

(Original post by TheMeister)
Maybe I'm being a bit dense here but couldn't you do LSE undergrad and then do a Master's at one of those American universities?

You can't do masters at american unis bar Duke. So you would have to go all the way and do a phd.

(Original post by WalkerPrince)
At the moment, I've swung completely to LSE, firming it tomorrow. I'm just not convinced that the gap between LSE and UCL isn't huge in terms of reputation and the sort of economists they create. I want to be a good economist, naturally the best place to go is LSE.

I would probably have done the same if I had the choice but what you say about the type of economists they "create" is nonsense at least at undergraduate level.

Really at undergrad you will be the only person responsible for wether you become a good or a bad economist. Be it at UCL or LSE, your contacts with teaching staff won't be great and, if anything, LSE is known for bad teaching (at undergrad).

The harsh reality is that, either way, you'll be packed in a lecture theater with 300 hundred students (half of them utterly boring asians) that DONT care about economics and want to get into IB.

Where LSE might edge UCL at undergrad (bar the better reputation) is in terms of seminars and out-of-curriculum activities. But there again, UCL has a very active Economics society that invites a lot of well-known economists to give talks. The department also got Sargent (Nobel prize winner) to give a lecture this year.

At PhD though, things change and LSE has a clear edge. Your contacts with teaching staff increases and so does the value added of LSE.

But then if you wanted to go all the way to PhD UCL might be more sensible. UCL + year abroad at Chicago/Upenn/columbia would put you in a very good position to do a PhD at LSE or even at one of these unis which arguably produce better economists than LSE.

[Tateco]

(Original post by WalkerPrince)
At the moment, I've swung completely to LSE, firming it tomorrow. I'm just not convinced that the gap between LSE and UCL isn't huge in terms of reputation and the sort of economists they create. I want to be a good economist, naturally the best place to go is LSE.

I doubt the difference between the undergraduate degrees will be the difference between being a good or bad economist. It's where you do your Masters and PhD that will make the difference. That is where the year abroad comes into play, as top american universities are definitely better for further graduate education and having some experience out there will give you the edge.

[WalkerPrince]

(Original post by Frenchous)
You can't do masters at american unis bar Duke. So you would have to go all the way and do a phd.



I would probably have done the same if I had the choice but what you say about the type of economists they "create" is nonsense at least at undergraduate level.

Really at undergrad you will be the only person responsible for wether you become a good or a bad economist. Be it at UCL or LSE, your contacts with teaching staff won't be great and, if anything, LSE is known for bad teaching (at undergrad).

The harsh reality is that, either way, you'll be packed in a lecture theater with 300 hundred students (half of them utterly boring asians) that DONT care about economics and want to get into IB.

Where LSE might edge UCL at undergrad (bar the better reputation) is in terms of seminars and out-of-curriculum activities. But there again, UCL has a very active Economics society that invites a lot of well-known economists to give talks. The department also got Sargent (Nobel prize winner) to give a lecture this year.

At PhD though, things change and LSE has a clear edge. Your contacts with teaching staff increases and so does the value added of LSE.

But then if you wanted to go all the way to PhD UCL might be more sensible. UCL + year abroad at Chicago/Upenn/columbia would put you in a very good position to do a PhD at LSE or even at one of these unis which arguably produce better economists than LSE.

I see your point, but to understand why I said that you sort of have to know me as a person. Being the sort of person I am, the department and the strength of the whole department really will affect the person I leave LSE as. First sentence of your second paragraph says it all really.

[lnicholson88]

You need A*AA (A* in maths) for both right?

[winning11]

lse have strong international links, especially with american unis, for example in my IR course, students can go do a masters in columbia afterwards as their links are already established

there's no reason you couldn't hit up an ivy league after your degree

but i guess the fees would be international rather than the incorporated ones for home students at UCL, speaking of which, are you guaranteed a place at a top american uni in your year abroad?

ooo tough decision, have you visited both?

[WalkerPrince]

Firmed LSE yesterday, went against the poll, oddly.

[lnicholson88]

So it was A*AA, well done on getting that. but how come you went against the year abroad? Was the brand LSE too good to resist?

[Eldedu]

I like to think, ignorant though I am, that the UChicago brand name and prestige is equal in the world of economics to the LSE one, so essentially if you go for UCL + UChi you're cancelling out any prestige loss that might factor into the equation otherwise.

UPenn econ is not as highly regarded in the US because the majority of energy is focused on Wharton (I'm assuming you'd be going CAS).

The rest, couldn't really say.

[lucas13]

lse

[RocknRap]

(Original post by WalkerPrince)
If you have 3 clear favorites, they can almost guarantee that you'll end up at one if you do well enough in your second and first year.

I'd rather go to UCL + UCLA, Columbia, Chicago, Georgetown, Carnegie Mellon than go to LSE, I think.

Indeed. Economics degree from LSE is SUCH a powerful brand for life, hard to turn it down. I see myself firming LSE and regretting it simply for that brand.

I always told my friends I'd rather UCL + Chicago/ucla/columbia than Cambridge even, now here I am....

The LSE brand isn't as powerful as you make it out to be when you compare it to UCL. LSE Econ of course will have a higher prestige attached to it, but I very much doubt it'll correlate to a higher success rate in the jobs market. UCL Econ is targeted by the same firms as LSE Econ. Ceretis paribus, it won't make much difference.

On the basis of UCL Econ vs LSE Econ, if you were a sucker for prestige (as most of us highly aspirational individuals are), you'd choose LSE. BUT, UCL presents you with an awesome and unique opportunity; to study at a TOP American university as well for one year - Chicago (!!!! OMFG!!! Birthplace of neoliberal economics!!!), UCLA (Sun, sea and prestige all in one!!!), Columbia (NYC!! Ivy League!!). So in this case UCL + Chicago etc prestige > LSE prestige.

And of course in addition to that you'd be having a life changing experience when studying abroad in America - making new friends, experiencing a new culture etc, and this will be very beneficial when applying for jobs as well.

So I'd choose UCL in your position (I also prefer the large multi-faculty nature of UCL as well and the opportunities that brings). However either way you're sorted. Congrats and good luck in whichever path you take!



Edit: Seen you've firmed LSE. Aww well lol, have fun!