[aaron4d]

Hi guys,

Would like to get your thoughts on my situation. I'm a final-year student at a top 4 New Zealand University, on course to finish my degree in Politics and IR by the year's end. Based on my current progress, I expect to obtain a high 2.1 or a low first, which would put me in the running as a competitive applicant for a Masters in Comp. Politics at LSE based on their admission requirements.

As an international student, I expect to pay full fees for the programme. While my parents will probably be able to cover the fees, it will be a significant cost for them to bear. At the same time, I also have the opportunity to pursue an MA in Politics at the University of Auckland, NZ's top ranked university and its most internationally known, for a fraction of the cost (next to nothing compared to LSE's Msc). I know it's no LSE, but the significant savings I will be able to make if i decide to stay on in NZ is a factor that should not be overlooked.


I intend to pursue a career as a political analyst with a think tank/NGO/consultancy, focusing primarily on East and Southeast Asia. Given that I have no interest in IB/Strategy Consulting, is it wise to pursue such an expensive programme knowing I will not be able to recoup the costs within the next 2-3 years? Also, I don't intend to stay either in NZ or the UK(would be pretty hard to stay on anyway given recent visa restrictions) after graduation, so this is a another factor that could have an impact on my decision.

Ultimately, what i'm asking is whether the MSc in Comparative Politics is really worth the money, and whether the long-term impact it will have on my career will outweigh the financial costs of undertaking it as opposed to the MA at Auckland which will not cost much at all. Any thoughts on this would be most welcome

[kka25]

(Original post by aaron4d)
Ultimately, what i'm asking is whether the MSc in Comparative Politics is really worth the money, and whether the long-term impact it will have on my career will outweigh the financial costs of undertaking it as opposed to the MA at Auckland which will not cost much at all. Any thoughts on this would be most welcome

Hey,

I've read quite a lot about the LSE and most of them were pretty bad. The amount of time you're allocated with the 'world leading Professors' is very poor; most of the time, you'd be working with tutors that only have MScs; which is not the point going there isn't it and paying **** lots of money for it.

Funny enough, even their student newspaper reported about it.

And here's once recently I think sum up what I would say:

(Original post by 0404343m)
Rightly or wrongly, a lot of LSE's masters courses are garnering a reputation for being cash cows that overcharge students and aren't particularly selective. I had a PhD offer there and didn't go (but I did go for an interview/open day and scouted around) and I've more than a few friends who are MSc grads. Those who were also undergraduates there say their experience of PG stuff there was poor, and they weren't exactly complimentary about the UG system either. The place undoubtedly has great academics, but when your £10k a year masters students are left being taught by people who finished the same masters the year before, and you get very little contact with the people you're there to work with, it leaves a bad taste. My friends at non-LSE universities for UG (Edinburgh, Glasgow, Oxford, TCD, UCD, Sheffield) also ALL said they had better access to staff at undergraduate. One of them freely admits it was a good networking opportunity for business, but he didn't gain a thing academically from it. I should probably also mention that at least a couple of those people mentioned above went there with middling 2:1s because other PG programs rejected them, but they ended up paying £10,000 rather than £5,000 for it.

In my own field, I've never come away with a sparkling impression of the place. Even in areas where I have a ton of respect for the academics themselves, I still don't think the place is run with students in mind. I wonder if it can continue this way indefinitely, but unless you think the cost is worth it to network with business-minded international students, I'd look elsewhere.

Mind you, I went to a higher ranked Uni than LSE, and the above could be used to reflect my opinion on 'high ranked uni' as well.

[aaron4d]

(Original post by kka25)
Mind you, I went to a higher ranked Uni than LSE, and the above could be used to reflect my opinion on 'high ranked uni' as well.

Hmm...i'm suprised that Masters students at 'high ranked uni' face the same problems as LSE students in terms of lack of access to academic staff, i thought their programmes would be much smaller thus leading to greater attention from professors.
For the purposes of this discussion I would also include an MPhil from Cambridge(just not too sure whether I could get in in the first place)together with LSE. I didnt include Oxford because their Mphils are 2 years long.

I understand that at LSE and perhaps Oxbridge its more about networking opportunities rather than academics. I'm definitely not interested in the business networking opportunities but the fact that these institutions also produce world leaders and leading figures in the non-profit sector must count for something right? Will it make sense to go to LSE if i'm more interested in the politics and ngo networks rather than the city which most LSE hopefuls are gunning for?

[sj27]

(Original post by aaron4d)
Hmm...i'm suprised that Masters students at 'high ranked uni' face the same problems as LSE students in terms of lack of access to academic staff, i thought their programmes would be much smaller thus leading to greater attention from professors.
For the purposes of this discussion I would also include an MPhil from Cambridge(just not too sure whether I could get in in the first place)together with LSE. I didnt include Oxford because their Mphils are 2 years long.

I understand that at LSE and perhaps Oxbridge its more about networking opportunities rather than academics. I'm definitely not interested in the business networking opportunities but the fact that these institutions also produce world leaders and leading figures in the non-profit sector must count for something right? Will it make sense to go to LSE if i'm more interested in the politics and ngo networks rather than the city which most LSE hopefuls are gunning for?

Remember that LSE is also very highly regarded for the "political science" part of its name and not just the courses that the city hopefuls are aiming at. While you are looking at comparative politics rather than IR per se, the latest TRIP survey might be of some interest in terms of how highly LSE is ranked in terms of both academic and job outcomes from its postgraduate programs.
http://irtheoryandpractice.wm.edu/pr...eWorld2011.pdf

If you look at who they survey, this will probably give you a better idea of how the uni is regarded than by TSR posters (this is not to denigrate some of the genuinely helpful people here, but it is just a much better base of opinions to base a decision on). That said, it is not quite the same area you are looking at (though similar enough?). I can't comment at all on the quality of lectures, contact time etc, and these may be valid concerns to think about, but the uni seems to continue to be held in very high regard.

Another factor to consider perhaps is that whereas the City hopefuls may plan to easily make back their expensive investment, this may not be as clearcut as someone aiming at an NGO type position. This is something you will need to weigh up vs the (probably) better chance you will have of landing a job that you want.

[kka25]

(Original post by aaron4d)
Hmm...i'm suprised that Masters students at 'high ranked uni' face the same problems as LSE students in terms of lack of access to academic staff, i thought their programmes would be much smaller thus leading to greater attention from professors.

I thought the same thing; turned out I was wrong. Some of the PGs Masters here are basically combined with their UG Masters degree, thus making the class bigger; 100-200 students. Also, talking about combined things, courses from the UG Masters and PG Masters are the exact same courses for some Unis; so it is as if you're taking another UG degree really. And if you're looking for like minded people to further advanced your perspectives, I'm not sure the UG students would offer you such skills needed.

I understand that at LSE and perhaps Oxbridge its more about networking opportunities rather than academics. I'm definitely not interested in the business networking opportunities but the fact that these institutions also produce world leaders and leading figures in the non-profit sector must count for something right? Will it make sense to go to LSE if i'm more interested in the politics and ngo networks rather than the city which most LSE hopefuls are gunning for?

Those world leaders are not important for you. What's important is would the Uni suit you? Would the Uni cater for your needs? Would you be happy paying those expansive tuition cost? Would you be happy buying just a 'title' instead of a proper education? Would you be happy doing all these; travelling to a different country, applying for a visa, finding a house, getting on with the new culture, etc, just for a degree that is not up to your standards?

Although statistics could give you an overall view of the situation and you could look at all possible surveys; questioners; etc, but at the end of the day, the question becomes would you be happy with it? This is something that's difficult to measure. And remember, those statistical data are still just opinions taken from some samples, generalize by some statistical method saying that they represent some population. Question now, are you a part of the population? They could argue there's no bias since they followed some random sampling etc etc etc, but again, are you a part of the generalized population? It all now boils down to you.

If you would still like to see some more opinions on the LSE coming from the LSE students themselves, here's a good link: Reviews from Students 1
Reviews from Students 2l

And going back to World leaders; the Uni, in my opinion, doesn't produce world leaders, the world leaders produce themselves.

[0404343m]

(Original post by sj27)
Remember that LSE is also very highly regarded for the "political science" part of its name and not just the courses that the city hopefuls are aiming at. While you are looking at comparative politics rather than IR per se, the latest TRIP survey might be of some interest in terms of how highly LSE is ranked in terms of both academic and job outcomes from its postgraduate programs.
http://irtheoryandpractice.wm.edu/pr...eWorld2011.pdf

If you look at who they survey, this will probably give you a better idea of how the uni is regarded than by TSR posters (this is not to denigrate some of the genuinely helpful people here, but it is just a much better base of opinions to base a decision on). That said, it is not quite the same area you are looking at (though similar enough?). I can't comment at all on the quality of lectures, contact time etc, and these may be valid concerns to think about, but the uni seems to continue to be held in very high regard.

Another factor to consider perhaps is that whereas the City hopefuls may plan to easily make back their expensive investment, this may not be as clearcut as someone aiming at an NGO type position. This is something you will need to weigh up vs the (probably) better chance you will have of landing a job that you want.

I think the TRIP survey is a good idea, but I'm a little sceptical of it. The universities that place high in the masters & PhD tables are also the ones where most people said they attended in one of the very first questions. As a result, while people might have valid concerns about how much attention they were given in the MSc, they still tend to (as my friends do) talk up the reputation of LSE. In other words 'my masters was a mess, but LSE on the CV still helps'. My worry (if you can call it that) for prospective students is that if given long enough, these expensive masters accepting most people with a 2:1, teaching them with postgrads and hoping the repuational edge will still keep the applicants flowing in, will diminish.

So, while this survey is asking people with a vested interest in saying their degree is the best, it's also asking people who probably did degrees 5+ years ago- and LSE's PG numbers have been shooting up since then. Perhaps the more recent cohort, of which I only have seven or eight anecdotes, is less complimentary. Perhaps the fact they were now at places like Oxford, Glasgow, TCD and Yale meant they were more open to the flaws as they'd now chosen to leave. It's probably as likely one side has biases as the other though, but the point is neither is particularly objective.

There's also an American slant here that I don't like all that much. They refer to PhDs as programs, as if American PhDs which have three years 'training', with classes, directed reading, workshops, exams and skills courses, are the same as British PhDs, which often don't have any set agenda. Calling LSE a good 'program' for a PhD is therefore nonsense- what they're really asking is if smart people with good supervisors wrote good theses that got them jobs. It's a world away from what American universities put you through- which is much more structured but (in my opinion) allows less room for creativity. Ditto the table that unsurprisingly notes 84 Americans think American PhDs are best against 7 who do not, whereas in Britain it's 59 to 31 the other way.

My comment, requoted here, was in a more general thread about the value added with LSE on the CV. For economics-related and politics-related degrees, the dimension changes a bit, but I should stress that I was aiming more generally at those that thought anything would help. The MSc in Econ is a different thing to the MSc in Anthropology. Comp Pol is somewhere in the middle. Since I'm in academia though, and interested in where I'd write the best thesis and where I'd be best prepared for research, my views are harsher on LSE than those wanting a masters and a job.

On a different point though- I should say to the OP that even though Oxford's MPhils are two years, they still have lots of nine month MSts and one-year MScs- so it's not that clear cut that they should be ruled out. The typical IR degree is two though.

[sj27]

(Original post by kka25)
x

I understand that you had a negative experience and are wary that others might have a similar one, but it's also worth pointing out that eg LSE does not (at least in this area) have undergraduate masters programs.

(Original post by 0404343m)
x

Points well taken (and I hope you realised you are one of the posters I was not trying to undermine!!)

It does sound like the ideal would be for the OP to get in touch with recent graduates from this course if possible, to address the issues raised by both of you.

All that said, the OP's question does boil down to long-term impact on his career, and while I agree and can definitely vouch for kka25's assertion that good people shine regardless of where they went to university, I think it's difficult to argue that LSE would not give him (gender assumption!!) a significant advantage over Auckland when looking for jobs outside of New Zealand.

[0404343m]

(Original post by sj27)
I understand that you had a negative experience and are wary that others might have a similar one, but it's also worth pointing out that eg LSE does not (at least in this area) have undergraduate masters programs.

Points well taken (and I hope you realised you are one of the posters I was not trying to undermine!!)

It does sound like the ideal would be for the OP to get in touch with recent graduates from this course if possible, to address the issues raised by both of you.

All that said, the OP's question does boil down to long-term impact on his career, and while I agree and can definitely vouch for kka25's assertion that good people shine regardless of where they went to university, I think it's difficult to argue that LSE would not give him (gender assumption!!) a significant advantage over Auckland when looking for jobs outside of New Zealand.

Hah- no, I didn't think/hope you were, just incase my re-quote from another thread looked more controversial in this one.

The one thing I would say is that we live in a corner of the world where we think half a dozen UK institutions and about 15 in the US, all but a few in the North-East is the 'world'. At a push, we might, because we're British, expand that out to maybe 25 in the UK and a few dozen elsewhere, but nevertheless we're not very good at thinking about other institutions far away, simply because we have a couple of the best of the best on our doorstep. I can say, again anecdotally, that I know of people in very good jobs with Auckland degrees- in East Asia/Oceania. This is because, a long with a few Asian institutions and Sydney/Melbourne/ANU, it's one of the top dozen or so places to study in the Eastern Hemisphere. In London or New York, it would, as you say, be difficult to argue LSE wouldn't be better known- but I don't think it's as simple as just 'outside NZ'. If the OP is potentially saving tens of thousands of dollars being in Auckland and plans to use that degree in Australia or Japan, I don't think the difference would be quite as noticeable. I'd say go with the figures: If it's $10,000 vs $20,000, it might be worth it. If it's $5,000 vs $35,000, I'd take Auckland.

[aaron4d]

Thank you for the link sj27. You assumed correctly kka25 and 0404343m raise important points about the kind of education I will receive should I choose to part with 17 000 pounds for a 10 month MSc at LSE. Like i mentioned before, the reasons which attract me to LSE are not the academics but the opportunities and the brand name it has. Public lectures by prominent individuals on a regular basis for example, would be something I would consider to be a benefit of studying there. Also, being in London, an important centre for global affairs as well as having one of the best nightlife scenes of any major city in the world would definitely trump living in Auckland, the most isolated major city in one of the most isolated countries in the world.

With that being said however, i'm still not 100% convinced that such a significant investment would pay-off. Like i said, i plan to work in Southeast Asia in a think-tank/NGO type role, most probably Singapore or Malaysia where i'm originally from. They don't really offer great salaries to begin with. I am faced with two options ultimately:

degree from nz university (minimal investment)= initial job prospects might be alright, but will there be any long-term cost?

Vs.

degree from brand-name university (significant investment) = better job prospects both in short term and long term?

[sj27]

Edit to clarify this is in response to 0404343:

Er, I'm not British (or American!) I'll take your point on the Eastern Hemisphere - although there have been a number of Asian posters on here arguing that LSE outshines anything "local" in that part of the world. All hearsay I admit...


(and re the other thread....when will you ever learn that some 21-year-old undergrad will always know more than you do about the postgraduate subjects and universities that you've studied at/know people who have! )

[sj27]

(Original post by aaron4d)

degree from nz university (minimal investment)= initial job prospects might be alright, but will there be any long-term cost?

Vs.

degree from brand-name university (significant investment) = better job prospects both in short term and long term?

I think this is entirely up to you. If you do really well at your job you might find the initial foot in the door more difficult but no difference long term. OTOH you can have a degree from the best uni in your field but some people just don't do well in their jobs, and the name on their degree won't save them. After a few years, it really is all about you and your work performance.

All that said if it were me I would still choose LSE, finances permitting.

[kka25]

(Original post by sj27)
OTOH you can have a degree from the best uni in your field but some people just don't do well in their jobs, and the name on their degree won't save them. After a few years, it really is all about you and your work performance.

This. After working, those things don't really matter much but a far distant memory.

[threeportdrift]

(Original post by aaron4d)
Thank you for the link sj27. You assumed correctly kka25 and 0404343m raise important points about the kind of education I will receive should I choose to part with 17 000 pounds for a 10 month MSc at LSE. Like i mentioned before, the reasons which attract me to LSE are not the academics but the opportunities and the brand name it has. Public lectures by prominent individuals on a regular basis for example, would be something I would consider to be a benefit of studying there. Also, being in London, an important centre for global affairs as well as having one of the best nightlife scenes of any major city in the world would definitely trump living in Auckland, the most isolated major city in one of the most isolated countries in the world.

With that being said however, i'm still not 100% convinced that such a significant investment would pay-off. Like i said, i plan to work in Southeast Asia in a think-tank/NGO type role, most probably Singapore or Malaysia where i'm originally from. They don't really offer great salaries to begin with. I am faced with two options ultimately:

degree from nz university (minimal investment)= initial job prospects might be alright, but will there be any long-term cost?

Vs.

degree from brand-name university (significant investment) = better job prospects both in short term and long term?

I don't think that course at LSE is worth it, given your current situation, offers and career ambitions. It would have been a closer call if you had had an offer from SOAS tbh. It's easy to get the prestige of LSE, Oxbridge et al out of proportion from a professional career perspective. Yes, from a students point of view they have prestige and cachet and signify great academic achievement. But if you take a look at people actually doing the professional end of the work, those in the field, in think tanks, in NGOs etc, there is very little or no real Oxbridge/LSE/Ivy League hierarchy. And this is because although academic ability can be a factor, so are many more soft skills - hard work, team work, interview ability, additional languages, country experience, other work experience.

Ultimately, while LSE might add a little bit more international cachet to your CV than Auckland, it isn't likely to add anything materially relevant. It isn't likely to give as strong regional networking opportunities either.

[kka25]

(Original post by threeportdrift)
And this is because although academic ability can be a factor, so are many more soft skills - hard work, team work, interview ability, additional languages, country experience, other work experience.

I want to give you a because you said the truth.

[aaron4d]

(Original post by threeportdrift)
I don't think that course at LSE is worth it, given your current situation, offers and career ambitions. It would have been a closer call if you had had an offer from SOAS tbh. It's easy to get the prestige of LSE, Oxbridge et al out of proportion from a professional career perspective. Yes, from a students point of view they have prestige and cachet and signify great academic achievement. But if you take a look at people actually doing the professional end of the work, those in the field, in think tanks, in NGOs etc, there is very little or no real Oxbridge/LSE/Ivy League hierarchy. And this is because although academic ability can be a factor, so are many more soft skills - hard work, team work, interview ability, additional languages, country experience, other work experience.

Ultimately, while LSE might add a little bit more international cachet to your CV than Auckland, it isn't likely to add anything materially relevant. It isn't likely to give as strong regional networking opportunities either.

Thank u for your useful advice. TBH all this is hypothetical, I havent applied yet to any of the unis mentioned above. I will be applying to them towards the end of the year when i'm done with uni. However, you do seem to think that SOAS would be a better choice than LSE. Mind sharing your thoughts on SOAS?

[Vanbrugh]

I don't understand people's opinions about LSE. I frequently come across discussions where LSE is considered the worst place on earth (cash cow, degree mill, rude students, large classes, uninterested inaccessible tutors) then I come across others saying it is one of the best places on earth (high standards, intelligent and diverse student body, independent thinking and learning, oxbridge/Ivy rival, star tutors, good contact with academics, jobs, small classes in many courses). I hear contradictory opinions. This dichotomy is something I want satisfactorily explained.

(Original post by threeportdrift)
And this is because although academic ability can be a factor, so are many more soft skills - hard work, team work, interview ability, additional languages, country experience, other work experience.

I do fundamentally agree with this, but a degree from a good university will help you stand out as a young recent graduate with little real work experience. LSE degrees are very well respected and would help you stand out from the crowd.

Whatever you decide OP, I'm sure it is the right decision.

[nate23]

@aaron,

I am in the exact same situation of you atm, albeit with a slightly different course, with the same questions. Luckily I was able to get some insight about the LSE from sources that I trusted.

One source was one of my referees, a professor at my undergraduate university in the US. As a reference, he took an MSc course in philosophy during the mid to late 90s. He had a few things to say about the LSE. One, it was his opinion that you should stay in the realm of economics and political science courses because some of the other MScs were sloppily thrown together. Two, similar to some of the posters above, he felt that professor-student contact was limited. Three, career networking opportunities were outstanding. Granted, this was during the 90s when economic opportunities were generally sunnier. However, he was shocked at how many banks offered him jobs with his irrelevant/impractical philosophy degree.

Second source was a former professor at LSE, now professor at another London uni. This contact was facilitated by the source above and I was assured that he knew this person well and that they would not attempt to sell me on the LSE. This source was very enthusiastic about the LSE. Similar to above, they mentioned excellent career networking, the accessibility to industry available in London, and the intellectual stimulation available at LSE. Overall, her opinion was that the LSE was a good option but it depended on my alternatives. In my case, as an American, she hinted that if I was choosing between the LSE and SIPA or Fletcher, it might be a better choice to stay in the States. However, my only other offer was Cambridge, which she told me did not compare to the LSE in terms of career opportunities outside of the UK. Another important piece of information that this person brought up is below:

"It is an excellent program and of course the biggest thing one
takes away are the connections to a very dynamic community of
colleague-students who are bound to go on and be key players in the
professional world of international affairs. It is hard to put a price
tag on this."

I think it matters that you want to work after this degree. It is a different story if you thought you might want a PhD. Also I think the above information is useful in this thread because it is offered by established members in Academia in your subject area. Of course since they are professors, they may be isolated from some of the dissatisfaction among current students.

Ultimately, I'm sure the LSE is like any other university... if you don't do internships, network, go to career fairs, hound professors for recommendations, then you won't do well. You have to work to stand out and an LSE MSc won't be enough, especially now.

[nate23]

Oh and also...
http://www.alumni.lse.ac.uk/olc/pub/...ps/default.htm

Go there and get into contact with alumni from your country. That is probably the best way to get info.

[threeportdrift]

(Original post by Vanbrugh)
I do fundamentally agree with this, but a degree from a good university will help you stand out as a young recent graduate with little real work experience. LSE degrees are very well respected and would help you stand out from the crowd.

The point is though, that employers don't just employ on the basis of academic record. I'm sure if it were possible to do a comprehensive enough survey, you would find that, cp, LSE and Oxbridge students get to a fraction of a percent, maybe even a few percent more interviews that everyone else. But as someone who has recently sat on the interviewing side of the interview table, at interview you see potential in everyone you have invited.

A clunky LSE grad, who can't express themselves well, has poor communication skills and is just poorer at interview than the Sussex grad or whatever, isn't going to get the job. It is perhaps not quite the case that everyone starts at the same level, because if the LSE grad is superb and so is everyone else, the LSE grad has a superb interview + LSE. But the interview and the whole package are a required part of the assessment, and very strong academics don't make up for being able to rely on that person in a professional role that is more than passing exams and writing essays.

So standing out from the crowd on paper might make a fractional difference in getting to interview, but it doesn't compensate for any lack in a very much larger package of skills required to get the job offer.

[threeportdrift]

(Original post by aaron4d)
Thank u for your useful advice. TBH all this is hypothetical, I havent applied yet to any of the unis mentioned above. I will be applying to them towards the end of the year when i'm done with uni. However, you do seem to think that SOAS would be a better choice than LSE. Mind sharing your thoughts on SOAS?

If you are looking for a generalist career IR, then SOAS is very small and fairly obscure. If you are looking for a regionally focussed career in one of SOAS's regions/languages then it becomes very significant institution. You will make contacts and networks and have opportunities at SOAS that you will have in few if any other universities (possibly in the world).

Logistically, SOAS is virtually embedded within the UCL campus and 500-800 yards from the locus of LSE, beside the British Museum, adjacent to Birkbeck etc. So domestically there is little if any difference between any of those institutions. You could certainly easily and regularly attend special lectures/visiting lecturers etc at any of them.

I've no idea what the difference is between financial support opportunities etc.