LSE vs UCL

I think this first bit is correct. I would agree that UCL is a better university than LSE, I'd certainly be going there if I had the choice between the two. There's not really much in it though, it's certainly not 'fact' like some of the other jokers are coming out with on this thread that LSE is best. I just feel UCL would be a more rounded university. I'd be worried about clones rolling out of LSE thinking they are guaranteed a job at Goldman Sachs. Not sure I would pick it over Cambridge though.



I'm not sure about this second part. Even if you roll out of Oxford with a double first, you are not guaranteed anything. The fact that you have been to UCL is barely going to help you get a training contract over another Russell Group university as the difference is minimal. UCL will raise one or two more eyebrows but ultimately it will depend on you as a candidate and what else you've done. Going into a round of applications with the attitude that 'I doubt I'll struggle' could lead to complacency.

The LSE, bar economics, is marginally better at the subjects it offers.

Well, the third part explains why I doubt I'd have any difficulties. The work experience opportunities in London + the connections UCL has to them could be a huge advantage if I play my cards right. Being in the Russell group doesn't matter in my eyes. It's not exactly a group of elite, prestigious uni's as it contains some institutes that aren't anything special. I can think of 5 universities that are very good that aren't in it. However, what I meant by "I doubt I'll struggle" is ultimately down to what one can do in one of the most powerful cities in the world.

Hehe, even so, somebody rolling out of Oxford with a double first isn't going to 'struggle' to find work. Sure, if the individual has done nothing but his degree, then yes, getting into top firms might be more challenging with little else to show, but the chances of getting something decent are still high.

Once again, you fail to substantiate any of your claims. You just said UCL has no other world-leading departments, so UCL cannot claim to be on par with the LSE. I just enumerated many of the subjects for which it is world class and even offered to provide the sources. Yet, all you can do is continue to deny it and repeatedly state "nah, the LSE is better because UCL is inferior" ... Until you make a strong case for this claim and rebut all the evidence I've given, I will continue to ignore your inane assertions.

The LSE, bar economics, is marginally better at the subjects it offers. However, UCL is still not exactly far behind on that front, yet it also offers numerous other subjects for which it IS world-leading, and I named them and offered the evidence...yet you still deny it stubbornly simply because you do not like UCL as they rejected you. It is for this reason that I said UCL/LSE/Imperial are all equal, in the sense that, for most of what they offer, they are considered slightly beneath Oxbridge for their respective fields.

Oh, another this-vs-that thread. Lol. This is how I think. Choose the one that gives you best shot at achieving a 1st, then attend MSc at the other. Voila, now you have both. No need to thank me, discussion is done

You seem to be a poor quality student considering your comprehension. This is more of the reason why I think UCL is inferior. If it accepts people like you, it cannot be as good as LSE and Imperial. <---- Once again, you're saying I'm a poor student because of my opinion, yet fail to give any reason as to why it's a stupid opinion - all you've done is state your opinion and have failed to back it up in any way whatsoever.

If you disagree with these assertions show me:

The "stats" that you claimed to provide and I requested for above.
<----- Okay. With regards to international rankings, UCL is higher in them all. With regards to just the European ones, UCL is higher. With regards to UK ones, the rankings oscillate between them. Now, if you're talking about the subject stats, all you have to do is go on the Guardian and numerous others to see that, for all the subjects I mentioned, UCL is either 1st or 2nd in the country...

Then, also show me where I claimed UCL does not have any other world-leading department. <----- And you call ME the idiot? You can't even remember the things you say! It's no wonder you're so bad at debating, if you just stating unjustified opinions wasn't enough of an indication...

"No it does not have other world leading departments. If it did, it would be better than LSE on average.

And even if it does, it is still inferior to LSE on average. And inferior to Imperial too." And this was in spite of me having listed various departments to you. It's no wonder you were rejected. Also, you saying that even if it DID have other world-leading departments, you'd still say it was inferior. It just shows you're stubbornly understating UCL's academic value.

If you can't do these, you are incredibly thick!

That is true. I have heard of people who study their undergraduate in an obsure university. Do an MSc at Oxford and then go to Cambridge for the Doctorate. They got the best of both worlds.

My old RS teacher went to both. He's called Mr Pepper. Everyone says he should do a PhD xD.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Actually the name is The London School of Economics and Political Science.

It does not need to broaden its horizon. Universities can select areas they choose most times (sometimes government interference and public interest might dictate some course must continue to be offered).

The fact it decides to operate as a specialist university is not an excuse for UCL not being on par. I am sure most people would agree UCL is better than SOAS. Excuses are not needed there.

I have the same dilemma: UCL or LSE? I have applied to MA Modern European Studies at UCL and I received a conditional offer, and I have applied to MSc History of International Relations at LSE and I am currently waiting for a response. I don;t intend to follow an academic career. I prefer working in international organisations or EU. Which programme should I choose, if I receive an offer from LSE??
Thanks in advance

Hello Anastasia,

First, congratulations on receiving an offer from UCL. UCL is among the very best.

About your dilemma on choosing between UCL or LSE. I think it boils down to your interests with the course. If you are interested in International Relations and working with the EU, you should look at the course modules and its relevance to future work experience. You should also look at the jobs that alumni from both courses go on to do.

From the previous arguments, UCL is a strong overall university, but LSE may be stronger in particular disciplines. So you need to check that as well.

If after you receive an offer from LSE you still have this dilemma, I suggest that you visit both UCL and LSE 'campuses' for a day or half a day. This may help you to make you choice based on the atmosphere.

I hope this helps.

Why does everyone hate the LSE managerial science course? :O

This is probably not the most inappropriate place to ask, but due to my desire of attending both universities in my undergraduate study, does any of you knows the possibility and requirement of transferring from one to another?
Unfortunately, even though I'm qualified to apply to both of them, I only managed to receive one offer. Is it going to be a problem if I want to transfer to another institution?
Please help. Thank you.