What are the best universities for an economics degree???

Original post by Wisefire

Economics & Management... Yes it does...

So you're putting KCL in your top list despite the fact this is a completely new course with no track record?

Reply 5

Original post by Wisefire

Well, university ranking wise, I put it there, due to KCL's name. After Edin/Bath, it's about there. Maybe York/Exeter are good too. But okay, no, you're right.

Just generally then, would you say Econ & Management at KCL is actually a bad course? A lot of my friends want to do it; I've told them I wouldn't be happy with its employment prospects, and they just laughed in my face when I told them that... What's your opinion?

Posted from TSR Mobile

It's employment prospects should be fine considering employers will have no clue about the particulars of the KCL degree. However I'd take Exeter or York straight economics over it any day of the week because those are solid economics courses from solid universities (York's economics course is especially well-respected. It's alumni have gone on to study the MPhil Econ course at Oxford so that's a tell-tale sign it's a rigorous course). The KCL course seems rather weak in comparison from an academic economics perspective.

If your friends just want to get a generalist business job or whatever afterwards then the KCL course is fine

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 6

Original post by Wisefire

Just to give you context before you read the rest: money's a priority in my career.

Thanks for the info. Yeah, I really want to save up so I can get a MSc or MBA from Oxbridge (just needs a high first, right?) To simply, actually go there, to Oxbridge, would be sweet, and would surely put me in a great position for a top job (e.g. I could go into actuary and work my way up)? Additionally, lol, could you elaborate on "generalist business job"? My 'friends' are already quite middle-class, and, you know, they want a nice car, alright money etc (not as obsessive in ambition as me lol, but then again they'd still want £80k+, probs more).

Only enquiring as I went to the KCL open day, adored the uni, and really wonder whether I should just go for it, dash the FO banking hopes/top 6/A*AA+ ambitions, and work my way up in BO/MO banking, or actuary/accountancy, to get to ~£100k+ relatively young in my life (before mid thirties max). I just will do what I must to meet my ambition. If you're going to give me an answer like I'll never even reach £70k+ without top 6 or PG study, I'll listen, and I'll go for more, academically speaking.

Posted from TSR Mobile

1) Getting into a flagship MSc course at Oxbridge requires more than just a first... think stellar references, personal statement and professional work experience/EC's (if the MSc course is professionally orientated)

2) Going to Oxbridge for the sake of going to Oxbridge isn't a good justifier for the amount of time and money required. If you can get where you want to without a Oxbridge master's then there's no point (and in nearly all cases you can get where you want to without an Oxbridge master's).

3) You don't need to go to Oxbridge to get into actuarial science. You can go straight from undergrad so long as you've studied a heavily numerate degree (e.g. actuarial science, mathematics, statistics). I'm not sure if an economics course would cut it, and I'm certain the KCL degree wouldn't be up to scratch. I'm not 100% certain on the entry requirements so you'll have to do the research. Actuarial science certainly isn't an elitist profession that recruits only from the top tier uni's so there's no need for an Oxbridge master's

4) "Generalist business job" is basically anything in industry that relates to business... think of the FTSE 250 grad schemes in business management, marketing, sales, finance, consulting and so on. It also relates to the professional service roles in audit and tax (PwC, KPMG, Deloitte, EY etc)

5) You can certainly get into FO banking and other high finance/consultancy jobs without going to a target uni. It just takes a bit more to stand out. I know plenty of people outside the top 6 who have interned in FO. I know a guy who got to a final round interview with McKinsey and he was from outside the top 6 (I consider this a bigger achievement as McKinsey and the likes almost exclusively recruit from Oxbridge. He's been encouraged to apply again this year and this time I think he'll get it)

Reply 7

Um, I wouldn't be able to give a precise order, I've tried to give it one, but it's likely to be off. Something like

Division 1

Warwick - they are very good academically
LSE
Cambridge
Oxford

Division 2

UCL (touching division 1)
Bath (I may be a little biased. If you are talking who gets good jobs on graduation, then this is where they'd sit, though)
Nottingham
Bristol
Durham

Division 3

Exeter
St Andrews
Edinburgh
York
Surrey
(Possibly all other fairly decent RG unis as well: eg Manchester, Birmingham, Southampton)

Wouldn't know about KCL, but I do know that it just doesn't stand up on overall undergraduate league tables, so I don't know how Wise could say it's instantly above the likes of Bath and Exeter.

Reply 8

Original post by Wisefire

Thanks. Encouraging. Grades first...

Posted from TSR Mobile

Wise, you can get into acturial employment with an economics degree, so don't worry. You may only be able to skip one or two of the exams at most however, so you'll have a little more work to do than mathematics grads to begin with, but there is so much more to being an actuary than passing exams, so I wouldn't panic.

Reply 9

Original post by Pro Crastination

Um, I wouldn't be able to give a precise order, I've tried to give it one, but it's likely to be off. Something like

Division 1

Warwick - they are very good academically
LSE
Cambridge
Oxford

Division 2

UCL (touching division 1)
Bath (I may be a little biased. If you are talking who gets good jobs on graduation, then this is where they'd sit, though)
Nottingham
Bristol
Durham

Division 3

Exeter
St Andrews
Edinburgh
York
Surrey
(Possibly all other fairly decent RG unis as well: eg Manchester, Birmingham, Southampton)

Wouldn't know about KCL, but I do know that it just doesn't stand up on overall undergraduate league tables, so I don't know how Wise could say it's instantly above the likes of Bath and Exeter.

Interesting how you don't put UCL in Division 1. It's undergrad course is essentially the same as LSE's in terms of quantitative rigour and its student cohort is essentially the same in terms of entry requirements and background. It is targeted by the IB's and consultancies, unlike any of the Division 2 uni's you mentioned. It's faculty and research are consistently world renowned, unlike any of the Division 2 uni's you mentioned, and its postgrad courses are highly rated with the likes of Oxford and LSE (in some areas - micro and applied micro - more so than Cambridge which lags a bit in the postgrad department). Again, unlike any of the Division 2 uni's you mentioned.

I'm also interested by the added mention that Warwick are very good academically. Of course they are, but I wonder why Warwick warrants that comment and Oxbridge, LSE and UCL don't...

Reply 10

Original post by ParetoOptimum

Interesting how you don't put UCL in Division 1. It's undergrad course is essentially the same as LSE's in terms of quantitative rigour and its student cohort is essentially the same in terms of entry requirements and background. It is targeted by the IB's and consultancies, unlike any of the Division 2 uni's you mentioned. It's faculty and research are consistently world renowned, unlike any of the Division 2 uni's you mentioned, and its postgrad courses are highly rated with the likes of Oxford and LSE (in some areas - micro and applied micro - more so than Cambridge which lags a bit in the postgrad department). Again, unlike any of the Division 2 uni's you mentioned.

I'm also interested by the added mention that Warwick are very good academically. Of course they are, but I wonder why Warwick warrants that comment and Oxbridge, LSE and UCL don't...

I was definitely pondering about placing UCL within division 1. My only concern was the degree to which they are considerably less selective (30% of applicants get an offer) than the likes of Oxbridge and LSE. Having considered that, however, Warwick are also not massively selective (something like 40% of applicants get an offer I believe). (UCL were in clearing this year, by the way - not sure they are just at the same standard as LSE in terms of entrants.)

I think it is agiven that Oxbridge/LSE warrant that comment also, thus I considered it a needless addition. Warwick impressed me on their open day, now whether I bought their sales pitch a little too easily could be debated, but their table-topping department ranking certainly can't. That's all I wanted to convey.

Finally, I was considering things purely on an undergraduate perspective. I know it's great that universities are well-renowned for their ground-breaking research, but I often question the degree to which that has a sizable impact on the quality of product on offer to undergraduates; though if you can enlighten me otherwise, I'd welcome it.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 11

Original post by Pro Crastination

I was definitely pondering about placing UCL within division 1. My only concern was the degree to which they are considerably less selective (30% of applicants get an offer) than the likes of Oxbridge and LSE. Having considered that, however, Warwick are also not massively selective (something like 40% of applicants get an offer I believe). (UCL were in clearing this year, by the way - not sure they are just at the same standard as LSE in terms of entrants.)

I think it is agiven that Oxbridge/LSE warrant that comment also, thus I considered it a needless addition. Warwick impressed me on their open day, now whether I bought their sales pitch a little too easily could be debated, but their table-topping department ranking certainly can't. That's all I wanted to convey.

Finally, I was considering things purely on an undergraduate perspective. I know it's great that universities are well-renowned for their ground-breaking research, but I often question the degree to which that has a sizable impact on the quality of product on offer to undergraduates; though if you can enlighten me otherwise, I'd welcome it.

UCL has never had any clearing places as far as I'm aware, and it didn't have any this year: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0814/130814-results-clearing-confirmation-adjustment. Also, uni's other than Oxbridge will always over-offer because a number of students will either decline their offer or miss the offer. I'd strongly suspect LSE econ to have a similar percentage offer to UCL and Warwick. Doesn't really indicate anything about cohort quality... UCAS points and the like would be a better indicator. And UCL is similar to Warwick and LSE in that area too.

Postgrad strength is very relevant for those who are interested in a) academics, b) a career in academia and c) a postgraduate degree. A strong postgrad department will give you the relevant brand name, the contacts, the advise, the exposure and so on. So I guess it's not too relevant to those wanting to go into business. However, from my experience, postgrad strength in economics is strongly correlated with where students end up in business. Oxbridge/UCL/LSE/Warwick all have stellar postgrad econ departments and funnily enough it is those uni's which are most heavily targeted by the banks and consultancies. There may be no direct casual link, but the correlation is there - which is useful for A-level students looking to get the best of both worlds (academics and business brand names)

Reply 12

Original post by ParetoOptimum

UCL has never had any clearing places as far as I'm aware, and it didn't have any this year: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0814/130814-results-clearing-confirmation-adjustment. Also, uni's other than Oxbridge will always over-offer because a number of students will either decline their offer or miss the offer. I'd strongly suspect LSE econ to have a similar percentage offer to UCL and Warwick. Doesn't really indicate anything about cohort quality... UCAS points and the like would be a better indicator. And UCL is similar to Warwick and LSE in that area too.

Postgrad strength is very relevant for those who are interested in a) academics, b) a career in academia and c) a postgraduate degree. A strong postgrad department will give you the relevant brand name, the contacts, the advise, the exposure and so on. So I guess it's not too relevant to those wanting to go into business. However, from my experience, postgrad strength in economics is strongly correlated with where students end up in business. Oxbridge/UCL/LSE/Warwick all have stellar postgrad econ departments and funnily enough it is those uni's which are most heavily targeted by the banks and consultancies. There may be no direct casual link, but the correlation is there - which is useful for A-level students looking to get the best of both worlds (academics and business brand names)

Ah, sorry, I meant adjustment, not clearing, haha - the point remains similar, if there are spaces available on the course it either means they simply didn't hand out enough offers, or that many of the higher-caliber students opted for Oxbridge or LSE instead, or that a lot of people fell short of their offers.

Anyway, I don't think we are debating much. UCL econ is a very good course, I think we can both agree on that.

Reply 13

leinad2012

15

Original post by Wisefire

Cambridge, Oxford, LSE, UCL, Warwick, Bristol, Durham, Nottingham, Edinburgh, KCL, Bath, in that order. Rest I CBA to express.

Oxford doesn't do economics either...

Reply 14

leinad2012

15

Original post by ParetoOptimum

Interesting how you don't put UCL in Division 1. It's undergrad course is essentially the same as LSE's in terms of quantitative rigour and its student cohort is essentially the same in terms of entry requirements and background. It is targeted by the IB's and consultancies, unlike any of the Division 2 uni's you mentioned. It's faculty and research are consistently world renowned, unlike any of the Division 2 uni's you mentioned, and its postgrad courses are highly rated with the likes of Oxford and LSE (in some areas - micro and applied micro - more so than Cambridge which lags a bit in the postgrad department). Again, unlike any of the Division 2 uni's you mentioned.

I'm also interested by the added mention that Warwick are very good academically. Of course they are, but I wonder why Warwick warrants that comment and Oxbridge, LSE and UCL don't...

He did say they were close to the others to be fair. tbh UCL and Warwick are in between 1 and 2, slightly less selective and generally if people get offers from UCL/Warwick and then LSE/Oxbridge, most will choose the latter (myself included). UCL's reputation is largely in medicine and research, so is partly irreverent to an undergrad econ course. The common joke on the LSE freshers thread was "what do LSE and UCL econ students have in common? Both applied to LSE econ", says it all really

Reply 15

Original post by Pro Crastination

Ah, sorry, I meant adjustment, not clearing, haha - the point remains similar, if there are spaces available on the course it either means they simply didn't hand out enough offers, or that many of the higher-caliber students opted for Oxbridge or LSE instead, or that a lot of people fell short of their offers.

Anyway, I don't think we are debating much. UCL econ is a very good course, I think we can both agree on that.

I severely doubt the handful of adjustment places were in economics. They were probably for less popular courses.

Reply 16

Original post by leinad2012

He did say they were close to the others to be fair. tbh UCL and Warwick are in between 1 and 2, slightly less selective and generally if people get offers from UCL/Warwick and then LSE/Oxbridge, most will choose the latter (myself included). UCL's reputation is largely in medicine and research, so is partly irreverent to an undergrad econ course. The common joke on the LSE freshers thread was "what do LSE and UCL econ students have in common? Both applied to LSE econ", says it all really

No offence, but this speaks volumes about your lack of knowledge about UCL. There's a reason why it's consistently ranked in the world top 20/10, and in the domestic top 10/5. Apart from the natural sciences and engineering (whose undergrad courses are not up to elite standard), literally every UCL department has world leading undergrad courses and produces world leading research.

I'd say Warwick and UCL econ are second to LSE only in prestige and brand-name. A lot of people are suckers for prestige and brand name (myself included), so they'd choose LSE over UCL/Warwick. The actual courses are extremely similar, and they are all targeted similarly by the banks and consultancies. Oxbridge undergrad econ has the upper hand over all three due to superior teaching and emphasis on the qualitative side of econ as well as the quant side, plus they open more doors to the ultra-selective jobs.

Reply 17

Original post by Wisefire

But I want to get into banking... Actuary may be lucrative, but it's not as fast a progression as the former. And lol, if anything, I'd go into Big 4 accounting, cos the Big 4 are based in CW, and honestly, a part of all this is that I'd ****ing love to work there. I'm trying, now, to get A*AA+. I'm genuinely aiming for top 6/targets; if not for straight economics, something else. Land Economy at Cambridge if I got A*A*A.

Haha, fair enough. I am in a similar position, I really don't want to end up as an actuary or doing audit or something, it's just not that exciting to me. I'd be more fussed about the salary than where I worked. Eg, working in Bristol or Bournemouth for JP Morgan, with a solid salary but with reduced living costs (relative to London) does appeal.

(During my internship this summer one of my tasks required me to look through how much certain employees within said offices earned... I was impressed - and I will not be disclosing anything more than that for moral/legal reasons.)

Reply 18