The Student Room Group

"70% of students at LSE are from outside the UK". Thoughts?

Are British students being crowded out in some of Britain's most prestigious institutions by international students?

Notable British universities with a high proportion of non-UK students:
- London School of Economics 69.7%
- Imperial College London 50.7%
- University of St Andrews 46.9%
- University College London 45.9%
- King's College London 37.2%
- University of Warwick 36.6%

Article here: Times Higher - World-ranked universities with the most international students

With nearly 70% of students at LSE from outside of the UK, are British students eventually going to become a minority [BY NATIONALITY] at LSE?
(edited 8 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Conclusion; British kids are either lazy or not intelligent enough
Original post by ScotBank16
With nearly 70% of students at LSE from outside of the UK, are British students eventually going to become a minority at LSE?


Surely that's already the case if 70% of them aren't British.
International students are worth more financially to a university. It's a good way to raise funds. And LSE will do anything for money (see Gadaffi).
Reply 4
Makes sense, foreigner pay more than Brits. There is a lot of competition for foreign students.
The sheer amount of money international students bring is the only thing keeping some universities afloat financially, so yeah. I see no problem with this.
These students go on to becoming the leading government officials / diplomats and bankers of their countries.. to say you studied in the United Kingdom means a lot to others in their country.

I gues the UK assumes it puts them higher on the world stage, it's not as if british students are going elsewhere.

If I could re-do my undergraduate I would go to China with Nottingham University.
Reply 7
Original post by Smack
Surely that's already the case if 70% of them aren't British.


Sorry, meant minority by nationality (think Brits are still the largest represented nationality, but not 100% sure).

I'm aware that there are a lot of Asians at LSE, but don't know if there is an overwhelming number of one single nationality of international students.
Reply 8
Original post by Quantex
International students are worth more financially to a university. It's a good way to raise funds. And LSE will do anything for money (see Gadaffi).


Wow... that's actually really messed up. I'm surprised they even accepted the donation in the first place.
Reply 9
What is the breakdown between undergraduate and non undergraduate? Because the statistics relating to that may provide useful insight due to MBA's being the cash flow for our universities.
Reply 10
Original post by Holydude
What is the breakdown between undergraduate and non undergraduate? Because the statistics relating to that may provide useful insight due to MBA's being the cash flow for our universities.


It's roughly an even split. About 49% UG 51%PG I believe.

Tbh I love being at LSE. Universities are about the pursuit of knowledge and being exposed to people from a ridiculous amount of different cultures/of different nationalities is an absolutely a bonus.
Reply 11
Original post by ScotBank16
Are British students being crowded out in some of Britain's most prestigious institutions by international students?

Notable British universities with a high proportion of non-UK students:
- London School of Economics 69.7%
- Imperial College London 50.7%
- University of St Andrews 46.9%
- University College London 45.9%
- King's College London 37.2%
- University of Warwick 36.6%

Article here: Times Higher - World-ranked universities with the most international students

With nearly 70% of students at LSE from outside of the UK, are British students eventually going to become a minority at LSE?


They are a minority at LSE already if it is nearly 70% non-UK.

I had no idea UCL had almost a half of non-UK students. I was expecting the ratio to be 3:1, similar to Warwick / KCL.

St Andrews though, wow, I did not expect this Scottish village to be so popular. Good for them.

In general, I am in favour of having top education institutions full of international students from heterogeneous backgrounds as you can really develop alongside them and not just have this close minded Britishness of other Russell Group universities.
Original post by Flibib
It's roughly an even split. About 49% UG 51%PG I believe.

Tbh I love being at LSE. Universities are about the pursuit of knowledge and being exposed to people from a ridiculous amount of different cultures/of different nationalities is an absolutely a bonus.


I am in favour of an open door policy to students of any nationality because it benefits our economy through attracting the best talent. Good to hear you enjoy LSE, I wish you all the best in your future career in banking :h:
Original post by Holydude
What is the breakdown between undergraduate and non undergraduate? Because the statistics relating to that may provide useful insight due to MBA's being the cash flow for our universities.


Original post by Flibib
It's roughly an even split. About 49% UG 51%PG I believe.

Tbh I love being at LSE. Universities are about the pursuit of knowledge and being exposed to people from a ridiculous amount of different cultures/of different nationalities is an absolutely a bonus.


It's 60% postgraduates.

Original post by Yael
They are a minority at LSE already if it is nearly 70% non-UK.

I had no idea UCL had almost a half of non-UK students. I was expecting the ratio to be 3:1, similar to Warwick / KCL.

St Andrews though, wow, I did not expect this Scottish village to be so popular. Good for them.

In general, I am in favour of having top education institutions full of international students from heterogeneous backgrounds as you can really develop alongside them and not just have this close minded Britishness of other Russell Group universities.


Both LSE and St Aud are very small institutions so not representative in any way.

LSE having 70% internationals is what's keeping it prestigious. 1. Inflating its fame internationally; 2. earning much extra money; 3. artificially increasing entry tariff and thus a much higher placement on the tables.
Original post by Quantex
International students are worth more financially to a university. It's a good way to raise funds. And LSE will do anything for money (see Gadaffi).


Nowhere does it say that they're all or even mostly non-EU, international students.
Original post by Sisuphos
Nowhere does it say that they're all or even mostly non-EU, international students.


I didn't say they were all international students. In fact, I made no mention of numbers or percentages.

As it happens, the majority of LSE students are international. 51% by location, 52% by fee status.



http://www.lse.ac.uk/intranet/LSEServices/planningUnit/informationManagementAndStatistics/home.aspx
Original post by Little Toy Gun
It's 60% postgraduates.



Both LSE and St Aud are very small institutions so not representative in any way.

LSE having 70% internationals is what's keeping it prestigious. 1. Inflating its fame internationally; 2. earning much extra money; 3. artificially increasing entry tariff and thus a much higher placement on the tables.


I don't agree with this statement, you're making the assumption that all international applicants will have the International Bacculaureate (IB) when there will be international applicants who will hold their own countries' respective high school education diploma which don't correlate to UCAS points (other than the HK diploma).

I also only selected the prestigious institutions in my list, there were other British universities with a high proportion of non-UK students which do not do well for entry tariff (or domestic rankings) e.g.
- City University London 50.1%
- Middlesex University 43.7%
- University of Westminster 43.4%
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by ScotBank16
I don't agree with this statement, you're making the assumption that all international applicants will have the International Bacculaureate (IB) when there will be international applicants who will hold their own countries' respective high school education diploma which don't correlate to UCAS points (other than the HK diploma).

I also only selected the prestigious institutions in my list, there were other British universities with a high proportion of non-UK students which do not do well for entry tariff (or domestic rankings) e.g.
- City University London 50.1%
- Middlesex University 43.7%
- University of Westminster 43.4%


What's your point? Is it so difficult to understand that fewer places available = higher entry tariff?

That's not the assumption - the assumption is that many, if not most, will be holding qualifications that don't count towards the tables.
It does not mean people from the UK are less intelligent. LSE is picking kids from the whole world, obviously out of the millions in china some people will be more intelligent than some people here. You can't compare a 'small' nation with the population of about 2billion that could get into LSE.
Original post by Little Toy Gun
What's your point? Is it so difficult to understand that fewer places available = higher entry tariff?

That's not the assumption - the assumption is that many, if not most, will be holding qualifications that don't count towards the tables.


If it is as you say so, then why do City, Middlesex and Westminster (along with all the other mentioned UK universities in the article) not have high entry tariffs?

LSE has a high entry tariff because it can attract well-qualified applicants in the first place. Also, if LSE just accepts any international student without having high academic standards (regardless of if they correlate to UCAS points) then it'd have high dropout rates (which it doesn't).

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending