The Student Room Group
Discovering Higher and Degree Apprenticeships with UWE Bristol, get free advice >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Discovering Higher and Degree Apprenticeships with UWE Bristol, get free advice >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

What is wrong with LSE BSc Mathematics and Economics?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by ETRC
UCL has the most pure maths out of the 3 and LSE is more finance based. Warwick is a mix between the two. But LSE has better grad prospects and LSE grads earn the most out of any uni. If you want money go to LSE. People on TSR give it a bad rep because they couldn't get in or because its not a pure STEM uni. Remember TSR is full of people who think STEM subjects are everything.


Really wouldn't factor job prospects into this, they're all recruited from by the same employers and grads get similar jobs at said employers from each of these unis.

Pay =/= uni you go to, pay = performance, job type, company, location and a myriad of other factors.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by ETRC
UCL has the most pure maths out of the 3 and LSE is more finance based. Warwick is a mix between the two. But LSE has better grad prospects and LSE grads earn the most out of any uni. If you want money go to LSE. People on TSR give it a bad rep because they couldn't get in or because its not a pure STEM uni. Remember TSR is full of people who think STEM subjects are everything.


I'd say they are all just as good in terms of career prospects- there's no job that LSE grads can get into that ucl or Warwick grads can't. No employer will pick an LSE graduate over a UCL or Warwick graduate just because they went to LSE. They care more about work experience, extracurricular activities and your skills (what you can bring to the table). The reason why LSE grads earn more is because UCL and Warwick are multidisciplinary universities who also take in students who don't aim for high paying careers (such as biomedical science, psychology, environmental/sustainability etc) while LSE tends to take in more finance-focused people who apply to higher paid jobs, so the average for LSE is higher.
Original post by Princepieman
Really wouldn't factor job prospects into this, they're all recruited from by the same employers and grads get similar jobs at said employers from each of these unis.

Pay =/= uni you go to, pay = performance, job type, company, location and a myriad of other factors.

Posted from TSR Mobile


You beat my response by about one second wow
Reply 23
Avatar for ETRC
ETRC
17
Original post by Trapz99
I'd say they are all just as good in terms of career prospects- there's no job that LSE grads can get into that ucl or Warwick grads can't. No employer will pick an LSE graduate over a UCL or Warwick graduate just because they went to LSE. They care more about work experience, extracurricular activities and your skills (what you can bring to the table). The reason why LSE grads earn more is because UCL and Warwick are multidisciplinary universities who also take in students who don't aim for high paying careers (such as biomedical science, psychology, environmental/sustainability etc) while LSE tends to take in more finance-focused people who apply to higher paid jobs, so the average for LSE is higher.


I never said you can't get the same job going to another uni. All the top 15-20 unis teach you everything you need to get a job in banking, finance or whatever field you want to go to. But yeah your point stands. In 2016, it does not really matter what uni you go to.
Original post by ETRC
I never said you can't get the same job going to another uni. All the top 15-20 unis teach you everything you need to get a job in banking, finance or whatever field you want to go to. But yeah your point stands. In 2016, it does not really matter what uni you go to.


Another misconception: nothing you learn at uni will be of any use in a banking/finance role. These firms have pretty sophisticated training programs such that a grad of any degree can get up to speed provided they are smart [1]

[1] Hence why they (the top firms) target a small range of universities, where 70%+ of the intake on the most highly paying jobs are made up from 6 universities. And 90%+ by 10-15.

So yes, university name matters but not within the same targeted 'tier' of university.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Trapz99
woah..... hold on a sec. There are so many economics guys on LinkedIn (from the top unis) who got all A*s or nearly all A*s at A-Level and a lot of them did really well on UKMT maths challenges. I wouldn't say that STEM guys are smarter than non-STEM guys- I'd say that economics students tend to be high-performing across the board, while stem students tend to excel really well at their specific subject and do all right in the rest.


Yes of course, im sure there are plenty of incredibly smart economics students, but still people studying STEM subjects are more likely to be smarter, thats pretty much a fact.
I don't think Economics students are that social or 'alpha' I think it's more that STEM (actually mostly Physics and Engineering students really) tend to be a lot less outgoing and you'll find more stereotypically 'geeky' students amongst these subjects. I think that you often find the most outgoing and social students in the 'softer' subjects.


Original post by Trapz99
Its just that most of the people in my school that went to university to do economics were the more alpha type people while the engineering/compsci/physics guys werent very sociable. The maths guys were a mix, though. This was also the case the year before. But there are some exceptions of course. I was stating a general trend based on observations. Some economics guys aren't that alpha obviously (me included- there are people in my school who can bench press double what I can).

Not really sure that the bench press is a measure of anything other than how much time you spend working on your bench press, certainly not a measure of being 'alpha', if it was sports science students would be the most 'alpha' of all :tongue:.
Original post by Daniel9998
I guess, no im not at uni yet but its still silly to assume the people doing economics are more alpha and social than people studying STEM subjects, I dont know where people have got that from? On average the students studying STEM subjects will be smarter then the economics student but I dont see how that makes people studying STEM subjects less alpha, its all very stereotypical. And yeh will be doing chem eng :smile:


than*

Maybe students studying at the same university, but students at Oxbridge/LSE studying a non-stem subject are probably smarter than students studying a STEM subject at a lesser university.
Original post by anonwinner
than*

Maybe students studying at the same university, but students at Oxbridge/LSE studying a non-stem subject are probably smarter than students studying a STEM subject at a lesser university.


lol cheers

And yeh probably?
Original post by Trapz99
I'd say they are all just as good in terms of career prospects- there's no job that LSE grads can get into that ucl or Warwick grads can't. No employer will pick an LSE graduate over a UCL or Warwick graduate just because they went to LSE. They care more about work experience, extracurricular activities and your skills (what you can bring to the table). The reason why LSE grads earn more is because UCL and Warwick are multidisciplinary universities who also take in students who don't aim for high paying careers (such as biomedical science, psychology, environmental/sustainability etc) while LSE tends to take in more finance-focused people who apply to higher paid jobs, so the average for LSE is higher.


LSE is also a multidisciplinary university, with many non finance related undergrad degrees like Anthropology, Environment and Development, Geography, Government, History, International Relations, Social Policy, Sociology.
Reply 30
Avatar for ETRC
ETRC
17
Original post by Princepieman
Another misconception: nothing you learn at uni will be of any use in a banking/finance role. These firms have pretty sophisticated training programs such that a grad of any degree can get up to speed provided they are smart [1]

[1] Hence why they (the top firms) target a small range of universities, where 70%+ of the intake on the most highly paying jobs are made up from 6 universities. And 90%+ by 10-15.

So yes, university name matters but not within the same targeted 'tier' of university.

Posted from TSR Mobile


I know people in banking, asset management. They all said that uni teaches them the foundation of knowledge and way of thinking required for those jobs. One even did history at uni and got into banking. Unless you do a finance degree you obviously don't know too much about what happens in banking. What I'm saying is uni makes you smart enough to go into finance and most unis are able to provide that.
Original post by Princepieman
Econ is beta bro, joint honours with Maths is alpha.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Will maths and economics open up more options in banking and the financial industry? Will you be able to be an IB with maths and economics from LSE, Warwick, UCL?
Original post by fleky6910
Will maths and economics open up more options in banking and the financial industry? Will you be able to be an IB with maths and economics from LSE, Warwick, UCL?


open same doors

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you