LSE vs Imp Msc: Expanding career prospects B.Pharm

Hi,

I'm new to the forum but would appreciate your advice. I am a registered pharmacist in Australia looking to expand career options with postgraduate business/management study. In the vein of WHO, healthcare based management consulting, possibly government advisory or big pharma.

The MSc market isn't so broad here. I was interested in the the LSE Msc International Health Policy vs Imperial College Msc International Health Management. As an Australian, I recognise both institutions and was wondering if anyone could give me any insight into who would deliver better job opportunities on graduation and any other information you might think is useful when comparing those degrees for my purpose.

Thank you in advance!

Reply 1

Primal

Imperial is a huge school, with programmes ranging from engineering, medicine and science to business. LSE on the other hand, specializes much more in social sciences like Economics and Politics (hence its name). At Imperial, you might therefore get professors/lecturers who are working within the field medicine, so you get that good mix of experience between medicine and business.

Also, judging only by the name of the courses (I might be very wrong here) it sounds like the course at LSE is more aimed at public health policy making, opposed to the one at Imperial, where you can learn more on "how to run a (private) hospital". If you want to do business/mgmt courses, I'd go for Imperial.

Then again, LSE is renowned world wide for its excellence. I'd say you choose between brand name (LSE) and relevant programme (Imp).

Reply 2

Theophile

Original post by Primal

the same applies to Imperial

Reply 3

Primal

LSE is an A-school, Imperial is a B-school. At least that's my view. Would that be wrong?

Also, Imperial is known world wide for its skills in science and medicine, not that much in business. Is that wrong? LSE is known everywhere for its skill in economics.

Reply 4

dbkey

Original post by Primal

But you could equally say Imperial is known EVERYWHERE for its Science, whereas LSE is not known much outside Economics?

Imperial is known for Science but do you know much about their quant program? Do you even know what a quant is?

LSE is known for Economics but what else?

If you're presenting an argument, at least gather all the facts first!

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 5

MENDACIUM

Original post by Primal

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2012-13/world-ranking/region/europe
Top European universities 2012-13
1- Oxford
2- Cambrige
3- Imperial
4- ETH Zurich
5- UCL
6. Edinburgh
7. LSE

Imperial World rank: 8

Lse: 39

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 6

Kevlar

I'm in the exact same predicament as OP deciding against

LSE: International health policy + Health Economics vs Imperial: International health management

I currently hold offers for both courses. I'm also looking to get into healthcare related MC having looked at grad profiles from both uni's either seems to be fine to achieve said goal.

Looking at the differing course content. Imperial seems to offer a lot more management courses with modules such as strategy management, accounting and marketing. LSEs course seems to be less rigid with the ability to select from a wider variety of modules. Also I noted during the summer term for Imperial you will be working as a team on a business plan project, where as at LSE you have the opportunity to go an intern at places such as McK, WHO, NICE, Department of health and so on.. finally the dissertation lengths will be different for LSE its a 10,000 word report and at Imperial is a 3,000 word report.

The deciding factor for me seems to be the cost though, as I'm planning on joining straight from undergrad and funding it myself the cheaper the better. LSE is considerably cheaper in fees and offers the graduate support scheme so fees could be reduced even further.

Reply 7

Theophile

Original post by Primal

LSE is an A-school, Imperial is a B-school. At least that's my view. Would that be wrong?

are you serious?

Original post by Primal

Also, Imperial is known world wide for its skills in science and medicine, not that much in business. Is that wrong?

Yes I think it's inaccurate and this claim often comes from lse students.

btw http://http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/cdaeac90-8a2d-11e2-9da4-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2OD6yDFp2

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 8

Primal

Original post by Theophile

are you serious?

Judging from everything I've heard on this forum in regards to school rankings based on Economics/Business/Management, which OP asked about, then yes, I am serious. I have asked a ton of questions on TSR in regards to my own choice of an MSc programme in Economics or Economics related courses, where LSE and Imperial have been among the schools I applied for. The general response I got was that LSE would be a better choice than Imperial. But that's because I wanted an Economics based MSc, not an engineering degree.

Obviously I am not saying that Imperial is a bad school. If you look at the school as a whole, including all research, all programmes, citations etc., Imperial ranks higher than LSE. Looking only on Economics, LSE is better. You can manipulate rankings in your favour all you want.

Original post by dbkey

But you could equally say Imperial is known EVERYWHERE for its Science, whereas LSE is not known much outside Economics?

That's exactly what I said.

Reply 9

dbkey

Original post by Primal

"Imperial is known world wide for its skills in science and medicine, not that much in business [because the business school, the way it is today, was established in 2000]. LSE is known everywhere for its skill in economics."

You don't understand logic.

You played UP LSE's profile by stating its known for Economics everywhere, which I'm not disputing.

I'm saying Imperial is equally known everywhere for its science.

Besides, the OP was interested in business / management studies in teh field of healthcare ie a science, so bringing up Economics is neither here nor there. (Also LSE has nothing to do with healthcare / science).

With regard to Imperial's business school, just because it's relatively new doesn't necessarily mean it's not good and conversely old doesn't imply good.

For instance, do you know which is the oldest uni in the world? Where does it rank in league tables?

FYI it's the uni of Bologna.

Reply 10

Primal

Which again, is what I said in my first post. The programme at LSE seems like it's aimed more at public policy making, while the one at Imperial is aimed at the management of health service (which OP is after). THEREFORE, I said I'd go for Imperial, because choosing LSE would be more for its name. What you're arguing about in reality is what I said about LSE is better than Imperial, which is a question of definition.

Reply 11

caveman123

Original post by Primal

Your defintion is rather perculiar.

Even if LSE were regarded as better than Imperial, it would not be a clear distinction between an A and a B.

In any case, others have remarked if you were to trust league tables, it would be Imperial A, LSE B.

Also, what has the year in which Imperial's business school was established, have anything to do with its reputation?