Why is LSE seen as more desirable?

I agree outside the UK most people have never heard of UCL thats the reality.

If you intend to work in the UK a UCL degree is highly regarded and respected.

Outside the UK the big 3 Oxford , Cambridge and LSE reputation is huge.

You could easily work on Wall Street with a degree from the Big 3 based purely on reputation.

If most people have never heard of UCL outside the UK then why is it consistently ranked top 10 in the world rankings along with oxbridge, harvard etc but not LSE?

And when it comes to placement UCL or Imperial might even be on the same level in the UK, but when you leave the UK LSE and Oxbridge are the only ones that matter.

Because rankings aren't everything. You have to look into the criterias they apply to.
For business school rankings (such as Financial Times) it's mostly because LSE doesn't offer any MBA or experienced Master programmes. Also LSE is famous for the fact, that they don't care about rankings and don't give them any data, while other business schools such as ESADE/ IE will do anything to get placed in the top 10.
For general rankings LSE is often bad or not even placed because it's just for economics and politics, while those general rankings heavily value a broad variatey of departments and extensive academics research.

For me, as a business student who wants to work afterward, I don't care about the academic research of a university. I care about placement and companies who rate LSE as a tier 1 university. And when it comes to placement UCL or Imperial might even be on the same level in the UK, but when you leave the UK LSE and Oxbridge are the only ones that matter.

Also I don't get your point that LSE isn't well placed in the subjects they offer. When it comes to Economis LSE is placed as 4th (after MIT, Harvard and Stanford) but before some world-famous schools such as Princeton, Columbia, Yale, UPenn, UCLA or even ULA (placed 16th).

Politics: LSE 4th, UCL 45th

Finance: LSE 5th, UCL 51-100th place

UCL is better at Anthropology, Statistics, Geography, History, Mathematics, Philosophy, and Psychology. UCL and LSE are equal for Economics and Law.

If most people have never heard of UCL outside the UK then why is it consistently ranked top 10 in the world rankings along with oxbridge, harvard etc but not LSE?

Based on what?

If you look at the individual rankings by subject for Accounting and Finance or Economics UCL does not appear in the top 10. From an international employment perspective in the Investment banking UCL is not seen as a target university but it is within the UK.

Oxbridge and LSE is well known worldwide but most people outside the UK have never heard of UCL and in particular the business world.

Most academics would have heard of UCL worldwide but for the general population internationally the brand recognition is very low.

Based on research output and quality (RAE and REF), national and international reputation of individual departments, faculty, facilities and even course structure.

I agree outside the UK most people have never heard of UCL thats the reality.

If you intend to work in the UK a UCL degree is highly regarded and respected.

Outside the UK the big 3 Oxford , Cambridge and LSE reputation is huge.

You could easily work on Wall Street with a degree from the Big 3 based purely on reputation.

I'm assuming you didn't collate that data yourself - so those factors as determined by who?

Factors? Please be more specific. What are you asking?

Based on research output and quality (RAE and REF), national and international reputation of individual departments, faculty, facilities and even course structure.

These factors:



I'm asking - says who?

Says the REF panel, researchers, people who actually study these subjects or employ those that do.

Look, maybe you surveyed employers of anthropology graduates and maybe you didn't but I lean towards suspecting that you didn't...

I'm not talking about employers who happen to hire an anthropology graduate. Specialist employers (such as NGOs) may specifically target anthropology graduates, and yes I have spoken to some and they do rate UCL higher because it covers things that LSE's course doesn't.

'People outside of the UK' fall into many different categories. But top graduates don't really care what 'people outside of the UK' think, they care about what top employers think. Most top employers in business, finance etc are in London or the US. So those are really the only places which matter for elite British graduates. And I guarantee you every top business, law, science and tech employer in New York, Boston and San Francisco has heard of Oxbridge, Imperial, LSE and UCL, and to a lesser extent Edinburgh, Durham, Warwick and KCL also (certainly the recruiters because it's their job to know things like that).

Most elite British graduates wouldn't bother going to work in Europe (why would they, London is the de facto capital of European commerce, people come to the UK from the rest of Europe not the other way around), except Brussels and a couple of major German business and finance companies, and the odd person who goes to Switzerland or Paris. Again, the same as above applies. If someone hasn't heard of Imperial or UCL it's their problem not the graduate's, because they are not a very well-informed recruiter.

UCL's Anthropology course does cover stuff that LSE's Social Anthropology course doesn't. They're different degrees after all. I imagine the converse is also true. I also very much doubt an anthropology degree from the former is held in higher regard than the latter. And whilst it's not impossible that you've spoken with a plethora of specialist employers that have given you an accurate enough image to justify that belief I somewhat doubt you've done the same for employers of Statistics, Geography, History, Mathematics, Philosophy, and Psychology students. Nor does it seem likely that UCL and LSE are 'equal' for Economics. I'm given to understand that the difference, though marginal is definitely there. And if you believe the difference is so small that they might as well be equal then I put it to you that the difference between LSE and UCL in the subjects that you say UCL is better at is as minuscule if not smaller.

That said. I don't know.

You can doubt all you like. Sixth formers and wannabe investment bankers might say LSE is better for economics, but I've never heard anybody who actually works in the finance/banking industry say that. Have you? And no, the difference between UCL and LSE for the subjects I mentioned is not miniscule.