Why is LSE seen as more desirable?

But UCL isn't ranked as having greater research power than LSE in Anthropology (where LSE is ranked the best in the country by the REF). UCL is ranked as having greater research power overall which is due to it's size. But when size is taken out of the equation LSE ranks higher than UCL overall. And yet you argued that UCL is superior in a vast range of subjects - where I guarantee UCL has more academic staff when combined.

The facts are as follows:
By REF ranking:
LSE > UCL overall
LSE > UCL in Anthropology (and therefore I imagine a lot of the subjects in your list - I'm just sticking to what I know)

By 'Research Power' (a faulty measure that the REF themselves don't use as their primary one):
UCL > LSE

These are demonstrable from the figures that you asked me to check. Both are very highly ranked but the evidence doesn't support your very bold initial claim.


PS. UCL's Anthropology department is almost twice the size of LSE's. But you're right, that is irrelevant to the debate.

Research power is not calculated using an overall figure; it uses departmental figures i.e the number of researchers in a department, not the university as a whole. UCL's Anthropology dept is not significantly bigger than LSEs (not sure why you said it's twice the size, I think you just made that up). The overall rank you keep pointing to is meaningless, what matters is the amount of 4* and 3* research - UCL trounces LSE in that respect, even though their deps are not dissimilar in size.

What subject? Economics/maths is better at LSE as it is a specialist uni but I think UCL is much more rounded/bigger and it's ranked higher in the world league tables.

LSE has 17 members on it's academic staff whilst UCL has 30 and is one of the largest Anthropology departments in the country. This is perfectly understandable because UCL, as you mentioned covers a wider range of fields within Anthropology - e.g. Biological Anthropology which LSE, as a specialist Social Science Uni doesn't teach or do research in. There is no doubt that UCL has the larger department, teaches more and does more research. An so what? UCL is a massive Uni. It is not however ranked more highly in terms of research by the REF.

Research Power IS calculated using an overall figure here: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/sites/default/files/Attachments/2014/12/17/k/a/s/over-14-01.pdf

It isn't done per department (at least not in the sources I've found/provided).

I have no Anthropology Research Power figures as they're not included here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GzpAf_VvmUdhZK28sDgVtvFjfrNBli8ES65ZDHHlcTM/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=2038780975

By proportion of 4*+3* research which is the REF's preferred measure LSE doesn't get 'trounced' by UCL but rather is the best for Anthropology and 3rd of all UK institutions. UCL submits more (numerically not proportionally) 4*+3* pieces of research overall and in almost every department because UCL is 5 times the size of LSE.

None of the figures support the proposition that UCL > LSE for Anthropology research quality unless your argument is simply that UCL does more research which is fair enough because UCL is a bigger Uni.

Lol.

You didn't count research staff. LSE has around 35 staff, not including visiting researchers. I don't think you're right about this but I don't want to argue about it anymore, it's too tiring. I hope you will at least agree with me that LSE is not better than UCL in every subject they share, as someone in this thread suggested.

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

Yeah I know its UK rankings, but more interested in things like successful admissions into top MBA schools, representation in domestic and foreign IB.

Lol.

Hm yeah Durham's representation in the international IB community definitely isn't as high. I don't know how its perceived in other parts of Europe, but I know many in North America will tend to perceive it as "Durham North Carolina." Unless you clarify, then perhaps employers might have heard of it.


Posted from TSR Mobile

I can only talk about law and to my mind, LSE have the higher reputation for a number of reasons that likely have to do with the sorts of firms recruiting from it, starting salaries, training contracts, etc. It seems they're more a number monkeys university so if you want to make a lot of money from contract, tax, complex financial instrument law, etc., then sure, LSE is going to be the place for you. Depends what sort of law you're interested in. I'd rather gouge out my eyes with a rusty spoon than spend decades tied to a desk drafting another email to a tax guy because of some blah blah corporation needing yada yada advice on some zzzzzzz deal. If that's your thing, though, have at it. Two things are going to happen when you go to LSE provided you made it through the filtering to get there: you're going to be very good at maths and get the recruitment reference you need for an MC, or you're going to be an also-ran who'll regret they never saw it coming.

So why are you studying law haha? Don't think it matters where you work, you'll always be tied to a desk drafting emails to one guy or another, because some corporation needs advice.

Ah, the eternal LSE vs UCL debate... only to realise that 3 years down the line the grad prospects are exactly the same in the eyes of the employers

Let's be real here. LSE >>>>>> UCL. Like literally shits on their dick. Employers regard LSE as being more superior than UCL for pretty much every subject they offer.

If you say that UCL is better, you're kidding yourself.

LSE>>UCL, for everything LSE does.