What is wrong with LSE BSc Mathematics and Economics?

Hey,

Looking at courses for 2017 and on tsr there seems to be a lot of dislike towards the course at LSE. Having looked at the course outline there does appear to be a real lack of pure maths involved which is a bit of a problem but rep wise LSE is strong. I want a course that has a strong maths element as well as covering financial economics and it appears that MORSE at Warwick will provide that. The other is UCL but that might lack the financial economics that I would like to study.

From my research:

Warwick (MMORSE/MORSE) > UCL (M&E) > LSE (M with E)

My question is LSE the weaker of the bunch?

(edited 8 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Original post by ramie

In terns of content, LSE's degree doesn't have the same depth or breadth as the other two courses for Maths. I honestly think if you want to couple Maths with financial maths MORSE is the best way to go.

Prospects across all three are fairly uniform no matter what the LSE fanboys will tell you.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 3

TheMeister

Original post by Princepieman

I went to LSE, albeit not for M&E, and even I would agree with this.

Reply 4

Jj15

No. Take a look at this link :

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/education/london-school-of-economics-graduates-earn-more-than-those-from-oxford-and-cambridge-a3224166.html

Reply 5

username738914

Original post by Jj15

No. Take a look at this link :

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/education/london-school-of-economics-graduates-earn-more-than-those-from-oxford-and-cambridge-a3224166.html

It's almost as if you think the university is responsible for someone making a lot of money, and not the person's career trajectory.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 6

Jj15

Original post by Princepieman

Wow, much amaze. Such wonder. It's almost as if you think the university is responsible for someone making a lot of money, and not the person's career trajectory.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I didn't mean that. I don't know exactly the contributing reason(s). I am just showing the published research results involving significant sample size over a relatively long period of 10 years. It isup to you to interpret the results and you are entitled to your own opinion, so am I.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 7

TheSnazzyMan

Original post by ramie

There's nothing wrong with it. IMO, (M)MORSE gives you more 'backup' options in case you fail banking, eg becoming an actuary (one of the four branches you can opt for) or an operational researcher, econometrician, stats etc., all depending on what you choose. It has lots of PhD options (Data Science, Operations Research).There's so much you can do with M&E at LSE (finance).

Original post by Jj15

No. Take a look at this link :

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/education/london-school-of-economics-graduates-earn-more-than-those-from-oxford-and-cambridge-a3224166.html

I know this has been posted by the official LSE FB page but as far as I'm concerned, the highest earning jobs will be very competitive and one will face many target grads competing for it. It just happens that apparently those jobs have been taking by LSE grads. (Correlation != causation)

Reply 8

Mathstatician

Original post by ramie

From my research:

Warwick (MMORSE/MORSE) > UCL (M&E) > LSE (M with E)

UCL only seem to do Maths with Economics. May just be a typo but worth considering if high economics content is important.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 9

ibhopeful97

Why not just do economics?

Reply 10

username738914

Original post by ibhopeful97

Why not just do economics?

Econ is beta bro, joint honours with Maths is alpha.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 11

Mathstatician

Original post by ibhopeful97

Why not just do economics?

Versatility, less essays, better 'signaling' (more maths generally implies greater intellect. Not necessarily true but people believe it and that's all that matters in branding).

Original post by Princepieman

Econ is beta bro, joint honours with Maths is alpha.

Posted from TSR Mobile

That's an interesting subject, actually.I'm concerned people here would start to get offended and insecure, or accuse others of being so, but I wonder how exactly each degree subject is perceived and whether we can draw up a rough utility(transferable)/prestige(academic)/status(removed from academia), and plot who studies what against that. Not that any sensible person would actually use said data. But from looking around it seems the 'alphas' - read athletic, sociable, popular - tend to come from economics and management backgrounds, after looking at alumni at banks Perhaps not very telling. It is a trend, though, and I'm curious about the why :dontknow:

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 12

ibhopeful97

Original post by Princepieman

Econ is beta bro, joint honours with Maths is alpha.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Is that your subject? :holmes:

Reply 13

Trapz99

Yeah econ students tend to be pretty alpha (sociable, sporty, outgoing, opinionated, extroverted) compared to STEM students on average.

Reply 14

Daniel9998

Original post by Trapz99

Yeah econ students tend to be pretty alpha (sociable, sporty, outgoing, opinionated, extroverted) compared to STEM students on average.

lool thats just not true, how did you manage to come to that conclusion

Reply 15

Mathstatician

Original post by Daniel9998

lool thats just not true, how did you manage to come to that conclusion

I mean, you aren't a uni student yet afaik so I don't think you can say with any more certainty that it's false than somebody could say that it's true. But I knew this would happen. You're an aspiring engineer, right?

I'm looking at maths so this isn't a riding of stem subjects. Just something I'm noticing looking at linkedin profiles then their Facebook profiles, etc.

Reply 16

Daniel9998

Original post by Mathstatician

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:

Reply 17

Trapz99

Original post by Daniel9998

lool thats just not true, how did you manage to come to that conclusion

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).

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 18

Trapz99

Original post by Daniel9998

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.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 19

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.