Heard negative things about LSE.

Oh.

I'll just..

university of buckingham.

No need, I wasn't taking the piss. The remark was a bit flippant but I generally found LSE's teaching to be pretty miserable and don't personally know many who disagree.

There isn't much consistency -- some lecturers/teachers are great and some are poor. I've said this in quite a few "LSE teaching" debates here: you get out what you put in. If you're actively looking for help, you won't be disappointed. If you sit there expecting to be spoon-fed, you're not going to like it. The level of the actual content covered is difficult relative to other top uni's, but postgrad is where it earns its status. A lot of students here are just hoping their degree will buy them a ticket to a job in the city, but it's still competitive with other top uni's, academically imo.

what does that mean?

The stuff you learn is more advanced than at other top uni's -- well, at least in LSE's strengths...and the reverse for the weaknesses. e.g. you'd probably cover much more difficult math at other places.

Academically it's crap, socially it's ok but still worse than most other places (not because the people are so bad, but because the facilities are). Good entry point into investment banking though, and good research in some departments (though that will benefit you zilch). That's about it.

I keep hearing normative comments here. I know every university has good and bad points. What I meant was: is the teaching poor in general or poor compared to LSE's rivals at the top of the league tables? I mean, is the negativey you get with LSE really, really bad, or is it just minor downsides to and otherwise very good, top university? For example, a random top 40 good-ish uni wouldn't really be able to compete at all, right?

you're ******* stupid.

academically it's fabulous (IF you're self-motivated), socially it's a **** hole.

'good entry point into IB...that's about it'

that's so stupid i'm not even going to dignify it with a reply, other than to say that LSE is filled with superstar academics and the best social science library on the planet. if you have motivation and/or genuinely enjoy your subject then you cannot but derive benefit from those 2 things. the academic rigor is pretty high, but certainly manageable if you just put in the long hours of studying on your own. conversely if you're not motivated you'll hate it, it's very decentralized and low on contact hours. the teachers don't pre-digest everything and spoon feed it to you.

socially it blows, if your preferred friend group doesn't consist of Percy Weasley impersonators you'll not like it much here.

Genius sig.

CYE

I find it amusing how some LSE students somehow manage to twist the incompetence of their teachers into an advantage. "It's good that teaching is ****, that way you're forced to develop independence and initiative"...sure.

ok...

Not much to say to that vitriolic rant except that I find it amusing how some LSE students somehow manage to twist the incompetence of their teachers into an advantage. "It's good that teaching is ****, that way you're forced to develop independence and initiative"...sure.

I haven't said that. But it happens to be true.

The only way that it's bad is if you're not good enough to work well enough without being spoon-fed and so you don't do well.

By the way, is 'quality of teaching' your only card to claiming LSE is, academically, a crap university, because I haven't seen you play any others.

"Academically" was perhaps the wrong choice of word. Of course people at LSE are smart, the academic staff are experts etc etc., but the teaching and teaching system just aren't up to scratch in my opinion. I found there to be too few contact hours (not because I didn't understand the material, but because all too often I just had nothing much to do for uni), too many class teachers that either really didn't give a **** or didn't have a clue themselves (some were excellent, but too many were not), and some of the modules were very "thin", though that is possibly more of a problem with trying to stretch an academic niche subject over an entire year than with teaching per se.

Honestly, I'm not trying to pick a fight or piss anyone off here, and I'm a bit surprised there's so much resistance given some of the conversations I've had with LSE students, but to claim that good teaching = spoon feeding is just too convenient.

"Academically" was perhaps the wrong choice of word. Of course people at LSE are smart, the academic staff are experts etc etc., but the teaching and teaching system just aren't up to scratch in my opinion. I found there to be too few contact hours (not because I didn't understand the material, but because all too often I just had nothing much to do for uni), too many class teachers that either really didn't give a **** or didn't have a clue themselves (some were excellent, but too many were not), and some of the modules were very "thin", though that is possibly more of a problem with trying to stretch an academic niche subject over an entire year than with teaching per se.