IYO, is LSE undergrad overrated? Watch

flugestuge
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#21
Report 10 years ago
#21
(Original post by Pillar of Autumn)
Undergrad LSE > Durham+Warwick undergrad.
Obviously.
0
reply
NDGAARONDI
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#22
Report 10 years ago
#22
(Original post by Pillar of Autumn)
Public and employer opinion. Indeed they are all top. But LSE's undergrad > Warwick > Durham.
LSE, in many ways, is just a brand. I liken them to Man Utd instead of Real Madrid.
0
reply
Lord Lawz
Badges: 0
#23
Report 10 years ago
#23
(Original post by paperbagmonster)
What do you think of LSE's [edit]undergraduate studies?[/edit]
I think it's overrated to be honest. I applied to it only because of its reputation. Given the choice, I think I would much rather go to Durham or Warwick instead of LSE.

Reasons: Insignificant campus, less than average numbers of lessons/lectures and the rest of the time they expect you to bugger off and go do independent study, relatively unsafe surroundings, expensive city, too much focus on nightlife for student activities. This I heard from the many LSE students I know.

Maybe someone can convince me otherwise? My parents are really intent on me going but I'm feeling so-so about it.

This is not put in the LSE page btw, because I feel I might get more biased replies from there.
My thoughts are as follows:

1. Expecting you to 'bugger off' is better than it seems. Lectures are an inefficient way of learning - the pace is slow and you're better off doing it yourself and getting greater return for your time.

2. Holborn does not constitute 'relatively unsafe surroundings'. Go and check it out - it's a nice area of central London.

3. You have a point that London is expensive. You may be well-advised, especially if you don't live in London, to find a university outside London on that basis. If you are ever set on going, there is a larger student loan for London (by around £1000) and, providing you are careful about spending, you may not run into difficulty.

4. LSE does arrange activities but most universities in London are lazy because of the amount of entertainment on the doorstep.

5. Go to the university you prefer. It seems as though you are relying on information through secondary sources. Go to an open day.
0
reply
ILIGAN
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#24
Report 10 years ago
#24
(Original post by Pillar of Autumn)
Undergrad LSE > Durham+Warwick undergrad.
What do you mean by Warwick + Durham? I mean, what does the plus sign mean in your statement?

I think for undergrad education, there is very little difference between LSE and Warwick. (I'm not sure about Durham, however.) I don't think the difference between LSE and Warwick would be that big for employers to notice. In fact, if you would apply at JP Morgan & Chase or, at any top bulge bracket firm, an LSE undergrad degree does not weigh much heavier than a Warwick degree would. LSE's advantage over Warwick is at the postgrad level. In terms of reputation in the financial industry, Warwick is as much as respected now a days. This scenario may not be the same 20 years ago. But today, Warwick has really gained a lot in terms of prestige especially in the financial and banking industry.

I would still rank LSE above Warwick, but that is not to say the difference would be that big for the employers to notice.

Go to Warwick if you don't like the LSE vibe. It doesn't make sense going for LSE if you don't like it there. I would also choose Warwick over LSE, and I did that when I chose a UK uni to spend a year as an exchange student from Stanford. I did enjoy Warwick as much as I enjoyed at Stanford.
0
reply
IanDangerously
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#25
Report 10 years ago
#25
Probably. I think undergrad at most of the highly reputable business schools is probably over-rated, it certainly is at ABS.
0
reply
Urban Scholar
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#26
Report 9 years ago
#26
Oxbridge/LSE>Imperial>UCL.............War wick/Durham/KCLetc
0
reply
Urban Scholar
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#27
Report 9 years ago
#27
LSE undergrad underrated! definitely not. depends on what subjects! for subjects like economics and politics it is probably more prestigious than Oxbridge- in terms of admission rates and entry requirements (about 4% with three A's at A-level) Durham and Warwick and good unis with good reps but their entry requirements are nothing like LSE undergrad so it looses the battle on the that front immediately! other bits of the thread refereed to LSE undergrad rep vis-a-vis post grad rep. I would say that Undergrad and PHD at LSE are the most prestigious and selective. Admissions for masters are around 25%-30% except for supreme course like the Masters in EME (Econometrics and Mathematical Economics) which is around 5% admissions rate with a 1st class honours (so it is comparable to the undergrad requirements for Econ and Politics) apart from that, others are not that stringent. My friend go admitted to M/sc Finance with a 2:2, like I said 30% admissions. Getting into LSE undergrad is more difficult and selective, on paper, than even Oxbridge (as there is no interview that can save your grace in person) So, I don’t know where Durham and Warwick come into this and the battle between Oxbridge and LSE. It is far harder to get into LSE undergrad on competition and entry requirements alone than at Warwick or Durham. English is very good at Durham but LSE obviously does not do this. Law is v.good there too but again does not trump LSE in any reputation (London chambers, International arena or for pioneering research, UCL and KCL are also arguably more known for law) LSE was rated number one in LAW research ahead of Oxbridge in the RAE assessment. Thus again the battle of rep/prestige seems to be: Oxbridge/LSE or Oxbridge versus LSE, which ever way you want to look at it. Durham and Warwick are top UK Unis but are not in the same league, in any capacity, as Oxbridge and LSE. They are in different tiers so to speak. Trying to compare themselves with LSE/Oxbridge is beyond its means and shooting the gun a bit. First of all before you even get to Oxbridge/LSE level, compare Warwick and Durham with the likes of UCL, KCL, Bristol, Nottingham, York, Manchester, Birmingham, Edinburgh and Birmingham who I’m sure have got something to say about this too. Trying to compare Durham and Warwick to LSE is not really viable as they are in completely different leagues. It is not going to work-nice try though!

P.S i would agree that LSE academia and teaching is polarised- it houses the world's largest social science libraray so you wouldn't go their to study Biology or the History of Art!
0
reply
hobnob
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#28
Report 9 years ago
#28
You can edit your posts, you know. There's no need to keep posting new versions and then deleting the old ones.
0
reply
Ollie87
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#29
Report 9 years ago
#29
lse certainly didn't appeal to me at undergrad - i looked at it for postgrad, tho.
0
reply
River85
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#30
Report 9 years ago
#30
Have a look at LSE's typical offers. There are many courses that ask for AAB. True, that doesn't mean they accept AAB, but when you're talking about great universities here who have high standards. The difference isn't significant.

(Original post by Urban Scholar)
Trying to compare Durham and Warwick to LSE is not really viable, as they are in completely different leagues. It is not going to work-nice try though!
In politics and economics LSE has an obvious edge but outside these two specialist areas it's no better than the other top unis. UCL, Durham, Bristol etc. match it in law. Durham can match it in Geography, history and many of its other common departments. Warwick isn't far in economics and can match it in some of the humanities. Bristol can match it in philosophy and the other arts and humanities.

What does differ widely is the course content. There's quite a contrast between Durham's philosophy course and Bristol's and LSE's. Or the history courses at our top unis.

Then you have the fact that LSE is a specialist institution, it makes it hard to compare a specialist instituion (who pull their large resources into a limited range of subjects) to mutli-faculty universities.

You say Durham is strong in English. It's has more great departments than that. physics, chemistry, english, geography, archaeology, law, general engineering and about five others. These are the strongest departments of their kind in the country. LSE only offers a fraction of these. The same is true with Warwick, UCL, Bristol or any other mullti-faculty uni.

LSE's a fantastic institution. It has a great name it's able to specialise ad is great in what it offers. But, in most of their departments, it's no stronger than the others. There's also the argument that they are postgrad/research focused and this can have a negative effect on undergrad education.

It's a specialist instiution and it's not really fare to compare.

(Original post by Urban Scholar)
Oxbridge/LSE>Imperial>UCL.............Warwick/Durham/KCLetc
Also, what the? LSE > Imperial?
0
reply
NDGAARONDI
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#31
Report 9 years ago
#31
Go to LSE if you like Oriental girls.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

The new Gillette ad. Is it:

Man-hating bullsh*t (84)
46.15%
Pro-humanity (98)
53.85%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise