2.2 Bsc Economics at LSE

dannylfc_1

OK, I'm first year economics student and here's whats bugging me.
I've read various things that suggest without at least 2.1 degree classification it will be difficult to get jobs, never mind the good jobs in my field, an economist for example.
Do you think a 2.2 or a third at LSE would really be worse than a 2.1 from other/weaker universities when competing for jobs considering how much more difficult my course is..?
Of course I'll be aiming for at least a 2.1, but nevertheless this has got me thinking..

generally speaking, unless you're going to a really poor university, a 2:1 or 1st from a top 20/30 uni will beat a 2:2 or 3rd from LSE. why are you even there if you think you don't stand a realistic chance of getting at least a 2:1? leave and go elsewhere if you think you have no chance of a 2:1.

Reply 2

felt_monkey

12

My mum always tells me this story when we're talking about things like that...
Years and years ago, her boss had to choose between 2 applicants for a job. One had a PhD from a polytechnic and the other had a 2:2 from a top university. He chose the latter because he said that a weaker degree from a good uni will always be better than a top degree from a crap uni. I've no idea if this applies anymore, considering back then polytechnics were no way near on par with a proper uni, and you're talking about universities that are only a couple dozen places lower down on the league table. But still, I thought I'd share :yep:

Reply 3

invictus_veritas

13

felt_monkey

My mum always tells me this story when we're talking about things like that...
Years and years ago, her boss had to choose between 2 applicants for a job. One had a PhD from a polytechnic and the other had a 2:2 from a top university. He chose the latter because he said that a weaker degree from a good uni will always be better than a top degree from a crap uni. I've no idea if this applies anymore, considering back then polytechnics were no way near on par with a proper uni, and you're talking about universities that are only a couple dozen places lower down on the league table. But still, I thought I'd share :yep:

This

I recently looked at a lot of courses at different universities which are considered to be decent universities but by no means top.

The hardest economics courses by far are at the LSE, Cambridge, Oxford, Warwick and UCL (in no particular order, but I personally thought the LSE's looked the hardest). If you even look at the joint honours courses, for example PPE at warwick in first year has economics/ maths as 2/5 of the course and I think that it actually covers more than the entire pure economics course at Royal Holloway University in the first year and is far more quantitative.

Was looking at Loughborough's economics course today and it was excellent, but compared to pure economics or even partial economics courses at the top 5 universities for economics (Bristol and Durham too and probably a few other top places I haven't looked at in detail) it is literally a complete joke.

A 2:2 isn't particularly good from the LSE but it's a hell of a lot better than a 2:1 or even a first at many of the very good, but non-top universities for economics because the level and standard is so incredibly high.

Also you could just do a law conversion: many law conversion course schools guarantee people from the LSE doing any course a place conditional on getting a 2:2 if you put them as your first choice so think about that.

Reply 4

yea i have to agree. my friend did an economics module as part of his business course at birmingham (ranked 10th for econ one table i just checked). he got a first. im 100% certain he cud not get a first at LSE in first year econ (econ b) nor a 2:1 and most likely would just about pass.

yes yes i know its just one example, but its obvious that standards at lower ranked unis are simply lower and hence if roughly the same % get first, 2:1 etc. then the modules have to be easier.

Reply 5

e-lover

danny111

yea i have to agree. my friend did an economics module as part of his business course at birmingham (ranked 10th for econ one table i just checked). he got a first. im 100% certain he cud not get a first at LSE in first year econ (econ b) nor a 2:1 and most likely would just about pass.

yes yes i know its just one example, but its obvious that standards at lower ranked unis are simply lower and hence if roughly the same % get first, 2:1 etc. then the modules have to be easier.

I second this completely. I'm at Uni of Birmingham and I do economics courses, and when I looked at what my friends at LSE did for their 'development economics' module and what I did, it was quite amazing just how technical and more interesting their work was! I'm not saying my module was dummy work, but they certainly did more cutting edge stuff.

Reply 6

yoyo462001

I dont dispute the courses are harder because they probably are at LSE and top Unis but remember an employer is not going to look at each module from the uni and say 'oh this is much harder' hes most likely going to think a 2:1 from a decent uni top 30 is better than a 2:2, because the '2:2' will just stand out. Then again id imagine a fair few employers are uni whores and will just love the fact you went LSE.

Reply 7

e-lover

I second this completely. I'm at Uni of Birmingham and I do economics courses, and when I looked at what my friends at LSE did for their 'development economics' module and what I did, it was quite amazing just how technical and more interesting their work was! I'm not saying my module was dummy work, but they certainly did more cutting edge stuff.

what year are you in and what year are your friends in?

Reply 8

e-lover

danny111

what year are you in and what year are your friends in?

two and two.

Reply 9

e-lover

two and two.

hm, LSE has no 2nd year development economics module. maybe its part of macroeconomics?

Reply 10

e-lover

danny111

hm, LSE has no 2nd year development economics module. maybe its part of macroeconomics?

Perhaps, he definitely had very technical notes on development econ.

Reply 11

Joy Division

14

I am well and truly ******, I guess I'll just sign up on the dole when I graduate, with my "third". :ashamed:

That is if I don't get kicked.

Reply 12

Joy Division

14

danny111

hm, LSE has no 2nd year development economics module. maybe its part of macroeconomics?

EC307?

edit: ok 2nd year..

Reply 13

Urban Scholar

tricky one!

although econ courses are top at LSE a 2:2 is still a 2:2!

A 3rd from oxbridge is still a 3rd, regardless

but your saving grace is that at least its at the LSE!

dont know about jobs, dont major IB jobs require a 2:1 u may be ok!

at the end of the day grades are grades to a certain extent.

my friend got into LSE post grad with a 2:1 from hertfordshire, a tier 3 uni, didnt matter-the selctors were obviously like its a 2:1 regardless.

I also know a guy at accenture doing really well who got a 2:1 from Thames Valley!

so it depends on circumstances, it may not be all about the institution!

But blair did ok for himself with a 2:2 granted from oxford but whats the diff between that and a 2:2 from LSE? nothing really

best of luck

Reply 14

2k10applicant

dannylfc_1

OK, I'm first year economics student and here's whats bugging me.
I've read various things that suggest without at least 2.1 degree classification it will be difficult to get jobs, never mind the good jobs in my field, an economist for example.
Do you think a 2.2 or a third at LSE would really be worse than a 2.1 from other/weaker universities when competing for jobs considering how much more difficult my course is..?
Of course I'll be aiming for at least a 2.1, but nevertheless this has got me thinking..

LMAO how the hell do you know if your course is harder if youve never attended other unis ?

snobby bastard

Reply 15

invictus_veritas

13

danny111

hm, LSE has no 2nd year development economics module. maybe its part of macroeconomics?

or microeconomics: could be to do with microcredit if it has a lot of maths in?

Reply 16

astudent

7

Lol at these post EC102 problem set existential crises.

Reply 17