Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    I wish to study Economics at either of these two universities, for 2006 entry. I won't be visiting these universities until August, so I thought we could construct a comparison of the two universities.

    For me, personally, the fact that they're both based in central london is a great plus point. I love London, and will enjoy their location.

    For Economics, I think we all agree that the same class degree (e.g. 2.1) from LSE is better than one from UCL, in terms of how it will be regarded by employers.

    I ask though, what about employment prospects? I know that Oxbridge and LSE have very great employment prospects for graduates, but what about UCL? Maybe this is where UCL is not as good as LSE.

    Finally, the student life and atmosphere. This is obviously not always the most important factor, since education quality should be the most important, however, for the sake of this thread, let's consider it! I have heard stories and read posts on this forum that the student life and atmosphere at LSE isn't "all that great", whereas those at UCL have said the life there is brilliant. Does anyone have more information on this?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It's best to post something like this in the Economics forum, you'll elicit more replys from Economists, many of whom will be going to these universities.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    what Xanthe is really trying to say to you is that if you post a thread with the title 'LSE people vs UCL' in this forum the consequences are dire!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    I suppose, however I should've emphasised my question regarding student life in my post. That is my main question, as I partly answered the preceeding questions in my own post. I am more concerned about student life in the two universities, thus I thought the London universities forum would be most appropriate.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Revenged)
    what Xanthe is really trying to say to you is that if you post a thread with the title 'LSE people vs UCL' in this forum the consequences are dire!
    Hahaha. Too true :cool:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by N9ne)
    For Economics, I think we all agree that the same class degree (e.g. 2.1) from LSE is better than one from UCL, in terms of how it will be regarded by employers.

    I ask though, what about employment prospects? I know that Oxbridge and LSE have very great employment prospects for graduates, but what about UCL? Maybe this is where UCL is not as good as LSE.

    Finally, the student life and atmosphere.
    Firstly, they are both UoL degrees. Whoever thinks that a 2:1 from LSE is "better" than a 2:1 from UCL or KCL or QM etc is just being a dimwit. Fact: a 2:1 from any of the London Colleges is viewed the same by employers.

    Similar argument goes for employment prospects.

    Student life is what you make of your experience at University. You will be in London, for god's sake! There is so much to do and so much to take advantage of. You don't have to confine your "student life" to within the walls of your college. Go out and grab some fun if you aren't getting any in your College.

    Good luck with your choice!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JustaGuy)
    Firstly, they are both UoL degrees. Whoever thinks that a 2:1 from LSE is "better" than a 2:1 from UCL or KCL or QM etc is just being a dimwit. Fact: a 2:1 from any of the London Colleges is viewed the same by employers.

    Similar argument goes for employment prospects.

    Student life is what you make of your experience at University. You will be in London, for god's sake! There is so much to do and so much to take advantage of. You don't have to confine your "student life" to within the walls of your college. Go out and grab some fun if you aren't getting any in your College.

    Good luck with your choice!
    No offence but you are wrong in both accounts.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nas7232)
    No offence but you are wrong in both accounts.
    No offence too, but a statement without any explainations to back it up is not very illuminating either. :rolleyes:

    To say so blatantly that a 2:1 from LSE is "better" than a 2:1 from UCL (or a 2:1 from Imperial is "better" than a 2:1 from KCL etc etc) is just ... dumb.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JustaGuy)
    No offence too, but a statement without any explainations to back it up is not very illuminating either. :rolleyes:

    To say so blatantly that a 2:1 from LSE is "better" than a 2:1 from UCL (or a 2:1 from Imperial is "better" than a 2:1 from KCL etc etc) is just ... dumb.
    i didn't reply because i thought someone else would explain it to you as i was busy. When you apply for a job you put down your university of which you went to. It is alot harder to get a 2:1 at lse than queens mary. LSE 2:1 in economics is worth more than a 2:1 from queens mary as stated by various employers of major firms.

    UoL doesn't make all london universities equal, and there is no point rolling your eyes and calling people dumb. Your comments are extremly wrong, if you think a 2:1 from lse is the same as a 2:1 from queens mary, you must be joking especially if the reason is that they are both from UoL. Uol they both are, but the same universities they are not.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nas7232)
    i didn't reply because i thought someone else would explain it to you as i was busy. When you apply for a job you put down your university of which you went to. It is alot harder to get a 2:1 at lse than queens mary. LSE 2:1 in economics is worth more than a 2:1 from queens mary as stated by various employers of major firms.

    UoL doesn't make all london universities equal, and there is no point rolling your eyes and calling people dumb. Your comments are extremly wrong, if you think a 2:1 from lse is the same as a 2:1 from queens mary, you must be joking especially if the reason is that they are both from UoL. Uol they both are, but the same universities they are not.
    couldn't have put it better myself, its the world renowned nature of the LSE which gives it the upper hand over any of the other UoL universities, especially in regard to economics degrees. LSE is not ranked the second best social institution in the world (The Times 2005) to be acknowledged as having the same pinache as the other UoL unis.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by N9ne)
    For Economics, I think we all agree that the same class degree (e.g. 2.1) from LSE is better than one from UCL, in terms of how it will be regarded by employers.
    Rubbish, a 2.1 from any of the top 10 unis is regarded the same by the employers. I have asked this from employers in the city and many people have confirmed this on this forums e.g. Jools, J.S. and mangomaz


    (Original post by N9ne)
    I ask though, what about employment prospects? I know that Oxbridge and LSE have very great employment prospects for graduates, but what about UCL? Maybe this is where UCL is not as good as LSE.
    Depending osn what sector u are thinking of working. Investment banks tend to prefer LSE over any other university in the UK but they recruite quiet alot from the usual suspects (ox,cam, warwick,ucl, bristol, nott and oo on..)

    One thing to point out is that you should have a look at the contents of the degrees and see which one suits you most. i tell you UCL and LSE's BSc Economics are different in many ways. e.g. At the LSE 50% of the first yr is dedicated to studying mathematical methods and Statistics....whereas in UCL u do less maths.
    Also the LSE's outside options allows u to do a wider verity of courses in Finance which maybe useful if you are thinking of following that path whereas UCL's strength is on topics such as environmental economics and so on...So i might prefer LSE's economics degree because it more mathematical but do you?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    LOL~

    I just counted 3 dumb people on this thread. Maybe more will follow, or not

    LSE 2:1 "better" than a 2:1 from a university consistently ranked in the 80-100, *perhaps* so. But "better" than a 2:1 from UCL is a no no. :rolleyes:

    "It is alot harder to get a 2:1 at lse than queens mary". LOL~
    LSE people think too highly of themselves, that's all I can say. Unless you have taken the same course at both colleges, it is this sort of sweeping statement that makes for a good laugh over a cup of coffee. None of that "I know someone at both LSE and QM" or "I have seen the papers at QM" etc kind of crap. If you have not taken the same course at both LSE and QM, you simply aren't eligible to comment. You may of course comment here all you like, no one can stop you, but I think it's just a waste of space and no one else takes any notice anyway.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JustaGuy)
    No offence too, but a statement without any explainations to back it up is not very illuminating either. :rolleyes:

    To say so blatantly that a 2:1 from LSE is "better" than a 2:1 from UCL (or a 2:1 from Imperial is "better" than a 2:1 from KCL etc etc) is just ... dumb.
    That is crap, are you just trying to reassure yourself that if you go to QMUL it will be as highly regarded as LSE, as you cannot get in? :rolleyes: LSE rarely give out 1st and even getting a 2.1 is supposed to be no easy task, which is why employers DO rate LSE Economics highly (obviously depending on the course your doing, as something like IR or Govt wouldnt be as good). I know of someone who got a job offer from Goldman Sacs after getting a 2.2 in Economics from LSE, whereas if you got the same from QM, you'd be lucky to get a job cleaning Goldman Sacs offices!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Isn't this whole "my Uni is better than yours" thing rubbish?

    Each of the named Universities are Prestigious in their own ways.

    And, each Degree is what you make of it.

    :confused:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john williams)
    That is crap, are you just trying to reassure yourself that if you go to QMUL it will be as highly regarded as LSE, as you cannot get in? :rolleyes: LSE rarely give out 1st and even getting a 2.1 is supposed to be no easy task, which is why employers DO rate LSE Economics highly (obviously depending on the course your doing, as something like IR or Govt wouldnt be as good). I know of someone who got a job offer from Goldman Sacs after getting a 2.2 in Economics from LSE, whereas if you got the same from QM, you'd be lucky to get a job cleaning Goldman Sacs offices!
    If you get a 2:1 from any of the London Colleges, you are as good as a 2:1 from LSE. If an employer choose a LSE 2:1 grad over another 2:1 London grad, it is more likely that the other grad did not have as good A level grades, or did not perform as well in the interview. That is all to it. Don't kid yourself, LSE people. Open your eyes wide :eek: and sniff... Reality

    Everyone knows that a 2:1 across UoL is the same. And perhaps you may not know this: there is a subject committee to govern over the exams standard across the UoL colleges. Who are the people who sit on the Suject Committee? Professors from across all the London Colleges ... I may not know the details of all subject committees, but I know there is at least one QM Professor who heads one of these committees ... there are probably more than one of course ...

    Current count of dumb people on this thread: 4
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JustaGuy)
    LOL~

    I just counted 3 dumb people on this thread. Maybe more will follow, or not

    LSE 2:1 "better" than a 2:1 from a university consistently ranked in the 80-100, *perhaps* so. But "better" than a 2:1 from UCL is a no no. :rolleyes:

    "It is alot harder to get a 2:1 at lse than queens mary". LOL~
    LSE people think too highly of themselves, that's all I can say. Unless you have taken the same course at both colleges, it is this sort of sweeping statement that makes for a good laugh over a cup of coffee. None of that "I know someone at both LSE and QM" or "I have seen the papers at QM" etc kind of crap. If you have not taken the same course at both LSE and QM, you simply aren't eligible to comment. You may of course comment here all you like, no one can stop you, but I think it's just a waste of space and no one else takes any notice anyway.
    lmao

    You are so dumb not me. I know people who have graduated with economics degrees at ucl,lse and someone in their final year at queens mary. All agree with me, i'll get one to post here if they have time. You are pretty funny i give you that, and calling people dumb when you are so wrong just adds to the humour
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JustaGuy)
    No offence too, but a statement without any explainations to back it up is not very illuminating either. :rolleyes:

    To say so blatantly that a 2:1 from LSE is "better" than a 2:1 from UCL (or a 2:1 from Imperial is "better" than a 2:1 from KCL etc etc) is just ... dumb.
    so you're saying a 2.1 from Goldsmiths College is equivalent to a 2.1 from LSE, UCL or Imperial? oooooooooook
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JustaGuy)
    LOL~

    I just counted 3 dumb people on this thread. Maybe more will follow, or not

    LSE 2:1 "better" than a 2:1 from a university consistently ranked in the 80-100, *perhaps* so. But "better" than a 2:1 from UCL is a no no. :rolleyes:

    "It is alot harder to get a 2:1 at lse than queens mary". LOL~
    LSE people think too highly of themselves, that's all I can say. Unless you have taken the same course at both colleges, it is this sort of sweeping statement that makes for a good laugh over a cup of coffee. None of that "I know someone at both LSE and QM" or "I have seen the papers at QM" etc kind of crap. If you have not taken the same course at both LSE and QM, you simply aren't eligible to comment. You may of course comment here all you like, no one can stop you, but I think it's just a waste of space and no one else takes any notice anyway.
    1) Its harder to get into LSE than queens
    2) Just because they're both UoL doesnt mean they're equal!!
    3) LSE, UCL and Imperial are the 3 hardest colleges to get into in the UoL
    4) Goldman Sachs do not actively recruit at QM, but they do at the top 3 UoL colleges.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nas7232)
    You are so dumb not me. I know people who have graduated with economics degrees at ucl,lse and someone in their final year at queens mary. All agree with me, i'll get one to post here if they have time. You are pretty funny i give you that, and calling people dumb when you are so wrong just adds to the humour
    It is given that people who get into LSE, UCL, Imperial *generally* have higher A level grades. And it certainly is generally more competitive to get an offer at these colleges. No one disputes that.

    And yes, the colleges are not "equal" in so many ways. Who doesn't know that?

    But we are talking about the *standard* of a 2:1 from any of the UoL colleges. As mentioned, there is the Subject Board Committee that oversees these sort of quality/standards thing. In fact, the University statue states that "Candidates granted degrees shall have attained the same academic standard irrespective of mode or place of study or examination"

    And also, that "The Council may revoked any degrees granted by the University and all privileges connected therewith, if it shall at any time be discovered and proved to the satisfaction of the Council that there was any irregularity in the events or circumstances leading to the grant of that degree"

    The fact that Goldman Sachs does not actively recruit at QM does NOT mean that the 2:1 standard at QM is not the same as at LSE, UCL etc. How hard is it to see this logic?

    It only means that Goldman Sachs is looking for people with very good A level grades *as well as* a good 2:1 or 1st degree. Given that there are many more people with very good A level grades at LSE, UCl, Imperial, is it that surprising that Goldman Sachs does not "actively recruit" at QM? It only means that it is more unlikely to find many QM 2:1 grads with good A level grades too. That is all to it. But the 2:1 standard is still the same as a 2:1 standard at LSE, UCL etc.

    When will people start to analyse a situation and think on their own feet before mouthing the same thing as the masses? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JustaGuy)
    It is given that people who get into LSE, UCL, Imperial *generally* have higher A level grades. And it certainly is generally more competitive to get an offer at these colleges. No one disputes that.

    And yes, the colleges are not "equal" in so many ways. Who doesn't know that?

    But we are talking about the *standard* of a 2:1 from any of the UoL colleges. As mentioned, there is the Subject Board Committee that oversees these sort of quality/standards thing. In fact, the University statue states that "Candidates granted degrees shall have attained the same academic standard irrespective of mode or place of study or examination"

    And also, that "The Council may revoked any degrees granted by the University and all privileges connected therewith, if it shall at any time be discovered and proved to the satisfaction of the Council that there was any irregularity in the events or circumstances leading to the grant of that degree"

    The fact that Goldman Sachs does not actively recruit at QM does NOT mean that the 2:1 standard at QM is not the same as at LSE, UCL etc. How hard is it to see this logic?

    It only means that Goldman Sachs is looking for people with very good A level grades *as well as* a good 2:1 or 1st degree. Given that there are many more people with very good A level grades at LSE, UCl, Imperial, is it that surprising that Goldman Sachs does not "actively recruit" at QM? It only means that it is more unlikely to find many QM 2:1 grads with good A level grades too. That is all to it. But the 2:1 standard is still the same as a 2:1 standard at LSE, UCL etc.

    When will people start to analyse a situation and think on their own feet before mouthing the same thing as the masses? :rolleyes:
    So *generally* a 2:1 from LSE, UCL, IC is regarded higher than one from QM?

    Lets face it, if IC, for example, is *generally* seen to recruit better students, and top employers chose them because of this, surely their degrees are more valuable.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.