Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    I heard it's really really boring.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Overmars)
    Oh.

    I'll just.. :getmecoat:
    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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    university of buckingham.
    Good point.

    Let me rephrase that:

    Tell me a uni worth going to you haven't heard negative things about.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No university is perfect and they will all have negative points, some more than others.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigFudamental)
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daniel Cooper)
    Given that Erik Ringmar was forced out after making negative remarks about lse teaching im not surprised!
    no offense dude, but dont talk about things you know nothing about, if you base your entire view on one LSE academic and dont even study there.

    also, you obviously dont know what my post means, so you really are not in a position to argue.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Overmars)
    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?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ssshh! Dont put a downer on it, i just got accepted. chill people. Every uni has strengths and weaknessess, your'e only disecting LSE becuase it has such a strong rep, and with that comes considerable accountability. You think theres poor teaching quality there, ok dont apply if your'e not an independant learner,
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Overmars)
    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.
    ah i see what you mean.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigFudamental)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ziroic)
    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?
    right. people who say differently are either lying or communists.

    the teaching blows, so the **** what? the library is absolutely without peer. if you enjoy your subject and don't mind doing a lot of reading then you will grow and thrive, if you are indifferent about your subject and need to be motivated by highly-competitive peers then you probably won't like it here as there aren't many of them. teaching is 90% reading 10% class. granted i'm not an econ student so that's probably the opposite in terms of cutthroatness from my major, but still...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bobby_Zz)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Overmars)
    Genius sig.

    CYE :adore:
    Agreed!
    :eek3:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigFudamental)
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigFudamental)
    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.
    so, tell us more about incompetent LSE teachers. i would genuinely like to know.

    who are they incompetent compared to? i mean that is still a relative thing isnt it? who are you judging them against? or is it that you just dont understand the material and can't follow and they cant explain it to you? do they not put in enough effort?

    what are the things that make them incompetent?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Overmars)
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigFudamental)
    "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.
    no its not. but imagine if LSE had 5% less spoon-fed private schoolers who were replaced by people used to independent work and all of a sudden voted they are satisfied hence LSE's satisfaction rising to average.

    no one is saying LSE has as good teaching as oxrbidge at undergrad. but i am in my second year and I only ever had 2 teachers that were bad. thats 2 out of 9 (half unit changed teacher so 9 not 8). should one expect all teachers to be excellent or rather not bad? i also had at least 2 that i think were excellent. and some more who made the class funny, or at least know their stuff and can teach it even if they lack somethign that makes you go "yea i really like this dude".

    also LSE is aware of this problem and is trying to improve teaching, so on a forum where prospective students wont be joining for a year or 2 (by which time it should have improved teaching) i dont see its fair to represent such a biased view. my view is biased simply because it has to be to provide contrast/counter argument.

    (and yes i do maths and stats related modules the 2 departments where teachers are criticised the most as far as im aware).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigFudamental)
    "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.
    Well, I think most are in agreement there.


    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.
    The 'resistance' is because you seemed to say poor teaching implies academically crap university, which is just silly. Surely factors like quality of research would be better indicators.

    'Good teaching = spoon-feeding' wasn't really the point I was making. I'm saying that if you're able to do well with poor teaching, that'll generally signal you're a higher calibre student. Why? Because if you're able to perform to the same level being relatively disadvantaged, you can't be any worse off by the end of it. But you seemed to laugh off the idea that it could be an advantage, so I'm curious to know what's so wrong with my line of thinking.

    And with teaching, I don't think it's great but, as I've said, I think it's quite hit-and-miss...maybe I've been lucky. One thing's for sure we are in complete agreement with the lack of contact time and the no. of grad TA's. I don't take much notice with the complaints from fellow LSE students...those that do well usually don't have many complaints, and those that don't might need someone to blame (obviously there would be exceptions...)
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

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.