This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Things I wish I'd known about LSE before applying!

I am a current student at the LSE. Disclaimer: My view is probably biased. But I don’t doubt that many LSEians share exactly the same views.

Good points about LSE
- You have all kinds of high profile speakers coming to our school to give talks. Amartya Sen is coming this Oct, and previously we've had Bill Clinton, Kofi Annan etc. But then again these talks are open to the public, so you don't technically have to be an LSE to enjoy this advantage.
- The number of societies we have, by far beats UCL/Kings etc. There're tons of Business/finance/corporate/consultancy types for those wannabe-investment bankers. We even have a Hedge Funds society -_- So if your goal after graduation is to work for the corporate world, then these societies will definitely give you an edge in terms of internships, networking, talks, workshops etc. That said, we have a million other societies for people with any kind of interest or career interest.
- You get to share a classroom with brilliant minds - everyone in the LSE had excellent academic records (well duh), and this environment will force you to push yourself to strive for the best (or feel stupid alot of the time)
- You will have the chance to meet people from all areas of the globe. I took up the Arabic language in my first year, and I distinctly remember that on my first lesson, we were told to introduce ourselves. Everyone in my class, all 20 of us, were from a different country.

The not so good points:
- People studying humanities only have 8 hours a week of lectures. EIGHT. 99% of the learning is done through reading the materials from the library or moodle. Most people agree that you wouldn't miss out on anything if you skip all lectures/classes. I had Friday off last year, and I've had friends who only had classes/lectures on Mondays and Tuesdays, meaning they had a 2-day week. This was a huge culture shock for me, as I was used to spending all day in school at Sixth Form, and having teachers tell me exactly what to study. So you've got to be really self-motivated and LOVE independent study to like LSE. I personally feel lost and alone most of the time. The lack of contact also leads to the next problem.
- You only see your classmates once a week for one hour. Unless you're extremely sociable (which I'm not, explaining why all my friends are from halls), it's likely your friendships formed through classes won't run deeper than the coffee-after-class. I can't forsee any of my friends and I remaining in contact after we graduate.
- A typical day of school for most of us: Go for an hour of class, then head to the library to do readings, go for another hour of lectures, attend home to our separate lives and separate friends. It's definitely NOT a loving studenty community. I guess the only word to describe the atmosphere is corporate.
- Of course, you can join societies. But unless you're in the executive committee, the only 'participation' you have in the societies are the spam emails and newsletters they send you about attending event X. If you participate in a society half-heartedly, it's not easy to break into the clics already formed by the committee members. If you want to be really popular and have a great social life with LSEians, join a sports clubs to get into the Athletics Union.
- Some teachers really suck. I've had teachers coming to class without any material prepared and just sat there half-listening to our debates.
- It's not a myth that people stick to their own nationalities. You hear so many other languages spoken in school other than English. Even the Chinese don't mix with the Hong Kongers. I guess it's just a natural tendency to seek refuge with people you are familiar with when one is in a foreign country.
- 100% of assessment comes from our end-of-year final exams (this varies from dept to dept, but in general we're assessed largely by the final exams). This leads to a slacked off term 1 and term 2, then a crazy rush to catch up during Easter.
- Everything in LSE is competitive. Not just the classes, but even societies and sports clubs. I signed up for recreational activities (which I was told would just be 'for fun') like Kickboxing and Ultimate Frisbee, and if you're not good at it, you might as well not join. Everyone is vying for spots in the Executive Committee, with the sole reason to boost their CV.
- Instead of meeting inspiring minds and interesting people, I've only met Investment bankers. Everyone seems to have a one-track mind: get a first class >> internships in christmas >> internships in summer >> attend career networking sessions >> work in an Goldman Sachs upon graduation. Be prepared to suffer under immense pressure over the dreaded internships, because ‘everyone else is doing one’ and you’d feel like you’re left at the bottom of the waiting list for jobs if you don’t secure one.
- Too many postgrads. More postgrads than undergrads. Sure, you can learn a lot from having postgrad friends, but they’re here to boost their career prospects, and no one will assert that they’re the most interesting people in the world. My kickboxing class, Arabic class, volleyball, development society, were 90% postgrads.
- the student union is highly politicized and most people don’t give a f about them.
- we recently dropped to 80th in the world, while UCL is 4th

All in all, LSE is NOT a fun place to be. It's a place for people who want a degree from a prestigious university and be able to plunge into the world of work with an excellent CV. Don’t get me wrong, I am having the time of my life in London, but LSE is not at all the source of it. Our student feedback review has traditionally been much worse than other universities. Let’s just say that there’s a reason why LSE’s having problems getting funds from their alumni. People who’ve graduated don’t really look back and reminisce about the time they spent at the LSE.

Freshers, apply at your own risk. The only reason why I'm still here and not at SOAS is the prestige of the LSE (I have NO idea where the prestige stems from by the way, I personally don't see any merit in my education here)

Sorry for the length, I had no idea I had so much to say (rant) :eek3:

(edited 15 years ago)

Reply 120

unknown demon

15

rogercoger

I agree. A sorry state of affairs.

The real problem I have with alot of people at LSE is the sense of entitlement that they are better than the rest of the world because they could (potentially) end up in high salaried jobs.

BUT.

My main issue is that the school does nothing to get kids from lower down the class ladder into LSE.

Reply 121

amenhotep

1

unknown demon

...

My main issue is that the school does nothing to get kids from lower down the class ladder into LSE.

What can it really do, as a university?

They have a lot of bursaries and scholarships and it's not any more expensive than any other university for domestic students (yes, it's central London, but grants and loans are larger). Some are for less privilged applicants, but generally, it's the person who made the endowment or whatever that decides. And people in general need to gift the school with funds for such scholarships (maybe because they were once deprived too).

(Assuing you're a domestic student) Like all universities, they make offers based on your grades, personal statement and references. It's not like they ask you for your income or the make of your dad's car.
Their entry standards are high but not impossible, by any means. Like any comparable university. Perhaps mentioning the how poor your your college/sixth form is (not explicitly) on your reference would actually help get an offer with lower requirements.
I'm sure people have been rejected by less 'prestigious' universities, but have had offers from LSE.

Maybe people from lower down the class ladder don't apply (not true), or apply in great numbers. How many such students are there in the UK, who will meet entry requirements? Proportionally, how do they compare to middle class applicants?

What more could the university (not the government) do? Offer spending money to working class students so they don't feel left out when other people shop at Harrods? I'm sure there are middle class applicants who will be on very tight budgets that have felt a little put off by some of the anecdotes on this thread, about rich students. That's life.

Maybe a place at LSE is not the cultural achievement that a place at Oxbridge is, not only for parents and family, but colleges too. There must be many colleges and sixth forms where interested students are groomed for Oxbridge applications - they had such schemes in all of the sixth forms/colleges in my area, even the 'poor' ones. It is a case of turning up to the sessions, taking tips, getting advice and being guided through applications, before November - even if its unlikely that you will succeed... this leads to the following paragraph. If you planned to apply to read Law at LSE as your top but perhaps not most likely sucessful choice, you would not be groomed. Maybe your personal staement would be checked over, and you'd get a nice reference.

We (on TSR) know that some courses at LSE or Imperial or King's are perhaps more competitive than some courses at Oxbridge, but it's only a student who will be studyng at the latter will be featured in a college/sixth form prospectus.

What would you suggest they did?

Reply 122

danny111

3

^^ good point. at my school, those doing medicine (and like dentistry and veterenary i think) and/or applying to oxbridge got extra attention for writing reference and application. imperial and lse applicants didn although many that applied to the latter also applied to oxbridge.

Reply 123

amenhotep

1

unknown demon

In terms of the undergrads, the majority, even if they are U.K educated will tend to come from private schools because LSE demands you have the top grades and no interview occur because of the sheer numbers applying so you need to be great on paper or the likelihood of an offer is very slim. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that most people at LSE are pretty affluent

rogercoger

I agree. A sorry state of affairs.

Wouldn't privately educated students be at an advantage in interviews as well? I don't mean that they're superior creatures, but the whole preparation, advice and grooming thing.

Your conclusion doesn't seem very sound. Paper = grades, personal statement, reference. How does this relate to likely affluence?

Perhaps a more affluent applicant would be able to undertake some work experience at a course-related establishment instead of paying their way through college with a part-time job at a restuarant, but that's not worth a great deal on an application, since most (undergraduate) applicants are only 17.
The other 'impressive' extra-curriculars like debating and whatnot are free and during school hours, mostly.

Universities treat applications on a case by case basis, but it's also worth noting that UCAS, on your application itself, ask if you're the first of your family to continue to HE, whether you're parents have degrees, etc. - widening particiption and all that.
Maybe it actually helps, once you are in a position to apply, that you are from a poor household with no history in HE. Maybe it has no bearing whatsoever. The only hard evidence of it having an impact, is the supposed Edinburgh points system, where the above would give you +1.

I have no idea about the state/private school proporions, in applications and in students themselves. I expect that it would be tricky because of the number of international students - if you omitted them, there wouldn't be a great number of home students left, maybe not enough for fair reults.

Reply 124

amenhotep

1

danny111

^^ good point. at my school, those doing medicine (and like dentistry and veterenary i think) and/or applying to oxbridge got extra attention for writing reference and application. imperial and lse applicants didn although many that applied to the latter also applied to oxbridge.

I thought just that when I was writing, but it was long and complicated already - the whole November application thing.

I remember speaking to one girl on results day, when we saw the lecturer/teacher who organised the above. She didn't do as well as hoped, and had gone from considering Oxbridge and visiting Oxford, hoping for Durham, to UCLAN.

------
I've never had my own birthday cake.

Reply 125

TheRenaissanceMan

9

amenhotep

Your conclusion doesn't seem very sound. Paper = grades, personal statement, reference. How does this relate to likely affluence?

Not being able to see the correlation between University entrance and affluence is a big insult to ignorance.

Reply 126

amenhotep

1

TheRenaissanceMan

Not being able to see the correlation between University entrance and affluence is a big insult to ignorance.

And you are an insult to hacks. I meant just the being good on paper part (see the related posts). There isn't a great deal money can do for the application - your reference is out of your hands, your personal statement relates mostly to your course and not to how much money you have (but internships...), and grade requirements are universal (although private sixth froms/schools generally do better, or a greater proportion of their students anyway).

Reply 127

Tallon

16

amenhotep

What can it really do, as a university?

Maybe a place at LSE is not the cultural achievement that a place at Oxbridge is, not only for parents and family, but colleges too. There must be many colleges and sixth forms where interested students are groomed for Oxbridge applications - they had such schemes in all of the sixth forms/colleges in my area, even the 'poor' ones. It is a case of turning up to the sessions, taking tips, getting advice and being guided through applications, before November - even if its unlikely that you will succeed... this leads to the following paragraph. If you planned to apply to read Law at LSE as your top but perhaps not most likely sucessful choice, you would not be groomed. Maybe your personal staement would be checked over, and you'd get a nice reference.

True. I think all colleges and sixth forms help you a lot more if they hear the word Oxford, Cambridge (or medicine?) mentioned. But obviously the richer schools have more facilities and ability to help you prepare so it's not all that fair. All I got at my sixth form was for my PS to be proof read a little earlier than others. Whereas some schools no doubt have past papers, mock interviews, etc, etc.

amenhotep

What can it really do, as a university?
What would you suggest they did?

I know Cambridge have a points score system whereby you get more points on your application if your school's GCSE point average per student is below average, or something like that. But with LSE that would be impossible because of the amount of different applications coming from so many different places. Not a lot they can do, is there?

Reply 128

rogercoger

amenhotep

And you are an insult to hacks. I meant just the being good on paper part (see the related posts). There isn't a great deal money can do for the application - your reference is out of your hands, your personal statement relates mostly to your course and not to how much money you have (but internships...), and grade requirements are universal (although private sixth froms/schools generally do better, or a greater proportion of their students anyway).

I'm fairly sure LSE consider applicants based solely on academic merit, especially for non-vocational courses, and the strength of their personal statement. Having been to a normal state-school and sixth form college myself I know plenty of able people who, because of circumstance, failed to fulfil their potential academically in secondary education. These were bright kids who could have done better on an LSE degree than many privately educated kids I've met at LSE who can barely think or do anything for themselves, and will likely remain at the bottom of a 2.1 for the entirety of their degree.

Reply 129

danny111

3

amenhotep

And you are an insult to hacks. I meant just the being good on paper part (see the related posts). There isn't a great deal money can do for the application - your reference is out of your hands, your personal statement relates mostly to your course and not to how much money you have (but internships...), and grade requirements are universal (although private sixth froms/schools generally do better, or a greater proportion of their students anyway).

Except money can get you into better schools meaning you are more likely to get a better reference and help on PS.

Reply 130

TheRenaissanceMan

9

amenhotep

And you are an insult to hacks. I meant just the being good on paper part (see the related posts). There isn't a great deal money can do for the application - your reference is out of your hands, your personal statement relates mostly to your course and not to how much money you have (but internships...), and grade requirements are universal (although private sixth froms/schools generally do better, or a greater proportion of their students anyway).

Edit:

Went a bit too off tangent previously, but in a private school your teachers would have gone to better schools and thus your personal statement and reference will be more congruent and thus more effective.

With regards to the LSE, I am sure all universities require independent study non?

Reply 131

hunty91

12

This thread is hilarious. I don't know what's funnier: the bitter LSE graduates/current students who blame their lack of friends on the university instead of their sub-par social skills, or the equally bitter LSE rejects who apparently don't see the value in going to Warwick/Durham etc and have to justify themselves to everybody.

Anyway, why is having to work independently a bad point? It's one of the reasons I applied in the first place.

There are clearly people at the LSE who enjoy having a good time, if you're so arrogant that you think that friends will just flock to you it's your own fault you're not having a good time.

And, most importantly, what did you expect from a world-class university? People come from all over the world and pay £13k a year to get a prestigious degree, not to get hammered and waste three years of their life. There's London Met for that.

I, for one, am ridiculously excited about finally starting at LSE, and I know that every person in my position feels the same, whether they care about a social life or not.

Reply 132

Woolcott

hunty91

This thread is hilarious. I don't know what's funnier: the bitter LSE graduates/current students who blame their lack of friends on the university instead of their sub-par social skills, or the equally bitter LSE rejects who apparently don't see the value in going to Warwick/Durham etc and have to justify themselves to everybody.

Anyway, why is having to work independently a bad point? It's one of the reasons I applied in the first place.

There are clearly people at the LSE who enjoy having a good time, if you're so arrogant that you think that friends will just flock to you it's your own fault you're not having a good time.

And, most importantly, what did you expect from a world-class university? People come from all over the world and pay £13k a year to get a prestigious degree, not to get hammered and waste three years of their life. There's London Met for that.

I, for one, am ridiculously excited about finally starting at LSE, and I know that every person in my position feels the same, whether they care about a social life or not.

Here, here!

Reply 133

grenneh

Oh joy, what a lovely thread to read 3 days before I start there.

Reply 134

goldsilvy

17

grenneh

Oh joy, what a lovely thread to read 3 days before I start there.

Did you read something you didn't know beforehand?

Reply 135

amenhotep

1

danny111

Except money can get you into better schools meaning you are more likely to get a better reference and help on PS.

You can do that on TSR (PS) - not sure about reference, but someone who knows which boxes to tick would be more likely to be found at a private or better school.

Reply 136

amenhotep

1

TheRenaissanceMan

Very interesting point dude. Just mentioning this because I enjoy talking about the education system. But, I think it's important that everybody realises the social divides. I really love the fact that most of the people of the Oxbridge and LSE forums always are able to respond and articulate their points of view in the fullest manner.

If anyone wants to read my interesting post which is slightly off tangent, here you go:

"There isn't a great deal money can do for the application". False Statement.

Going to a private school where your teachers went to Cambridge, Bristol, Warwick etc, will give you an edge over students who go to a state school where their teachers just have qualifications to be teachers.

When you write your personal statement they will know what you should disregard and what you should not. Personally that is why I use this forum, it's due to the fact there are people that have more experience than me who have the ability, and have the knowledge to advise others who may not have been told that one extra thing that will effect their ENTIRE application i.e. being a straight A/A* student and not knowing whether you should emphasise your on the Rugby team, or you Row or what not.

In a capitalist state money is the means of not just buying certain objects, but it is also a means of buying a life style. And when your a parent, that system will be imposed on your child. In effect you are buying your child's position in university. If that is not how it worked, there would be far less parents paying £30,000 a year for school fees.

The quicker state school students realise how the system works, the smaller the social gap will become. I believe that technology and in particular the internet is the reason for why more state schools are entering top Universities than in the known history of Britain.

I can safely say that without the Student Room, there would not be as many students that went to Oxbridge or LSE from stateschool.

Interesting chat.

If someone had written everything I did and taken that side of the argument, I probably would have responded as you have.
It definitely occurred to me that Oxbridge (or 'similar') grads would be very unlikely to teach at all but the best state schools and sixth forms. There's been some talk about such graduates teaching at deprived inner city schools, and there was the minister who said something along the lines of an Oxford grad being a better candidate for teaching than someone from a lesser university with a PGCE...
Cultural capital. "They go to art galleries on a Sunday afternoon. Some of us watch the Eastenders omnibus."
This takes me back to sociology.

All your points make sense.

I disagreed to an extent with the money thing - it's going to be more difficult, especially if you aren't able to buy an almost guaranteed good education and suitable preparation, but I think (and I may well be wrong) that too much is made of money, or a lack of it.
The point about TSR and the internet in general is also a good one - you can find good advice easily and for free. But there is a lost of 'advice' out there, and it can be contradictory. Nothing beats personally tailored advice though, and that's what isn't so easy to find, at least to a good level.

There was also something on the BBC website and some of the papers about bursaries failing to attract poorer student to top universities.
Culture and reputation are perhaps more important than people might think - if a student is more likely to go to a new, more informal university (what can I call them without being patronising or insulting?), even though it will cost exactly the same as a much better one, that's a crying shame. But if that is the case, going back to where I started, what more can the universities really do?
All prospectuses contain people of every background, but a few words from someone who 'knows' can have much more of an impact. On TSR for example, I've seen people say that they won't consider, or view as less favourable, a good university like Durham, because of rahs. An intelligent working class student would either excel and dream of Oxbridge, or would just dismiss themselves as not being the type. Likewise LSE etc.