Hi, this is my first time posting... so please excuse me if I make any mistakes... ><
I am starting uni next year, and I received offers from both UCL and LSE, but I am currently in a dilemma and do not know which one should be my first choice...
I am applying for Undergraduate History and researched quite a bit on both of the universties. For the 2010 QS School Ranking, UCL is ranked 4th overall, but 25th in social sciences. LSE is ranked 80th overall, but 4th for social sciences. My councilor is encouraging me to pick LSE, because it is ranked higher for social sciences, but my family is asking me to consider UCL, since it is ranked higher overall.
From the reviews I have the impression that LSE is more prestigeous and has a nicer library (can someone please confirm that LSE does have a better library? Since I think a good library matters a lot...) whereas UCL has a nicer atmosphere. I've also heard that LSE focuses primarly on the post-graduates rather than the undergraduates. Furthermore, some people also said that LSE has nicer facilities overall because they have more money.
Cound anyone studying at either UCL or LSE enlighten me with their thoughts? (Of course, advice from others are definitely welcomed as well! )
Some other information:
LSE's offer is 37 points overall (I'm taking the IB program), with 6 in both HL English and HL History. Whereas UCL's offer is 34, with 5 in both HL English and HL History.
Although I do like history, I am not sure that I want to pursue history as a career. Therefore a school that is not as focused, but instead can provide me with opportunities to try various things, would be a better choice.
Turn on thread page Beta
UCL or LSE for Undergraduate History? watch
- Thread Starter
Last edited by scorpio16x; 04-04-2011 at 09:25.
- 02-04-2011 16:33