Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why would I choose UCL rather than LSE for straight economics?

    Same city, similar course but one has more prestige and therefore better international employability. I live in London and therefore wont be spending much of my time at the actual uni and wont necessarily have to make lots of friends at LSE (some would help) since I already know lots of people in London who will go to ICL, UCl, KCL etc. So this clearly means my decision making process for decision is different from those that are international and are from differnet parts of the country.

    *Assuming I get rejected by Cambridge - quite likely
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No reason... go to LSE...

    (my opinion only...since i got rejected... I am so not bitter!)
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Both UCL and LSE got 5*A in the research assessment, but UCL is one position higher than LSE in the tables. Having said that, LSE's entry requirements are higher though and it boasts an 85% graduate prospect compared to UCL's poor 70%.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Rofl)
    Both UCL and LSE got 5*A in the research assessment, but UCL is one position higher than LSE in the tables. Having said that, LSE's entry requirements are higher though and it boasts an 85% graduate prospect compared to UCL's poor 70%.
    If only you knew how those employability tables are drawn up

    What UCL has over LSE is that it is more fun and more diverse. Size is opportunity. But then, LSE's reputation is an opportunity too (the power of marketing).

    You get a better student life in terms of meeting different people, going out more and trying different things over the course of a degree (if you are keen on doing things outside of social and political science).

    You might like the people at UCL more than the people at LSE but if you have limited plans on associating, contributing and doing the student life - LSE will probably suit you better (the culture is closer to that over there).

    --------------

    Actually, my position is just ignore league tables as much as possible. They're all terrible at being precise. They make it clear that the top 20 unis are better than the bottom 20 but they are bad at clearly distinguishing between number 1 and 2 etc.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    In short, whether you're at UCL or LSE to do L100 doesn't matter, because if you're really good at what you do, you will end up where you want to be, in terms of employability.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by N9ne)
    In short, whether you're at UCL or LSE to do L100 doesn't matter, because if you're really good at what you do, you will end up where you want to be, in terms of employability.
    Exactly.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Oh here we go again...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by President_Ben)
    What UCL has over LSE is that it is more fun and more diverse.

    You get a better student life in terms of meeting different people, going out more and trying different things over the course of a degree

    You might like the people at UCL more than the people at LSE
    How can you make these sort of sweeping assertions? Seriously, just take a look at what you've written:

    "UCL is more fun and diverse", "You get a better student life [at UCL]", "You might like the people at UCL more than LSE".

    *Sigh*
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    ghost101, if i were you i would pick lse without a doubt simply because it has such an awesome reputation (not that UCL's is bad or anything). All this stuff about poor social life is a bit over exaggerated - you are going to be in London and if you want to have fun, you can have fun.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, ghost101 do what's best for you.. LSE does have the edge over UCL, the saying goes "a university is what you make of it".. very true and interesting analogy
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Xanthe)
    How can you make these sort of sweeping assertions? Seriously, just take a look at what you've written:

    "UCL is more fun and diverse", "You get a better student life [at UCL]", "You might like the people at UCL more than LSE".

    *Sigh*
    I wouldn't say they were assertions

    I'd say they are the opinions of students at UCL and LSE.

    LSE is great for that focused interest on social sciences (and careerism).

    Size and diversity of study does make for diversity and fun, opportunities and what combines to be the student life.

    You definitely find the 'right people' you are comfortable and agitators to make you think while at UCL. It massively crosses the political spectrum, lifestyle spectrum and many others.

    How many student societies have been actively investigated by MI5 for terrorism?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not sure about the "You might like UCL people over LSE people" comment. I attended a UCL Summer School where I had the opportunity to live the life of a UCL undergraduate. I met lots of real UCL students there obviously. What struck me was the very high proportion of white, middle class, independant school educated toffs. There were hardly any ethnic minorities. In other words the student population was fairly homogonous. LSE on the other hand (when I did the LSE Student Shodowing Scheme, very similar to the UCL Summer school) had a remarkable cosmopolitan atmosphere. Nearly every student I met was from abroad- New York, Norway or France; there were British students there too. The atmosphere was very different from UCL, you'd have to experience it for yourself, words can't describe it. In short, I found the LSE to be fun, vibrant, cosmopolitan and UCL dry, dull and boring. This is just my view based on my experiences.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    s'all a matter of opinion.. so just chill.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Xanthe)
    I'm not sure about the "You might like UCL people over LSE people" comment. I attended a UCL Summer School where I had the opportunity to live the life of a UCL undergraduate. I met lots of real UCL students there obviously. What struck me was the very high proportion of white, middle class, independant school educated toffs. There were hardly any ethnic minorities. In other words the student population was fairly homogonous. LSE on the other hand (when I did the LSE Student Shodowing Scheme, very similar to the UCL Summer school) had a remarkable cosmopolitan atmosphere. Nearly every student I met was from abroad- New York, Norway or France; there were British students there too. The atmosphere was very different from UCL, you'd have to experience it for yourself, words can't describe it. In short, I found the LSE to be fun, vibrant, cosmopolitan and UCL dry, dull and boring. This is just my view based on my experiences.
    Fair enough.

    My course, Economics, is over 35% international fee status students and a lot of the domestic students are from ethinic minorities.

    The times I've been to LSE haven't been fun as such. They've been an experience, educational, different but not fun.

    Neither uni is cosmopolitan like the rest of London is.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    lse is more prestigious for economics, go there
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by N9ne)
    In short, whether you're at UCL or LSE to do L100 doesn't matter, because if you're really good at what you do, you will end up where you want to be, in terms of employability.
    Unfortunately, this is not true. LSE has created a brand which makes it easier for their students to get jobs with IB's. This is not to say an LSE L101 student will get the job over a UCL guy, but that the LSE guy, ceteris paribus, stands a better chance to get interviewed. Remember, getting an interview with someone like Goldman Sachs is a task in itself (100:1 applications is certain departments!!!).
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_$_Factory)
    Unfortunately, this is not true. LSE has created a brand which makes it easier for their students to get jobs with IB's. This is not to say an LSE L101 student will get the job over a UCL guy, but that the LSE guy, ceteris paribus, stands a better chance to get interviewed. Remember, getting an interview with someone like Goldman Sachs is a task in itself (100:1 applications is certain departments!!!).
    True, and I'm not saying they're equal. I'm just saying that as an individual, if someone is very good at what they do, going to UCL instead of LSE won't disadvantage them greatly - yes, they will have to work harder at getting there, but going to LSE doesn't guarantee anything, and going to UCL doesn't mean you haven't got a chance. So really, it is definitely down to personal preference - it depends how easy you want entry (I'd assume most want it very easy!) to investment banks. Then it comes down to the student body, location, teaching, etc.

    Since it's relatively easier to get into a top IB from LSE than UCL, this as a factor tends to be stronger than the social advantages of UCL. That's probably why most choose LSE over UCL - something I'd probably do too.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by The_$_Factory)
    Unfortunately, this is not true. LSE has created a brand which makes it easier for their students to get jobs with IB's. This is not to say an LSE L101 student will get the job over a UCL guy, but that the LSE guy, ceteris paribus, stands a better chance to get interviewed. Remember, getting an interview with someone like Goldman Sachs is a task in itself (100:1 applications is certain departments!!!).
    But it won't be ceteris paribus. That's the thing. Your uni life will change dramatically by being at UCL compared to LSE.*

    I'd say Ros is nicer than Rachel anyway (and if you know the HR at GS, you know what I mean )


    edit: few other things, it can be as rough as 300 applications per place (though this is likely in the immediate future as the finance world is currently having a good time)


    *UCL students really do find ways to keep themselves occupied and develop skills and personality very easily because the Student Union is just that much larger and more active. More sport, more theatre, more music... sure, the Union (like all Unions) is loaded with problems but I won't fault them on the fact that opportunity is there to develop.

    Employability isn't everything - especially since both are very good at it. But no one will deny LSE has an edge (except Phonicsdude, but he's often a comedic moron ).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Is it true that more ppl at ucl get 1sts and 2.1s than ppl at lse. i heard that ther quite a few more ppl at lse gettin 2.2s. Does that mean the degree course at lse is harder and harder to get 1sts and 2.1s in. lf so how would a person with a 2.1 from ucl compare with a person with 2.2 from lse wen it comes to IB etc.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evapatel)
    Is it true that more ppl at ucl get 1sts and 2.1s than ppl at lse. i heard that ther quite a few more ppl at lse gettin 2.2s. Does that mean the degree course at lse is harder and harder to get 1sts and 2.1s in. lf so how would a person with a 2.1 from ucl compare with a person with 2.2 from lse wen it comes to IB etc.
    Well the top IBs will be looking for 1sts and 2.1s from either university - but they'll favour a 2.1 from LSE than a 2.1 from UCL
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

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.