The Student Room Group

whats so good about LSE?

is LSE really that great?
i got an offer for philosophy, and I am a really bad student.
i know people who got offers for other subjects like economics + government, account+ finance who are really average students too. (worse than me, really)

so why does LSE have this reputation for being so "good"? and is it true that most students are from asia? I am from japan. is that why they accepted me? :eek:

I just want to know, because your opinions might affect my decision to study at LSE.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Hi,

In the first instance I don't believe you. LSE would never give an offer to a 'bad' student as you may call it.
Getting in requires the student to be above average. If the program is large, say in excess of 100, then maybe an average student can get in. However, there are only about three to four programs and those too are taught masters that take in numbers in excess of 100. So, I simply cannot accept your views.
Entry in to LSE, was tough, and still is. I don't see it changing in the foreseeable future.

PLease do not use this forum to degrade any institution which ever it may be.

Regarding the point ... whether it is truly great..
well the great majority of students miss it once they leave the university.
And ofcourse enjoy every minute of the time they spend there. It's a truly remarkable place, in terms of research, experts witihin the faculty, diverse student body, and most of all like minded students... if I may use the term , and ofcourse incomparable facilities.
Reply 2
And to your question concerning foreign/international students... I'd like to clarify a point.
Why not universities in UK charge the same fee from both local and foreign students, and take them in based on a standard exam?

It's a bit boring to hear everyone say that foreign students have an edge over their counterparts in the western world when applying to unis in the west.
The question I'd like to pose is....
Aren't those who administer the selection process senior university academics? So, why would they choose foreign students or give them priority? And if this does happen, should not the british government intervene?
candystrippa
is LSE really that great? i got an offer for philosophy, and I am a really bad student.


In one word: YES, the LSE is very good. If I had wanted to do Economics, I would have gone to the LSE instead of Oxford. Perhaps the educational standards are higher in the schools in Japan. We have pretty bad schools here in the UK.

To place it in context Tokyo and Kyoto University are considered to be slightly inferior to the LSE in one set of league tables. The LSE is 11th, Tokyo is 16th and Kyoto is 31st in the world.
Reply 4
gizmoleeds
Because doing this would require one of either two things:

Increasing the amount UK students pay (ie. stopping subsudising them): no government would do this as it would cause outrage from voters. People are mad enough by the new £3,000 maximum - any higher would be too electorally damaging.

Reducing the amount foreign students pay: as foreign students pay an amount which actually represents the true cost of their education, reducing this would require government subsidy - which would cost a huge amount of British taxpayers' money without benefitting anyone except foreigners who are mostly ineligible to vote.


good post
Reply 5
gizmoleeds
Because doing this would require one of either two things:

Increasing the amount UK students pay (ie. stopping subsudising them): no government would do this as it would cause outrage from voters. People are mad enough by the new £3,000 maximum - any higher would be too electorally damaging.

Reducing the amount foreign students pay: as foreign students pay an amount which actually represents the true cost of their education, reducing this would require government subsidy - which would cost a huge amount of British taxpayers' money without benefitting anyone except foreigners who are mostly ineligible to vote.



Stop blaming the international students for everything bad then.
Reply 6
I don't think they're blaming international students per se.

Having a different price scheme for local and international candidates makes perfect sense both from a business and political point of view.

Let's face it, if a certain student's going to apply to an overseas university and leave his family and friends, he/she damn well wants to be in a top notch university. If he's going to leave his comfort zone, his familiar environment, his beloved family and friends etc just for an amazing academic experience at a top university, paying a high university fee seems like a small sacrifice. Demand doesn't really vary with price when you're talking about top universities like Oxbridge, LSE, and Ivy League unis. It's just smart price discrimination here. Someone's gotta cover the cost, so why not the international students who're prepared to pay?

Politically, the governments always try to pleace the electorate. They encourage tertiary education amongst the population and a very good way to do that would be to have low university fees. The locals also will acknowledge the fact that they are an 'exclusive' group (compared to internationals) by paying lower fees. They're happy, and inevitably so is the government.

I hope what I said made sense. :biggrin:
Reply 7
I think LSE's main rep is for pure economics (AAA offers) and things like IR (one of the first unis in the country to start the course)...

As you said, for philosophy there are better unis out there...(anyway i thought LSE's philosophy is Money money money?) :wink:
Traum
I think LSE's main rep is for pure economics (AAA offers) and things like IR (one of the first unis in the country to start the course)...

As you said, for philosophy there are better unis out there...(anyway i thought LSE's philosophy is Money money money?) :wink:


Do you know anything about philosophy? Or law, history, politics? If not, why comment on subjects you know nothing about?

LSE is very prestigious for philosophy. Only Oxbridge has a better reputation for philosophy.
Reply 9
its not really THAT good except for a few subjects tbh
Reply 10
Researcher Lond
Do you know anything about philosophy? Or law, history, politics? If not, why comment on subjects you know nothing about?

LSE is very prestigious for philosophy. Only Oxbridge has a better reputation for philosophy.

...

I didn't comment on law, history, politics... (n yes, i know about pure economics n IR, sorry to sound arrogant...but since i applied to L101 n researched alot on IR (wanted to apply))

n like you said there ARE better uni's out there for philosophy... namely oxbridge...
superalex16
its not really THAT good except for a few subjects tbh


So its not really good for law?
So its not really good for politics?
So its not really good for sociology?
So its not really good for philosophy?
So its not really good for history?
Reply 12
candystrippa
is LSE really that great?
i got an offer for philosophy, and I am a really bad student.
i know people who got offers for other subjects like economics + government, account+ finance who are really average students too. (worse than me, really)

so why does LSE have this reputation for being so "good"? and is it true that most students are from asia? I am from japan. is that why they accepted me? :eek:

I just want to know, because your opinions might affect my decision to study at LSE.


I am an international student from Hong kong and I am considered as a good student in Hong Kong with 6As in the HKCEE. I enrolled to the Government and Economics course in 2004 with AAAAa and Distinction in AEA Economics. Hence, I do not consider myself as an average student. I would be very grateful if you could give me the reasons why you consider yourself as a "bad student".
Reply 13
how do you know they're not included in the "few subjects"...
Traum
...

I didn't comment on law, history, politics... (n yes, i know about pure economics n IR, sorry to sound arrogant...but since i applied to L101 n researched alot on IR (wanted to apply))

n like you said there ARE better uni's out there for philosophy... namely oxbridge...


To say "there are better uni's out there for philosophy" implies that there are several non-Oxbridge universities "better" at philosophy than LSE, which isn't true. Of course Oxbridge is better at LSE for philosophy - it's better than LSE in everything. That goes without saying.
Reply 15
Researcher Lond
To say "there are better uni's out there for philosophy" implies that there are several non-Oxbridge universities "better" at philosophy than LSE, which isn't true. Of course Oxbridge is better at LSE for philosophy - it's better than LSE in everything. That goes without saying.


not really... unis: Oxford+Cambridge= 2 unis

i can't be responsible for what you assume...

Anyways LSE is better than oxford in economics... dunno about other things, so i won't comment in case you rip my head off :rolleyes:

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

p.s. I think you better check this out http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/gooduniversityguide2005/20philosophy.pdf

LSE is in 20th place... i know league tables are unreliable blah blah blah...but what grounds do you have to say that LSE is the best in the country for philosophy (excluding oxbridge...cos apparently they are the best in everything...)
Traum
not really... unis: Oxford+Cambridge= 2 unis

i can't be responsible for what you assume...

Anyways LSE is better than oxford in economics... dunno about other things, so i won't comment in case you rip my head off :rolleyes:


I'm sorry if I sounded a little angry its just that I'm fed up of people saying "LSE is only for its one subject", as if LSE just does economics or is only good for economics. LSE has the UK's first sociology and IR departments and dominated those subjects for the best part of the last century. In law LSE academics have written the classic texts studied by law students around the country. LSE dominates philosophy of science. LSE established geography as a subject. LSE is renowned for history. LSE is a central player in government. In all that it does LSE is prestigious.

Take a closer look at philosophy of science. LSE has probably had a bigger impact in philosophy of science than in economics. Apart from Kuhn, all the big names in philosophy of science - Popper, Feyerabend, Lakatos, Cartwright have taught at LSE.

Yet because it’s called “London School of Economics” ignorant people think its only great at economics and that other subjects are some kind of appendage. Economics is just one of many subjects at LSE.
Reply 17
Researcher Lond
To say "there are better uni's out there for philosophy" implies that there are several non-Oxbridge universities "better" at philosophy than LSE, which isn't true. Of course Oxbridge is better at LSE for philosophy - it's better than LSE in everything. That goes without saying.


yeah no offense but for example the times university guide ranks LSE as 20th for philosophy. i know those things are very approximate but still, 20th.

gonna get flamed. yep.
Traum

p.s. I think you better check this out http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/gooduniversityguide2005/20philosophy.pdf

LSE is in 20th place... i know league tables are unreliable blah blah blah...but what grounds do you have to say that LSE is the best in the country for philosophy (excluding oxbridge...cos apparently they are the best in everything...)


superalex16
yeah no offense but for example the times university guide ranks LSE as 20th for philosophy. i know those things are very approximate but still, 20th.

gonna get flamed. yep.


Look at the statistics in the Times link. Only 4 unies got 5* research. LSE was one of them. It has the 5th highest entry tariff. Yet it's ranked down the bottom. Why? Because it didn't submit destination data and because it was ranked 22/24 for teaching.

LSE is not 20th for philosophy. The table is based on incomplete data and giving more weight to teaching scores than research scores (research scores reveal the quality and presitge of a department).

I've checked the Guardian and it ranks LSE 3rd for philosophy. That is more accurate of its position in philosophy.
Reply 19
so how come LSE is so low for philosophy then? is it really right that "bad" students get accepted so no matter how good+influencial LSE is in philosophy they can't get better?

I suppose the top 10 in league tables can probably interchange... but once you are out of the 15th...

e.g. For economics you won't say Birmingham (20th, i also applied there) is better than LSE (4th)...but many would say Lse (4th) is better than UCL/Warwick (joint second)...

therefore for philosophy i won't say LSE (20th) is better than KCL (3rd)/Warwick...

however much you want to denial this, people think because LSE is so good for things like Economics/IR etc people naturally assume it is better in other courses like philosophy too...just like Oxford, just cos it is oxford, people think that it *must* be the BEST for everything, where in fact oxford is only 9th for economics (although to be fair they don't do pure economics...ok, i admit that this example is crap :rolleyes: )

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

Researcher Lond
Look at the statistics in the Times link. Only 4 unies got 5* research. LSE was one of them. It has the 5th highest entry tariff. Yet it's ranked down the bottom. Why? Because it didn't submit destination data and because it was ranked 22/24 for teaching.

LSE is not 20th for philosophy. The table is based on incomplete data and giving more weight to teaching scores than research scores (research scores reveal the quality and presitge of a department).

I've checked the Guardian and it ranks LSE 3rd for philosophy. That is more accurate of its position in philosophy.


if you look around you will realise that all league tables are sh*t...especially the Guardian ones... the Times is probably the most accuate around

and if your arguement is in fact true... wouldn't it work in reverse for subjects such as Economics too? So in fact everyone could argue that due to in complete data Birmingham is infact better than LSE in economics?