LSE vs Imperial for investment banking?

Poll

Which is better for investment banking LSE or Imperial

Hey guys,

I currently have two offers, one from Imperial for Maths with Stats for Finance and another from LSE for Maths and Econ. Because of the term COWI i am inclined to go to Imperial, but then i want to enter investment banking as a career. Which would be better for investment banking?

Also which university has a better reputation outside of europe (overall)?

Reply 1

jokosor

16

You want to learn proper maths? Go to Imperial
You want to get into investment banking? Go to LSE

Reply 2

Alpha5

2

LSE is more career focused. One condition for actually getting an offer is to want to work for the Goldman Sachs! Good luck.

Reply 3

Marc Fiorano

11

In agreement with jokosor, if you're looking for top quality academics in maths then go for Imperial. If you're highly career-orientated and want to maximise your chances to get into the finance sector then LSE.

Although having said that you'll have plenty of opportunities at Imperial to get into IB, the difference is pretty negligible if you're genuinely a good candidate you won't need to rely on uni brand name as much. But LSE's network in the sector and grad prospects is top notch, it's also more widely recognised globally especially in the US. I believe the two have very different approaches. Imperial has a focus on doing your absolute best academically and become technically brilliant in your field of study, from which you then win top careers. On the other hand LSE is like a corporate grooming ground and is more about applying your knowledge and skill set to the career of your choice.

Once you go to either of them though you'll soon find that the uni you go to has very little influence. At most you'll have better career fairs, networking opportunities and it will tick the "top academics" requirement on the list.

But as an Imperial undergrad myself I urge you to really consider the lifestyle at Imperial. It is extremely demanding and the workload is insane so to build up a good record of extra curriculars and unique activities you'll have to either be one of those geniuses who can ace exams without much work or really good in time management without compromising the quality of your work.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 4

i_hate_teeth

10

flip a coin when it's in the air you'll know what you want

Reply 5

username839699

19

Original post by Marc Fiorano

But as an Imperial undergrad myself I urge you to really consider the lifestyle at Imperial. It is extremely demanding and the workload is insane so to build up a good record of extra curriculars and unique activities you'll have to either be one of those geniuses who can ace exams without much work or really good in time management without compromising the quality of your work.

The OP should also consider that a mathematics degree from either place would be a lot of hard work, as you say, although I would suspect (I think somebody called Swayum pointed this out on these boards a while back) that the LSE Math&Econ course has less mathematical content and with that in mind, it could be somewhat lighter than the Imperial course.

On the Imperial sub-forum, and recently on the mathematics sub-forum, there has been a fair bit of discussion about the Imperial mathematics BSc and how hard it is to obtain a first in it. Shamika has a lot of insight to offer on this, so look through her (or his?) posts.

Also, with LSE and Imperial, the odds of one failing will most probably have more to do with themselves than with the university. What I want to say is that you can't possibly go wrong with either of them. Good luck.

Reply 6

fail@maths

9

LSE anyday...

Imperial degrees are harder, and career prospects not as good.

Why make life difficult for yourself?

Reply 7

kka25

18

Original post by Lilium

Also, with LSE and Imperial, the odds of one failing will most probably have more to do with themselves than with the university. .

And how did you come out with this?

Reply 8

M.R.

10

Original post by fail@maths

LSE anyday...

Imperial degrees are harder, and career prospects not as good.

Why make life difficult for yourself?

why do you say that career prospects aren't as good for imperial degrees?

Reply 9

fail@maths

9

Original post by M.R.

why do you say that career prospects aren't as good for imperial degrees?

More people from LSE in banking innit.

Reply 10

username839699

19

Original post by kka25

And how did you come out with this?

In general, students seem satisfied with both universities. Further, they are also quite reputable institutions, who attract good students (as far as academics are concerned) and researchers who are strong in their field. I don't know how they hire faculty and I strongly suspect that "research" is a substantial factor there and I also don't know how much weight is placed on "teaching skills" but people don't seem to complain (too much) about this. Besides, things like "teaching" at any given university are so subjective - what works for person B can, perhaps, not work for person F.

Either way, what I know for a fact is that both have strong undergraduate programs in mathematics ("with economics", in the case of LSE) and based on that alone, I think either is a safe bet if one likes the subject and is willing to work hard enough.

So, I "come out with this", based on the fact that if somebody fails out of the LSE or ICL, it probably has more to do with themselves than with the university.

Reply 11

innerhollow

18

LSE does have a slight advantage. If you don't care about anything else definitely go to LSE.

Original post by Marc Fiorano

But as an Imperial undergrad myself I urge you to really consider the lifestyle at Imperial. It is extremely demanding and the workload is insane so to build up a good record of extra curriculars and unique activities you'll have to either be one of those geniuses who can ace exams without much work or really good in time management without compromising the quality of your work.

I would second parts of this. I love my university and wouldn't want to be anywhere else but the workload here is tough right from the first day. Imperial's unprecedented range of extracurricular activities is not as useful when you can only commit yourself to few at any one time. That said the "Imperial lifestyle" is good preparation for a career such as IB.

I guess another good question to ask is... who would you rather be around for four years? At either uni you'll be meeting a pretty narrow range of undergraduates, so would you rather it be 3-4 years of engineers, physicists and medics or 3-4 years of economists, lawyers et. al ?

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 12

kka25

18

Original post by Lilium

In general, students seem satisfied with both universities. Further, they are also quite reputable institutions, who attract good students (as far as academics are concerned) and researchers who are strong in their field.

Source?

I don't know how they hire faculty and I strongly suspect that "research" is a substantial factor there and I also don't know how much weight is placed on "teaching skills" but people don't seem to complain (too much) about this. Besides, things like "teaching" at any given university are so subjective - what works for person B can, perhaps, not work for person F.

Look at the forums. There are threads complaining about high-in-the-sky-league-table Uni that gives very poor teaching lessons. And how would you know that there are not that many people complaining about these types of Uni? Hearsay? Your own believe? Source please.

Either way, what I know for a fact is that both have strong undergraduate programs in mathematics ("with economics", in the case of LSE) and based on that alone, I think either is a safe bet if one likes the subject and is willing to work hard enough.

One likes the subjects and one has the ability and one has the support system that one needs, then yes, one should be able to do it. Loosing one of these, no, it's not enough.

So, I "come out with this", based on the fact that if somebody fails out of the LSE or ICL, it probably has more to do with themselves than with the university.

Where are your points to support this? The above has nothing to do with this.

No support. No evidence. No credible sources. This is your believe system which has no strong supporting evidence on why you would think like this.

Reply 13

SomeoneSaveMeNow

Original post by i_hate_teeth

flip a coin when it's in the air you'll know what you want

That was single handedly the most ingenius comment I have read today :biggrin:

Reply 14

innerhollow

18

Original post by Lilium

In general, students seem satisfied with both universities. Further, they are also quite reputable institutions, who attract good students (as far as academics are concerned) and researchers who are strong in their field. I don't know how they hire faculty and I strongly suspect that "research" is a substantial factor there and I also don't know how much weight is placed on "teaching skills" but people don't seem to complain (too much) about this. Besides, things like "teaching" at any given university are so subjective - what works for person B can, perhaps, not work for person F.

Either way, what I know for a fact is that both have strong undergraduate programs in mathematics ("with economics", in the case of LSE) and based on that alone, I think either is a safe bet if one likes the subject and is willing to work hard enough.

So, I "come out with this", based on the fact that if somebody fails out of the LSE or ICL, it probably has more to do with themselves than with the university.

I can't comment on LSE but Imperial's student satisfaction is not good at all. The main problem I think is the lack of student support. In light of the uni's embarassing plunge to 14th in the Guardian league tables thanks to poor student satisfaction scores, the uni makes all this talk to us about improving student support but it all seems to be fairly insubstantial. I can kind of sympathise with them to be honest, it's not really the lecturers' and tutors' fault if you can't hack the course. But at the same time they make all these claims about how they'll help you and make sure you don't fall behind but it's all talk.

That said, maybe it's the same situation at other unis.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 15

kka25

18

Original post by innerhollow

I can't comment on LSE but Imperial's student satisfaction is not good at all. The main problem I think is the lack of student support. In light of the uni's embarassing plunge to 14th in the Guardian league tables thanks to poor student satisfaction scores, the uni makes all this talk to us about improving student support but it all seems to be fairly insubstantial. Maybe it's the same at other unis, I don't know.

wait. Can't find the table the shows this. Mind linking me?

Reply 16

kka25

18

Original post by innerhollow

I can kind of sympathise with them to be honest, it's not really the lecturers' and tutors' fault if you can't hack the course.

No, but proper teaching and support does help.

But at the same time they make all these claims about how they'll help you and make sure you don't fall behind but it's all talk.
.

That shows even smart people can make bogus claim =/

Reply 17

innerhollow

18

Original post by kka25

No, but proper teaching and support does help.

Yeah of course, Imperial students would definitely do better with better support. But I can't really blame the academics when they already have so much to do. They can't burden themselves with students who are usually just lazy.

That shows even smart people can make bogus claim =/

Haha well I mean they do try but it's all just a bit flimsy. My friend failed his Christmas assessments miserably (average mark of 10% when the pass mark is 80% in each exam) and they didn't really seem fazed. He had a meeting with the senior tutor as part of departmental protocol but they didn't really say anything. And all our pastoral tutor had to say on the matter was "You'll do better next time right?". :s-smilie:

Original post by kka25

wait. Can't find the table the shows this. Mind linking me?

Got mixed up sorry, it's actually the Sunday Times who placed Imperial at 14th in September 2011 after it coming like 3rd or something the previous year. The league table is subscription only so you won't be able to view it without having one but (rather shockingly) the stat does appear on the Imperial website itself.

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/aboutimperial/league_rankings

I only heard about it because they spent ages going on about it in our induction talks, explaining why they fell to 14th and why it wouldn't devalue our degree etc. etc.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 18

fail@maths

9

Original post by innerhollow

I can't comment on LSE but Imperial's student satisfaction is not good at all. The main problem I think is the lack of student support. In light of the uni's embarassing plunge to 14th in the Guardian league tables thanks to poor student satisfaction scores, the uni makes all this talk to us about improving student support but it all seems to be fairly insubstantial. I can kind of sympathise with them to be honest, it's not really the lecturers' and tutors' fault if you can't hack the course. But at the same time they make all these claims about how they'll help you and make sure you don't fall behind but it's all talk.

That said, maybe it's the same situation at other unis.

Every University is like that apart from Oxbridge though. LSE is exactly the same from what I've heard from friends. They even get PhD students to take alot of the lectures for Ugrads, because the senior lectures CBA...

Imperial has the workload of Oxbridge, but doesn't provide an unlimited supply of 1-on-1 tutes like Oxbridge...

Reply 19

Swayum

18

Speaking as a current LSE Maths + Economics student who held an Imperial Maths offer back in the day, I would say that both are good enough to get you a job in investment banking. If you are self-motivated enough to teach yourself finance + a bit of casual economics, then definitely go with Imperial because you'll learn more useful skills there. However, LSE has an IB culture with far more IB related events than Imperial, which itself helps motivate you to get an internship/job in these areas + raises awareness.

Ultimately, the best thing to decide on is whether or not you want to do hard core maths. If you do, pick Imperial. Also think about if you're really interested in studying rigorous, theoretical economics, which is difficult to apply in real life situations on a trading floor, for example.

(edited 12 years ago)

LSE vs Imperial for investment banking?

Which is better for investment banking LSE or Imperial

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you