LSE vs Imperial for investment banking?

LSE... get PhD students to take alot of the lectures for Ugrads, because the senior lectures CBA...

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.

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?".

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.

In the later years, you're often taught classes by the lecturers themselves because the courses become smaller

But how about the students that do put effort in their studies but are struggling and need help? What about them? They are putting the effort, trying their best to perform by attending classes, making appointments with these academics and getting ready for all sort of questions to ask but get brush off by the academics because the academics are too busy to entertain the students?

I personally would classify this as poor management skills, as well as poor ability, to the academics. Can't teach properly? Don't have time to teach properly? Can't manage the time to teach properly? Don't teach than. Do the research and just do that. Seriously, this is the students future. Not the academics.



=/

I'm not surprised if he's wondering if he's getting his tuition fees worth =/


Devalue the degree? Please. The way I see it, the value of the degree is based on their research, not the actual performance of the students or the ability of the students to apply it in real life or whether the degree is even relevant in the current industry or if the students are all rounder-type students. My opinion of course =/

Wait are you at Imperial yourself? I'm not sure if the situation is much better at other unis to be honest. With the exception of Oxbridge, all UK unis are starved for cash. So you end up with a small batch of academics who are stretched thin over a ridiculous number of responsibilities.

To be honest most people here seem to be paying for the Imperial brand name. Inadequate teaching seems a lot less pertinent a problem when employers are flocking to your uni like honey badgers to a beehive.

(I know this isn't really that relevant to the thread title but whatever)

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...

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.

That shows even smart people can make bogus claim =/

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.

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.

All of which are dependent on the person. You also forgot health or other personal problems which one might encounter.
"Bad teaching" is not an excuse for failure when there are lots of video lectures which are very easily accessible on YouTube. (University of California, Cornell, MIT, Stanford, etc)

All I know about those schools is based on what I've heard others say and what I saw of the schools' respective syllabi and frankly, that and the student body alone, in my opinion would be a good reason to attend. Then again, I don't know how easy it is to meet people in London and in the case that is indeed easy to meet new people out of uni, then I suppose that shouldn't be a problem.

Everybody lies? In my experience, people will tell you things if it's to their convenience.

Also what I said was more of a general statement and if you think I'm wrong and the OP should take a gap year and re-apply to say, Greenwich and do maths there, do explain why. I'm open to the possibility of being wrong but please, for ****'s sake, do back what you have to say instead of coming up with "ZOMG! SAUCE?!".

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)?

Youtube? One goes to Uni not to listen to YouTube. Yes it can help in some parts but if it comes to a point that none of the lectures are good and the students need to study through youtube, what's the point of going and paying excessive fees for studying there? Now for the last bang

And you would think other University's course materials match with your own? Some courses at Imperial are self made by the lecturers from their research. Not as easy as googeling it to understand the material further. It's not as easy as that now is it?

Why should you just take something out from the sky and trust it? You need to do further research, using the valid evidence, then conclude. Look at different sides. Not just one. Than you could form a valid conclusion.

More people from LSE in banking innit.

If the majority of the student body finds the lecturers bad, then there really is a problem and if they're not getting their money's worth, they can either try to request for new lecturers or go elsewhere.

Now, if things are bad to such an extent, why do people still want to attend Imperial or LSE?

Having another person's take on the same topic can prove to be an enriching (learning) experience. I learn from different sources as much as I can.

I don't think paying 20k per year for an undergraduate degree is justified, regardless of where it's from, but if one can afford it and is willing to pay that much, it's none of my business. Frankly, I'd rather study in France or Germany, where from what I understand of their system, there is little difference between the quality of undergraduate education from one uni to the next.

The majority of a Mathematics undergraduate program, regardless of where one is, is going to be largely similar. I won't get into the specific modules being covered but if you were to check the syllabi at various universities of the same calibre (now, that's another debate on its own and I'd rather not get into the whole "do rankings mean anything" conversation here), you'll find that the material covered is not very different, if at all different. I've actually done that with a number of universities because I wanted to know what I would be missing out on, if anything at all, if I were to get an undergrad degree from one place over another. More often that not, the differences get more pronounced in years 3 or 4, which is where the upper-level courses would be.

Another thing that could be done is getting in touch with recent alumni. "Hopefully someone must've somehow made it through X annoying course which nobody likes? Maybe he or she can help!"

You think it's that easy to just ask for a new lecturer?

Contractual agreement? Far away from home? Investment? Pressure from parents?

Ok. I'll support that. But you need to make sure it's valid.

No. Not true. And this does not apply to all degrees as well.

Also, they may just write briefly their syllabi on their web page. Not the real detail of the actual content.

Some of the 'alumni' wouldn't be speaking the truth or clearly. They'd rather speak highly of their alumni in order to glorify themselves.

Investment? In what way?

How binding can "contractual agreements" be? Surely, there are cases of students transferring to another uni or dropping out and starting again elsewhere, no?

What exactly do you mean by "valid"?

That will vary from department to department and/or university to university. Some will only vaguely briefly list the topics covered, while some are more open with what's covered on their programs.

The Chennai Mathematical Institute, Cambridge, Harvard and MIT, all have quite detailed syllabi for their Mathematics degrees. Universitat Leipzig (for Physics - it's their only program in English afaik) ad Jacobs Uni, Bremen do too. The Classes Preparatoires aux Grandes Ecoles in France all the use the same syllabi for the specific tracks and all the details can be found on prepas.org. Quite a few French universities have their syllabi with specific details on them as well, Toulouse and Strasbourg do, if I recall correctly. I'm sure there's more but that's all I can remember off the top of my head.

My initial claim still stands - mathematics, physics and chemistry degrees, are fairly standard for the most part of the first two years or so. Things get very different the more advanced you go and it's at the post graduate level that the huge differences can start to show.

My knowledge does not stretch too much beyond math and science degrees and I don't know how "flexible" things can get with, say a Philosophy BA and it still being a Philosophy BA, but as far as I know, a bachelor's degree in Physics will definitely include the following and the introductory and intermediate levels: classical mechanics, E&M, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, mathematical methods, differential equations, atomic physics and at least a programming course. There might have been one or two "core courses" that I could have missed. That's typically what you'll find in any physics degree and some universities will cover these in more depth than others. This could very well depend on the strength of a particular class, among other things. But that's just an educated guess...

That is a possibility. However, so is the possibility of alumni being very helpful.

Parents/Students who have invested a lot in their education won't just change uni; those international students that came far away from other countries won't have the option that easily.

Some contracts won't allow change/transfer to different Uni. The particular student would need to finish it within the particular duration. Like it or not, they have to do it; under these circumstances, the particular students can't just transfer, drop out or start again elsewhere since this will breach the contract.

Valid; not just an inflated story from someone who went there and share their experience as if to boost their own reputation. That's one invalid source.

Really? So if a student has a 4 year degree and started an MSc but found out that the MSc is actually a 4th year undergraduate MEng programme where the MSc student has to join the 3rd and 4th year MEng undergraduate students and take their modules together; would you call that advanced study?

That's more than enough to differentiate student A and student B.

Which universities have such contracts? That is plain atrocious.

Forgive my not being specific enough but that was more directed towards alternative video lectures on YouTube rather than class mates. For example, if one is studying multivariate calculus, one does not particularly like their lecturer and attendance is not mandatory, one can view the Multivariate Calculus set of lectures of UC Berkeley or 18.02 of MIT, and take what's relevant from the course.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Could you please elaborate, as what you say about courses being shared for an undergrad MEng program and a postgrad MSc seems intriguing.

I was only saying that in an undergraduate degree, whether a 3-year or 4-year one, will typically have its more advanced courses by the end of it, rather than at the start. (obviously...)

Further, it is in the latter stages of the degree, where one will usually encounter more specialised courses, often in an area where the department is strong.

Consider universities F and G. The Physics department of F focuses on astrophysics while that of G on optics. For the most part, the contents of either degrees will be the same but once the core requirements are out of the way (i.e, material that should be found in any "accredited" physics bachelor's degree), students studying at F uni will have more courses in the way of astro while those at G will have the chance to have a degree with a greater focus on optics.

Excuse me?

Like I said. Unis like Imperial don't have similar materials. It might have something for 1-3rd year, but how about 3rd-4th year? How about PG modules? Stop generalizing. Whatever you're saying might be for low level subjects =/

You have a 4 year BSc. You apply for an MSc from some other Uni which cost you your life savings. You entered to find out that your MSc's syllbus is actually exactly the same as the 3rd and 4th year MEng undergraduate ones. Not only that, your classes are with the MEng students. To make it worst, they are teaching you as if you know whatever they have been teaching from the 1st -3rd year modules (that you've never learned) that are tied with the current MEng modules you're taking.

Now don't you see something's wrong here?

So? Meaning that students at G would be struggling if they were to be asked detailed astro questions wouldn't it, and students of F would probably not? Combined them both in one class, and you would see some of these folks would be resenting one another, if they take, a course, say Optics, and the lecturer teaches it in great detail, without even caring whether you know the topic in detail or not.

I'm there for the education, to be a better person, NOT to be so lost and more resentful with my own education. So that's why I'm very passionate about this; stop generalizing! Until you have a detailed account of the Uni and not just some inflated stories or rumors, and you're getting the best accounts from all sides, then you can say something about the Uni.