LSE vs Cambridge

Successful graduates? In terms of money?

LSE would own Cambridge and do so easily because LSE has such a strong culture of finance, the City and particularly investment banking written all over it.

In terms of the academic quality of your degree, the Cambridge degree typically looks like it has a lot of width to it. You get introductions into a lot more areas than other unis. You get a pretty good level of depth but I don't think you get quite as much. To me, diminishing marginal returns sets in quickly when studying Economics :wink:

From what I've seen, the micro course looks tougher than what I've seen elsewhere, the macro course generally broader (and given a very different 'edge' because of the whole compulsory economic history and politics larks in the first year) which makes comparison a lot trickier and the econometrics very strong (but not the most painful/tear jerking I've seen around).

The total utter and complete focus on Economics for the duration of the three years (or at least, seemingly total and utter... I'm not sure the odd bits of politics, economic history, maths and stats are quite 'economics' but a discussion for another time...) does mean your average Cam economists tend to be more like Economists (so far as postgrading in it goes) though your economists elsewhere can also pound three years, every module, course and option with a link into it... LSE being one of many where that is possible.

Reply 2

President_Ben

Successful graduates? In terms of money?

LSE would own Cambridge and do so easily because LSE has such a strong culture of finance, the City and particularly investment banking written all over it.

Evidence? I had had a lot about LSE's success with employers, but then turned up to internship interviews and there were hardly any of them to be seen!

Reply 3

-mb-

6

Well, imo the Time league tables are the most authoritative:
http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/gooduniversityguide2005/20economics.pdf

In economics, these give Cambridge a higher rating for destinations, as well as overall rating, but I don't know how destinations are calculated however.

I certainly wouldn't make employment possibilities the category for choosing between Cambridge and LSE, though there may be other valid reasons for choosing LSE over Cambridge.
Personally I would always choose Cambridge, but obviously that's easy for me to say...

Reply 4

I think this is a pointless discussion. Firstly, they're both very competitive courses, so the number who get into both will be limited. More importantly, I think it's a very personal choice. In terms of faculty quality, reputation, graduate destinations etc the two universities are basically the same - excellent! But in terms of teaching style, environment, location, student body makes up and extra-curricular activities there is a huge difference. Preferences on that front are very individual, and anyone lucky enough to have this tough choice should just head down to each university and check things out for him/herself. It's worth spending a couple of days making sure you get the best out of the next three years.

Personally, I agree with the poster above that LSE really can't compete: it lacks the tutorial system, it lacks the collegiate structure, it lacks the diverse student body, it lacks the extra-curricular breadth, it lacks the quirks and traditions; it's just not on the same level!

Reply 5

Isaiah Berlin

Evidence? I had had a lot about LSE's success with employers, but then turned up to internship interviews and there were hardly any of them to be seen!

Well, I've seen quite a lot... as have others I've been in touch with. The people I know in LSE ain't doing so bad either. Bear in mind, LSE only has 3500 undergrads and a huge number crop up in banking (their investment society has 800 odd member and business society about 1700!)

Times graduate survey and a great deal of anecdotal and observational evidence puts LSE as sending more into than City than Oxford and Cambridge combined.

Destinations scores in the Times uni tables are notoriously ****.

Personally, I agree with the poster above that LSE really can't compete: it lacks the tutorial system, it lacks the collegiate structure, it lacks the diverse student body, it lacks the extra-curricular breadth, it lacks the quirks and traditions; it's just not on the same level!

The tutorial system is quite a draw. Not sure it works for everyone, but yes, it is a draw. The collegiate structure strikes me as a load of artifical sectarian ****. Haven't been in it, so I can't give a full evaluation, but I have pride and a place in life that doesn't require quirks, traditions or the collegiate structure. LSE, by virtue of being in London, pretty roundly pwns everywhere in the country for extra-curriculars with exception to... sport.

Reply 6

President_Ben

Well, I've seen quite a lot... as have others I've been in touch with. The people I know in LSE ain't doing so bad either. Bear in mind, LSE only has 3500 undergrads and a huge number crop up in banking (their investment society has 800 odd member and business society about 1700!)

Times graduate survey and a great deal of anecdotal and observational evidence puts LSE as sending more into than City than Oxford and Cambridge combined.

I thought this would come up! What your evidence says to me is that LSE is full of what I'd call corporate whores:

A huge proporition of the student population in Economics related degrees; half the university in the business society! At Oxford there are well under 1500 economics-related undergraduates in total, and all the management, business and investment societies won't get 100 members, let alone half the uni.

So basically all you've shown is that people at LSE want to go into the City; nothing about how good LSE is at preparing them to succeed in doing so.

In the interviews I've done, the value of the tutorial system has been obvious. Tutorials basically are interviews, albeit a little less aggressive.

The collegiate structure strikes me as a load of artifical sectarian ****. Haven't been in it, so I can't give a full evaluation, but I have pride and a place in life that doesn't require quirks, traditions or the collegiate structure.

How horribly cynical. Colleges are small, integrated communities. Do you have a problem in knowing very well a large and diverse body of people who live around you? Do you have a problem sharing experiences with them, such as extra-curricular acitivities? Do you have a problem being able to make a real impact on the way you and those around you experience university? People do these things at all universities; colleges simply gave far more people the chance to do so, and give them the chance to do so much closer to home.

LSE, by virtue of being in London, pretty roundly pwns everywhere in the country for extra-curriculars with exception to... sport.

Well firstly, quite - sport is a huge part of life. Secondly, the Oxford Union would beg to differ. Thirdly, Oxbridge are much more compact places so it's easier to do several things sequentially: I can speak at a Union debate, go back for a JCR meeting, go back to the after party where I can chat to speakers, then had on to a club. Total travel time would be about 15 minutes by foot, cost nothing. Fourthly, again, the collegiate structure makes it far easier to get involved in things, at a less ambitious level. Finally, it's easier to get funding in Oxford, partly because of the collegiate structure but mainly because of the absence of London prices.

Reply 7

In terms of success rate at Oxford, I know of 10 people who seriously applied for internships. 8 got at least one - 3 in Law, 1 in some Chemical Company, 2 banking, and 2 management consultancy

Reply 8

Apagg

13

Ahmed2526

which of the two universities is best 4 economics.

on stats its seems to be LSE however LSE hardly stands a chance against cambridge when it comes to reputation, history and successful graduates.

so what does every1 else think?

I've said it before and will do so again, LSE is an investment banker factory. Cambridge economics graduates have just as high a chance of success in IB, but many choose not to enter the field.

Reply 9

What's wrong with being a corporate whore? :confused:

Better than being an academic whore.... :wink:

Interviews: an interview is a conversation with a purpose. Your tutes are there to teach you. Not to test you. (and you don't fatten pigs by weighing them) What is needed in an interview is a demonstration of skills by the examples and manner of delivery. All those LSE students who do wind up in those top jobs evidently have the ability to do them and LSE, like many universities, certainly has opportunities for students to learn how. If the university doesn't provide them, you can 99.9% sure there will be a student or a group of students who will make it happen.

How horribly cynical. Colleges are small, integrated communities. Do you have a problem in knowing very well a large and diverse body of people who live around you? Do you have a problem sharing experiences with them, such as extra-curricular acitivities? Do you have a problem being able to make a real impact on the way you and those around you experience university? People do these things at all universities; colleges simply gave far more people the chance to do so, and give them the chance to do so much closer to home.

You know full well the collegiate system is dressed up an awful lot... :wink:

In short, what does a college do? Being a place where you live, work and play with people is just like any other student hall (the difference at that point is the students in the hall).

Well firstly, quite - sport is a huge part of life. Secondly, the Oxford Union would beg to differ. Thirdly, Oxbridge are much more compact places so it's easier to do several things sequentially: I can speak at a Union debate, go back for a JCR meeting, go back to the after party where I can chat to speakers, then had on to a club. Total travel time would be about 15 minutes by foot, cost nothing. Fourthly, again, the collegiate structure makes it far easier to get involved in things, at a less ambitious level. Finally, it's easier to get funding in Oxford, partly because of the collegiate structure but mainly because of the absence of London prices.

The economist in me has deconstructed this to say 'it's cheaper in Oxford in terms of hard cash and time'. London universities are not campus universities becaucse you don't necessarily live next to the uni. Otherwise, the university itself is a centralised place. LSE fits neatly into the tucked away area it is in. You can go from place to place in LSE, on foot, for free, within 15 minutes (much like any other London uni apart from UCL because the place being quite large, just spans more than 15 minutes walk - for geographical space, it feels about as large as some so-called towns in the UK) :smile:

No one will ever question that London is expensive, generally, the South East is expensive (and that captures Cambridge and Oxford too). But the value of London is captured in the entirely unique things that are only possible in one of those super-global cities in the world (New York, London, Tokyo among others). The whole hammy 'but xyz is only a couple hours or so from London' baffles me - because it isn't at all being in London. I'm a couple hours from Paris, large parts of the UK and a fair few other choice European places but that doesn't mean I'm really in it (*sniff*) or that it'd be so easy to just hop on down.

Reply 10

-mb-

6

President_Ben

What's wrong with being a corporate whore? :confused:

Better than being an academic whore.... :wink:

I can't quite tell if you're joking, do you actually believe that being a corporate whore is better than being an academic whore?

Reply 11

President_Ben

What's wrong with being a corporate whore?

Nothing. But there is more to life than being a corporate whore, which is why I reject the "LSE is awesome because loads of people end up in the City" argument.

Interviews: an interview is a conversation with a purpose. Your tutes are there to teach you. Not to test you. (and you don't fatten pigs by weighing them)

I'm not suggesting tutes are essential to interview success. But they certainly help. There is a huge overlap in terms of skills: having your arguments questioned and being forced to justify them, having details pored over from surprising angles; these occur in both.

What is needed in an interview is a demonstration of skills by the examples and manner of delivery. All those LSE students who do wind up in those top jobs evidently have the ability to do them and LSE, like many universities, certainly has opportunities for students to learn how. If the university doesn't provide them, you can 99.9% sure there will be a student or a group of students who will make it happen.

Absolutely. I don't deny LSE is an excellent university. But that's a moot point in a comparison of LSE and Oxbridge, it's a given. But all you've done is note that from the large number of very intelligent and City-obsessed students at LSE, a lot end up in the City. Which tells me nothing about its quality. You've yet to present a single argument which suggests LSE has anything particularly useful in preparing you for that City job, over and above what other universities have. Something like, say, the massively intellectually stimulating and stretching tutorial system.

You know full well the collegiate system is dressed up an awful lot... :wink:

In short, what does a college do? Being a place where you live, work and play with people is just like any other student hall (the difference at that point is the students in the hall).

You clearly didn't read what I said above, so I won't bother repeating it...

The economist in me has deconstructed this to say 'it's cheaper in Oxford in terms of hard cash and time'.

Well that is true, but it's also typical economist's materialism. Time and money is a crucial aspect, beacuse you can do a huge amount more. But over and above that there's the question of opportunities and impact. Oxford puts out several hundred rowing eights because of the collegiate structure; the biggest London universities put out abot ten or twenty I think. So again, far easier to get involved. And most importantly it's so much easier to make a difference at college level. To use a rowing analogy again, if you are a good rower and a committed organiser you can pretty much single handedly transform a college boat club; you just cannot do that at university level. On student union activities, it is infinitely easier to get people interested and to make lasting changes on a 250 person scale than on a 2500 person scale.

Again, nothing against LSE. But the absence of tutorials and of a collegiate system, for me, means it can't compete. No amount of corporate whoring will change that.

Reply 12

-mb-

I can't quite tell if you're joking, do you actually believe that being a corporate whore is better than being an academic whore?

No. But there's nothing wrong with being either.

However, being a good corporate whore is rather tougher. The competition is intense - because the rewards from corporate whoredom are so high. There is a brain drain away from academia. This is why, I reckon, LSE has an edge. The get their people into the most competitive areas and it is what those students want to do. There is a tremendous number of unique opportunities and facilities available to them.

There is a huge overlap in terms of skills: having your arguments questioned and being forced to justify them, having details pored over from surprising angles; these occur in both.

These are just life skills. You don't need tutes for this :wink:

If asked "discuss a time when you had to make a difficult decision and other people disagreed" - you'd look a little numbnutted (in my opinion) to bring up "that tute" compared to something in a job, in an extracurricular etc.

Oxbridge has a large number of rowers because rowing is a tradition. There isn't much more to it. It's plainly obvious that sport is trickier when you're in the middle of the biggest areas of unbounded urban development in the world.

So far as making an impact goes - the student society has greater value. It seems Colleges in Oxbridge strip certain societies of the opportunity to exist or embody them formally (and with it, in the bounds of tradition). Many of these societies will reach hundreds of members.

From where I am, the tutorial system is little more than a barely cost effective measure to prevent people shirking from work and the collegiate system - a large amount of traditional pansies.

And very little in the world can match the experience of being in London. Each has their own unique bits and pieces... but when it comes to Economics students in particular, corporate whoredom is top gun.

Reply 13

These are just life skills. You don't need tutes for this :wink:

If asked "discuss a time when you had to make a difficult decision and other people disagreed" - you'd look a little numbnutted (in my opinion) to bring up "that tute" compared to something in a job, in an extracurricular etc.

Crappy CV questions like the one you mention is not what I was referring to. I was thinking about a case study when you make a suggestion and the interview says no, that's wrong, here's why. Or he when s/he picks up on some obscure point in your CV and asks you to justify it. Tutes are the best practice I've yet encoutered for dealing with those sorts of situations.

Oxbridge has a large number of rowers because rowing is a tradition. There isn't much more to it. It's plainly obvious that sport is trickier when you're in the middle of the biggest areas of unbounded urban development in the world.

That's nonesense. No university in the UK puts out anything like the number of eights that Oxbridge does, and the only one that gets close is Durham, which is also collegiate. Rowing's not the point, the same is true of football, rugby, whatever. Oxford has dozens of rugby teams, other universities do not. Why? Because the collegiate structure facilitates low level involvement which is not available elsewhere.

So far as making an impact goes - the student society has greater value. It seems Colleges in Oxbridge strip certain societies of the opportunity to exist or embody them formally (and with it, in the bounds of tradition). Many of these societies will reach hundreds of members.

This barely makes sense. What's your point? Oxford has university level societies and loads of them...

From where I am, the tutorial system is little more than a barely cost effective measure to prevent people shirking from work and the collegiate system - a large amount of traditional pansies.

That's simply an idiotic statement to make.

And very little in the world can match the experience of being in London.

Well I am in London, and have been for most of my life. I suspect I will live here once I graduate. Yes it's an awesome place to live but as a student I much prefer Oxford - cheaper, much smaller and quicker to get around, safer, and more student focussed.

Each has their own unique bits and pieces... but when it comes to Economics students in particular, corporate whoredom is top gun.

Yet in about five posts you've failed to cite anything to suggest LSE is actually useful for getting into the City beyond raw numbers, which by your own admissions are from a startingly biased sample.

Reply 14

Alan Smithee

I agree with Isaiah on the sports thing.

Low level involvement is the key.

Reply 15

$Avatar for sTe\/o$

sTe\/o

16

If I can just join in... I don't think that there is any difference employability-wise between the LSE and Cambridge. Cambridge probably has a greater tendency to lure their students into academia, but I highly doubt that Cambridge students are disadvantaged in their ambitions to become "corporate whores", if that's what they want from life. In fact, I know plenty of Cambridge students who have successfully obtained internships despite having done unrelated degrees, so they're obviously in demand even without the suitable qualifications. The advantage London has is that it's a big lively city. The advantage of Cambridge is that it is a small and convenient place to live and there are loads of opportunities to be involved in sports and student-run societies (more than at your average university, and certainly more than London). In short, I agree with what Isaiah has been saying. President Ben, I'm not sure where all of this antagonism about tutes is coming from, particularly since it doesn't sound like you've ever had one. It's certainly not "a large amount of traditional pansies". I know it probably gets sickening to hear us Oxbridge types go on and on about them, but imo it's the one thing that really makes Oxbridge "better" than other top UK unis - without supes and tutes, Oxford and Cambridge would just be places where people work too hard. Keeping students on course with their work is only one of the things they're good for, certainly not the main thing I would miss if they were to disappear.

Reply 16

Alan Smithee

Can somebody briefly explain the tutorial system?

Reply 17

jimmydoerre3

Isaiah Berlin

Again, nothing against LSE. But the absence of tutorials and of a collegiate system, for me, means it can't compete. No amount of corporate whoring will change that.

i think once upon a time LSE was extremely intellectual and probably more intellectual than cambridge and focused on academic success instead of simply making money. (ie when hayek and amartya sen were around) but i do agree with you that now days i think LSE is flooded by foreign students (americans included) and most pay extremely high fees so they would like to get IB jobs to earn back the tuition or something. LSE to me as an american seems way too commercialized and way too obsessed with monetary gain to feel like one of the most prestigious universities in the world despite all the amazing staff. Oxbridge seems more like the ideal "traditional" university since it still attempts to prepare its students for academia instead of the business world. I personally love intellectualism for its own sake instead of a means to an end. I do agree with others who say that LSE's career opportunities are slightly better than oxbridge but I would still choose cambridge before it. I don't really care that LSE doesnt have a pretty campus or lacks a tutorial system, those are not essential for a good university, but i just feel many people go to the LSE for the wrong reasons (me included).

Reply 18

clueless101

IMO, Oxbridge grads have better opportunities

Reply 19