Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J.S.)
    hmmm, in all honesty I cannot see what you're talking about. I am not referring to league tables, I was constantly talking about selectivity.

    As for the MBA, you completely ignore my point, the one way to evaluate MBA performance is not on your incredibly bloody daft/ almost obsessively amusing long term indicator bull/S, but it’s on salary! That I believe is why people take the MBA, they do not take this programme due to ‘long term indicators’, they take it to increase their earning potential!

    Also, similar across the board, what exactly here is short term, the 9 Nobel Prizes in Economics? Perhaps it’s the BPhil in Philosophy which happens to be one of the most selective courses in the world, or maybe the BCL?

    Also, just to correct your claim on the hum/socsci divide, here's an extract from the Oxford website, on what THEY claim to be the social sciences.

    Graduate Studies Prospectus > Courses > Social Sciences
    Area and Development Studies:
    Development Studies
    The Latin American Centre
    Russian and East European Studies
    Other Area Studies Centres
    Economics
    Educational Studies
    Latin American Studies
    Law
    Management Studies
    The Oxford Internet Institute
    Politics and International Relations:
    Politics
    International Relations
    Sociology
    Social Policy and Social Work
    Socio-Legal Studies

    As we can see from the list above, Oxford thoroughly negect the social scienes....hmmmm

    A very disappointing post, you didn't look at any of the points made. I will answer back if you have something worthwhile to say...and only then. At least try and look at the claims I have made!

    With respect, I could make a better case for Oxbridge than this. You still haven't answered the basic question: what has Oxbridge done in the history of the social sciences, what have they done in founding and pioneering the subject area? That's the real test: achievement over the long haul...

    Some specific points; whatever one individual may write on an official website, I know from experience that a lot of law at Oxbridge is 'black-letter law'-that is to say it is a humanities subject which is strictly empirical and logical in approach; in contrast all LSE law is taught deliberately in its social science context, in a specialist social science institution, closely collaborating with other parts of that specialist institution;

    as for politics of course some of this is taught as a social science, but a lot of it draws from the tradition of classical and philosophical studies and frankly it shows (of course it's work of high quality, but not drawn directly from a social science background); the same goes for history in which Oxford in particular is very strong-it's often been rigidly empirical and suspicious of social theory...

    As for the 'LSE poll' about the politics department and its high research rating-this is just a poll produced by one D.Phil researcher who is I think in the Government Dept...It is the opinion of one person, not the whole LSE, and as far as I recall it does not go back very far..For that matter, judged purely on recent performance indicators Essex (with terrible A Level entry grades) probably does better than both LSE and Oxbridge at social science-which just shows you the difficulty of relying on short term indicators...

    Let me make the case for Oxbridge social science and then I'll show you how it still can't match LSE (it would be odd if it could-LSE has been doing it much longer in a more concentrated way).

    1/Economics-here Oxbridge has a strong case-real work over a long period, with real impact (ie Keynes). But if you look at the international perspective LSE has the edge (here the Coupe League tables, and the various American economic journals confirm this-LSE has a particular lead in econometrics also, yes league tables can count-if taken in an historical context).

    2/Social anthropology-Cambridge had loads of well-known practitioners but they all trained under Malinowski at LSE-and Malinowski founded Brit social anthropology.

    3/International Relations-Aberdeen believe it or not got in first, but the really pioneering department was at LSE- which gave the subject the firm foundation which it now enjoys. Oxbridge has some real names, but again the main work was done elsewhere.

    4/Business studies: almost everybody did this before Oxbridge, indeed LSE was doing it before the war. Oxbridge has spent some money on this recently, but it's still done nothing innovatory. Accountancy was pioneered as a separate academic subject at LSE long, long ago, as was economic history.

    5/Social policy: LSE was set up to do this, and the relevant department has been described as the 'intelligence department of the welfare state', long before Oxbridge would even deign to study it as a separate subject. Of course Oxbridge now does this, but again we await news of its innovations.

    6/Social philosophy:Popper, Hayek, Oakeshott, Gellner,Laski, Tawney, Mannheim etc etc. It's hard to find this concentration of great names in any institution over any period in this field. Of course Oxbridge is famous for philosophers-but guess what 80% of them in the period of mass society have been dry as dust logicians or aestheticians who have a very limited interest in social questions (Oxbridge was the home of logical positivism)

    7/Social psychology: another subject and department that LSE trail-blazed in the UK.

    8/Sociology: this has just about been accepted by Oxbridge-usually by hiring LSE people-ala Dahrendorf, Giddens, Halsey etc. But even now when the LSE sociology dept is not particularly fashionable it can boast Richard Sennett, Ulrich Beck, Peter Townsend, Stan Cohen, Roger Silverstone and so on ...Oxbridge can't match this...

    9/Social geography/urban studies: Dudley Stamp pioneered land use studies at LSE 80 years ago, LSE now has people like Ed Soja and Saskia Sassen and a whole department that integrates social science with the study of architecture (involving visiting profs like Norman Foster and other famous architects).

    I could give more examples but it's late and I'm running out of time-this has to be my final say on this:
    of course Oxbridge can do social science, but in its heart it's very ambiguous about it (even PPE, which is copied from the old and now abandoned LSE BSc Econ, had to be called something other than what it is-a half-hearted attempt at a general social sciences programme, nobody wanted to admit it was actually social science in intention-the reality turned out to be something else). Of course it'll be good at what it does (what else would you expect?) But a pace-maker in social sciences, an innovator, a powerhouse?

    It's too decentralised and slow in decision-making, too heritage, too cut off in the provinces to be really cutting edge in the field(this does not matter in humanities and pure natural sciences)-for real social science prominence you need to be somewhere like London or Chicago-the field needs constant interaction with the outside world-and that is built into the genetics of LSE, as is the sheer specialist intensity.

    In the long term that's what makes the difference: LSE was DESIGNED to do social science, Oxbridge, for all its merits, was not, and no amount of high quality bandwagon jumping can make up for the fact. Simple as that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by W.A.S Hewins)
    With respect, I could make a better case for Oxbridge than this. You still haven't answered the basic question: what has Oxbridge done in the history of the social sciences, what have they done in founding and pioneering the subject area? That's the real test: achievement over the long haul...

    Some specific points; whatever one individual may write on an official website, I know from experience that a lot of law at Oxbridge is 'black-letter law'-that is to say it is a humanities subject which is strictly empirical and logical in approach; in contrast all LSE law is taught deliberately in its social science context, in a specialist social science institution, closely collaborating with other parts of that specialist institution;

    as for politics of course some of this is taught as a social science, but a lot of it draws from the tradition of classical and philosophical studies and frankly it shows (of course it's work of high quality, but not drawn directly from a social science background); the same goes for history in which Oxford in particular is very strong-it's often been rigidly empirical and suspicious of social theory...

    As for the 'LSE poll' about the politics department and its high research rating-this is just a poll produced by one D.Phil researcher who is I think in the Government Dept...It is the opinion of one person, not the whole LSE, and as far as I recall it does not go back very far..For that matter, judged purely on recent performance indicators Essex (with terrible A Level entry grades) probably does better than both LSE and Oxbridge at social science-which just shows you the difficulty of relying on short term indicators...

    Let me make the case for Oxbridge social science and then I'll show you how it still can't match LSE (it would be odd if it could-LSE has been doing it much longer in a more concentrated way).

    1/Economics-here Oxbridge has a strong case-real work over a long period, with real impact (ie Keynes). But if you look at the international perspective LSE has the edge (here the Coupe League tables, and the various American economic journals confirm this-LSE has a particular lead in econometrics also, yes league tables can count-if taken in an historical context).

    2/Social anthropology-Cambridge had loads of well-known practitioners but they all trained under Malinowski at LSE-and Malinowski founded Brit social anthropology.

    3/International Relations-Aberdeen believe it or not got in first, but the really pioneering department was at LSE- which gave the subject the firm foundation which it now enjoys. Oxbridge has some real names, but again the main work was done elsewhere.

    4/Business studies: almost everybody did this before Oxbridge, indeed LSE was doing it before the war. Oxbridge has spent some money on this recently, but it's still done nothing innovatory. Accountancy was pioneered as a separate academic subject at LSE long, long ago, as was economic history.

    5/Social policy: LSE was set up to do this, and the relevant department has been described as the 'intelligence department of the welfare state', long before Oxbridge would even deign to study it as a separate subject. Of course Oxbridge now does this, but again we await news of its innovations.

    6/Social philosophy:Popper, Hayek, Oakeshott, Gellner,Laski, Tawney, Mannheim etc etc. It's hard to find this concentration of great names in any institution over any period in this field. Of course Oxbridge is famous for philosophers-but guess what 80% of them in the period of mass society have been dry as dust logicians or aestheticians who have a very limited interest in social questions (Oxbridge was the home of logical positivism)

    7/Social psychology: another subject and department that LSE trail-blazed in the UK.

    8/Sociology: this has just about been accepted by Oxbridge-usually by hiring LSE people-ala Dahrendorf, Giddens, Halsey etc. But even now when the LSE sociology dept is not particularly fashionable it can boast Richard Sennett, Ulrich Beck, Peter Townsend, Stan Cohen, Roger Silverstone and so on ...Oxbridge can't match this...

    9/Social geography/urban studies: Dudley Stamp pioneered land use studies at LSE 80 years ago, LSE now has people like Ed Soja and Saskia Sassen and a whole department that integrates social science with the study of architecture (involving visiting profs like Norman Foster and other famous architects).

    I could give more examples but it's late and I'm running out of time-this has to be my final say on this:
    of course Oxbridge can do social science, but in its heart it's very ambiguous about it (even PPE, which is copied from the old and now abandoned LSE BSc Econ, had to be called something other than what it is-a half-hearted attempt at a general social sciences programme, nobody wanted to admit it was actually social science in intention-the reality turned out to be something else). Of course it'll generally be good at what it does (what else would you expect?) But a pace-maker in social sciences, an innovator, a powerhouse?

    It's too decentralised and slow in decision-making, too heritage, too cut off in the provinces to be really cutting edge in the field(this does not matter in humanities and pure natural sciences)-for real social science prominence you need to be somewhere like London or Chicago-the field needs constant interaction with the outside world-and that is built into the genetics of LSE, as is the sheer specialist intensity.

    In the long term that's what makes the difference: LSE was DESIGNED to do social science, Oxbridge, for all its merits, was not, and no amount of high quality bandwagon jumping can make up for the fact. Simple as that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by W.A.S Hewins)
    LSE was DESIGNED to do social science, Oxbridge, for all its merits, was not
    No-one is disputing that. The LSE is a specialist institution. Of course they can concentrate more on the social sciences because they ARE an institution devoted solely to the social sciences. Oxbridge are multi-faculty universities and produce exceptional research over a wide range of fields, INCLUDING the social sciences. So what if Law at Oxford has a humanities slant? This doesn't make it any less valuable a course. Social sciences are not the only subjects in the world.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hildabeast)
    No-one is disputing that. The LSE is a specialist institution. Of course they can concentrate more on the social sciences because they ARE an institution devoted solely to the social sciences. Oxbridge are multi-faculty universities and produce exceptional research over a wide range of fields, INCLUDING the social sciences. So what if Law at Oxford has a humanities slant? This doesn't make it any less valuable a course. Social sciences are not the only subjects in the world.
    Beastperson:let's get one thing straight, finally: I love Oxbridge, JS loves Oxbridge, you love Oxbridge,everybody loves Oxbridge (I wish I could say the say for LSE), nobody wants to have a go at Oxbridge-the debate was about the strange idea, put forward by some people here, that Oxbridge dominates social science in the same way that, in Britain, it dominates the humanities. My argument is that it doesn't have this dominance in the social sciences. That's all.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    what dya all think bout st ands and its eco department?!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ABCD)
    I remember there is a similar post about this a while ago but cant find it now
    For prestige and that only:

    1)Cambridge
    2)Oxford
    3)LSE
    4)UCL
    5)Warwick/Nottingham

    Otherwise:
    1)Cambridge
    2)LSE
    3)UCL
    4)Warwick/Nottingham
    5)York/Bath
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theECONOMIST)
    For prestige and that only:

    1)Cambridge
    2)Oxford
    3)LSE
    4)UCL
    5)Warwick/Nottingham

    Otherwise:
    1)Cambridge
    2)LSE
    3)UCL
    4)Warwick/Nottingham
    5)York/Bath
    Out of interest - what is your reasoning for excluding oxford from the "otherwise" list
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Leeroy)
    Out of interest - what is your reasoning for excluding oxford from the "otherwise" list
    i'd think because they don't do Pure Eco as an undergraduate degree...


    But they have a fantastic Eocnomics faculty.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    that would be a completely fair reason ; for some reason i thought that since he holds an offer for cambridge he might have a deep hatred of oxford, dont know why
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    1/LSE
    2/Cambridge
    3/UCL/Warwick/Oxford
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by W.A.S Hewins)
    1/LSE
    2/Cambridge
    3/UCL/Warwick/Oxford
    LOL, I never thought we'd agree on absolutely anything. Although, I would say that for graduate research, if somebody were to ask me from where I would most wish to obtain a doctorate in Economics, my preferences would be as follows:

    LSE
    Cambridge/Oxford
    UCL/Warwick

    So, er...ok, do not fully agree with you, but I think this is about as close as we're ever likely to be, lol.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by W.A.S Hewins)
    1/LSE
    2/Cambridge
    3/UCL/Warwick/Oxford

    Biased.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J.S.)
    LOL, I never thought we'd agree on absolutely anything. Although, I would say that for graduate research, if somebody were to ask me from where I would most wish to obtain a doctorate in Economics, my preferences would be as follows:

    LSE
    Cambridge/Oxford
    UCL/Warwick

    So, er...ok, do not fully agree with you, but I think this is about as close as we're ever likely to be, lol.
    Cambridge or Oxford - which one do u think got the better doctorate course ?
    I think Oxford's D.Phill is more respect than Cambridges. They seem to have quite a few people from Harvard, Stanford and other well known US universities. http://www.econ.ox.ac.uk/Faculty/Faculty.asp
    I also like the idea of Nuffield College specializing on economics.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i think the london business school is considered the best in england and then its the oxford and cambridge courses
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jolity)
    i think the london business school is considered the best in england and then its the oxford and cambridge courses
    sorry thats for the MBA
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HamaL)
    Cambridge or Oxford - which one do u think got the better doctorate course ?
    I think Oxford's D.Phill is more respect than Cambridges. They seem to have quite a few people from Harvard, Stanford and other well known US universities. http://www.econ.ox.ac.uk/Faculty/Faculty.asp
    I also like the idea of Nuffield College specializing on economics.

    For Economics, (and for quite a few other areas) it's more complicated than just being a matter of 'prestige'.

    There are 2 ways of getting onto the doctorate, one is through the MPhil, the other is straight onto the research scheme, there's one year of probation. I would personally go for the former at either of the two universities, unless that is I was absolutely sure about what I was looking to research and knew near enough exactly how I'd go about it.

    On that basis, the one thing to remember is that the Oxford MPhil is 2 years, and at Cam. it's for 1 year. As for differences between the two, the Oxford course is very indepth, has fairly wide coverage; as for the Cam. degree, it seems very highly technical, you'd need to be a first rate maths student, at least that's the impression from the huuuge list of what they're looking for in an applicant.

    Other than that, the choice could also be made over the supervisor you're allocated and their experience/expertise, as well as the college you've been allocated into. The latter isn't likely to be critical, although if you were to get into Nuffield Oxf., or perhaps even Trinity Cam. maybe that could make you reconsider.

    For prestige, there's no real difference. Although, people who know very little about Economics tend to assume that Cambridge is by far the better, this is because their elementary knowledge on Econ. has made them aware of only Alfred Marshall and J. M Keynes.

    Incidentally, even at the LSE various schemes are available as a stepping stone onto the doctorate. I think Cambridge is the only one which specifies an Econ. undergraduate degree. For the LSE they just want an excpetional undergraduate qualification and a GRE score if you do not have a straight Econ degree, not sure about Oxford, they're rather vague on their entry requirements.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jolity)
    sorry thats for the MBA

    Actually there's some truth to your first post also, although I wouldn't have thought it'd nnecessarily be the best. However, you could carry out research into Economics on the London Business School's doctoral programme. Same applies to the Judge Institute. Not sure about Oxford, but I'd imagine so. If you take the MPhil route at Cambridge though, then it's a lot broader than the straight Econ. programme, that's even if you opt for all the Econ/Econ related modules.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J.S.)
    For Economics, (and for quite a few other areas) it's more complicated than just being a matter of 'prestige'.

    There are 2 ways of getting onto the doctorate, one is through the MPhil, the other is straight onto the research scheme, there's one year of probation. I would personally go for the former at either of the two universities, unless that is I was absolutely sure about what I was looking to research and knew near enough exactly how I'd go about it.

    On that basis, the one thing to remember is that the Oxford MPhil is 2 years, and at Cam. it's for 1 year. As for differences between the two, the Oxford course is very indepth, has fairly wide coverage; as for the Cam. degree, it seems very highly technical, you'd need to be a first rate maths student, at least that's the impression from the huuuge list of what they're looking for in an applicant.

    Other than that, the choice could also be made over the supervisor you're allocated and their experience/expertise, as well as the college you've been allocated into. The latter isn't likely to be critical, although if you were to get into Nuffield Oxf., or perhaps even Trinity Cam. maybe that could make you reconsider.

    For prestige, there's no real difference. Although, people who know very little about Economics tend to assume that Cambridge is by far the better, this is because their elementary knowledge on Econ. has made them aware of only Alfred Marshall and J. M Keynes.

    Incidentally, even at the LSE various schemes are available as a stepping stone onto the doctorate. I think Cambridge is the only one which specifies an Econ. undergraduate degree. For the LSE they just want an excpetional undergraduate qualification and a GRE score if you do not have a straight Econ degree, not sure about Oxford, they're rather vague on their entry requirements.
    Thankx.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think that this is a bit of a pointless debate. If it's about deciding where to go, then there is no such thing as the "best" university for economics. Clearly all of the top institutions listed would give an excellent education and the difference between how they are viewed by employers is minimal. I would suggest when deciding between them you shoudl take into account things like individual academics and what their specialisation is, whether this fits in with your personal interest, rather than whether LSE or Cambridge is higher in the league tables.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CaSTle OUtsiDeR)
    according to the Times guide 2004....

    UCL
    LSE
    Warwk
    Nott
    Bath

    controversial?
    why 2004 its all about 2006

    Warwick
    UCL
    LSE

    this is excluding camb which was 1st. Gwan warwick!!
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 19, 2005

1,090

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process

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.