Cambridge BA vs. LSE BSc Economics

The better choice out of the two for Investment and Finance?

Reply 1

Johan C

13

Lol, I chose Cambridge but I was thoroughly unsure man.

Reply 2

Knogle

IMO strictly speaking, LSE edges out Cambridge, but marginally. Bear in mind that there's a lot more to choosing your university than just considering your career choice. Both unis will open all doors and leave your options open.

Reply 3

Knogle

Both unis will open all doors

Hardly. Doors can only be shown, you have to walk through them, and that is harder than you may think :wink:

.

Reply 4

Roll-The-Dice-And-Win

ohh...not another one of those LSE vs. Cam :P

Reply 5

Knogle

LBC213

Hardly. Doors can only be shown, you have to walk through them, and that is harder than you may think :wink:

.

It depends on how you look at it.

Universities like RH and Hull will hardly open any doors.

Top universities like Oxbridge, LSE, Imperial, etc will open most doprs.

Then it's just for you to walk through them. Only thing is that you'll be walking through viscous fluid... and the viscosity depends on you yourself - character, presentation skills, even grades, etc. :wink:

But we're essentially saying the same thing.

Reply 6

fonzievision

14

Depending to what Cam college you go to, it could possibly be better than LSE. Colleges with great alumni networks at Oxbridge can be highly exploited and edge out LSE for the fact that alumni have a special bond with their former colleges. Many of the richest and most prominent colleges also have brilliant networking events like Oxford's "Balliol in the City".

Reply 7

Roll-The-Dice-And-Win

LSE vs. Cambridge

"The 1930s economic debate between LSE and Cambridge is well-known in academic circles. Rivalry between academic opinion in LSE and Cambridge's case goes back to the School's roots when LSE's Edwin Cannan (1861-1935), Professor of Economics, and Cambridge's Professor of Political Economy, Alfred Marshall (1842-1924), the leading economist of the day, argued about the bedrock matter of economics and whether the subject should be considered as an organic whole. (Marshall disapproved of LSE's separate listing of pure theory and its insistence on economic history.)

The dispute also concerned the question of the economist's role, and whether this should be as a detached expert or a practical adviser. For LSE and the historical economists, economic theory's application was of greater significance than economic theory itself. The consequence of LSE's approach to economics was greater innovation through receptivity to new ideas, and a style of economics with a strong applied and practical orientation. LSE and Cambridge economists worked jointly in the 1920s - for example, the London and Cambridge Economic Service - but the 1930s returned to dispute as LSE and Cambridge argued over the solution to the economic depression.

LSE's Robbins and von Hayek, and Cambridge's Keynes were chief figures in the intellectual disagreement between the institutions. The controversy widened from deflation versus demand management as a solution to the economic problems of the day, to broader conceptions of economics and macroeconomics. Robbins and von Hayek's views were based on the Austrian School of Economics with its emphasis on free trade and anti-interventionism, an approach Robbins-- although not Hayek-- later acknowledged as inappropriate to the timing and circumstances of the 1930s economic depression."

Reply 8

Knogle

It depends on how you look at it.

Universities like RH and Hull will hardly open any doors.

Top universities like Oxbridge, LSE, Imperial, etc will open most doprs.

Then it's just for you to walk through them. Only thing is that you'll be walking through viscous fluid... and the viscosity depends on you yourself - character, presentation skills, even grades, etc. :wink:

But we're essentially saying the same thing.

Yes, most, not all. Thats the point I was making. :smile:

The rest I agree with (nice analogy by the way).

Reply 9

always + forever

This is one of those debates that will prattle on for AGGGGEEESSS. unless someone actually has an offer from both of them, what's the point in the discussion? It's just a form of one-upmanship. sorry guys - I just think it's totally subjective... achieving your ambitions (given that your are either an LSE or a Camb grad) depends very much on your individual motivation, determination, and persistance

Reply 10

Knogle

Mylla

This is one of those debates that will prattle on for AGGGGEEESSS. unless someone actually has an offer from both of them, what's the point in the discussion? It's just a form of one-upmanship. sorry guys - I just think it's totally subjective... achieving your ambitions (given that your are either an LSE or a Camb grad) depends very much on your individual motivation, determination, and persistance

If someone has an offer from both, I'd advise him to forget about the i-want-to-work-for-an-IB thought for a while, and make his decision by considering the many other factors - city vs campus lifestyle, practical vs academic syllabus, etc. Makes things much easier.

Reply 11

Knogle

city vs campus lifestyle/QUOTE]

I think you mean college vs. campus.

Reply 12

always + forever

yeah, i agree with you knogle

Reply 13

fuglyduckling

2

Cambridge. Why? Both are good enough that you'll NEVER get turned away for interview on the basis of your degree, so forget employment figures - a degree from either of these institutions is fine. Now, we start to look at other factors: academic prestige; international prestige; quality of life/experience.

I think that, although Economics is LSE's flagship course, no one would argue that it has greater (although perhaps it does have equal, in this course) academic prestige than Cambs.

In terms of international prestige, I think Cambridge edges it (think world rankings, the first two UK universites average Joe American can name etc.). All of this so far is pretty even, though.

Quality of experience: this is where I think Cambridge wins hands down. Yes, LSE has that 'London factor' (whatever that is), but Cambridge is a magical place. The university is ancient, full of amazing architecture and fascinating traditions - I'm told you truly feel as though you're becoming part of history, walking in the same grounds that some of the most famous scholars of all time used to walk at your age. Compare this to LSE's notoriously stagnant, overseas student-dominated student body. I think you'd meet more amazing people at Cambridge, too - children of former presidents, that sort of thing. Also, the collegiate system is amazing.

As Knogle and others have said: choose on the basis of where you'd rather spend 3 years of your life as opposed to future prospects; I think you'd graduate as a slightly different person from both of these places.

Reply 14

supernova2

All factors considered id choose Cambridge everytime. Internationally unless youre going straight into a very economics based jobs, id say the Cambridge candidate would be more well received. And personally when I went to LSE it seemed boring sorry :frown:

Not that id get into either of them anyway

Reply 15

shady lane

Pick the one you like more. Both will put you in excellent stead to go into i-banking. We can debate about the quailty of education, but at the end of the day, banks want both Cambridge and LSE graduates, and would look on a 2:1 from either very similarly, I'd say.

Reply 16

President_Ben

15

LSE marginally ahead. Thin margin, bigger differences elsewhere.

Reply 17

Johan C

13

President_Ben

LSE marginally ahead. Thin margin, bigger differences elsewhere.

What do you mean ?

Reply 18

ajaj

Regarding prospects of getting into IB, I would say dead equal...

... in which case it comes down to whether you would rather study in the city or in cambridge.

I personally would go cambridge every time...

Reply 19