The Student Room Group

Is LSE worth the investment?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40
Original post by thechairman66
That depends entirely on how much it's going to cost you to attend.


well,

Tuition fee : 18000
living cost: 12000
so that would be around 30000 pound.

I've got some savings of my own and will have to borrow some money though. Is it worth spending all my savings?
Original post by BF13
I would be paying international fees, and I've heard that LSE tends to be a cash cow when it comes to international students,


EVERY uni is a cash cow when it comes to international students 😒


Sent from my iPhone
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Sidhant Shivram
EVERY uni is a cash cow when it comes to international students ������


Sent from my iPhone



FACT

Edit: And in fact I would say that the LSE tries to exploit international students a lot less than other similar schools. Kings for example charges 9,200GBP for EU/UK while but for international students they charge 22,600GBP!!!

And then you have to take into consideration that the sterling is the strongest currency in the world so for many international students they're paying double or triple that amount in their own currency. (22,600 GBP is approx $37,000)
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Sidhant Shivram
EVERY uni is a cash cow when it comes to international students 😒


Sent from my iPhone


Except LSE is the only one that charges home students the same fees as international students
Original post by rshreesh
well,

Tuition fee : 18000
living cost: 12000
so that would be around 30000 pound.

I've got some savings of my own and will have to borrow some money though. Is it worth spending all my savings?


This doesn't really tell me anything about the cost benefit analysis decision you'll have to make. There's a big difference between "I have 5,000 pounds saved and i'll have to get 25,000 in loans" vs "I have 20,000 saved and I'll have to get 10,000 in loans".

That said if your only source of funding is your saving I'd imagine you either:

A) Don't have enough savings and therefore would have to take out a substantial amount in loans

or

B) Have a significant amount in savings and therefore would be spending A LOT of your own money on this degree.

Either of those seems like a tough pill to swallow especially for a MSc that's probably not going to help your career all that much. (I don't know much about social policy or your country but I imagine that the difference in opportunities between an LSE masters and another (cheaper) university isn't that much different.). If you're thinking of doing a PhD I'd say focus on applying to those programs next year, save up a bit more money and save your savings for the PhD.
Reply 45
Original post by redferry
Except LSE is the only one that charges home students the same fees as international students


Not for all courses. The reason for this is that they simply don't get funding for some of their courses. They receive the same amount of money for every student. Difference is the state pays a portion for home students whilst international students have to pay themselves.
Original post by 92DL
Not for all courses. The reason for this is that they simply don't get funding for some of their courses. They receive the same amount of money for every student. Difference is the state pays a portion for home students whilst international students have to pay themselves.


so the London School of Economics doesn't get funding for Economics? that seems ridiculous to me.

It's £40,000 in fees to do a conversion from Maths. I don't understand why I university would essentially prevent itself attracting the best students in the country for the subject it specialises in.
Reply 47
Original post by thechairman66
FACT

And then you have to take into consideration that the sterling is the strongest currency in the world so for many international students they're paying double or triple that amount in their own currency. (22,600 GBP is approx $37,000)


And $37k is cheaper than many if not all top name US masters degrees ...so I'm not really sure of the point you're trying to make?

Original post by thechairman66
This doesn't really tell me anything about the cost benefit analysis decision you'll have to make. There's a big difference between "I have 5,000 pounds saved and i'll have to get 25,000 in loans" vs "I have 20,000 saved and I'll have to get 10,000 in loans".

That said if your only source of funding is your saving I'd imagine you either:

A) Don't have enough savings and therefore would have to take out a substantial amount in loans

or

B) Have a significant amount in savings and therefore would be spending A LOT of your own money on this degree.

Either of those seems like a tough pill to swallow especially for a MSc that's probably not going to help your career all that much. (I don't know much about social policy or your country but I imagine that the difference in opportunities between an LSE masters and another (cheaper) university isn't that much different.). If you're thinking of doing a PhD I'd say focus on applying to those programs next year, save up a bit more money and save your savings for the PhD.


While I agree with your attempt at a cost benefit analysis, you do need to take expected future earnings into account as well, you can't just do it on loans. This is where the OP's country becomes important. There are some where you are correct that a masters from LSE will not be much different to others, but there are also countries where a masters degree from a top uni like LSE or Oxbridge (or the far more expensive Ivies) will basically guarantee you a job and probably leapfrog you above the locals.
Reply 48
Original post by redferry
so the London School of Economics doesn't get funding for Economics? that seems ridiculous to me.

It's £40,000 in fees to do a conversion from Maths. I don't understand why I university would essentially prevent itself attracting the best students in the country for the subject it specialises in.


They have the best European department in the uk and yet they don't get funding for this. Don't ask me why but that is the case. Irrelevant of speciality, it is the government who decides what to fund and what not after all.
Original post by 92DL
They have the best European department in the uk and yet they don't get funding for this. Don't ask me why but that is the case. Irrelevant of speciality, it is the government who decides what to fund and what not after all.


That is so so weird. I guess maybe with their level of prestige they are always going to get the applicants willing to pay full price so they don't feel they need to push for funding.

It's a shame though, my boyfriends an exceptional mathematician but won't be going there as a result.
Original post by sj27
And $37k is cheaper than many if not all top name US masters degrees ...so I'm not really sure of the point you're trying to make?


This statement reflects a lack of understanding about the American higher education system.

1) There's a lot more depth and diversity amongst top universities for masters programs. Here in the UK you have a handful of schools located at the top of world rankings and then generally a large gap until your next schools. In the US there's the upper tier representing the best universities in the world and then you have another lower tier that still has a lot of name recognition and good world rankings while being significantly cheaper.

2) More importantly, the entire financial aid philosophy in the US is significantly different than it is in the UK. Because most students rely primarily on government funding financial aid is considered a "bonus". The LSE points out that 10% of their students receive financial aid. In the US some level of financial aid for almost every student is the standard. So while the sticker price might be the same in some situations, the actual cost of attendance is significantly cheaper.

Furthermore, the cost of living in most US cities is significantly cheaper than it is in the UK, especially in London. You can not over look the strength of the sterling.



While I agree with your attempt at a cost benefit analysis, you do need to take expected future earnings into account as well, you can't just do it on loans. This is where the OP's country becomes important. There are some where you are correct that a masters from LSE will not be much different to others, but there are also countries where a masters degree from a top uni like LSE or Oxbridge (or the far more expensive Ivies) will basically guarantee you a job and probably leapfrog you above the locals.


Yes...a point I already made. Read more carefully ;-)

As I said above, I can't imagine that the boost in future earnings with an LSE degree is substantially higher than someone with a masters degree from another university. I know this might be the case in some fields but for social policy I doubt it. That said (also mentioned above) I don't know what country the OP is from and I have only a bit of experience in social policy myself (I studied politics and worked in DC).

Also, just to take an educated guess, I'd bet that a lot of the increased earning potential from an LSE degree could also be achieved by other UK universities. Yes the LSE has a good name brand but chances are people are going to be loads of impressed just by the fact that you studied in the UK.
Reply 51
Original post by redferry
That is so so weird. I guess maybe with their level of prestige they are always going to get the applicants willing to pay full price so they don't feel they need to push for funding.

It's a shame though, my boyfriends an exceptional mathematician but won't be going there as a result.


They do offer an extensive range of scholarships and funding. That might be something he can find interesting. It's a real shame, don't get me wrong. I was surprised to find out the fee differences for all courses. Some cost roughly 11k while some easily cost 25k a year.
Original post by 92DL
They do offer an extensive range of scholarships and funding. That might be something he can find interesting. It's a real shame, don't get me wrong. I was surprised to find out the fee differences for all courses. Some cost roughly 11k while some easily cost 25k a year.


Yeah economics is 25k a year and if you are converting it is 2 years. How anyone can afford that is beyond me.

He had a look at scholarships but even with that it comes out more than other very reputable Uni's.
Reply 53
Original post by redferry
Yeah economics is 25k a year and if you are converting it is 2 years. How anyone can afford that is beyond me.

He had a look at scholarships but even with that it comes out more than other very reputable Uni's.


I'm sorry to hear that but best of luck to him :smile:
Original post by 92DL
I'm sorry to hear that but best of luck to him :smile:


He'll be ok, he is good at everything :smile: (damn him *fist shake*)
Reply 55
Another thing that people don't seem to consider is faculty, I'm looking to do Local Economic Development and I based my undergrad dissertation (unknowingly) on the work of an academic at LSE so I'm really keen to get the opportunity to work with them :smile:.
Reply 56
I haven't read this thread, but to answer the original question, I think that the problem isn't about whether LSE is good enough. The problem is that the firms you seem to be targetting are not recruiting very much these days (top banks, consultancies, etc). Where ever there is recruitment, the competition is extremely tough.

If you don't already have strong work experience (e.g. summer internship at Credit Suisse), I would definitely not think LSE is worth the investment, even for something like MSc Finance.

Now if you do have strong work experience already, then I think yes LSE could be worth the investment for a non-finance/economics course. Depending on the position you apply for, most places don't care TOO much about your degree, but you definitely need very good knowledge in general + very strong work experience + a lot of luck to be successful.

But put it this way: I'd say 90% of people I met during the Masters at LSE (across a very wide range of courses) left disappointed at the end in terms of employment and many (probably even >60%) are still searching 1 year later for a GOOD job.
Reply 57
Original post by thechairman66
This statement reflects a lack of understanding about the American higher education system.

1) There's a lot more depth and diversity amongst top universities for masters programs. Here in the UK you have a handful of schools located at the top of world rankings and then generally a large gap until your next schools. In the US there's the upper tier representing the best universities in the world and then you have another lower tier that still has a lot of name recognition and good world rankings while being significantly cheaper.

2) More importantly, the entire financial aid philosophy in the US is significantly different than it is in the UK. Because most students rely primarily on government funding financial aid is considered a "bonus". The LSE points out that 10% of their students receive financial aid. In the US some level of financial aid for almost every student is the standard. So while the sticker price might be the same in some situations, the actual cost of attendance is significantly cheaper.

Furthermore, the cost of living in most US cities is significantly cheaper than it is in the UK, especially in London. You can not over look the strength of the sterling.





Yes...a point I already made. Read more carefully ;-)

As I said above, I can't imagine that the boost in future earnings with an LSE degree is substantially higher than someone with a masters degree from another university. I know this might be the case in some fields but for social policy I doubt it. That said (also mentioned above) I don't know what country the OP is from and I have only a bit of experience in social policy myself (I studied politics and worked in DC).

Also, just to take an educated guess, I'd bet that a lot of the increased earning potential from an LSE degree could also be achieved by other UK universities. Yes the LSE has a good name brand but chances are people are going to be loads of impressed just by the fact that you studied in the UK.


I understand the points you are trying to make but in non-US, non-UK countries I think you severely underestimate the benefit of brand name, or conversely the extent of what you think of as a really good uni just being unknown. People will recognise an Ivy but not say a "public ivy" or often even a school like SAIS which has such a good reputation. Similarly they will recognize LSE but not much else other than Oxbridge from the UK, so I do not agree with you on the cost benefit. I know in my country people will rather employ from a top local uni than a UK one they have not heard of - even if that is a well respected one in the UK. And uni name will often trump program name too if it is generic grad jobs for example... So yeah for social policy it may not make a difference ...

Btw there are many people on gradcafe who do not seem to get much or any financial aid with masters programs, at least the ones I have looked at, so I am not wholly convinced on that point, which I think applies far more to PhDs. Some top unis even state outright that applicants for terminal masters should not expect funding as it is reserved for PhDs.
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 58
Original post by sj27
I understand the points you are trying to make but in non-US, non-UK countries I think you severely underestimate the benefit of brand name, or conversely the extent of what you think of as a really good uni just being unknown. People will recognise an Ivy but not say a "public ivy" or often even a school like SAIS which has such a good reputation. Similarly they will recognize LSE but not much else other than Oxbridge from the UK, so I do not agree with you on the cost benefit. I know in my country people will rather employ from a top local uni than a UK one they have not heard of - even if that is a well respected one in the UK. And uni name will often trump program name too if it is generic grad jobs for example... So yeah for social policy it may not make a difference ...

Btw there are many people on gradcafe who do not seem to get much or any financial aid with masters programs, at least the ones I have looked at, so I am not wholly convinced on that point, which I think applies far more to PhDs. Some top unis even state outright that applicants for terminal masters should not expect funding as it is reserved for PhDs.



In my country too, people will rather employ from top local university than just any other UK university. I already have a good degree from top local university and have had great jobs so far.

But for the past few years I've had the urge to study social policy. LSE has one of the strongest department so applied for it.

I do not want to just pursue masters degree just for the sake of a degree to get a job. I I want it to be a learning experience as whole. but wondering if it would be worth the investment.

hmm...... been thinking over the cost benefit............. won't actually have to take loans. But then is it only about money?
LSE & media studies ? Really ?? Sounds a little disingenuous

Quick Reply