Are there a lot of oxbridge rejects at LSE?

I've heard people talk about how some schools have the dubious reputation of being "oxbridge reject" schools. Is LSE considered one or is it "good enough" that other schools have the reputation of being "LSE reject" schools

I've heard people talk about how some schools have the dubious reputation of being "oxbridge reject" schools. Is LSE considered one or is it "good enough" that other schools have the reputation of being "LSE reject" schools

I've heard people talk about how some schools have the dubious reputation of being "oxbridge reject" schools. Is LSE considered one or is it "good enough" that other schools have the reputation of being "LSE reject" schools

I've heard people talk about how some schools have the dubious reputation of being "oxbridge reject" schools. Is LSE considered one or is it "good enough" that other schools have the reputation of being "LSE reject" schools

Does anyone know what might have been the problem?

He had the grades, a good reference and he represented HK in the World Schools Debating Championships. No idea why he could be rejected.

I agree with the general drift of the thread, i.e. there will obviously some, but nothing like as many as at Durham (in particular) but also others like Bristol or Warwick.

Just a tip when speaking to Brits - be careful about refering to universities as "schools". Here's it not a big problem, because its a university forum and the context is clear, but the average Brit will probably get very confused if he heard Durham or Bristol described as schools.

(Another difference which may be less important is that instead of freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, it's just 1st yr 2nd yr 3rd yr 4th yr).

Oxbridge and LSE can't really be compared.

LSE was designed in the late nineteenth century as a research social sciences institution in the broad sense of the social sciences (most of its best work, in keeping with this, has been in fields beyond economics - only a small minority of its most famous graduates,for example, have been economists).

Oxford and Cambridge, in contrast, were established by the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages and have grown from this foundation into generalist, multi-faculty universities. Their great strengths are the pure sciences and the humanities. At various stages they have lived through the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the challenge posed by the innovatory London University (including LSE) from the nineteenth century onwards.

At heart they are still mediaeval institutions, with all the strengths and weaknesses that that fact implies.Their ambience, mission and ethos are very different from that of Houghton Street. The only thing they really have in common with LSE is that they are among the handful of really influential British universities and they are also subject to the same vicious funding system.

thanks for the tip...

I met plenty of people at Oxbridge who'd been rejected by LSE.

Any time. You applying to any US unis, or just British ones? And are you a full blooded Yank, or just an expat?

I'm not being (deliberately) nosy, just very interested in what Americans see as the strengths of British institutions.

You entering a mumbo-jumbo competition? John Prescott would've proud of that post (particularly the word "innovatory").

Firstly, it is historically inaccurate on dozens of levels. There was no "Roman Catholic Church" in the Middle Ages. It was not a single entity. The Church was essentially a very specialised guild - constituted of individuals enterprises (the biggest of whom owned smaller ones), self regulating to an extent but nonetheless independent. I posted a few days ago on the origin of universities from ad-hoc centres of legal studies which became more formalised in order to enable students to have a recognised qualification proving their expertise. These experts were involved in ecclesiastical matters, but only because Canon Law was such a mess that clerics needs all the legal advice they could get.

The rest of your post is constituted of such vague generalisations as to be almsot entirely meaningless. Would you care to explain what "At heart they are still mediaeval institutions" actually means? Given you were so inaccurate about among the most famous and important of medieval institutions, I don't have confidence that your defintion of a medieval institution will have much value. Further, doesn't "At various stages they have lived through the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the challenge posed by the innovatory London University" simply mean "Oxford and Cambridge are still here after 800 years"?

Your final paragraph does not disappoint in maintaining the high standard its predecessors set in containing grand statements yet almost no meaning

1/The Catholic Church was the leading intellectual and political organisation of the Middle Ages.

2/Oxford and Cambridge were founded as religious institutions under the auspices of the Catholic Church.

3/As someone who was raised as a Catholic and also studied at Oxford I have some personal knowledge of what I am talking about, although of course I have no personal knowledge of the Middle Ages.

4/The social sciences did not exist in the Mediaeval period.


5/LSE was founded specifically to study and research the social sciences (ie sociology, anthropology, social history, government, international relations, economics, demography, social geography, law in its social context, international history, business and commerce, transport, social administration etc etc). LSE was and is part of the University of London which introduced all sorts of academic and social innovations (ie admitting women, Jews, non-Christians in general, studying things like engineering and geography and business etc)

Oxford and cambridge were not so founded. They have embraced some of the social sciences, rather late in the day, but they remain collections of small, ancient colleges which teach 24 weeks out of 52 in sleepy provincial towns. Their ethos, much-loved traditions and modes of organisation, which relate directly to their mediaeval origins, gear them towards certain fields of study and not others. That is what I meant. I am sorry if you don't get my point or if much of it is general, but posts are better if they are relatively short: there is no space to give a great deal of detail.

Incidentally your own post is characterised by bluster and wordiness..

there are oxbridge rejects at lse as well as lse rejects at oxbridge.
i would say that most people would choose oxbridge over lse for the reputation except for some courses that are not taught at both universities [ex. international relations] or because they prefer the city life.

i would be careful with doing an llb in the UK, afaik it doesn't qualify you for the bar exam in the US [i think schools like harvard law will still want you to do 2 years to get a j.d. from them so it seem as if they don't think the llb is sufficient to practise as an attorney in the US].