Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Hi,

    I need some help on choosing between the two courses. As with past thread, it seems that one consensus is the choice depends on future career; LSE has power over careers closely related to Economics (or possibly in the same area) and the fame of Cambridge tends to outrun in sectors such as consulting. Hence, the further away from the academy (or more accurately the economics discipline) Cambridge would be a superior choice.

    One distinction should be noted in that there are "more" modules for Cambridge than LSE. As one would understand the amount of credits each module weight would be more important, this in some sense shed light on the potential diversity from taking the Cambridge MPhil. In constrast, the latter only one option and half of which would be an extended essay.

    Rumors - Do you think (1), (2) and (3) below are true?

    1. LSE is US style and its structure (overextended masters, for instance) allows to attract many Harvard (supposing superior than Cambridge, which relies on internal graduates). LSE should have better people. But the trade-off is higher number of students - the course is larger than MPhil at Cambridge.

    2. Economics at Cambridge is weaker than LSE. In particular, macro is weak, some claimed. From the same stance, the smaller course should enable a better teaching quality, in addition to the Cambridge style tutorial.

    3. Of course, location is one that never get missed. With no doubt, living in London is super expensive. But let's set this aside and focus on the core. By the way, would be in London gives LSE an edge for future employment?

    Due to this sort of smartness of teaching staff vs externality of having more students (or being more selective), would you say that the two courses are essentially of the same ?

    Noting that in some other forums, they also consider the future funding opportunities in continuing towards PhD and LSE is disadvantaged due to its large students base (~100 at LSE and ~50 at Cambridge) so funded PhD is more likely at Cambridge. But people at Cambridge are not as smart (in terms of ranking etc.. if LSE follows the US style then its economics would be more mainstream and thereby awarded a higher ranking#), would this means the scope of PhD is reduced.

    Apologize for the long thread. I'm sure there are many who are in the same boat. Getting one offer is great. Having two of the similar level resulting in a non-zero opportunity costs and decision comes with a cost. The post also serves to summarise comparison between the two courses at these two renowned institution.

    Could you say that the two courses are not really much more superior than the other?

    #that is not to say Cambridge is useless, but the true is that American journals do not value Economics in Europe as much as the US ones.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Most rumours about either Cambridge or the LSE are false.

    (Original post by whyeverynameisus)
    1. LSE is US style and its structure (overextended masters, for instance) allows to attract many Harvard (supposing superior than Cambridge, which relies on internal graduates). LSE should have better people. But the trade-off is higher number of students - the course is larger than MPhil at Cambridge.
    If you do a Linkedin search of the current cohort of MSc students at the LSE, you will see a healthy balance of American and UK undergraduates. I very much doubt the balance is fair at undergraduate level, but at least at the MSc level, it seems to be near equal.

    (Original post by whyeverynameisus)
    2. Economics at Cambridge is weaker than LSE. In particular, macro is weak, some claimed. From the same stance, the smaller course should enable a better teaching quality, in addition to the Cambridge style tutorial.
    What criteria are we using to measure 'strength'? Research output? Quality of academics?


    (Original post by whyeverynameisus)
    3. Of course, location is one that never get missed. With no doubt, living in London is super expensive. But let's set this aside and focus on the core. By the way, would be in London gives LSE an edge for future employment?
    Believe me, there is no lack of careers fairs at Oxbridge. During recruitment season, you can meet with bankers or consultants on a near daily basis. If you're talking about going to networking events, then I grant being in London helps.

    As someone who had to make the choice between the LSE and Cambridge, albeit not in pure Economics, I went with the latter as the experience is unlike any other.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    There is no doubt the two are excellent in many aspects and give rise to problem in choosing the two. Let me add a bit of statistics to enrich the different aspects.

    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Most rumours about either Cambridge or the LSE are false.

    If you do a Linkedin search of the current cohort of MSc students at the LSE, you will see a healthy balance of American and UK undergraduates. I very much doubt the balance is fair at undergraduate level, but at least at the MSc level, it seems to be near equal.
    Course size in term of people are ~50 at Cambridge for MPhil Economics and ~100 for MSc Economics at LSE. Statistics from University sites.

    By US style, I'm referring to the places where most lecturers were graduated from are US.

    http://www.lse.ac.uk/economics/people/facultyA-Z.aspx

    Scrolling down the site would gives you a disproportionate lecturers from US universities (this is not to say they are bad nor good, just a matter of preference)


    (Original post by Aceadria)
    What criteria are we using to measure 'strength'? Research output? Quality of academics?
    REF framework (Overall - 18 Economics and Econometrics)
    UCL - 3.78
    LSE - 3.55
    Oxford - 3.44
    Cambridge 3.42
    Warwick - 3.41

    Difference of Oxbridge and Warwick are marginal less than 1%. But UCL and LSE tops the charts. Not a perfect measure though. Well ranking is pretty useless in these situation and possibly research is a less biased measure already.

    https://www.timeshighereducation.com.../sub-14-01.pdf

    If you look at output and impact, Cambridge is second on output but impact is No.6. This is why it might have been the case of the US mainstream research.


    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Believe me, there is no lack of careers fairs at Oxbridge. During recruitment season, you can meet with bankers or consultants on a near daily basis. If you're talking about going to networking events, then I grant being in London helps.

    As someone who had to make the choice between the LSE and Cambridge, albeit not in pure Economics, I went with the latter as the experience is unlike any other.
    If the two are exactly on par in terms of people, Cambridge is definitely the choice. THe problem is - Are they at the same level?

    [Just to clarify that I only meant to compare, but attacking either insituitions. Coz I'm puzzling over the two as well!]
    Thanks for reply !
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: February 24, 2016

University open days

  1. University of Cambridge
    Christ's College Undergraduate
    Wed, 26 Sep '18
  2. Norwich University of the Arts
    Undergraduate Open Days Undergraduate
    Fri, 28 Sep '18
  3. Edge Hill University
    Faculty of Health and Social Care Undergraduate
    Sat, 29 Sep '18
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?

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.