Been reading through the posts. Firstly, I wanted to say we need to be careful when start resorting to objective but incongruous information, such as REF research statistics and most importantly LEAGUE TABLES. Not only are these kind of statistics susceptible to change year on year, do they really tell the true story of how good a course really is? One professor publishing 3 amazing books in anthropology does not mean that this "world leading" anthropology department will take your fancy? Moreover just browsed through the league tables and I saw that (with all due respect) Lancaster and Loughborough in both the Guardian and the Complete University Guide were ranked above UCL. In the complete university guide Surrey is 8th in the UK! Does this mean that Surrey,Lancaster & Loughborough are "better" than UCL?
Anyway in terms of the UCL vs LSE argument....
Quite a number of the UCL advocates over LSE in this forum and other I have seen, have appeared on LSE applicant forums. Soon after they get a rejection from LSE, well then it's UCL to death do us part.
I do think UCL is a fantastic uni, I could've picked them, and I may still choose to do my postgrad there. But I wanted to go to the most prestigious university I had gotten an offer at, to both challenge myself and develop my academic potential. The best university I received an offer from was LSE.
To put into context LSE's economics programme is twice as competitive as UCL's. It is MUCH much easier to get into UCL than LSE. Even on the right of my screen in the latest discussions box someone posted "UCL gave me an offer of AAA even though I am predicted AAB. There's no way you will hear news like that for LSE when the yearly acceptance rate is 7-8%.
It is true that you can still get great job opportunities at UCL, and apparently the social scene is better, but I think this too is controversial. What would a uni with the right social life look like for you?
LSE is not equal with UCL. That is truly ridiculous.
who are introverts?