Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    its just the stereotype i got told.

    who here is actually proposing LSE is better than Oxbridge overall?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Consie)
    its just the stereotype i got told.

    who here is actually proposing LSE is better than Oxbridge overall?
    What do you mean by overall?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Consie)
    its just the stereotype i got told.

    who here is actually proposing LSE is better than Oxbridge overall?
    How does that matter?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miltonkeynes)
    How does that matter?
    i think consie is basing his question on the thread title and not its content.
    I prefer LSE just because of the name clearly isnt better overall though
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    How does that matter? The thread is called 'LSE vs Oxbridge'

    I'm talking of overall university quality and overall reputation. Employers rarely know, or give a crap, about what subject is good where, so uni reputations overall are what matter really. In these terms, I think Oxbridge comes out on top, justifyably or not.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    For most employers, if choosing between BA Geography (Oxford) vs. BSc Geography with Economics, they'd probably prefer the latter because most people know what economics is and how it applies. The average employer in business or something thinks geography is drawing maps. If it were straight geography at LSE, perhaps I'd agree with you Consie. But as it stands, the LSE degree seems to provide a stronger skillset.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I can see what you're saying, but I still think most 'classic' subjects offer a wide enough skill base for it to be useful anywhere. Its more the fact that the person in question is clearly bright and adapatable and hardworking rather than specific skills a degree gets them. You could be an equity analyist or do mergers and aquistions and do those jobs fine with just a working knowledge of economics you (quickly) pick up on the job/in introductory peroid if you're a bright person.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Consie)
    The reputation ive been told LSE has is that its full of asian economists who are up themselves and think they're the next Lakshmi Mittal. Its also full of Europeans. they're the stereotypes i got told.
    That's something you might say about all British universities, though, seeing as they're sort of located in Europe...
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by AlexCash)
    However I'm not 100% on what library conditions are like between the universities, but I suspect Oxford is better as there are college libraries with the books as well as other ones, although I'm sure there are some excellent ones in London.
    Wouldn't that be a point in favour of LSE, actually? As far as I know, students there can take advantage of the British Library, which probably has more books than the Bod and college libraries combined...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Go to LSE. Despite what you hear on here, the difference in standards doesn't exist at all. LSE just doesn't have the history Oxford does.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexCash)
    I received an offer from both universities for straight Geography. I'm a little baffled as to why LSE is rated as first in the country. When i went there on an open day, the "department" consisted of something like two dingy state school classroom where everyone was packed in. After this the tutors freely declared that they were simply there for their own research and teaching us was a bit of a chore. Of course this may be the case at most universities but at least at Oxbridge you get the tutorial system and that support structure. Furthermore, I believe that the tutors are Oxford are probably far more qualified and respected than at LSE for Geography. The ones whom will be teaching me have won national prizes for their books etc...

    Does anyone know what actually places LSE first? because the impression i received was extremely poor. IMO Oxbridge has better teaching, higher calibre of students, better tutors, better facilities etc etc... At LSE i felt i'd have to fend for myself and be unsupported with lacklustre teaching, not to mention worse studying conditions than my school. However I'm not 100% on what library conditions are like between the universities, but I suspect Oxford is better as there are college libraries with the books as well as other ones, although I'm sure there are some excellent ones in London.
    Well, the fact that LSE ranks so highly despite having poor facilities should tell you that their academic quality must be pretty high to make up for it.

    Anyway, the LSE library is the largest social science library in the world, plus students can use the University of London Library and all of the UoL college libraries, plus the British Library. Between LSE and UoL I've never struggled to find books and resources.

    As for geography--I know that Sylvia Chant, who is one of the world's leading scholars on gender and development, is a professor there. I don't think an Open Day is the best way to determine who's a quality professor. I gave a tour to some students and pointed out all of the top professors in the Government Department, and was greeted with blank stares. Most undergraduates don't care about that kind of stuff. Oh well.

    I also suspect that the lack of pastoral care given to LSE students is why they make better employees than Oxbridge grads. Fending for yourself in an overly competitive university in London is pretty good experience for cutthroat professions.

    Anyway, I wouldn't suggest that someone with offers from Oxbridge and LSE go to LSE, because the UK is still ridiculously elitist and people cream their panties for an Oxbridge graduate, regardless of their actual abilities or intelligence. But with an offer from LSE and an insurance at Durham, reapplication is just sad. It seems like a very insecure, social climbing thing to do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shady lane)
    Well, the fact that LSE ranks so highly despite having poor facilities should tell you that their academic quality must be pretty high to make up for it.

    Anyway, the LSE library is the largest social science library in the world, plus students can use the University of London Library and all of the UoL college libraries, plus the British Library. Between LSE and UoL I've never struggled to find books and resources.

    As for geography--I know that Sylvia Chant, who is one of the world's leading scholars on gender and development, is a professor there. I don't think an Open Day is the best way to determine who's a quality professor. I gave a tour to some students and pointed out all of the top professors in the Government Department, and was greeted with blank stares. Most undergraduates don't care about that kind of stuff. Oh well.

    I also suspect that the lack of pastoral care given to LSE students is why they make better employees than Oxbridge grads. Fending for yourself in an overly competitive university in London is pretty good experience for cutthroat professions.

    Anyway, I wouldn't suggest that someone with offers from Oxbridge and LSE go to LSE, because the UK is still ridiculously elitist and people cream their panties for an Oxbridge graduate, regardless of their actual abilities or intelligence. But with an offer from LSE and an insurance at Durham, reapplication is just sad. It seems like a very insecure, social climbing thing to do.
    Out of curiousity what would you define as academic quality though? More qualified students? A more rigourous course? Better teaching? Because Oxbridge exceeds it in these three categories IMO.

    Also is employment considered when ranking the departments? If so, do you know how they do this?

    I'm just stunnned that LSE is ranked as No.1 for Geography. I'd have thought it was really quite weak there compared to other subjects it offers.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The ranking includes graduate destinations. LSE ranks 90, I think Cambridge is 80 and Oxford is in the 70s. It also has an RAE of 5 compared to Oxford's 4.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    You must not know much about jobs then. I'm starting at an investment bank and was told that the #1 school for graduate intake this year was LSE, followed by Cambridge.

    As for academic quality, that's partly subjective. LSE has a focus on human geography and I understand that it is very good at it. Wide range of modules, academic staff who are at the top of their professions or rapidly rising to the top, and a challenging course overall.

    I don't think the rigor of a course is determined by weekly unassessed essays, so Oxbridge doesn't exceed anything in my book. And both Oxford and Cambridge seem to do physical and human. LSE specializes, so that students would get a deeper education in human rather than a broad first year that includes shades of both like at Oxbridge.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Go to LSE. Despite what you hear on here, the difference in standards doesn't exist at all. LSE just doesn't have the history Oxford does.
    :|

    Oxbridge tops British unis fair and square, end of story.

    If your using league tables to rank things, then that might explain the kind of crazy results that puts places like Loughborough 6th in the Country overall because it probably has nice tennis courts, or Aston 13th. I mean Aston 13th, wtf? Things like spending on IT are counted, they’re useless measurements. Entry standards is another useless measurement. I could cane any Durham historian despite having far worse GCSE’s, it places too much importance on early, non important grades. The only good measurement I can think of is the ‘graduate prospects’, but even then I don’t know who they actually ask and what exactly are prospects? Pay? What if people don’t do it for the pay? Satisfaction? What counts as satisfaction?

    Even despite these useless measurements, Oxbridge still tops most of them in the overall ratings. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/display...102571,00.html

    I don’t really care whether or not the Bod has every book ever written (it claims it does), so long as I can get a few course books every week to do my essays, that’s all I want. The student to staff ratio doesn’t tell the whole story either. What of places like LSE that takes up about 1000-1200 undergrads (remember the amount of third years leaving) a year compared to places like Cambridge that takes up about 3100? A half full or a full lecture room makes no difference in teaching quality, but it looks better stats wise. Plus, despite that difference in numbers, Oxbridge maintains comparable student/staff ratio and offers the weekly tutorials. The lower take up doesnt mean LSE is 'more elite' either, before someone says, its becasue it doesnt do a full range of courses.

    What the specific subject is like doesn’t matter either, all that matters is you get a First on your CV. It’s more a case that you nail whatever you did rather than what you did, so don’t worry to much about the geography credentials of the place.

    Anyway, I wouldn't suggest that someone with offers from Oxbridge and LSE go to LSE, because the UK is still ridiculously elitist and people cream their panties for an Oxbridge graduate, regardless of their actual abilities or intelligence. But with an offer from LSE and an insurance at Durham, reapplication is just sad. It seems like a very insecure, social climbing thing to do.
    Its not a case of that really, Oxbridge has fair and square quality, and is rock hard to get into. I can’t think of what’s more competitive than having to prove you’re comparable to your tutorial mate in front of your tutor either. But I agree with shady, don’t reapply, LSE and Durham are both class universities. I also personally never applied to ‘social climb’ I just reckoned I could cut it so applied to the best uni, and that job prospects would be good.

    Shady, you should have worked for LSE undergraduate admissions, you can sell that place like a beast :P. Oxford essays do get assessed. You get grilled on your essay for an hour every week by an expert, he doesn’t just tick it. I don’t buy that doing both parts of geography both aspects of it have to suffer, youd have to have pretty limited intellect/facilities to only be good at one subsection, you’ve just made a theory up that probably doesn’t apply in practice. Just because Oxford is good, at, lets say, Early Modern History doesn’t mean its not so good at Modern, it owns at both. what Bank you going to?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Hahah I'm good at sales!

    Yeah well I guess I just didn't like Oxford, as my posts on TSR indicate, I didn't think it was very academically rigorous, nor did I think the students were the smartest I'd ever met (for those who don't know, I was a visiting student from the US at Oxford for two terms). It was interesting, but also really conservative. And I hated the fact that I had such small tutorials, I like class discussions.

    I really haven't seen anything that suggests that the difficulty and rigor of the courses at LSE are below Oxford, nor that the students are of a poorer quality. For the vast majority of foreign students, LSE was their first choice. And these people had the top marks in India, China, Dubai, or wherever they came from. It's really snobby to say that the students at LSE are markedly worse; they are no such thing and anyone who can get a 2:1 or 1st at LSE would have gotten the same at Oxbridge. (This is why Oxbridge graduates don't get distinctions in their MScs at LSE--supposedly they should if Oxbridge is so much harder).

    I'm going to work for a European bank...that's all you need to know.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Is it German?

    I didnt get the impression it was conservative, and I certainly had the radars on for ******** given im not exacly middle class. I agree with you that students arent massivley different, but that is just the nature of education. Being one mark off an A and making an A by one mark has little difference in it, but it gets counted as a lot. Plenty of people could cut it at Oxbridge once theyre in there, just like plenty of people could cut it at Goldman or Slaughter and May once theyre in there, but thats not how it works.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    you more than A level students should know any leagues, especially crazy global leauges, are BS.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    oh come on shady. overall the quality of students at oxbridge is better than at lse. LSE only has good economics department and thats about it. Whereas Oxbridge is all rounded and is good for all subjects.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    LSE > former teaching college
 
 
 

University open days

  • University of East Anglia
    All Departments Open 13:00-17:00. Find out more about our diverse range of subject areas and career progression in the Arts & Humanities, Social Sciences, Medicine & Health Sciences, and the Sciences. Postgraduate
    Wed, 30 Jan '19
  • Aston University
    Postgraduate Open Day Postgraduate
    Wed, 30 Jan '19
  • Solent University
    Careers in maritime Undergraduate
    Sat, 2 Feb '19
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

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.