exacly. justified or not, its what happens, so my point is valid.
i get a feeling these are like size doesnt matter arguments. A lot of intricate arguments get put forward about it being the love making, or the motion of the ocean when deep down, everyone knows size matters.
i just know if i get to oxford im going to get a tag people who dont go to oxford get, and im going to make a ****ing wad of cash when i graduate.
but then, i might get AAB and miss my offer :P
The statistics are on my side; LSE students have better graduate prospects and destinations in most subjects.
I'm not saying LSE is better than Oxbridge for undergrad; if you like tutorials, clearly it's not. But I don't think the difference is big, either in the difficulty of the courses or the quality of the students. Remember that entry standards in league tables don't consider foreign qualifications, which something 60% of LSE students enter with.
The "LSE is for Oxbridge rejects" is a very UK-centric view. Many foreign students consider LSE to be on par with Oxbridge and select it as their first choice uni. This is even more so the case at postgrad, where nearly everyone's first choice (at least in my subject area) was LSE.
i dont think it is, i dont have stats though. Put it this way, having an economics degree from LSE doesnt put you at an advantage really, whatever layman logic/LSE fanboys might say.
but WHERE ARE THEY GOING?
But for the history tables, not only is Oxford beaten by LSE (plausible) but Durham, KCL and Roehampton? so using these tables surely cant be a very reliable indicator of graduate employability in high-end professions since i doubt that KCL and especially Roehampton history grads have better employment prospects than Oxford history grads