is LSE actually much better than UCL?

By that logic, no uni is world apart from UCL. Since Oxbridge is top 5 in the world. Which isn't true.



"arguably". UCL doesn't even come close to some of the most rigorous and competitive subjects offered at Oxbridge and even when it does, it's still arguable.

UCL in many aspects from satisfaction to teaching quality is very average in many aspects once you get passed the name.

To be fair, I remember some time ago you were interested in or somehow involved with the Scandinavian course at UCL (don't ask how I remember that), so you're not as completely disinterested as you state.

Well it's realistically not, go on a website like Quora where intellectuals discuss universities and many Americans compare UCL to Ivy leagues. Though the users there are sensical about their views.

What makes them worlds apart? Do you have deep experience into the teaching offered there? Considering the fact that there are plenty of Oxbridge graduate professors at UCL (which is clearly your criteria for being the best), do you really think the teaching quality is going to be that different? The only distinguishing factor is tutorials, and these are reviewed as a mix of good and bad. Research - they're comparable via REF. Income - they're comparable. I mean some of the most groundbreaking science discoveries have been made at UCL, like the immune system, like noble gases etc. And the government REF also has them comparable. What's your point? I've been interviewed at Oxford, Imperial and UCL, but that doesn't mean I lose sight of the fact that UCL is close to these two, the only logical differentiator between these is the cost of living - anyone telling you your life is going to be "head and shoulders" different is feeding you lies.

To be fair, I remember some time ago you were interested in or somehow involved with the Scandinavian course at UCL (don't ask how I remember that), so you're not as completely disinterested as you state.

How do you remember that?

Well it's realistically not, go on a website like Quora where intellectuals discuss universities and many Americans compare UCL to Ivy leagues. Though the users there are sensical about their views.

What makes them worlds apart? Do you have deep experience into the teaching offered there? Considering the fact that there are plenty of Oxbridge graduate professors at UCL (which is clearly your criteria for being the best), do you really think the teaching quality is going to be that different? The only distinguishing factor is tutorials, and these are reviewed as a mix of good and bad. Research - they're comparable via REF. Income - they're comparable. I mean some of the most groundbreaking science discoveries have been made at UCL, like the immune system, like noble gases etc. And the government REF also has them comparable. What's your point? I've been interviewed at Oxford, Imperial and UCL, but that doesn't mean I lose sight of the fact that UCL is close to these two, the only logical differentiator between these is the cost of living - anyone telling you your life is going to be "head and shoulders" different is feeding you lies.

The UCL fanboys really are out in full force.

Im not really bothered with this pointless discussion. UCL has a very nice facade but it's really not all that. If you seriously cant see the sizeable difference (not sure why you insist on "world's apart" - never said that) then you are overestimating UCL or underestimating Oxbridge.

The fact that you've been interviewed is irrelevant.

I said don't ask!

I wrote a song about Snufkin one time, listing all his/her achievements, passions and pastimes. Was going to sing it to him/her but lost the bottle, though still got the lyrics locked away in my top drawer.

You're an LSE applicant, you have clear bias because it's evident it's going to be your firm if you get an offer. Why are you not an LSE fanboy?

My university interviews were to show I have no clear bias, but given LSE is your sole vocal point of interest, it's clear you have a strong one

What - the - heck! I want to hear it!!!!

(I don't know you, do I? )

Since when did UCL have plenty of Oxbridge graduate professors? Don't try to justify that UCL is 'good' just because there are a few professors who did their Bachelor's degree from Oxbridge.

And Americans never compare UCL with IVY leagues because it's not even worth it. If people had a choice between UCL and UCLA, then I guarantee you 80%+ choose to go to UCLA.
The schools that are comparable with IVY leagues and TOP 20 US colleges are Oxbridge (obviously better than low IVYs like Cornell, Brown, Dartmouth and even UPenn, Columbia), Imperial/LSE (depending on the subject)

Why do UCL kids think they're on par with Oxbridge/Imperial/LSE?

UCL is full of very knowledgeable academics who can't teach to save their lives. You have to learn idependetly and sometimes you're better of spending the time you're wasting at lectures, working for yourself.

UCL professors get paid more than Oxbridge ones. You can do the searching, I know what I'm talking about. A lot of UCL Nobel prize winners are Oxbridge grads working as staff at UCL, ALOT of faculty are Oxbridge grads. They chose UCL because of research power too.

UCL is good - in fact in every single rankings table it's beating Ivies. I haven't even heard of some of those universities you've listed either.

They do, get a Quora account - people far more intelligible than you are doing so.

Also I'm "not UCL kid" yank.

Why would I choose UCLA? American broad based education is ****.

i bothered to look up two.

econ. LSE = 19%. UCL = 40%
management. LSE = 24% UCL = 44%

For the sciences ( which LSE don't offer but say if you compared UCL to ICL) the offer rates are v high for UCL. 60s-90s and sciences arent niche

You have to remember that LSE gets far more international applicants than UCL does for the same courses.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Ivy league is a football league.

UCL does not even come close to the top 5 american unis. Saying that it beats Brown in a couple of rankings is meaningless.

UCL is full of very knowledgeable academics who can't teach to save their lives. You have to learn idependetly and sometimes you're better of spending the time you're wasting at lectures, working for yourself.

That's every uni, practically.

They can't be ****ed teaching, they're there mostly to do their research.

Haven't had a single person tell me their teaching is good