This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Is LSE ripping off MSc students?

Here’s the thing (keep in mind i'm focussing on fin/econ programs):

LSE is known as one of the best unis in the UK. However, from what I’ve learnt, it is VERY easy to get an offer for LSE masters programs (relative to, say, Oxbridge or top American programs). Just check all these forums (e.g. TSR, TestMagic) yourself: loads of people (who applied, of course) have gotten an offer from LSE. Virtually everyone who has an offer from Oxbridge also has an offer from LSE (again, if they applied of course). The opposite is quite often not true, and I find few rejections from LSE (again, relative to other supposedly top unis).

LSE also demands the highest tuition fees (on average) than any other UK uni. And many of the programs offered (I’m focussing primarily on econ and finance programs, which demand £18k fees) don’t seem very different from what you would get at other universities, apart from the setting of course. Moreover, half of the current fin and econ batch hasn’t landed a job yet. So here’s the question: is LSE ripping off students at the masters level? Do they just give out so many offers hoping that enough will be prepared to go broke to have LSE on their CV? Or do you think LSE is worth the buck?

(Btw, why does LSE only have £2m to give out in graduate support, despite their absurd tuition fees? :mad:

Similar US unis have got hundreds of millions to give out!)

Reply 1

Sunflower52

Well...I applied and was accepted at LSE at MSc IR but I turned down the offer to accept a place at Cambridge. For my subject, they have some really big name professors and host a lot of important events in London.

They do have a lower standard for acceptance than Oxbridge - it's not hidden and it's pretty apparent that their standard offer for US students is a 3.5 GPA whereas Oxbridge is usually around 3.75. However, they focus more on career experience. They look for MSc students who have experience in their field and who are likely to continue on to successful careers; whereas, Oxbridge seems more focused on people which stellar academics who have the potential to enter academia one day. LSE has more spaces available to give out offers for than Oxbridge and it also knows that a lot of the students who are also accepted at the Ivy League, Oxbridge, ect are likely to choose to decline their offer.

As for the fees, it's in central London and probably pays a lot for its big names. US universities usually rely on their huge endowments, especially the Ivy League. Harvard is veryvery rich. I don't think LSE has that or not yet at least. With the economy as it is, any graduate is lucky to land a job (even from graduate school). Whether LSE is worth it is a personal decision - I chose Cambridge instead. But it's not just for the "Let's See Europe" crowd anymore - LSE is a great school.

Reply 2

e-lover

16

The price is high because the demand is.

Reply 3

Haksa

rsingh

Here’s the thing (keep in mind i'm focussing on fin/econ programs):

LSE is known as one of the best unis in the UK. However, from what I’ve learnt, it is VERY easy to get an offer for LSE masters programs (relative to, say, Oxbridge or top American programs). Just check all these forums (e.g. TSR, TestMagic) yourself: loads of people (who applied, of course) have gotten an offer from LSE. Virtually everyone who has an offer from Oxbridge also has an offer from LSE (again, if they applied of course). The opposite is quite often not true, and I find few rejections from LSE (again, relative to other supposedly top unis).

LSE also demands the highest tuition fees (on average) than any other UK uni. And many of the programs offered (I’m focussing primarily on econ and finance programs, which demand £18k fees) don’t seem very different from what you would get at other universities, apart from the setting of course. Moreover, half of the current fin and econ batch hasn’t landed a job yet. So here’s the question: is LSE ripping off students at the masters level? Do they just give out so many offers hoping that enough will be prepared to go broke to have LSE on their CV? Or do you think LSE is worth the buck?

(Btw, why does LSE only have £2m to give out in graduate support, despite their absurd tuition fees? :mad:

Similar US unis have got hundreds of millions to give out!)

I agree and disagree.

LSE DO charge far too much for their programmes, but I think gaining admissions to their masters courses is not quite as easy as you make out. Many of the more popular finance/managment/economics courses have in excess of 10 applicants per place, which is relatively high. There are a fair few getting rejected, it's just that those who shout loudest on internet forums are the ones who get offers!

Reply 4

ElemenT'

13

Oxbridge only have 1-3 fin/econ programmes between them and only take 40ish students per year. LSE have multiple programmes with larger classes and this is why they make more offers. I would still say most if not all the students on these programmes at LSE have a First class degree.

LSE is still better represented than Oxbridge in areas of Investment Banking by a clear mile. For Management Consultancy it is the other way round.

Universities will charge with whatever people are willing to pay for it.

For finance/economics programmes I would pick LSE over Oxbridge..

Reply 5

threedaystar

As has been noted, it's not that LSE is "easy" to get into - but just that they have bigger classes and make more offers than Oxbridge.

I am American, so let me put it this way. Harvard only allows five or ten people into each grad program. This way, they can fund every student + ensure that they are picking only the best and brightest. However, a larger state university - like Kansas, can accept students that have a bit lower GPAs and may not fund every offer.

LSE is still a good school and you will get a great education if you go there. But, Oxbridge is looking for the best and brightest. That's why their enrollment is so small.

Hence, LSE's MSc is not a money making scheme. It is a University, running like a University. It accepts how many students it can, funds some, and has a bit lower standards, because it cannot afford to be as picky as Oxbridge.

Reply 6

Jaffaholic

LSE unlike oxbridge doesn't have billions of £s in endowments. It has to make money somewhere.

The OP is probably an economist. What is the optimal price for a single round game when setting the price of say the MSc Economics course? Assuming supply is inelastic, it would be a price where demand equals supply such that all those which wish to get into the course can as long as they can afford the course. For example, they could probably charge £100k for the course next year and still get takers to fill the course.

However, in a multiple rounds game this would damage the reputation (calibre of students) of the school and therefore its ability to charge higher prices in future rounds. Therefore there is a trade off.

Reply 7

globalista

I find LSE really frustrating. Their fees price out the normal UK student completely. International students, I think, have to pay a lot for every university in the UK but for UK students it’s at least double at LSE. OK so it’s not LSE fault, as people say they want to compete and higher education is expensive. I can understand it, where I am really frustrated is that it is not even possible to take out a career development loan that can cover LSE’s fees. The course I want to take is 9000 pounds, and the max CDL is 8000….. plus it’s in London. If the fees were just a little bit lower it would make such a difference to take the CDL and be able to cover fees and a couple months rent too. The UK system isn't designed like the US ones where the fees are high but people can get crazy high loans. LSE seems to fit into the latter, but it's located in the former and that's frustrating.

of course i speak only from a UK perspective on this

Reply 8

Camus

I'm interested in this question as well. To my mind, all educational institutions are meant to satisfy two objectives, the first -- and in my opinion the most important of which -- is to impart knowledge and cultivate a sense of intellectual curiosity; the second is to prepare students to enter society as knowledgeable, industrious, and productive members of the workforce. There is a strong correlation between the excellence of a university and the extent to which it succeeds in meeting each objective. Naturally, universities more successful than others in this regard are justified in charging higher rates of tuition than their less successful counterparts. (Graduate prospects -- as quantified by starting salaries, career satisfaction, capacity for postgraduate study [doctoral study, in this case], etc. would seem to reflect to reflect this.)

At the end of the day, education has (unfortunately) become a commodity; and the worth of a commodity to a consumer is judged, in large part, on its ability to meet and exceed the needs and desires of the consumer. In this case, students are the consumers; their needs are jobs and, more often than not, their desires are well paying jobs. LSE is widely perceived to offer its graduates excellent career prospects-- indeed, by some measures, the best of all universities in the U.K. Assuming that this is indeed the case (and in light of the foregoing analysis), LSE's tuition costs do not seem totally unjustified. I, like many students, wish they were lower, but as long as demand for places exceeds available supply (as it does each year in nearly every course) LSE has no rational basis other than charity upon which to lower the costs of tuition.

With that in mind, I don't think we can say that LSE is ripping off MSc students unless it is unable to fulfill its tacit pledge to afford them excellent job prospects upon graduation. The current state of the world economy has thrown its ability to do that into question. (See the original poster's reference to an alleged 50% jobless rate in the current MSc class in Finance and Economics, which, I think we can reasonably assume, generalizes throughout course offerings in nearly every field.) Without additional information -- such as that which recent graduates and students currently enrolled in MSc programs at LSE might provide about their ability to obtain jobs, let alone excellent ones -- I'm hesitant to say that LSE MSc students are being ripped off; but the fact that discussions such as these are even occurring does not augur well for LSE's continued ability to justify such high rates of tuition; neither, for that matter, does the fiscal state of higher education in Britain.

The fact that LSE MSc's costs are as high as they are is as much attributable to capped tuition rates on British undergraduates as it is to current market forces among seekers of postgraduate degrees. The dirty little (not so) secret fact of British higher education is that in order for universities to sustain themselves (i.e. pay faculty and staff, fund speakers, conduct research, etc.) and grow (i.e. do the things they must do to sustain themselves better), they must collect more revenue than that which is provided by undergraduate tuition fees. This is accomplished by charging international and/or graduate students two to three times as much in tuition as that which is paid by undergraduate students. Compared to, say, the U.S. educational system, this is essentially a "break even and grow at a snail's pace" business model. (This is why even the richest of U.K. universities -- LSE among them -- have absolutely pitiful endowments relative to even the most ordinary of private American universities.) From the universities perspective, such measures are essential to survival, necessary amidst market competition, and justified amidst market pressure; from the student's perspective, such measures are unfair yet understandable at best, and wholly unjustified at worst.

As someone from a country in which graduate study in the arts, sciences, and humanities is typically funded by the universities themselves (in large part, through undergraduate tuition), the situation in Britain is understandable, yet difficult to accept. With respect to LSE, the only thing that makes it acceptable -- at least to me, personally -- is the possibility that opportunities unavailable to me in the U.S. would be available to me as a graduate of LSE. Beyond the experience of living and studying abroad at a great university, these opportunities must inevitably translate into better job opportunities upon graduation. At the moment -- and probably through no fault of its own -- LSE's ability to provide those opportunities is in question; and, as a consequence, so too should most reasonable persons' commitment to attend the school as an MSc student, be.

Reply 9

economicsessex

of course they are ripping students off, but its good to see students practicing their eco reasoning skills before next year starts.

Reply 10

rsingh

OP

3

Perhaps I should clarify my situation a bit:

I do hold an offer to go to LSE. And I probably would be able to get the money together (which is why, I suspect, I wasn’t given any financial aid). However, this would require me to take out a full CDL (£8000) and use up all my savings (which I was hoping to keep for a rainy day). My nightmare scenario is that, given the economy and its impact even at LSE, a year from now I won’t land a job. Then I’ll have this loan burden which I won’t be able to pay back and have no more savings. In short: I’ll be screwed.

Given the ease with which LSE gives out offers, and the fact that they give out very little financial aid, I’ve gotten the impression that LSE wants me only for my money.

(I do have an offer for a good, relatively free, education in Holland, but the problem is: it’s not LSE!)

Reply 11

Camus

rsingh

Perhaps I should clarify my situation a bit:

I do hold an offer to go to LSE. And I probably would be able to get the money together (which is why, I suspect, I wasn’t given any financial aid). However, this would require me to take out a full CDL (£8000) and use up all my savings (which I was hoping to keep for a rainy day). My nightmare scenario is that, given the economy and its impact even at LSE, a year from now I won’t land a job. Then I’ll have this loan burden which I won’t be able to pay back and have no more savings. In short: I’ll be screwed.

Given the ease with which LSE gives out offers, and the fact that they give out very little financial aid, I’ve gotten the impression that LSE wants me only for my money.

(I do have an offer for a good, relatively free, education in Holland, but the problem is: it’s not LSE!)

They do want you (and everyone else on Masters courses) only for your money; but that, in itself, does not mean that by paying the fees, one is being "ripped off." Again, at the end of the day, that would seem to be determined by one's job prospects upon graduation. If you -- and this of course applies to everyone in a similar situation -- want to prevent yourself from being ripped off, you need to gauge what your jobs prospects are likely to be.

What are your areas of interest and expertise? What do you want to do upon graduating? What are the job prospects like for applicants in your chosen field? To what extent will LSE help in developing your expertise and enhancing your employability? To what extent will a relatively free education in Holland hinder your employability? These questions, and not simply whether or not LSE is a rip off, are the most relevant questions; I would recommend addressing yourself to them. When you do so, you'll be in a better position from which to judge the likelihood of your "nightmare scenario" materializing. At that point, whether or not LSE is a rip-off will be obvious; and, as a consequence, so will your decision about which school to attend.

Reply 12

Urban Scholar

LSE is generally known as a Degree Factory for Masters students, a post grad bucket shop. It is much harder to get into their undergad programmes, for econ, pol, IR, etc in terms of entry requirements vis-a-vis (AAA) their entry requirements for post grad and also in terms of amissions yield, its about 4-5% for undergad econ and pol and up to 20% plus intake for Masters. LSE Bacherlors of science in social science is super-super prestigious. Oxbridge is harder to get into at the post grad level than LSE for the simple fact that they have fewer places thus the admission yield is much lower. Oxbridge post grad (masters) is also not seen as "prestigious" as its undergrad rep. Both LSE and Oxbridge have minimum entry requirements of 2:1, i did not know that the LSE had a lower requirement when translated into a GPA than its oxbridge rival. I know people that have got into LSE post grad with a 2:2 and people that went to relatively insignificant (no offense) Universities like Hertfordshire and got in. The essence is that most post grad courses in the UK don't really match the US (only our undergrad programmes can battle with the US) so, many people that excel at Oxbridge and the LSE at undergrad level dont bother sticking around and if they can afford it, they go straight to the States. I have known kids that did B/sc Econ at LSE who then went onto to Stanford, Harvard and M.I.T for post grad Econ. This year i think 2 or 3 student from the LSE won the Fullbright Commssion scholarship and are going to Harvard for post grad pol and IR. In short, post grad in uk is not all that! the US is where the power ad reosurces lie, LSE can charge the highest in the UK for Masters because people who could not get in at Undergrad level are still desperate for LSE on their CV for anything remotely related to social sciences, and Oxbridge although generally cheaper has fewer places. LSE phd prgammes are immense though; and these are the researchers and students that contribute to the LSE's world leading research, same with Oxbridge.

Reply 13

Haksa

Urban Scholar

LSE is generally known as a Degree Factory for Masters students, a post grad bucket shop. It is much harder to get into their undergad programmes, for econ, pol, IR, etc in terms of entry requirements vis-a-vis (AAA) their entry requirements for post grad and also in terms of amissions yield, its about 4-5% for undergad econ and pol and up to 20% plus intake for Masters. LSE Bacherlors of science in social science is super-super prestigious. Oxbridge is harder to get into at the post grad level than LSE for the simple fact that they have fewer places thus the admission yield is much lower. Oxbridge post grad (masters) is also not seen as "prestigious" as its undergrad rep. Both LSE and Oxbridge have minimum entry requirements of 2:1, i did not know that the LSE had a lower requirement when translated into a GPA than its oxbridge rival. I know people that have got into LSE post grad with a 2:2 and people that went to relatively insignificant (no offense) Universities like Hertfordshire and got in. The essence is that most post grad courses in the UK don't really match the US (only our undergrad programmes can battle with the US) so, many people that excel at Oxbridge and the LSE at undergrad level dont bother sticking around and if they can afford it, they go straight to the States. I have known kids that did B/sc Econ at LSE who then went onto to Stanford, Harvard and M.I.T for post grad Econ. This year i think 2 or 3 student from the LSE won the Fullbright Commssion scholarship and are going to Harvard for post grad pol and IR. In short, post grad in uk is not all that! the US is where the power ad reosurces lie, LSE can charge the highest in the UK for Masters because people who could not get in at Undergrad level are still desperate for LSE on their CV for anything remotely related to social sciences, and Oxbridge although generally cheaper has fewer places. LSE phd prgammes are immense though; and these are the researchers and students that contribute to the LSE's world leading research, same with Oxbridge.

From what I gather, most - if not all- universities look at personal achievement rather than university prestige when assessing applicants for postgrad courses. A 1st from a second tier university is seen, rightly or wrongly, as a greater asset and better indicator for likely success than a 2:2 from Oxbridge. This isn't just an LSE thing.

Also, I'm not quite sure what qualifies you to make statements like "LSE Undergrad is great, postgrad is rubbish, but PHD is immense". What have you based this on? Furthermore, could one not argue that "power and resources" available in the US applies to both undegraduate and postgraduate courses, and not just the latter?

Reply 14

Dingy

Urban Scholar

LSE is generally known as a Degree Factory for Masters students, a post grad bucket shop. It is much harder to get into their undergad programmes, for econ, pol, IR, etc in terms of entry requirements vis-a-vis (AAA) their entry requirements for post grad and also in terms of amissions yield, its about 4-5% for undergad econ and pol and up to 20% plus intake for Masters. LSE Bacherlors of science in social science is super-super prestigious. Oxbridge is harder to get into at the post grad level than LSE for the simple fact that they have fewer places thus the admission yield is much lower. Oxbridge post grad (masters) is also not seen as "prestigious" as its undergrad rep. Both LSE and Oxbridge have minimum entry requirements of 2:1, i did not know that the LSE had a lower requirement when translated into a GPA than its oxbridge rival. I know people that have got into LSE post grad with a 2:2 and people that went to relatively insignificant (no offense) Universities like Hertfordshire and got in. The essence is that most post grad courses in the UK don't really match the US (only our undergrad programmes can battle with the US) so, many people that excel at Oxbridge and the LSE at undergrad level dont bother sticking around and if they can afford it, they go straight to the States. I have known kids that did B/sc Econ at LSE who then went onto to Stanford, Harvard and M.I.T for post grad Econ. This year i think 2 or 3 student from the LSE won the Fullbright Commssion scholarship and are going to Harvard for post grad pol and IR. In short, post grad in uk is not all that! the US is where the power ad reosurces lie, LSE can charge the highest in the UK for Masters because people who could not get in at Undergrad level are still desperate for LSE on their CV for anything remotely related to social sciences, and Oxbridge although generally cheaper has fewer places. LSE phd prgammes are immense though; and these are the researchers and students that contribute to the LSE's world leading research, same with Oxbridge.

Thats a pretty ignorant post.

Getting into post grad at Oxbridge is probably harder than undergrad. For some of the big popular courses like Finance, IR, Management there is over 15 applicants per place this year. Moreover, those who are accepted have to be exceptional a Cambridge care A LOT about EC's for postgrad. Sure some very specific degrees are certainly not as competitive, but the same can be said for classics and arch and anth at undergrad which have nearly a 50% acceptance rate

Also LSE IR and econ courses have approx 12 applicants per place every year, and getting in is not as easy as you make out. It is only seen as a degree factory because of the sheer number of students it admits and the number of courses it offers.

And its not like the US is exactly hard to get into either. Ivies rarely have an acceptance rate below 15 percent, and places like Chicago have a 25 percent acceptance.

Reply 15

Fares

1

It is not easy to get into LSE. It is true that you see many students on internet forums cheering that they've been admitted. But remember that 1) those who are accepted are the ones likely to reveal their admission status, as opposed to those rejected, and 2) the students who spend their spare time on educational forums are likely to be excellent students, we are not speaking about careless students here.

Reply 16

evantej

18

globalista

I find LSE really frustrating. Their fees price out the normal UK student completely. International students, I think, have to pay a lot for every university in the UK but for UK students it’s at least double at LSE. OK so it’s not LSE fault, as people say they want to compete and higher education is expensive. I can understand it, where I am really frustrated is that it is not even possible to take out a career development loan that can cover LSE’s fees. The course I want to take is 9000 pounds, and the max CDL is 8000….. plus it’s in London. If the fees were just a little bit lower it would make such a difference to take the CDL and be able to cover fees and a couple months rent too. The UK system isn't designed like the US ones where the fees are high but people can get crazy high loans. LSE seems to fit into the latter, but it's located in the former and that's frustrating.

of course i speak only from a UK perspective on this

http://www.personal.barclays.co.uk/BRC1/jsp/brccontrol?task=homefreegroup&value=11607&target=_self&site=pfs

Barclays offer up to £10,000.

Reply 17

NDGAARONDI

16

Funny thing called the free market. It's been destroying my football club for years. What's new?

Reply 18

rsingh

OP

3

I agree that LSE's high tuition fees are a result of the free market. However, that does not mean they are justified. What is so terribly special about an LSE education (apart from the brand name) compared with the same program at a less renowned school (e.g. compare the MSc Economics at LSE with that at Nottingham)? In many cases there is little to none. LSE is cashing in on its strong research reputation and strict selectivity at undergraduate level, which is why I believe that masters students, caught in the middle, are being ripped off. The actual education (which, at the end of the day, is most important), after all, is not all that phenomenal.

(Btw, I have decided not to attend since I believe I can get much better value for money elsewhere.)

Reply 19

e-lover

16

rsingh

I agree that LSE's high tuition fees are a result of the free market. However, that does not mean they are justified. What is so terribly special about an LSE education (apart from the brand name) compared with the same program at a less renowned school (e.g. compare the MSc Economics at LSE with that at Nottingham)? In many cases there is little to none. LSE is cashing in on its strong research reputation and strict selectivity at undergraduate level, which is why I believe that masters students, caught in the middle, are being ripped off. The actual education (which, at the end of the day, is most important), after all, is not all that phenomenal.

(Btw, I have decided not to attend since I believe I can get much better value for money elsewhere.)

So, you can't afford it or you have a vandetta against LSE. Get over it.

You might get better value for money, but will you get better job prospects?

Is LSE ripping off MSc students?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you