Question thread: Ask an LSE grad student - Page 3

nauru · 06-22-2008, 06:46 PM

Hmmm I knew someone in that program but have lost touch with her since the beginning of the year. Not sure what she's doing now. She was my only contact from a psychology type course.

However, the thing to remember is this: in the UK, employers care first and foremost WHERE you got your degree. WHAT you studied is far less important to them. This is somewhat elitist in my opinion, but that's the way things are here. You could go to Oxford/Cambridge/LSE and study basket weaving and there would still be loads of employers who would like to interview you (although at the interview it's still up to the individual to make an impression and land the job).

An example:

A lot of people paid through the nose to study the MSc Economics and Finance this year, with hopes that they would be top of the list for bulge bracket investment banks' recruiting cycles. In the end, the vast majority of the people from this program did not end up at BBs, but rather less known companies and firms in their home countries in Asia and continental Europe. Meanwhile people from other seemingly unrelated LSE programs have been hired for the most competitive BB roles, namely trading and IBD, even though they have comparatively much less relevant academic backgrounds.

My take on this is that at least for the financial sector (the only sector I really feel comfortable giving a job market opinion about) a university name can land you interviews, but it's up to the individual to land the job. Program names and credentialism seem to be basically irrelevant once you're at the interview, otherwise all those people in MSc F+E who slogged it out all year with their high level stochastic calculus / advanced microeconomics / financial time series econometrics would all be snapped up by top banks for trading positions. Instead you've got people from geography, philosophy or other 'unconventional' backgrounds receiving offers for trading and banking positions at the best known investment banks, while many of the people who studied the quantitative inner workings of the financial markets are settling for their 3rd or 4th choice job type.

Mind you, how successful you are in your job search depends heavily on how realistic you are with your definition of success in this arena. If your goal is to work for one of the best known management consulting firms, you should know that there are at least as many top quality applicants as there are for investment banks, but with about 95% fewer openings available.

If you're studying social psychology, you need to ask yourself: why should anyone hire YOU? What value can you add to a firm on your very first day? Important languages? Quantitative skills? Specialised knowledge of an industry sector or job function? Programming skills? As I said, it's up to the individual; a credential can land you an interview, but not a job. The people from non-conventional backgrounds who achieved their employment goals mostly had something very attractive in their profile far beyond their school name or random degree program.

By the way, what do you mean loans are liquidated once the student is employed?

Intaglio5 · 06-23-2008, 09:34 AM

Some questions for you re: recruitment. I'm doing my master's in London but not LSE; I'd imagine that the recruitment process is fairly similar across all U of L schools, but do let me know if this is not the case.

1) When does recruitment typically begin? October? I'm trying to secure a summer internship for '09, but I'm not pursuing an MBA: for what offices do the likes of McKinsey, Bain, BCG, etc. recruit? I've been told that they don't staff summer associates that are studying for non-MBA master's degrees in London.

2) Coming to London on a student's visa, and with full privileges to a 3-month internship, will recruitment be more difficult for me than for a national? Do the large BB investment banks and MC firms recruit for their stateside offices?

3) What sort of policy outfits, i.e. the UN, World Bank, etc., recruit? And for what types of positions? Are these more competitive than, say, the MC positions? Investment banking?

4) Where are most of the positions that are being recruited for located? London? If one had ambitions of working in Eastern Europe/BRIC/Africa/etc., would that be possible straight out of a master's? Or is that more of a mid-career move?

chestnut.cc · 06-23-2008, 11:09 AM

Thanks a lot nauru... what i meant is that the payment procedure is linked to the students ability to land a job... and like you mentioned... this side of the world... course fees of that magnitude are no piffle... there is also an added complication relating to orthodoxy which i wont digress upon... but essentially the candidate needs some assurance of landing a job and sticking on in the uk or eu with good prospects at paying back the tution fees and carrying on with her professional life...

ps: to be specific this is a trunk call from india... danke...

nauru · 06-23-2008, 01:00 PM

@ chestnut.cc: I have no idea what you just asked or said, and it may have something to do with the lack of actual sentences in your post.

@ Intaglio5

1) Recruitment begins in September, and then really picks up in October. Recruiting at all schools is not equal. LSE is not really part of University of London anymore, and Imperial isn't really either, except on paper for administrative purposes. Organisations that recruit at LSE and Imperial do not necessarily recruit at Kings or Goldsmiths. This is especially true for the very large multinationals and international organisations. To the best of my knowledge, consultancies hire MBAs for their MBA positions and internships. They don't take on MAs and MScs for positions that are designed for MBAs. And there really is no reason for them to since there is no shortage of top MBAs floating around.

2) It's always harder to get a job locally if you're a foreigner, wherever you go. Why would someone hire you for a US office when there are plenty of well qualified students at top US universities with which the US offices already have well established recruiting relationships?

3) All the major international organisations and NGOs recruit at LSE, but you're not eligible for any of the positions they're offering unless you've got at least 2-3 years of high quality relevant experience (which a lot of LSE grad students actually do have, but quite a lot don't meet that requirement). Can't say anything about most other schools in London though, and I doubt they have much presence at those places. Given how corrupt most of these organisations are, unless you have a family member working there your chances of being hired are extremely slim. Some are basically run like family businesses. Also, Goldman Sachs is way less competitive to get into than the World Bank, and other BBs are much easier to get paid positions in than almost any major international organisation I can think of. That said, everyone at LSE (9000 students) is trying to land internships or jobs at at least one of the groups "top consultancies" "top banks" or "top international organisations". Same goes for Oxford (20000 students) Cambridge (20000 students?) and Imperial College (don't know how many students they have). I've seen lots of people show up to LSE with an elitist entitlement attitude and end up working in the "2nd tier" or "3rd tier" (to use elitist language) because they didn't realise that credentialism only increases your chances of getting an interview and that it's up to the individual to land the job. All the job sectors you mentioned are three of the most difficult to get into in the world.

Another thing to realise is that recruiting in Europe basically means meeting people who work at the firm. Interviews aren't generally conducted on campus, and actually everyone has to apply online through the organisation website. So you can shmooze all you like, but when it comes to the application it's basically up to you.

4) Most of the positions are located in London. If you don't speak the local language of your desired location PERFECTLY your chances of being hired for that location are extremely slim. Try to think about it from the perspective of the firm: why would they go to all that extra trouble to locate you in an exotic location of your choosing, when such a move actually destroys value for the firm? Your best bet if you want to work in one of those countries is to be a) born there in another life; or b) go there with your perfect language skills and try to find work on your own or preferably through connections you have there. Even in London, if you only speak American plus college level mexican spanish you will be at a disadvantage when it comes to recruiting.

***

As a final note, anyone thinking about consulting or banking careers at this point might want to keep some viable alternatives in mind. The US and UK economies were bad 8 months ago, but this upcoming recruiting season they are really in the toilet. Really. The world's most successful investment banks are laying off workers by the tens of thousands, and even rescinding employment offers that were handed out a few months ago to ambitious would-be young professionals. Certain top banks cancelled their participation in some recruitment events this year because they decided to only hire people who had interned with them the previous summer (this was only possible because they had so few openings). Things are especially in IBD where business has dried up, but it's also true that entire trading desks are being shown the door. And it's not like large companies have millions of dollars just lying around to spend frivolously on consulting services of questionable real value from the likes of McKinsey. So be aware that people entering LSE this coming year will be facing the worst recruitment environment since 2001. And the atmosphere here will be more competitive, frenetic and elitist than ever, I reckon...

rolen27 · 06-23-2008, 04:30 PM

Oh and one further question. What is your sense of the reputation LSE has in comparision to schools like Oxford, Cambridge, and Imperial. I want to know both overall reputation and reputation in the social sciences as well.

thanks

rolen27 · 06-23-2008, 04:30 PM

Do you have to study the same thing as you did as an undergraduate? (ie. Can you go from Finance to History or is that not allowed?).

Also, What is the difference, both academically and in regards to the kinds of jobs you can get after graduation, between a taught degree such as the Msc. and a research degree such as the Mphil

chestnut.cc · 06-24-2008, 12:52 AM

lol... my bad... what i meant is that the candidate needs a reasonable assurance that she stands a good chance at a job... the tuition fees amount to a considerable penny out here... so being able to pay back it back within the first few years (or comfortably for a period thereafter) is a concern...

nauru · 06-24-2008, 03:09 AM

@ rolen: Reputation is excellent. Better recognised than Imperial, but that comparison doesn't really work since Imperial and LSE don't offer anything similar at all. For social sciences it's near top in the world, along with Berkeley and Harvard. Overall reputation depends on where you go, and Oxford and Cambridge still have more general exposure due to their longevity. In investment banking LSE seems to be basically unmatched, other than a couple of ivy league schools in the US.

You don't have to study the same thing you did in undergrad, but if you stray far you will have difficulty being admitted and you will have difficulty passing your courses since you don't have the years of rigorous background in the subject that everyone else has.

@ chestnut.cc: No university on earth can assure you of a good job, and any that claims to is lying to you. It depends on the individual. I know lots of people (especially Asians) choose a university because they are excessively risk-averse and want to be "set for life" with a guaranteed income. But such a thing doesn't really exist, and in my opinion people who are that terrified of risk in their lives should probably just go get a cushy government job so that their entire career is set out for them with progression dictated from the top down -- no individuality and no risk involved. Even Harvard and Yale graduate students that struggle financially for many years. You just never hear about them in the popular press.

Mphil is designed for people going into research. However loads of MSc students go into research as well so I don't see the point other than better practice at independent production of research work. Don't know anything about differences in job prospects.

Basically, a resourceful INDIVIDUAL can get virtually any type of job they are willing to work their ass off to get, both in terms of seeking out and approaching the right people within the organisations in question, and in terms of independent study to fill knowledge gaps in preparation for interviews or impromptu sales pitches to a potential employer. Your degree program does not determine what job you can get; the INDIVIDUAL determines this with their own skillset and independently acquired background of knowledge and experience.

The attitude of "X degree will get me Y job" is one of the most misguided approaches to study and job hunting at LSE that I have encountered. In my experience, students from Asia seem to be particularly susceptible to this gross error in judgement. Maybe that's how it works in Asia but that's certainly not how it works when studying social or economic sciences in Europe.

chestnut.cc · 06-24-2008, 08:20 AM

granted... the issue isn't secure-cushy-life... the issue is self-sufficiency-to-express-individuality-and-explore-thereafter... everyone needs a base... the CHANCE at a secure base is what is being sought... not a guarantee... that came out wrongly in my previous post methinks...

adylse · 06-24-2008, 09:23 AM

Hi Nauru.The info is an eye-opener.
I wanted 2 ask abt some specific things.
Is it advisable to get a laptop even though there are comp. facilities at LSE n halls of residence?Really confused abt it.

nauru · 06-24-2008, 10:09 AM

I have a laptop and loathe every time I have to use the public computers. University computers are (comparatively) much slower, and during peak times you may have trouble even getting a computer in the public areas. Plus, everytime you use one you have to check those stupid microsoft boxes that say "are you aware that information being sent over the internet isn't 100% secure blah blah blah". If you have your own computer you press ok once and never again. If you are on public computers then you have to do it every single time, which I think is a huge pain. Perhaps I'm just very particular about the way computers are operated and maintained.

Also, without your own computer what will you use for home stereo system and home theatre? How will you download free media and entertainment or chat for 1 cent a minute to friends and family overseas? You can't be chatting on internet phones or watching television shows or movies using public computers.

My advice: get a laptop.

Ektaylor · 06-24-2008, 03:35 PM

While part of my question may only be tangential to the intended purpose of this thread I think it is still relevant.

How many LSE students finish their graduate program and then go on to apply to a top law school? How many are successful? And, do students ever try their luck in the job market, and if unsuccessful go on to apply to law school?

I am currently at Berkeley as an undergrad, and from the way you have described the European job market (emphasis on the university, not the degree – mine being PoliSci without any real study of economics) it appears that LSE may provide a certain flattening lacking in the American market (not to sound overly naïve, but I wouldn’t expect an interview in certain areas given my school name, which may be provided in the UK) which may catalyze the repayment of my student loans and make the funding of a top law school more accessible –be it postponed a few years.

If accepted to a Berkeley grad-program in polisci and a relative program at LSE, which would you recommend in terms of job openness?

nauru · 06-24-2008, 04:48 PM

I don't hang around law or polisci students so I have no idea what their plans are or how successful they are at achieving whatever their goals may be.

"...from the way you have described the European job market (emphasis on the university, not the degree – mine being PoliSci without any real study of economics) it appears that LSE may provide a certain flattening lacking in the American market (not to sound overly naïve, but I wouldn’t expect an interview in certain areas given my school name, which may be provided in the UK) which may catalyze the repayment of my student loans... etc etc"

That made my head hurt. From what I've understood by reading your post 4 times, your question can be summed up as: Will a masters degree from LSE help me in my search for a decent paying job? Answer: probably. (I'm an econ guy. I like things to the point.)

Terms I didn't understand in the context of your post:

"job openness"
"flattening"

Ektaylor · 06-24-2008, 05:17 PM

Haha, sorry about that.

I meant flattening/job openness in terms of the job opportunities for all majors, as opposed to only economics students.

My main question:

If accepted at both Berkeley and LSE for a similar program, which would be better to secure a job interview in the European market?

nauru · 06-24-2008, 07:49 PM

Well LSE would simply because organisations look to LSE to recruit new staff for their European offices. Warwick, UCL, Imperial, Kings College, St Andrews and the University of Edinburgh would probably all be better for European recruitment, simply because these schools are targeted for European positions and UCB isn't. The opposite would be true in the case of the western US job market. Regional bias in recruiting is even evident within countries (including the US) and it is especially evident internationally.