London School of Economics

Hatingtonyblair · June 30, 2005, 8:09pm

jkh’s post about the Times and LSE somehow neglects to mention that the newspaper places LSE 4th overall in the UK in its table of around a hundred UK universities…

Hatingtonyblair · June 30, 2005, 8:51pm

Just want to say some more on jkh’s misleading use of subject-specific stats from the domestic league table in the Times.

By leaving out the most important figure, which is the overall placing given to LSE (4th out of approx 100 UK universities), in preference to other stats, a distorted impression is given-after all it is the overall ranking which is supposed to tell you about a university as a whole, and it is supposed to be a compendium of all the other factors in the table, including the subject rankings that jkh cites, and it is this overall ranking that most people look at and remember.

In fact it is the typically topsy turvy subject specific rankings that vary most wildly from table to table in the UK, which is why nobody gives them much credence. Not only do they vary from newspaper to newspaper, but even inside the same ranking they can vary dramatically in the space of 2-3 years, simply through statistical manipulation -the same sort of statistical manipulation that is represented by jkh’s post (nothing personal jkh ).

Hatingtonyblair · June 30, 2005, 9:06pm

jkh is also wrong to state that LSE offers only 11 subjects. There are far more.

A glance at its prospectus will tell you that LSE, at both undergraduate and graduate levels, teaches the following subjects and offers distinct degrees in them, in addition to those jkh mentions, and very often houses research centres dedicated to them:

bioethics
statistics
operational research
accountancy
media
economic history
business history
criminology
demography
gender studies
social policy
urban studies
architecture
housing policy
health policy
development studies.

The main point: don’t rely just on newspapers, especially just one newspaper, if you want to find out what a university actually does.

jkh · July 1, 2005, 5:57am

The latest 2005 Guardian rankings for the individual subjects:

<h2>Anthropology</h2>

<ol>
<li>Oxford</li>
<li>Cambridge</li>
<li>LSE</li>
<li>University College London (UCL)</li>
<li>Sussex</li>
</ol>

<h2>Business studies</h2>

<ol>
<li>Oxford </li>
<li>St Andrews </li>
<li>Bath</li>
<li>Imperial College London</li>
<li>LSE</li>
</ol>

<h2>Philosophy</h2>

<ol>
<li>Oxford</li>
<li>Cambridge</li>
<li>LSE</li>
<li>King’s College London</li>
<li>UCL</li>
</ol>

<h2>Mathematics</h2>

<ol>
<li>Oxford</li>
<li>Cambridge</li>
<li>Imperial College London</li>
<li>Reading</li>
<li>LSE</li>
</ol>

<h2>Geography</h2>

<ol>
<li>Cambridge</li>
<li>Oxford</li>
<li>LSE</li>
<li>UCL</li>
<li>East Anglia</li>
</ol>

<h2>Economics</h2>

<ol>
<li>Oxford</li>
<li>LSE</li>
<li>Cambridge</li>
<li>School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS, London)</li>
<li>UCL</li>
</ol>

<ol>
<li>Oxford</li>
<li>SOAS</li>
<li>LSE</li>
<li>Cambridge</li>
<li>King’s College London</li>
</ol>

<h2>Politics</h2>

<ol>
<li>Oxford</li>
<li>SOAS</li>
<li>Cambridge</li>
<li>Warwick</li>
<li>York</li>
<li>LSE</li>
</ol>

<h2>Sociology</h2>

<ol>
<li>Oxford</li>
<li>Cambridge</li>
<li>LSE</li>
<li>Aston</li>
<li>Birmingham</li>
</ol>

<h2>History</h2>

<ol>
<li>Oxford</li>
<li>King’s College London</li>
<li>Cambridge</li>
<li>LSE</li>
<li>SOAS</li>
</ol>

OVERALL rankings:

Oxford
Cambridge
Imperial College London
School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS)
LSE

The Guardian seems rather kind to LSE. In the UK, the majority of people tend to look to individual subject rankings when making decisions on which university to apply to, since UK degrees are very much focused on the chosen subject in most cases. Obviously ranking tables are not the be-all and end-all to decisions.

In the ever changing world, especially on the education front, it would be foolish to use the exact same set of ranking methodology that was applied to the tables more than 10 years ago.

Hatingtonyblair · July 5, 2005, 6:58pm

To its credit, the Times was the first Britsh newspaper to make proper use of the increasingly popular term ‘G5’ -which refers to the five heavyweight universities in Britain : Oxbridge, LSE, Imperial, UCL -the UK equivalent of HYPS- these five British universities make up an informal lobby group, developing shared policies in looking for government resources and support, based on their shared status in the system, their research orientation, and their international standing.

One other point about LSE tables which puts LSE at a disadvantage (even though most of the time it comes in the top five in general UK league tables) is that the tables are really designed to show off the merits of large, bulk income, multi faculty universities with medical schools and lots of science.

For instance raw income is often taken as a plus factor in the tables -ie you get more points the more money you draw in (people can imagine how this can distort things!). Of course even a mediocre medical school will have higher income than an outstanding social science faculty -medicine is so expensive and so on…

Hatingtonyblair · July 5, 2005, 7:34pm

Interesting to reflect about the different perceptions of British universities domestically and abroad. The following is from a report by the European Union.

For instance Garclo-Castrillo et al in 2001 produced the following ranking of the top 1000 economics universities worldwide:

LSE (17th)
Oxford (33rd)
Cambridge (46th).

The Coupe ranking of world economics universities:

LSE (15th)
Oxford (26th) -I could not locate the ranking for Cambridge.

Both these rankings used broad data sets over a spread of years. In other words they are based on big international databases and are not just based on one year.

In ranking numbers of internationally recognised researchers in economics in institutions, the document gives the following figures:

LSE: 18
Oxford: 11
Cambridge: 9

I have never seen a general international ranking of economics universities that puts LSE behind Oxbridge in that field, in fact usually LSE is rated as well ahead of Oxbridge, and the best outside the States -contrast that with the Times ranking for economics given by jkh above.

confidential02 · July 12, 2005, 3:42am

i could be off topic, but otherwise i would be grateful for your ideas…

i consider applying to Ph.D. in economics (or strategic management, still not decided) next year. certainly, i would like to try top US graduate schools. i know that would be tough and nearly impossible.

i have B.Sc. from relatively unknown branch of Stockholm School of Economics but otherwise the best university in the Baltics. i also took GMAT last year with a score of 750. i do have some academic experience, though my major work was in consulting house for the past two years.

so, i am now accepted to M.Sc. in Fin&Econ program at LSE. since i didn’t get a scholarship, i am in high doubts whether to pursue it. as U.S. graduate schools usually accept applicants to Ph.D. positions with the undergraduate degree only and the applications close in january when my M.Sc. studies would only be in the middle, is LSE name worth it?

what’s your opinion?

thanks.

jkh · July 14, 2005, 7:19am

Garclo-Castrillo? Coupe?

~LOL~

confidential02: your GMAT scores are great! You don’t seem convinced by LSE’s strengths though, and while I certainly can’t tell you how to decide, perhaps you might want to think about whether you want to go to a school if you are not totally convinced by its strengths, reputation etc. Good luck!

mtc1 · July 31, 2005, 11:21am

I think that in many social science disciplines LSE is the best in Europe (but they can’t beat the best in the States).

But I find one thing about their admission process interesting: They do not have an application deadline. They open for applications in october and if you are quick and apply at the time you’re chances for acceptance are greatly enhanced. One of my friends do not have a very impressive GPA but he did excactly this and got in. I think a lot of people (at least in Europe) are thinking that the LSE is to big a reach for them. My point is that most likely it really isn’t. You just have to apply early.

Just some advice for anybody who consider the LSE.

mgarthwaite · July 31, 2005, 4:57pm

I think that LSE, like most top universities is over subscribed in all subjects, but some are more popular than others, I know that media and communications (my department) has a 10-1 ratio.

I would say that LSE is different in a number of ways as far as admissions is concerned, I think your personal statement is important, I think that you have to have a GPA of 3.5 or above (US system), I assume that this is good?

For a UK entry you need a 1st or a upper second (2:1), what we call ‘good’ degrees.

Martin

mgarthwaite · July 31, 2005, 5:05pm

CJ.

I obviously don’t spend as much time here as you do (clearly).

My email address at LSE is <a href="mailto:m.k.garthwaite@lse.ac.uk">m.k.garthwaite@lse.ac.uk</a>, which

<ol>
<li>Means that I’m a registered student</li>
<li>That I’m who I say I am and not who you think I am.</li>
</ol>

Martin

DRab · July 31, 2005, 8:14pm

“GPA of 3.5 or above (US system), I assume that this is good?”

Most kids going to the best schools have much higer GPAs, but in reality (aka not CC) this gpa is fairly good.

BasBasics · August 1, 2005, 4:45am

usually there are axtra demands on america students though. Yes ‘at least’ a 3.5, but the oversubscription means that average grade of the admitted students is much higher. LSE has no deadlines, as they simply cannot afford to not fill their classes. But what is the difference if almost everyone applies extremely early, and their admittance levels are 10% or much lower? It is really still an honor to get in…:)

Zipzoopzabulous · August 1, 2005, 5:06am

Ok so my best friend is British and he says the best universities in the UK are Oxford, Cambridge, and St. Andrews.

That said, I think Americans, such as myself, have heard of two British universities–Oxford and Cambridge.

St. Andrews is probably thought of as prestigious because of Prince Will Will.

So to answer your question, LSE, although it is an excellent school, isn’t really as known here in America.

Alexandre · August 1, 2005, 5:12am

Zip, St Andrews is not thathighly regarded. It has always been and remains a respected university, but it isn’t even #1 in Scotland, let alone in the UK. The top 2, without a doubt, are Cambridge and Oxford. No other English university comes close in terms of overall international acclaim. After those two, I would say that the University of London (LSU, UCL, Imperial and Kings combined) would be third, closely followed by Edinburgh.

DRab · August 1, 2005, 5:12am

I agree in general, zip, but if one knows three UK universities, the third is often LSE after Oxford and Cambridge.

Zipzoopzabulous · August 1, 2005, 5:16am

Alexandre–So what is the equivalent of LSE to an American university?

And what about Bristol? (Although the city itself is pretty shady.) I went to visit it this summer and they wouldn’t let me into the building…ba*tards.

DRab · August 1, 2005, 5:17am

Chicago? MIT? I don’t even know.

Zipzoopzabulous · August 1, 2005, 5:21am

Psh, not MIT. Maybe Chicago…Oh where oh where is the answer when you need it.

Zipzoopzabulous · August 1, 2005, 5:24am

Alexandre–I beg to differ on Edinburgh. I just read the THES rankings for 2006, and St. Andrews last year ranked ahead of Edinburgh. Although it has fallen behind just a bit, why would that suddenly change its prestige?

London School of Economics

CONNECT WITH US