"A bar chart on the LSE website reveals that only about 22% of the total student population at LSE are UK-domiciled undergraduates.
Which University World Rankings Table is relevant by the way?
The Times Higher Education Table for 2018 lists Oxford 1st, Cambridge 2nd and LSE as 25th in the world."
Clarinova, I am not sure there is causality here. LSE does poorly in indices which give heavy weighting to science research (cos it does not have any) or to student satisfaction (I was about to say, cos it does not have any - but simpler to say that a quick google street view of Houghton Street compared with Kings College Cambridge might give you a starting point). LSE does well normally in international league tables by subject.
LSE has always been extraordinarily international, and post grad heavy. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Just read some academics concerns about the potential impact of Brexit. Even back in the dark ages I was the only Brit on my course, and not something I regret at all. DS now is the only Brit on his, and again there are huge positives. A small one being that the state/private issue amongst UK students appears to be pretty irrelevant.
I suspect that the different approach to recruitment will impact the make up of the student body. Observation was that no one said anything in first year classes. Interviews would have presumably prioritised students able and keen to articulate their interest in their subject. However LSE students will work as hard as their Cambridge counterparts, and will need to be as able, if not more, to cope with some of the more specialist quantitative courses.
Looking at acceptance rates can be a bit of a blind alley. It depends a lot on subject. We know, say, maths students who have chosen MIT or Harvard over Cambridge, but no classicists. If BoboChic were around (where is she!) she would confirm that good EU students looking to study abroad will often apply to move than one country. So ENA, LSE, Colombia etc. Roughly 25% of LSE students are from the EU so already their algorithms are working overtime.
Recruitment of UK students are also skewed by perceptions of the status of various Universities within the UK. DC have a number of second cousins all around the same age, and northern MIL and great aunts seem to spend some time comparing progress. Oxbridge trumps all, though medicine gets a look in. Imperial/LSE do not. I have spotted echoes of this on MN. Ditto there is a strong perception that London is too expensive, and no fun. Oddly EU/International students often want to be in London as they think living in a world city will be fun. And even if class and lecture sizes are larger than at Oxbridge, they are often a lot smaller than in other countries.
Is the tutorial system better? I have no idea, and am not sure there is a clear rule. DH was lucky to have a very good tutor who went on to become well known in his field, whilst a talented friend of DC's left because the tutor provided so little input that there was no point being there. DS' experience was that departmental wide teaching worked well because of the extremely strong academic support and encouragement he and his peers were given. Indeed he and his friends are already being roped in to provide, effectively mentoring, to first years.
I also assume that other oversubscribed Universities are content for Oxbridge decision making to be over and done with early. I think when DS applied LSE had 13 applications for every place. Of course some will reject, but the wait was excruciatingly long. It would presumably had been worse if those with Oxbridge places (aware that the grade requirements for LSE/Imperial would probably be just as tough) did not start sorting out their firms and insurances at an early stage. TiPs professional calls for changes on the grounds of equality would probably only result in making Y13 more stressful than it is already.