What is the No1 economics course in the UK? (In terms of academic rigour and graduate prospects)

[eggsbenedict23]

DS is in year 12 and last month attended the LSE open day. He liked the place and the department seemed nice. He told me (and showed me the talk recordings) that one of the professors giving the talk was saying they are a "top tier research university" etc. DS told me the professor briefly mentioned something along the lines of "we write the textbooks the second tier universities use". Apparently the professor mentioned Oxford and Cambridge as being 2nd tier.

To me it seemed as if the professor is arrogant.

My understanding (from a non empirical source, ie DS) is that LSE’s international reputation is on the rise. There is always a level of subjectivity, but it would not be unreasonable for an LSE professor to consider the LSE to be the top UK department. (Obviously you might get a different answer if you asked a Cambridge professor.)

The important thing to realise is that the LSE, UCL, Cambridge and Warwick degrees are very mathematical. This does not mean they are “better” than degrees from, say, Oxford or Durham. However the course content is different and to some will be quite dry.

In terms of University experience it suited my son. He wanted to live and breathe economics and found plenty of like minded peers from different backgrounds in the UK and from all over the world. He apparently only went to one freshers event and didn’t enjoy it much but was active in several societies, played in a 7 a side football league and regularly joined others to eat in China Town or groups, including international students, would meet up and cook together. The Athletics Union was known to be quite raucous, with pre-pre-pres starting at 9.30 am on their big night. But they were the exception rather than the rule. As with most Universities if you try hard enough you should find your people.

Another thing to consider is that the degree is rigorous. If you don’t work hard you could end up failing. Overseas students pay high fees and normally work hard. But so do the successful British students.

There is some family debate as I also read economics at LSE whilst DH read PPE at Oxford. (DD rebelled and opted for medicine.) DH is the most literate but even back in the day avoided LSE for his Masters because of the maths requirements. Breadth or depth. Some employers, especially those looking for economic forecasters will prefer depth and the quantitative skills LSE teaches. And because the department is so large there is huge scope to take interesting specialist courses in your final year. (DS ended up graduating in Econometrics and Mathematical Economics, which is an area where LSE can realistically claim to offer Europe’s strongest UG degree.)

On rejections, even when DS was applying (with 5 A levels including 4x A* predictions) his school recommended he apply to all four (Cambridge, LSE, UCL and Warwick) and be happy to get one. It would be hard to predict which one. They suggested that if he did not get any he take a gap year and reapplied. As it was he was rejected by Warwick, UCL and Cambridge…but you only need one. One of his classmates got four rejections but got an offer from Cambridge, but not LSE, on reapplication.

Apart from Cambridge, who interview, the PS plays a crucial role. (I don’t know what LSE will do if they do away with personal statements.). My advice would be to read their website carefully and assume they will score the PS based on both what they say they are looking for and on what they offer.

Worth looking at the LSEs series of public lectures and attending some either in person or on line. They cover quite a range of subjects and will give some taste of what is on offer.

Thank you for those very generous posts,@Needmoresleep

Thanks for the 1am replies. DS also booked the Imperial open day in June

The Imperial course is new and looks amazing - we saw something about a 2.5% offer rate or something (maybe on TSR?) but be great to know what it actually was. Let us know if they’ll say will you?!

Just keep an open mind to all the options he selects and be realistic. It’s common to be rejected for most of your choices for economics, even with 4 A star and 10 grade 9 GCSEs. Unless contextual which gives you a shoe in.

DS has economics supercurriculars under his belt.

@eggsbenedict23 , LSE has traditionally focused on research and a recent LSE history undergrad told me she felt like a third class citizen in the uni hierarchy. Maybe they are now changing.

That said LSE is also a brilliant university and lots of students are happy. If your DS likes sport there are good clubs and you can find ways to engage.

The London Uni scene is different to many others in the UK whichever London Uni you go to so it is horses for courses. One option is to apply to an inter collegiate hall and have a mix of students from different London Unis. My DN is in one of these this year and has really enjoyed mixing with lots of different students.

The increase in international students at top Unis is often driven by finances as the UK fees don't cover the costs of teaching. Oxford and Cambridge by having large endowments are more sheltered from this financial pressure than other unis.

Good luck to your DC choosing. Lots of my DD's very bright friends trying for economics didn't get any offers from top Unis last year - it is hugely competitive for economics so a good insurance offer is important too, or as others have said you can reapply with grades in hand.

I think LSE has always been very international and post grad heavy. Even in my day, many many years ago, I was the only Brit on my course. That is the strength. An international specialist institute in the middle of a world city. But also it’s weakness if you want a trad university experience.

FWIW, I think UGs have it better than those taking 10 month Masters courses. They literally go from Registration to the library to exams the out.

History and other smaller courses are also assumed to be less isolating. The large courses like economics, finance or accountancy will have hundreds in compulsory first year course lectures and plenty in classes. Third year though have the advantage of having been around for a while and so more likely to be known/recognised by academics.

Obviously completely different to Oxbridge.

It is important to keep in mind that just having supercurriculars is not any kind of guarantee of success.

It is something we always tell applicants - we are very, very much less interested in what you have done than we are in what you have done with what you have done. Why did you do it? What did you learn from it? How did you build on it further?

The best applications are those that show a clear narrative of how they identify and develop an interest. The less good ones just list a lot of things that they have done.

Your DS does sound superb, OP. What people are saying gently is that the Economics cohort who consider themselves lucky to get one of LSE, Cambridge, Warwick and UCL sound very similar. I am confident that with the attitude @Needmoresleep described, her DS also had supracurriculars, to say nothing of the lad from his school who only got into Cambridge on the second try.

Sure, some pupils are better than others and a very few are truly gifted. Your DS may or may not be one of them. Even if he is, the system is not always good at picking them out. If your DS potentially belongs to the top Economics cohort, I would hate for any sense of complacency to kill his chances. The admissions process is brutal.

He owes all the top programmes a look, possibly including the new one at Imperial.

Thanks all for the replies. I only started this thread because my son showed me the open day recording where the professor called Oxford and Cambridge "2nd tier". Had he said LSE were equivalent with Oxbridge. I wouldn't have thought any more of it.

FWIW I think the professor, arrogant though he may be, was correct. Good luck to your DS.

Realistically, it was an open day and they are as much a marketing exercise as anything else.

This is likely why they said the textbook thing, despite the fact that writing actual textbooks (rather than books in general) in economics has been a low prestige activity for many years now and it's not something you would usually see top economics academics doing at all. It's something that sounds good to the audience of the talk.

Personally, I wouldn't put LSE in a tier of its own above Oxford and Cambridge when considering economics as a whole subject or for undergraduate economics. At the level you are talking about, I would say it would be valid for someone at LSE to say they thought LSE was best, but equally valid for someone at Cambridge to say they thought Cambridge was best. In reality, they both have their benefits and strengths and weaknesses in the opportunities they offer undergraduates and in different branches of economics. The views of individual academics will be influenced by where they are, their own experience, their own field and so on.

Someone I know did politics and economics at LSE - highly regarded and lots of great and interesting lecturers too. The other advantage is tons and tons of decent part time work

@Crikeyalmighty DS is applying for the "straight economics" course due to the recent curriculum reform and the tailored courses for BSc Economics students.

Former LsE student here

yes it has international students but there are many Uk based students and I had the best time at university and are still close friends with them all - most of my friends were either from the Uk or continued to live here/in London

and yes LSE is one of the best institutions in the world for economics and political science - you only have to see their list of alumni’s and how many noble prizes they have won

I felt hugely lucky to be there as we simply had the most incredible opportunities - visiting professors and speakers from the IMF/UN and other policy makers

not to mention it often felt like the leading banks, law firms and asset managers were on our door step in terms of internships and jobs and everyone in my friendship group pretty much secured what they wanted

15 years on and many of my peers are now heading up divisions in leading city investment banks, partners in city law/investment/accounting firms or in senior positions at the Bank of England and equivalent or entrepreneurs of well known companies

all made possible because they got good degrees and were able to secure internships in their second year

but we had a blast. We would go to the LSE club nights and student nights at the other London colleges and unis - it was great fun

To be clear I wouldn’t say it’s better than Oxford or Cambridge - but certainly no worse in terms of economic research and I found the teaching wonderful

it’s majorly competitive to get into but I spent my uni days with the brightest (but also really fun) people and it gives its students a wealth of opportunity which has materialised into some of my peers achieving incredible things - I’m talking Forbes under 30 kind of greatness for a few

@Namechanger355 did you study the BSc economics program?

Lse is a specialist university so not directly comparable in terms of experience, also location is quite different. Arguably lse is the best place in the world to study economics but whether it's right for your dc partly depends on other interests and whether they are suited to central London living. I also would caution to look beyond these very high grade places because just 6 months into a levels their grades could drop (dd was predicted straight a* at this point, reality was very different)

It depends on the effort he puts in!

Thanks all for the responses.

DH is an Econ professor, albeit not at any of the top 4 talked about here, but he agrees that LSE would be tops for your traditional, well-rounded undergraduate economics education. Good luck!

LSE is an impressive place but I’m not convinced it suits many undergraduates and I would prefer to do a post grad degree there. The undergrads I know are very mature for their ages (oddly so in some cases) and it has a very large wealthy international cohort which makes the ‘normal’ experience more difficult. I went to UCL many moons ago but would not choose it now and it was a strange place back then.

Obviously you cannot go wrong with either Oxbridge or LSE for economics so it will not matter too much either way. Therefore consider what university experience is wanted. The life of an Oxbridge college is extremely different from living in London in university accommodation. (We live in London and our 5 children (4 lawyers, not economists) deliberately chose not to go to London simply because we live here but also because it can be quite different from going to other universities - sometimes your accommodation ends up being far away - it is not quite so much that you are with a group of 18 year olds in a college together bonding. I am not saying you cannot bond at LSE and my son's friend went there and had a good time and my son used to visit and it was fine, but it is a slightly different university experience.

I agree with the advice above - apply for those 5 mentioned and if you get one - Brilliant go for it.