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.

The problem with economics postgrad at the LSE is that the Masters courses are extraordinarily expensive. Fees for a 10 month Masters are almost as much as fees for three years of Undergraduate study and no automatic student loans.

@TedLasto you work at lse? How lovely, are you an academic?

@Needmoresleep Yep that is a huge problem with the LSE, and to a lesser extent other top econ unis. If only the Government put a cap on fees like they do with undergrad studies.

DS is in third year at Cambridge. He didn’t apply to LSE as he didn’t want London for undergrad. Not being in London for jobs hasn’t been an issue. He has had a banking internship in the City each summer and has a grad offer for September - as have many from his cohort. Internship application processes tend to be Uni blind.

@ofteninaspin why didn't he want to be in yfor undergraduate?

FFS *in London

@eggsbenedict23 London is too expensive.
He preferred the vibe in Cambridge, the supervisions and the college experience. He is a tennis player and the facilities, coaching and playing opportunities at Cambridge are excellent.

To me it seemed as if the professor is arrogant.

If it's true, it's not arrogant. It's the difference between research-led universities/departments, and places that focus mostly on teaching. It's true of my department - we write the books our students - and other students in the discipline nationally & internationally - will use for their degrees.

For me it was calling Oxbridge "2nd tier" and not saying "we are just as good as Oxford and Cambridge, many people turn down Cambridge to come to LSE"

In the QS international league tables, LSE is about no 50, compared to Oxford and Cambridge which are always 2nd / 3rd only to MIT. Imperial and UCL are also in the top 10 institutions. This is not specifically for Economics, its the unis as a whole, but this may be something to bear in mind? Maybe it's because LSE is something like 70% postgrad?

Teaching at Cambridge is very different - it's one or two of them with a tutor. At LSE it's more like 10 or more in a seminar.

Cambridge is much cheaper (accommodation-wise). The rooms are cleaned and beds changed regularly. You can find people easily. It's a lot calmer than London. DC is so to have got out of London for undergrad because we live in London anyway. Cambridge is only 48 mins on the train from Kings Cross.

Could simply have been admissions day bravado (or a comment more about various economists' in-fighting - there isn't just one idea in economics!) Or an in-joke. Probably not really suitable for an Open Day, but it's not arrogant to have an opinion about the quality of your colleagues' work. As academics , we spend a lot of time evaluating - very objectively - our own and each others' work. There's a major evaluation every 5 to 7 years called the Research Excellence Framewrk, so it's government sanctioned!

It's really not important to those outside the profession, frankly. We're used to a level of scrutiny and constant judgement of our work, that might surprise non-academics.

But ... when I read just the title of your thread, before I read your post, the answer in my head was "LSE."

Lse is 50th overall because it's social science only. For the subjects LSE does offer it is one of the best of the best. I watched DS's open day recording and it showed LSE being the best economics department in the world outside of the USA.

Yes agreed op

it is pretty much the best of the best in terms of the subjects it teaches - traditional ivy league

A lot of my clients and colleagues are US based and they have all heard of it - and compare it to the likes of Yale etc

The idea that Oxford and Cambridge are 2nd tier really does damage his credibility though.

Yes, it was a silly thing to say, but not arrogant. Arrogance - it seems to me - is only when you don't have the evidence to back up your claims. A professor at LSE telling potential students that they will have the opportunity to learn from academics whose books are standard reference & research books in the field is being pretty accurate!

To me he could have phrased it as "what makes us different to Oxbridge is that...."

DS tells me that the comment reassured him. At his school he tells me the Oxbridge Economics applicants are all toxic and are all "it's either Oxbow or nothing" and say they'd hate to go to LSE.

I realise LSE is probably 50th because it's all social sciences. But Imperial is all STEM and that's in the top 10. Always wondered why.

I would agree that for Economics, LSE is up there with Oxbridge because that's obviously the flagship course there. I'm not sure it's the case for LSE generally though as there are undergrad courses there for which AAB or ABB are the required grades.

The Oxbridge admissions process is much more rigorous because of the admissions exam, the interviews and some colleges also require submitted essays. If interviews are in person at Oxford, students may be there several days if they end up being interviewed by multiple colleges. Cambridge have the SAQ (an extra mini PS). There's other extra forms too pre-interview, asking things like what modules they took, how many were in the class and this kind of thing. LSE you just send off the PS and that's it.

Another thing to bear in mind, is that LSE admissions are horrendous. Sorry, but they really are. DC applied in Oct and did not get an offer until late April. 7 months! They turned off the phone lines in admissions after Jan and never answer emails. They keep many people with perfect grades hanging until May and then reject them. I remember they used to make offers on Thursdays and rejections on Fridays or something like that. It goes in for months and months when they have a lot on with coursework and mocks. I can't see the need, but this is what it's like every year it seems. Also, at DC's school, they made offers to about 4 who didn't get the grades in the end, but the ones they rejected did. It's all about the PS at LSE which is daft really because some have a lot more help than others and they can make things up about supra-curricular (no interviews so they can't check).

@spir1t did your DC end up firming LSE?

I agree that LSE is all about the personal statement and extra curricular

And grades for econ, law etc which require AAA are just a given

I am not sure you would get an offer of AAA from LSE for Economics. An A star is always required in maths. The AAB grades are mainly for widening participation in certain subjects which LSE are working hard to encourage. They have some amazing scholarships available for students from low income backgrounds. The Uggla family scholarships are worth over £60k over the duration of your course. They offer 10 a year.

@Oldowl are there scholarships for middle income people? It kinda seems at time to get scholarships in the UK you need to be dirt poor

I’ll make it easy for you. LSE is the best in finance, period. Economics is much broader than finance however, so the prof made a sweeping generalisation (based on finance only).

There are better places to study for an UG degree if the management and/or political angles are equally important.

This is probably the crux of it!!