TestMagic

DreamFactory · 2009 June 23rd, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blowman

Perhaps I should clarify my situation a bit:

I do hold an offer to go to LSE. And I probably would be able to get the money together (which is why, I suspect, I wasn’t given any financial aid). However, this would require me to take out a full CDL (£8000) and use up all my savings (which I was hoping to keep for a rainy day). My nightmare scenario is that, given the economy and its impact even at LSE, a year from now I won’t land a job. Then I’ll have this loan burden which I won’t be able to pay back and have no more savings. In short: I’ll be screwed.

Given the ease with which LSE gives out offers, and the fact that they give out very little financial aid, I’ve gotten the impression that LSE wants me only for my money.

(I do have an offer for a good, relatively free, education in Holland, but the problem is: it’s not LSE!)

Well I think LSE is still a good school...but I do believe that it's still expensive, especially when you have a relatively free substitue.

When it seemed like I was being rejected from everywhere, I applied to LSE MSc Finance and Economics (Research). (I did in result received an admission from LSE). My intention when applying was to attend LSE if they give me at least some funding. It's a masters and I didn't want to spend too much money, especially because I will soon(in a couple months) earn my masters in my home country. My advisor didn't agree with me on applying the school. He thought it was a waste of money and time, and told me I should be staying at my alma mater one more year(doctorate) and reapply. However, two profs who are very close to me told me that I should be applying to LSE. That's because they thought I needed a good "names" on education and on LORs (my alma mater is a good school, but I admit it's not well known).

One of my problem was that I was going to reapply soon, but I wouldn't have any grades from LSE then.

In my opinion, LSE is a good school, and if you think you can do well there I think it's worth going. They seem to have very nice curriculum, and of course the faculty members are really great. But if your substitute is good enough, I think you should reconsider.

Gecko · 2009 June 23rd, 02:59 PM

To put it crudely, the LSE masters is subsidising the PhD program

LouisBD · 2009 June 23rd, 03:45 PM

I do not really get why you are so focused on the LSE brand.

I am at Tilburg, which is most likely less in some aspects compared to LSE, but I've seen the best students in the fin/econ area obtaining jobs which are deemed prestigious for fin/econ guys (one of my classmates began a coupe of weeks ago at Goldman Sachs in London) and there have been guys who pursued finance phd studies at nice places (eg. Duke and Stern).*

Of course these were the very best students, but I suspect that this is also the case in LSE.

*It also depends on which study you are pursuing. I have the impression that there is much dispersion in the level and intensity of the different programs.

I am not saying that LSE isn't a great place, I am just suggesting that there are close and affordable alternatives.

NewBoston · 2009 June 23rd, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisBD

I do not really get why you are so focused on the LSE brand.

I am at Tilburg, which is most likely less in some aspects compared to LSE, but I've seen the best students in the fin/econ area obtaining jobs which are deemed prestigious for fin/econ guys (one of my classmates began a coupe of weeks ago at Goldman Sachs in London) and there have been guys who pursued finance phd studies at nice places (eg. Duke and Stern).*

Of course these were the very best students, but I suspect that this is also the case in LSE.

...

I am not saying that LSE isn't a great place, I am just suggesting that there are close and affordable alternatives.

Yes, GS is a relatively good placement for an IB (technically a bank holding company now.) My impression is that the top LSE students go on to very exclusive HF/asset managers (and in some cases make twice as much.) The 'good' to 'ok' students (think merit/pass roughly) frequently have the option to work at an IBank. In better times, I've heard of years where even the average student had ~5 IB offers (in better times, there were still 5 big IBanks!!) Still, in perhaps one of the most sharp dislocations in a long time, most of my classmates were able to find jobs, although some had to get more creative about the job search.

Academic placements are quite good also (even for applied MSc degrees.) I'll be doing a PhD in Finance in a top 25 program starting in September despite the highly applied nature of my MSc. However, in less applied programs (MSc EME, Stats, Fin Econ. ect.,) placements are often into top 5/10 programs (including LSE).

I agree that there are other more affordable programs. There are also many less affordable programs in this area (esp. if you do an industry track program.) Either way, the LSE brand is still strong across the board. I am not aware of a cheaper program with the same level of placements.

At the end of the day, you know whether or not you are a good credit risk. LSE is very much what you make of it, like most other programs. If you put in the extra effort, you will pretty much end up where you want to be with an LSE degree. This can not be said for all other programs.

fusionsnow · 2009 September 1st, 10:35 PM

You have to try and compare like for like as far as possible. In the public sector benchmarking is the only way to make any meaningful comparison. LSE charges significantly more for a Msc Economics than Cambridge, Oxford or Warwick. Is this justified or a rip off? I'm going to compare to Oxford just because its probably the nearest competitor at the moment. Scheduled lectures are far bigger than at Oxford (approx 200 vs 40 for core courses(, and there are less of them every week. Classes are much bigger again (16 vs 6) and shorter. And Oxford offers students 2 years for less than the cost of a single year at LSE. Judge for yourself.

staind · 2009 September 20th, 05:06 AM

Funny to see a debate about pricing in the economics forum. Wouldn't the price of education be controlled by market supply and demand? LSE is able to charge the fees it does because of the value its brand name carries. I could argue that a Rolls Royce is a rip off if my only objective is to get from Point A to Point B. Similarly, you could argue that LSE is a rip off if your only objective is to get an MSc. irrespective of from where or why.

Cassin · 2009 September 20th, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by staind

Funny to see a debate about pricing in the economics forum. Wouldn't the price of education be controlled by market supply and demand? LSE is able to charge the fees it does because of the value its brand name carries. I could argue that a Rolls Royce is a rip off if my only objective is to get from Point A to Point B. Similarly, you could argue that LSE is a rip off if your only objective is to get an MSc. irrespective of from where or why.

I agree that market price may depend on the marginal consumer assuming it wasn't pulled out of a hat

. I frame the exploration in this thread not as "is the price fair? gouging gas prices, omg!" but "under what circumstances is it true that net benefit LSE>0" or even whether "net benefit LSE>net benefit from the best alternative school>0", which includes arguments about the valuation of the benefits (with direct costs and opportunity costs more clear cut). Then consumer has to decide where their personal characteristics (career plans, previous education) place them on the benefit schedule and compare that to cost. This exercise is both important (to admits) and non-trivial (what is the benefit schedule here? what about other schools?)

claphands · 2009 September 21st, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by staind

Funny to see a debate about pricing in the economics forum. Wouldn't the price of education be controlled by market supply and demand? LSE is able to charge the fees it does because of the value its brand name carries. I could argue that a Rolls Royce is a rip off if my only objective is to get from Point A to Point B. Similarly, you could argue that LSE is a rip off if your only objective is to get an MSc. irrespective of from where or why.

this thread is about perfecting our information as consumers of economics education

asianecon · 2009 September 21st, 02:43 PM

Maybe LSE discriminates between "sophisticated" vs "unsophisticated" applicants (be it in terms of information about different programs; information about one's true ability etc). For example, before coming to TM or reading econphd.net, I thought LSE is the only good place to take your masters and everyone in the EME program gets into top 10 places easily. In fact most people in my country thinks LSE is the best place to study econ in the world.

To the extent that competitiveness is positively correlated with sophistication, and financial constraints are negatively correlated with unsophistication (e.g. poor people like me have to search more and gather information), then LSE's strategy is a good one. They would offer financial support to competitive applicants (or these applicants know that they can and will receive support from LSE or external sources) and extract money from less competitive ones who don't face financial constraints.

It's interesting to think about why in, say most US schools or in PhD programs themselves, they don't do this. Maybe there's some negative externality to having a lot of ex post bad paying students.

Harsh.DV · 2009 November 4th, 12:41 AM

I'm an Msc fin student at LSE, so I thought I would put in a few points:

1) Is LSE worth the money?

You bet! Every penny of it. Agreed, that this year has been one of the hardest for UK, but a quite a decent number have still got through, more than even Oxbridge grads. The teaching is top notch, though you don't get a lot of the Profs' times outside the classes; but given their stature abd as busy as they are this should'bt be a complaint. Bcoz of the size of the dept. and the number of courses it offers, you can choose from around 40 subjects and specialise in your area of interest.

2) Is LSE ripping off students?

Well,not exactly. LSE is at the heart of Central London, perhaps the most
expensive places in the world. Considering its low grants and the highest levels of research and industry contacts that it maintains, it needs the capital infusion from somewhere.

3) Is it better to go for cheap and close substitutes?

Not a very good idea. LSE commands a lot of respect with the city's fin services firms and close to 90% of grad recruits for bulge bracket firms happen to be from LBS, LSE and Oxbridge. The next best place Imperial as well lags behind by a very fair distance. An average student from LSE has much better prospects than the brightest minds from its close competitors.

To end, LSE is worth the money. An atleast average student with good networking skills will perhaps make it up in 6 months.

Harsh

2009 September 21st, 02:43 PM	#29 (permalink)
asianecon TestMagic Guru-in-Training Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 523	Maybe LSE discriminates between "sophisticated" vs "unsophisticated" applicants (be it in terms of information about different programs; information about one's true ability etc). For example, before coming to TM or reading econphd.net, I thought LSE is the only good place to take your masters and everyone in the EME program gets into top 10 places easily. In fact most people in my country thinks LSE is the best place to study econ in the world. To the extent that competitiveness is positively correlated with sophistication, and financial constraints are negatively correlated with unsophistication (e.g. poor people like me have to search more and gather information), then LSE's strategy is a good one. They would offer financial support to competitive applicants (or these applicants know that they can and will receive support from LSE or external sources) and extract money from less competitive ones who don't face financial constraints. It's interesting to think about why in, say most US schools or in PhD programs themselves, they don't do this. Maybe there's some negative externality to having a lot of ex post bad paying students. _ _ _ _ SIG _ _ _ _ "But the real prize of academic work is the privilege, freedom and fun of working on subjects of one's own choice. The joy of research for me is the work itself, irrespective of peer evaluation. The pleasure that comes from unlocking a technical argument, the excitement of seeing a new way of looking at an issue, the satisfaction of drawing different matrices of knowledge together in a productive way." -P.C.B. Phillips

2009 November 4th, 12:41 AM	#30 (permalink)
Harsh.DV I JUST got here. Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 2	I'm an Msc fin student at LSE, so I thought I would put in a few points: 1) Is LSE worth the money? You bet! Every penny of it. Agreed, that this year has been one of the hardest for UK, but a quite a decent number have still got through, more than even Oxbridge grads. The teaching is top notch, though you don't get a lot of the Profs' times outside the classes; but given their stature abd as busy as they are this should'bt be a complaint. Bcoz of the size of the dept. and the number of courses it offers, you can choose from around 40 subjects and specialise in your area of interest. 2) Is LSE ripping off students? Well,not exactly. LSE is at the heart of Central London, perhaps the most expensive places in the world. Considering its low grants and the highest levels of research and industry contacts that it maintains, it needs the capital infusion from somewhere. 3) Is it better to go for cheap and close substitutes? Not a very good idea. LSE commands a lot of respect with the city's fin services firms and close to 90% of grad recruits for bulge bracket firms happen to be from LBS, LSE and Oxbridge. The next best place Imperial as well lags behind by a very fair distance. An average student from LSE has much better prospects than the brightest minds from its close competitors. To end, LSE is worth the money. An atleast average student with good networking skills will perhaps make it up in 6 months. Harsh
	$Received Infraction$

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

2009 June 23rd, 02:59 PM	#22 (permalink)
Gecko This user's posts are moderated. Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,078	To put it crudely, the LSE masters is subsidising the PhD program

2009 June 23rd, 03:45 PM	#23 (permalink)
LouisBD Within my grasp! Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 115	I do not really get why you are so focused on the LSE brand. I am at Tilburg, which is most likely less in some aspects compared to LSE, but I've seen the best students in the fin/econ area obtaining jobs which are deemed prestigious for fin/econ guys (one of my classmates began a coupe of weeks ago at Goldman Sachs in London) and there have been guys who pursued finance phd studies at nice places (eg. Duke and Stern).* Of course these were the very best students, but I suspect that this is also the case in LSE. *It also depends on which study you are pursuing. I have the impression that there is much dispersion in the level and intensity of the different programs. I am not saying that LSE isn't a great place, I am just suggesting that there are close and affordable alternatives.

2009 September 1st, 10:35 PM	#25 (permalink)
fusionsnow I JUST got here. Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 14	You have to try and compare like for like as far as possible. In the public sector benchmarking is the only way to make any meaningful comparison. LSE charges significantly more for a Msc Economics than Cambridge, Oxford or Warwick. Is this justified or a rip off? I'm going to compare to Oxford just because its probably the nearest competitor at the moment. Scheduled lectures are far bigger than at Oxford (approx 200 vs 40 for core courses(, and there are less of them every week. Classes are much bigger again (16 vs 6) and shorter. And Oxford offers students 2 years for less than the cost of a single year at LSE. Judge for yourself.

2009 September 20th, 05:06 AM	#26 (permalink)
staind Eager! Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 37	Funny to see a debate about pricing in the economics forum. Wouldn't the price of education be controlled by market supply and demand? LSE is able to charge the fees it does because of the value its brand name carries. I could argue that a Rolls Royce is a rip off if my only objective is to get from Point A to Point B. Similarly, you could argue that LSE is a rip off if your only objective is to get an MSc. irrespective of from where or why.

TestMagic

Free GMAT, GRE, SAT Test, TOEFL practice tests