Is LSE ripping off MSc students?

[blowman]

Here’s the thing (keep in mind i'm focussing on fin/econ programs):

LSE is known as one of the best unis in the UK. However, from what I’ve learnt, it is VERY easy to get an offer for LSE masters programs (relative to, say, Oxbridge or top American programs). Just check all these forums (e.g. TSR, TestMagic) yourself: loads of people (who applied, of course) have gotten an offer from LSE. Virtually everyone who has an offer from Oxbridge also has an offer from LSE (again, if they applied of course). The opposite is quite often not true, and I find few rejections from LSE (again, relative to other supposedly top unis).

LSE also demands the highest tuition fees (on average) than any other UK uni. And many of the programs offered (I’m focussing primarily on econ and finance programs, which demand £18k fees) don’t seem very different from what you would get at other universities, apart from the setting of course. Moreover, half of the current fin and econ batch hasn’t landed a job yet. So here’s the question: is LSE ripping off students at the masters level? Do they just give out so many offers hoping that enough will be prepared to go broke to have LSE on their CV? Or do you think LSE is worth the buck?

(Btw, why does LSE only have £2m to give out in graduate support, despite their absurd tuition fees? Similar US unis have got hundreds of millions to give out!)

[economics]

it's common knowledge that for most MScs, LSE doesn't add much value (beyond some signaling). it seems to be a "good investment" for

1) people coming from countries with crappy universities who need an accurate signal about their abilities, which the LSE degree gives - it's a standard degree

2) people switching into economics, hoping to apply to PhD after their MSc

3) people heading for finance that didn't land a job with their bachelor's degree; you will get access to the LSE recruiting fairs (if you want to work in the City)

4) people hoping to get into the PhD program through a distinction

finally, i think it's well known that LSE doesn't have money - neither for profs nor for students. unlike the big research universities, research @LSE is financed mainly through the horrendous tuition payments...

if you are heading for a good US PhD and don't come from a crappy university, then your best bet - if you need to strengthen your profile - is often to work as a RA for a well-known prof instead. it's rare that you need more econ course work, as they don't teach you math anyway.

[hedgehogging]

Originally Posted by blowman

Here’s the thing (keep in mind i'm focussing on fin/econ programs):

LSE is known as one of the best unis in the UK. However, from what I’ve learnt, it is VERY easy to get an offer for LSE masters programs (relative to, say, Oxbridge or top American programs). Just check all these forums (e.g. TSR, TestMagic) yourself: loads of people (who applied, of course) have gotten an offer from LSE. Virtually everyone who has an offer from Oxbridge also has an offer from LSE (again, if they applied of course). The opposite is quite often not true, and I find few rejections from LSE (again, relative to other supposedly top unis).

LSE also demands the highest tuition fees (on average) than any other UK uni. And many of the programs offered (I’m focussing primarily on econ and finance programs, which demand £18k fees) don’t seem very different from what you would get at other universities, apart from the setting of course. Moreover, half of the current fin and econ batch hasn’t landed a job yet. So here’s the question: is LSE ripping off students at the masters level? Do they just give out so many offers hoping that enough will be prepared to go broke to have LSE on their CV? Or do you think LSE is worth the buck?

(Btw, why does LSE only have £2m to give out in graduate support, despite their absurd tuition fees? Similar US unis have got hundreds of millions to give out!)

Well, looking at the Econ and Finance MSc, for example, I know at least one person going on to do a PhD in Econ at Harvard, two more people going into other top 7 US schools, a person going on to a JD in the top 3, and a number going on to PhDs in top 3 UK schools. Over half of the rest of the class have jobs. The others, the majority of whom were aiming for IBanking - well, it's a tough year.

No offense to anyone on this forum, but people seem to be making a really really big deal out of this 18k investment - if you do not consider further education to be valuable to you - then "spending" even 5k is going to be too much. It's a very personal thing as to whether you derive any value from your education. The opportunity cost is high - you could spend one year working at GS or some hedge fund and make 60-70k GBP if you are good and you will have a year of experience behind your belt - so in fact what you are "spending" is 78-88k and a year of experience - but I personally think that you can make it worth your money.

LSE's endowment is less than 0.1% of the endowment of Harvard - and yet the university still has some top faculty and great researchers in a number of fields. That costs money. Sure, the education is expensive - and partly the low endowment is the fault of LSE not being particularly smart regarding maintaining ties and being "friendly" with the undergrads who would donate a lot more if LSE was to be a friendlier place. Now, I have to admit that the distribution of scholarships is not fair - but it's life.

As for LSE being less competitive - come to the MSc in EME (research or one year tracks) and compare the quality of the batch to anyone an MPhil Econ in Oxford or Cambridge. The people in Oxbridge at both grad and undergrad level will, perhaps, be more all around, they will perhaps be more generalist, but if you look at who can really kick *** in the UK in terms of getting on top in the "real" (aka non academic) world - it is the people from LSE.

That said, a lot is wrong with LSE (lack of support/ face time with professors/ difficulty in getting references/ lack of appeals procedure/ one track minded undergrads etc.) and if you are not convinced that you will be able to push yourself, and do not think that you will be fine on your own, then LSE is not the place for you.

[NewBoston]

Originally Posted by blowman

Here’s the thing (keep in mind i'm focussing on fin/econ programs):

LSE is known as one of the best unis in the UK. However, from what I’ve learnt, it is VERY easy to get an offer for LSE masters programs (relative to, say, Oxbridge or top American programs). Just check all these forums (e.g. TSR, TestMagic) yourself: loads of people (who applied, of course) have gotten an offer from LSE. Virtually everyone who has an offer from Oxbridge also has an offer from LSE (again, if they applied of course). The opposite is quite often not true, and I find few rejections from LSE (again, relative to other supposedly top unis).

LSE also demands the highest tuition fees (on average) than any other UK uni. And many of the programs offered (I’m focussing primarily on econ and finance programs, which demand £18k fees) don’t seem very different from what you would get at other universities, apart from the setting of course. Moreover, half of the current fin and econ batch hasn’t landed a job yet. So here’s the question: is LSE ripping off students at the masters level? Do they just give out so many offers hoping that enough will be prepared to go broke to have LSE on their CV? Or do you think LSE is worth the buck?

(Btw, why does LSE only have £2m to give out in graduate support, despite their absurd tuition fees? Similar US unis have got hundreds of millions to give out!)

I'm not sure how you claim finance related degrees are too expensive at LSE; Oxford's MFE is £25,000 and UCLA's MFE is a flat $50k for tuition. Other Finance oriented degrees in the US are also priced around the same amount. If you want to do Econ, you might find a cheaper degree, but you will have nowhere near the employment prospects. Also, there is no aid for people taking a industry track Finance degree in the US, so I am not sure what you are talking about as far as aid is concerned in the US.

Next, the Finance department at LSE is #1 in the UK, both in academic terms and in terms of industry placements. Any objective measure will show this and, perhaps more importantly, the decision makers in industry as well as the adcoms for PhD programs both recognize this and reflect it in their decisions. On a more practical level, if you were to attempt to get to a few interviews on time in the City from Oxbridge...good luck.

LSE does have its shortcomings, but you have not managed to hit on any of them. Why you would post such an uninformed comment is not clear. In the past, TM has had helpful discussions of the weaknesses of some programs/institutions. This is not one of them.

[kushagra452]

I have an offer from LSE for the Msc economics (2 years) program. I had applied to the 2 year program since I donot have an economics background (i am a comp science graduate). I am concerned about the high cost of tuition that LSE is charging (arnd 30K pounds for the two years!!). But, here back home (I am from New Delhi, India), almost everyone that I have met is advising me not to drop plans to join LSE.

I know that the job scenario is very very bad in the UK (especially for international students). But, I do hope to recover the loan amount in 5-6 years after passing out of LSE. I will be attending the LSE summer school and will then take the final decision whether to go ahead with LSE or not.

If getting admission is so easy i might as well shelve plans to attend LSE this year and apply later (when the economy improves...).

[postgradecon]

Originally Posted by economics

it's common knowledge that for most MScs, LSE doesn't add much value (beyond some signaling). it seems to be a "good investment" for

1) people coming from countries with crappy universities who need an accurate signal about their abilities, which the LSE degree gives - it's a standard degree

[...]
if you are heading for a good US PhD and don't come from a crappy university, then your best bet - if you need to strengthen your profile - is often to work as a RA for a well-known prof instead. it's rare that you need more econ course work, as they don't teach you math anyway.

This applies to most master's degrees. Of course a master's could be considered a waste of time by most people compared to a PhD (for someone intending to continue to the PhD), but among master's degrees, I would still believe that LSE has one of the best programs. If you're set on doing a master's, then you should compared different MSc programs, and from what I see it's probably one of the most rigorous.

Also, I just want to add that a master's can have some value especially for people like me who were not necessarily 100% certain of continuing to the PhD later. And although this year was bad for employment opportunities at LSE, it was the same story everywhere.

[batistuta50]

Few questions on this topic.

1. Isn't the Msc in EME supposed to be as tough or tougher than first years in econ Phds everywhere including the US?
2. In terms of funding, are there absolutely no opportunities for non EU/UK students? I am from a developing South Asian country so funding opportunities are important.

[fp3690]

It is plainly wrong to compare LSE MSc with PhDs, because it's just not the same course, rigor, and people often go there with non-academic aspirations. Furthermore, US PhDs often ask for 16 years of education, and people studying in the UK often don't have that from undergrad.

[Epanechnikov]

The question is similar to the following:

Is Harvard Business School ripping off MBA students?
Is Berkeley ripping off MFE students?
Is NYU Courant ripping off MS Students?
....

My impression is that LSE does not rip off anybody. The MSc EME and MSc in Statistics, particularly, offer good value for money (very small classes, selectivily, interaction with teachers, extremely good employability and good placement record to good Phd. programmes). If your sole intention however is to do a Ph.D., this investment may not be the best as perfoming well is very difficult. Depending on how confident you feel, some Dutch, Sweedish, Swiss or Belgian programmes could be more suitable to you (no fees/very low fees, decent programmes etc.)

[Epanechnikov]

Originally Posted by fp3690

. Furthermore, US PhDs often ask for 16 years of education, and people studying in the UK often don't have that from undergrad.

Most MSc students at LSE are internationals (90-95%, 40-45% Northern Americans!).