<p>jkh/uWarwick:the great thing is this: your thread has been taken in a completely different direction to the one you wanted. Those encountering it will now find a much greater range of data and views than they would have seen if it had carried on in the way you intended.</p>
<p>And, frankly, given your general level of articulacy, I'm sure that most readers of the thread will be grateful that your contributions were not the only ones. </p>
<p>I think that's good...and it's been fun...</p>
<p>jkh: the only rankings you ever mention are from the Times, a newspaper which has a formal sponsorship deal with Oxbridge. </p>
<p>I have mentioned a much wider range of assessments, both from within the UK and from outside it.</p>
<p>I think that says a great deal about who's giving an accurate picture here..</p>
<p>uWarwick: this sad sod thinks we are the same person! LOL </p>
<p>Readers who read this thread from the first post until this last one will only realise too well Hatingtonyblair's and innuendo's jealousy and hatred for Oxbridge, prompting them to hijack this thread and turning it into his LSE adoration shrine.</p>
<p>jkh: a bit more data from another web source, just to show there's plenty of them - a quote from Wikipedia, the web encyclopaedia:</p>
<p>'In recent years, the LSE has become the second best overall research university in the United Kingdom, second only to Cambridge, and the largest in the social sciences.</p>
<p>In November 2004, the LSE was ranked the 11th best university in the world by the Times Higher Education Supplement world league table of universities. In that same paper, the LSE was ranked the second best university for the study of the social sciences (behind only Harvard in the United States). It was also reported that the LSE is the most international school in the world, with just over 70% of its student body coming from outside the United Kingdom, and well over 130 countries represented on campus in any given year. During the 1950s and 60s, the School had more countries represented on campus than the United Nations. </p>
<p>In a 2003 profile of the School, The Guardian newspaper depicted the LSE as having had "more influence on the contemporary political world than any other university in the world." '</p>
<p>"jkh: the only rankings you ever mention are from the Times, a newspaper which has a formal sponsorship deal with Oxbridge. </p>
<p>I have mentioned a much wider range of assessments, both from within the UK and from outside it."</p>
<p>Yes, and yet the Times is still considered the best and most accurate rankings in the UK, and still did not place Oxbridge at no. 1 and no. 2 for all subjects. </p>
<p>I can't believe you are repeating the same mantra: what good are the other ranking tables when no one else (read: readers all over the world who read those papers/rankings) take much notice of them?</p>
<p>It's like the crappy Parcelforce automated telephone customer service line: You keep saying RR0135 into the mouth-piece, and they keep repeating "RL01E9"!</p>
<p>It's just a waste of time.</p>
<p>Go on Hatingtonyblair - Keep citing untested opinions from googling Internet sites. You might come across more articles that suggest LSE is on the decline - a view that recently emerged in Asia by some observers over there. Just one example here - a Singaporean on the TSR mentioned that it was widely acknowledged that LSE is seen as a declining instituition in Singapore.</p>
<p>In actual fact, jkh/uWarwick, all you are doing is revealing your own reliance on a very narrow range of data and sources. </p>
<p>The newspapers and rankings which I cite and which you have not heard of, or which you ignore or disparage, are widely available and are widely discussed. Much of the information is on the internet for example, and there is plenty more of it, and if you really knew what you were saing you would already be familiar with it.</p>
<p>What we do know is that you occasionally read the London Times.</p>
<p>The truth is you are not familiar with the data and you don't know what you are talking about, and I am doing readers of this website a service by pointing this out. </p>
<p>As I said it's been fun....</p>
<p>Let's just say no one who knows anything about the UK's culture and its Education system would really care much about the Guardian or what nots nonsense.</p>
<p>Choose whichever biased method/reports/articles to believe - it's your freedom. But you just can't change what readers all over the world think about them.</p>
<p>jkh/uWarwick:I have definitely provided plenty of evidence about what people all over the world think, and what people in the UK think.</p>
<p>You have provided UK data based on a controversial league table in one British newspaper which, despite what you say, places LSE 4th in its overall ranking (despite the bias in its table methodology towards towards multi faculty science and technology colleges, and despite its frankly dotty individual subject rankings).</p>
<p>But thanks anyway, jkh/uwarwick/hash: you've given us an incentive to provide readers of this website with some useful information .. </p>
<p>Oh, and try reading a wider range of newspapers..don't worry you're still allowed to read the London Times...</p>
<p>This thread has outlived its usefulness.</p>