@Alexandre, we are in agreement. Qualitatively, the experience at LSE will be very different from that at an American Ivy/equivalent. I see it as a luxury good, though, which the OP will have to decide if it is worth paying up for.
As an aside, while the UK has Oxbridge+LSE+Imperial and France has the Grandes Ecoles, higher ed in Germany seems much less stratified; every uni there seems like a giant commuter state school (TUM would be. . . .GTech?) with most kids just commuting to the nearest uni.
@PurpleTitan INSEAD has significantly more representation at McKinsey than HBS does. Which school would you rather attend? The University of Washington sends many more students to Microsoft than Stanford does. Would you make a decision based on that fact alone?
Also, working for McK in Europe is very different. The US has more elite schools than any other country on earth. Companies have many more excellent options than they do in Europe.
@NerdyChica, in the business world, INSEAD isn’t far off from HBS, if at all. Many actually would choose INSEAD over HBS (I would too if I wanted a cheaper shorter MBA program with stronger representation in Europe).
And Microsoft is based in WA while McKinsey is global, so that’s not comparing apples with apples.
Agree that the US has a surfeit of elite schools. Europe (especially the UK) isn’t exactly lacking in them, though. As I have stated elsewhere, because the US is such a big country and our elite colleges have relatively small undergrad populations (note that each of Cambridge and Oxford take in a little more undergrads each year than Cornell, the biggest Ivy, and those 2 take in considerably more than any Ivy-equivalent), as a percentage of the population, Oxbridge+LSE+Imperial actually offer more places in the UK than all 30 Ivies/equivalents (I include 14 LACs as well) do on a per capita basis in the US.
Though, @NerdyChica, whether you intended to or not, you did make some relevant comparisons in the sense that full-pay total costs for Stanford CS is almost double total costs for an in-state kid in UW CS, 2Y HBS is almost double 1Y INSEAD, and 4Y Duke full-pay is almost double 3Y LSE full-pay (total costs for all).
In all 3 cases, if your family is rich, take the first option, but for someone upper-middle-class to whom spending an extra $100K-130K (on top of a minimum $100K-130K) is a very big deal, I would advise the second option. It’s not as if the second option is Podunk State; UW CS, INSEAD MBA, and a degree from LSE are all elite.
Another way to look at it is from the viewpoint of ROI. INSEAD is always at or near the top of the list in terms of ROI for full-pays at a FT MBA program because, other than Kellogg’s 1Y MBA, none of the American M7 (or top 15) or LBS are one year programs and you need to make a lot more to make up for the extra costs of a 2Y MBA.
Likewise, the ROI of an in-state UW-Seattle CS degree usually will beat out the ROI of Stanford at full-pay and the ROI of a cheaper 3Y LSE degree will likely beat out the ROI of a 4Y Duke degree at full-pay.
i love the commentary on McKinsey in here by some that are quite uninformed to say the least. Go to LSE - cheaper and more renowned than duke internationally. As mentioned previously, Applicant data matters, but so does office location. Detroit McKinsey (with a focus on the automotive industry and midwest pharm) is not the same as NYC McKinsey (focus on PE, media, Finance M&A) or SF McKinsey (access to elite tech, startups, VC collaborations etc.).
This is as dubious as looking at school quality in winning awards without applicant data. Most popular locales based on office preference when applying is SF or NYC, but few (out of many) get it.