<p>Is it well known?</p>
<p>In science (Engineering, Medical and physical) and academic circles, Imperial will have a strong reputation. Outside of those domains, Imperial quickly loses its luster.</p>
<p>It generally isn’t well-regarded in the USA. For most Americans, it is just another university in the UK. Oxford, Cambridge are prestigious in the USA. And, to a lesser extent, LSE and St Andrews.</p>
<p>err st. andrews? i’ve only ever heard of it being good for it’s golf courses</p>
<p>…and for young and attractive women to go to college to meet their prince! 
</p>
<p>Actually, with the future king and queen of England as alums, St Andrews’ profile has risen much over the last decade.</p>
<p>Only Oxford and Cambridge have the reputation of Ivies. Even LSE is just another British school that happily takes American exchange students from Ivies to TTT LACs.</p>
<p>Yeah LSE/Imperial is ridiculously easy for Internationals to get into (within reason), but I’m not sure if they are any less academically rigorous than the ivies, opinions on this? I want a PhD in Electronic Engineering at some point, does an EEE major at say MIT learn more than a EEE at Imperial?</p>
<p>I wouldn’t say LSE is ridiculously easy for international students to apply there. I think you have no idea what you’re talking about. In most areas, you’d need an AAA at A-Levels to get into LSE. For some academic fields, you’d need A<em>A</em>A.</p>
<p>No course at LSE asks for A<em>A</em>A, I declined my economics offer at LSE to take a gap year as I would rather study Engineering. Imperial/Cambridge however has plenty of courses that ask for A<em>A</em>A (and even heard of offers in A<em>A</em>AA for aero at Imperial) but they are easy for Internationals to get into as long as you have the minimum grades. Ridiculously was an overstatement I guess.</p>
<p>^ I believe LSE’s econ asks for A<em>A</em>A or A*AAa and a superb record on your GCSE nowadays. It is significantly harder to get onto the economics program at LSE than to get onto an earo program at Imperial. The admit rate was 6% in 2009. this year’s was rumored to be even lower. [Page</a> not found - Undergraduate - Study - Home](<a href=“http://www2.lse.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/pageNotFound.aspx]Page”>http://www2.lse.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/pageNotFound.aspx) Nevertheless, this isn’t about LSE vs Imperial. The OP was asking the reputation of Imperial in the US and in my personal observation, it isn’t that well-regarded. For most Americans, Imperial is just another university in the UK. LSE has a rich and powerful network in the US and the educated Americans must have heard LSE and must have heard of it as a top UK university. Saying that does not in anyway saying that LSE is superior to Imperial in the UK. Both are different from each other and do not have an overlapping program.</p>
<p>Ops the link no longer work. That was for 2009, btw, and it show how extremely tough it is to get onto the economics program at LSE.</p>
<p>the average American will only recognize Oxford and Cambridge. although internationally, LSE and Imperial are top schools (they offer a better education than UC Berkeley, Swarthmore, Carnegie Mellon, etc.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And you know this because . . . </p>
<p>I am in grad school with a couple of Imperial kids all who came first/second in their class and there is nothing that distinguishes them from kids from UT Austin or Madison not to talk of a school like Swarthmore or Carnegie mellon which have very smart students.</p>
<p>Lol nothing even spectacular about the Oxbridge kids too. A lot of them still struggle with classes.</p>
<p>I agree with Alexandre that it is reputable in those areas…</p>
<p>What about the reputation of University of Edinburgh? I’m applying there…</p>
<p>sefago, in all fairness, everyone has to struggle in class at some point or another, unless you’re not serious with your studies. Thus I don’t think that is a good basis for academic standard. Many Americans struggle with classes at Cambridge too, and those Americans usually come from top American schools with superb academic credentials. Cambridge - as a whole - is quite picky, and you know that.</p>
<p>It’s VERY competitive for home students, not as much for internationals. This is because UK education is subsidised by state and there’s a limit on people from home they can take on, whereas all top college in the states are private. And taking on foreign students mean more money for the university as the fees are much higher. Btw the grade req. for LSE is A*AA though you need a pass at Further Maths anyway to make a good application. </p>
<p>Come to think of it the reputation of LSE stems from the fact that it’s a IB breeding ground, though it’s great for economics research too. Oxbridge for their history etc. Imperial, well it’s a science institute with no unique selling point. Same way the average Brit probably know about Harvard and MIT because they are talked about everywhere, maybe some would have heard of Wharton but Princeton/Stanford is unknown. </p>
<p>Have to say sefago’s point is ■■■■■■■■ though, I just had a look through some of the top EEE courses in the states and there’s nothing to show they are more academically rigorous than Imperial/Cam.</p>
<p>Edinburgh is like St. Andrews, and have four year courses unlike the typical UK university. Nothing special, but still quite good. Filled with mediocre posh private school students if that’s your clique :p.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you had a more rigorous education then it would make sense that you would be ahead of your peers when in grad school. </p>
<p>I would expect that if XXXA universities are so much rigorous they should outperform kids at even non top-10 US universities especially when they are the best in their class. I have not seen this in my experience. I am not positing my anecdote as evidence but it does raise the question for the need for evidence before one claims school A provides a better education that School B. </p>
<p>What I would agree with with is XXXA have more academically driven students than XXXB university at least there is evidence for that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No offense meant, but i think you should learn to read carefully. Not too hard of a task mate. I never said A is more rigorous than B. I said there is “nothing that distinguishes students from these schools.” Moreover looking at a bunch of classes does not tell you anything about rigor tbh.</p>
<p>Your evidence is an anecdote and I don’t think there’s any point in arguing about this lol, saying you found one university’s students more ‘academically driven’ is rubbish and there is no evidence for that. WHat university are you at? </p>
<p>It seems the entire first year is pretty much most of what we finish by A Level (class 12) (not saying there’s anything wrong with that). ANd going through the curriculum content does give an idea about the rigour. I don’t see any difference in the quality of what you are taught at the best schools in USA at undergrads and the universities I am referring to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never claimed it was evidence. You definitely have poor reading skills. I said it raises the question of a need for evidence- meaning well ok I cannot take it for face value that school A is more rigorous than school B because my experiences do no merge with this. I need something a bit more concrete than conjectures. Now if hypothetically say I believed the statement of contention or in my experience this is usually true, I will not be asking for evidence. </p>
<p>Also I meant I would agree with a statement which states that: </p>
<p>XXXA have more academically driven students than XXXB university</p>
<p>So if you want to say well Cambridge students are more academically driven than Swarthmore kids then well that at least is provable based but to claim they provide a “better education” you would first define what you mean by a better education.</p>