<p>"Only the British ones are worth the money, if you ask me. Oxbridge comes to mind."</p>
<p>I guess you never heard of St.Gallen?!!?</p>
<p>And where is Ox-bridge???????</p>
<p>I takes you only a year to get a master at IMD and Insead - and these are really good b-schools!</p>
<p>FAS,</p>
<p>Oxbridge is a common portmanteau of "Oxford" and "Cambridge." My English friends use it all the time.</p>
<p>I've heard of St. Gallen, although I doubt most Americans have. I was just naming two schools that I thought were exceptional. I never said that my list was inclusive.</p>
<p>No, you said "Only the British ones are worth the money".
IMO this statement is not acceptable...</p>
<p>In the English speaking world, there is a definite bent toward English speaking degrees. St. Gallen may offer a good degree, but if, as a Yank, it's not going to be recognized as equivalent to an American or British degree, it's not worth the money. Most of the better international programs (for a Yank) are North American or British.</p>
<p>Since there's a definitely large opportunity cost for most people to get a business degree (as most are already in the middle of careers), you have to make sure that it's damned worthwhile to get the degree. Remember, you're not just paying for the cost of the tuition, fees, etc, you're also missing out on the income you'd otherwise be earning.</p>
<p>If, when you return, your degree is not recognized as equivalent, then you've therefore lost on your investment. I'm not saying that the degrees in Western Europe aren't necessarily worthwhile. I'm saying, that based on what I've observed and what I seem to be said in major business publications, the best degrees are North American or British. </p>
<p>Other international programs that come to mind, by the way, are London Business School, Western Ontario, Toronto, and McGill.</p>
<p>Oh, and you still haven't said, "Oh yeah, Oxbridge. You were right."</p>
<p>:p</p>
<p>The point is you said: "Only the British ones are worth the money".
This is not correct! (not on the undegraduate level and not on the graduate level)</p>
<p>Insead and IMD belong to the best B-Schools in the world. Oxford and Camridge (Oh, Im sorry, I mean Oxbridge) are not even close. In fact London School of Business is the best B-School (at graduate level) in the UK.</p>
<p>At the undergraduate level there are schools like WHU, HFB, St.Gallen, EBS that are really good. Most classes a taught in Englisch and you will get a BSc-degree and save a lot of money!</p>
<p>To me it seems like you have heard of a few schools and now you assume these schools are the only schools an American can attend because the rest of it is trash.</p>
<p>How come you haven't mentioned European Business School London for undergraduate admission? Not worth the money, or did you never hear of it. I mean it's a Britsh universtiy, right?!?!?</p>
<p>FAS,</p>
<p>You're doing a good job of missing the point-</p>
<p>It doesn't matter if the school is actually really really good. What matters is perception at time of hire. Continental schools tend to be much better at hiring in the continent than British schools, and British schools tend to do a better job of getting people hired in the States than Continental schools.</p>
<p>Of course, this becomes less important if you don't want to live in the US, but it seems that most posters (or the vast majority, really) want US-based employment. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Insead and IMD belong to the best B-Schools in the world. Oxford and Camridge (Oh, Im sorry, I mean Oxbridge) are not even close. In fact London School of Business is the best B-School (at graduate level) in the UK.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, it is true that Insead and IMD are great programs. However, the opportunity cost for ANY business graduate program is VERY high for most people. If you cannot justify it based on the marginal benefits, then there's no reason to go.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To me it seems like you have heard of a few schools and now you assume these schools are the only schools an American can attend because the rest of it is trash.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Stop making wild assumptions. I know plenty of Continental business programs. However, based on what I've read in major publications, they do not seem to be as good of an investment as North American/British programs. Actually, for most people, if you're good enough to get into the best European or Canadian programs, there's no reason not to attend an American program, where name recognition is instantaneous and usually better. </p>
<p>Again, this is NOT me saying that the programs are no good. This is me saying that despite their obvious quality, they do not offer the same level of marginal benefit that other programs seem to offer. </p>
<p>
[quote]
How come you haven't mentioned European Business School London for undergraduate admission? Not worth the money, or did you never hear of it. I mean it's a Britsh universtiy, right?!?!?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Stop assuming stuff, for goodness' sake.</p>
<p>"Stop making wild assumptions. I know plenty of Continental business programs. However, based on what I've read in major publications, they do not seem to be as good of an investment as North American/British programs. Actually, for most people, if you're good enough to get into the best European or Canadian programs, there's no reason not to attend an American program, where name recognition is instantaneous and usually better."</p>
<ol>
<li>I'm curious which magazines or newspapers you're reading...</li>
<li>One good reason not to attend an excellent American university would be $$$</li>
</ol>
<p>Anyway, I guess you're right in every aspect. Good luck to you - you might need it (I'm sorry, I'm just assuming)</p>
<ol>
<li> The Economist, Business Weekly, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and a few others...</li>
<li> Considering that many of the top Continental programs rival the top American programs in terms of cost, it seems a poor reason for an American. This is further magnified by the fact that American programs usually possess better funding and financial aid than their European counterparts. Of course, your mileage may vary.</li>
</ol>
<p>
[quote]
Anyway, I guess you're right in every aspect.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I doubt it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Good luck to you - you might need it (I'm sorry, I'm just assuming)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I don't plan on getting my MBA anytime soon, but thanks. I'll parlay that over to my chances of getting a good placement after whatever PhD I take.</p>
<p>Nice. I come back to this forum hoping that I may learn something. Instead, I find FAS7 and UCLAri exchanging blows at each other's intelligence. Wooohooo!</p>
<p>I don't recall ever attacking FAS's intelligence...</p>
<p>By the way, some things to consider about LSE:</p>
<p>It is cheaper tuition-wise than many premier American institutions, but not that much. I calculated, based on the information they sent me upon admissions, what 1 year at LSE would cost, and it was something in the neighborhood of $40K a year, including travel expenses, living, and transportation. Sure, 26,000 pounds a year looks nice, but don't forget the conversion rate. ;)</p>
<p>Great school though.</p>
<p>Nice, thank you, UCLAri.</p>
<p>$40K is about the same amount top tier, prestigious schools in the US charge for their tuition, as you said. At the moment, money is not an issue for me (believe it or not). The issue is whether I will be able to receive an equal, or better, education at LSE than at Wharton, Haas, or another top-tier undergrad b-school. In addition, the other issue is: is it easier to get into LSE than Wharton/Haas/top-tier b-school?</p>
<p>Well, as a grad student (I know you're not a grad student, but bear with me) I've been told more than once that British schools see foreign students as cash cows. I don't know how different it is at the undergrad level, but I bet it's not too terribly different.</p>
<p>That still doesn't mean that it's easy though. For example, admission to LSE graduate programs required at least a 2.1 or even first class honours (undergraduate degree). That's pretty competitive. </p>
<p>As far as education goes, I don't know that the LSE undergrad program is exactly the same as what you'll get at Wharton or Haas. </p>
<p>So anyway, here's the admissions page for Americans:</p>
<p>Look it over. It seems pretty intense to get in, but not necessarily "harder" that what it takes to get into Harvard or other top American programs. Just different. Although, I'd hate to have to take that exam!</p>
<p>To give you an my example and opinion here goes:</p>
<p>I got 43 points International Baccaleureate (in the UK this is how admissions work for UK students, based on exam results) and only just got into the BSc Economics course through the waiting list.</p>
<p>The competitiveness for the Economics and/or Politics degrees (and related subjects) are among the highest in the UK (I believe Economics was about 1 in 27 applicants getting in).</p>
<p>I have found the degree pretty tough but interesting. My grades have been pretty basic - they convert to about a 3.6-3.7 GPA in American terms.</p>
<p>I moved on to apply then for Graduate courses in Economics and Business. </p>
<p>I was rejected by the LSE and Oxbridge because my grades weren't good enough! But on the basis of a 770 GMAT, and a GRE with 800 (quant), 690 (verb) and 6/6 (analytical w) I was accepted at:</p>
<p>Stanford, Princeton, Harvard and Chicago for the courses I wanted. (I was rejected at Yale - but they're just a bit wierd really - with their Skull and bones clubs :s)</p>
<p>So I would suggest the following about the LSE:</p>
<ol>
<li>In economics and politics you would be at one of the best institutions in the world for those subjects.</li>
<li>You WILL find a degree of ignorance about the LSE in America for the man on the street - but in employment and academic circles you won't have that problem. (So if you want to impress your school friends - focus on HYPSM)</li>
<li>The LSE 'experience' is not Oxbridge - nor is it very similar to America. No one is going to look after you, or hold your hand. You're going to have to take control of your life and do your work. In 3 years I've met my tutors for a cumulative time period of about 15 minutes. (HOWEVER - Employers LOVE LSE graduates for this, and if you want to work as an Investment Banker, you've got a better chance coming from the LSE than Oxford).</li>
<li>LSE is not rich - it has a campaign to raise £100 million, and hasn't yet managed to do so in 3 years. Comparing this to HYPSM endowements you'll see how well the LSE does considering their relative poverty. </li>
<li>One of my tutors said.....the LSE 10 years ago was at its peak, up with Harvard and Chicago as one of the Economic and Political Universities that was making a major impact on the world. Now he describes it as the runaway best in Europe in these disciplines, but it can no longer compete with the power (financial etc.) of top American universities, and it must now be ranked more in the top 10 rather than top 3.</li>
</ol>
<p>My broad advice is - consider what you want to do afterwards. In many jobs, the LSE can give you everything you need to start a brilliant career. However, stray outside the areas I've mentioned and you'll find yourself with a degree that won't open doors. </p>
<p>If you want any more specific advise I'd be happy to give it. The bottom line is that the LSE will classify you broadly as intelligent, international and possibly slightly left-of-centre politically. If you take economics or politics, you will also have a ticket to all the best entry level jobs across the business and political world, and will have the respect of academics and employers everywhere (and even the man on the street in the UK - but not the US).</p>
<p>Best of Luck.</p>
<p>i thought the lse actually got better though, the hix rankings showed that the lse actually improved from before</p>
<p>My teacher was referring primarily to the Economic research done by the LSE.</p>
<p>Unfortunately ranking universities is a tricky business - the LSE still remains the premier place to research Econometrics (which many have argued in the cutting edge of economics now that many of the basics have been ironed out)</p>
<p>I myself wrote the entry for Wikipedia for the LSE Economic Research rankings, and they will give you a flavour of some of the best rankings that feature the LSE.</p>
<p>Certainly the LSE dominates Europe, and figures highly on a global scale, no doubt top 10 - maybe top 5 - some may even argue top 3, 2 or 1, but it becomes harder and harder to justify.</p>
<p>Definitely top 10.</p>
<p>Unclebob,</p>
<p>Are you a citizen of the UK, by any chance? That might explain, in part, why you had such a hard time getting into the LSE with what sounds like a 2.1 or even 1st honours. You aren't a cash cow. ;) :p</p>
<p>lol - sorry although that reasoning applies very clearly at undergraduate level, the fees at postgraduate level increase significantly for all "home" students (which includes all EU citizens) up to about the 15,000 pound mark for tuition.</p>
<p>I wouldn't be too hasty to classify the LSE as money grabbing since they could easily improve their financial position by increasing the amount they receive from the Government by reaching the targets for taking "state" educated students. </p>
<p>Despite this they continue to admit the most qualified and thus take too many "private" educated students and receive significantly reduced national funding. Clearly there is a balance that the LSE aims to strike between running a business and a educational centre.</p>
<p>Depending on your point of view money is about a 1/2 to 1/4 of the picture.</p>
<p>EDIT: I was rejected by the LSE because I applied the first time to a degree for which I wasn't qualified (accounting when I studied economics - not very smart eh!). The second time I was rejected because my grades weren't good enough....between a 2:1 and 1st. </p>
<p>Nevertheless I was accepted by Stanford and have enjoyed living in the closeted comfy atmosphere of high-school again. In contrast the LSE will make a man (or woman) of you my friend - its a tough place and if you can succeed there, your destined for great things lol.</p>