<p>Hi, </p>
<p>I'm an international student and I got an offer from LSE to read Economics. However, at the same time, the University of Chicago accepted me too... so I don't know which university to choose.
I know that both universities are great for economics but I really don't know where to go next year..
I just want to hear your opinions, thank you very much.</p>
<p>Both universities are slightly similar with regard to their approach towards economics in the sense that both courses are quite heavily orientated towards mathematics and statistics.</p>
<p>LSE seems to have a better worldwide reputation thanks to its marketing, but I would personally go for Chicago. No reason really - just a personal preference. I feel however, that LSE produces students geared towards top jobs in ibanking firms, while Chicago has a slightly more intellectual environment. So if your aim in life is to make lots of money, LSE is a good choice.</p>
<p>May I get a job at top ibanking firms if I go to Chicago?
Hmm, I really don't know which one to choose.... LSE's course is only 3 years long whereas Chicago's is 4 year.. will I learn more at Chicago?</p>
<p>LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS- chicago is more intelectually challenging and has a very intense core curriculum,hence the 4 years. pick LSE. unless you enjoy learning, go to LSE.</p>
<p>both are super strong in econs - i mean like they are best known for econs in their respective countries haha. </p>
<p>the choice is up to your own preference really. is an all-rounded intellectual development important for you? If it is, go Chicago. Coz I don't see Chicago as any weaker in terms of the Econs department compared to LSE. Both certainly prepare you well and open doors for your future jobs. LSE might have a big reputation internationally, but if you're looking at jobs in US, I believe Chicago is still a bigger brand-name.</p>
<p>Actually legionaire, the UK course is more intensive. That is because almost all uni's in the UK compress their entire degree into 3 year courses. Work is harder there. </p>
<p>Just saying.</p>
<p>might be, i'm not so familiar with UK's college system, but i do know that Chicago is tough</p>
<p>Chicago is more focused on the undergraduates compared to LSE, which is more skewed towards the graduate departments (and thus the better name recognition). I will go to University of Chicago for the intellectual environment, smaller classes and greater professors to students interaction.</p>
<p>OMG. UCHIC FOR SHIZZLE! </p>
<p>*WARNING: DON'T TAKE THE ABOVE SUGGESTION SERIOUSLY, IT IS TOTALLY BIASED.</p>
<p>Because UChic is my dream...</p>
<p>Anyway, congrats on that. May I know your stats as well? I really want to know what it takes to get in UChic.</p>
<p>Hmm, my stats? It hard to explain because I go to a french school and take the French Baccalaureate... so it is totally different from the IB or the A-Levels. However, I can tell you that I was ranked 2nd in my class of 20 students, I took honor courses and I got 2200 for SAT I.
Hope this helps!</p>
<p>Anyway, thank you guys for all these inputs. Thank you so much!!</p>
<p>yt660,</p>
<p>Consider the environments as well. What kind of city do you want to live in for the next 3-4 years?</p>
<p>UK schools work you harder? That's a new fact I had never learned during my 5 years there. However, I seem to hear people complaining and warning me about the workload in US schools every day. Interesting.</p>
<p>Hush, you. We'll have none of this personal experience 'round here.</p>
<p>LSE is definately easier to get in, hence you will probably find smarter people in chicago (so many people get rejected from EVERYWHERE in the US and get into LSE).
Secondly, Chicago is more undergrad focused.
It also encourages more overall development in other areas thats why 4 years.
It also depends if you want to work in the US or UK or your home country (in that case LSE because LSE is more internationally renowned).</p>
<p>I'd go for Chicago for several reasons. </p>
<p>1) Although LSE is excellent in Economics, it is not as good as Chicago. I would compare LSE to Columbia or Penn in Economics. Chicago is one of the top 2 or 3 Economics departments in the World...FULL STOP! So, even if LSE has a broader appeal internationally, most people in the know would give Chicago the edgeover LSE.</p>
<p>2) Chicago really beats LSE is in resources. Chicago's endowment per student is $280,000/student. LSE's endowment per student is roughly $10,000/student. I really cannot see how LSE can give students nearly the same quality if education with such limited resources. Even schools like Purdue and Illinois have endowments that exceed $25,000/student!</p>
<p>3) Although campus life at Chicago isn't great, it still beats LSE's non-existant campus life. </p>
<p>4) Should you decide to double major or change majors, Chicago will make it possible without too many problems. At LSE, you would not be able to double major and you would have to start all over should you decide to change majors.</p>
<p>heythatslife, I keep thinking the same thing for A-Levels. I know people who complain constantly about SL IB, but when I read some of the grade 12 work, it reminded me of the good old Form 5 days. Meh. And over here we don't slipt exams into As and A2. 3 full As at the end of year 2. Or 4 in my case. Guess it must be due to the number of subjects.</p>
<p>What I meant was that for those who take the normal 3 year ungrad course, the work is more 'compressed'. Intensive. Harder. You have to do more in a shorter period of time. Plus one year if you don't meet the preq. and another or 2 for Work Study/Co-op.</p>
<p>In anycase, lots of Anti-UK statements here. But I wouldn't know about either of them.</p>
<p>LSE's courseload is NOT intensive... relative to not just Chicago but an average 'good' US university also. I have many friends, including 5 classmates, in LSE right now and they seem to be having a way, way, way slacker time than my US friends. While my US friends seem to be working late into the nights every now and then (though of course they go for weekend road trips rather often too), my UK (and specifically LSE) friends seem to be shopping in london everyday and having way more social life - and hence free time - everyday. I guess the different examination system plays a part. In UK, you juz gotta take an exam at the end of the semester or year... so it's just intensive last-minute studying at the end. whereas in US, everything counts. so you gotta work hard throughout the semester to maintain that GPA that's gonna get u the summa cum laude degree.</p>
<p>Yes, from what I've heard LSE's courseload is nothing compared to U of Chicago. Since I've studied the IB and Hong Kong's HKCEE, I can say that the IB would be similar to the US uni's emphasis on coursework, while the HKCEE, like any British based system, is more exam focused. </p>
<p>This seems to correlate with my friends' experience in both US and UK. Friends in UK tell me that they are not given much more coursework compared to the IB, where friends from U of Chicago say they have 3 times as much work per week. Despite this difference, the British system can also be very intensive, as work depends a lot on self-initiative. I'm also told from the UK that IF you are aiming for a 1:1 (1st honors), most probably you'd have to stay in the library all day! </p>
<p>From my experience, the IB system, much like the American system, is very tough in way because of all the coursework and less emphasis on the exam (everyone's aiming for getting good scores in in-school tests and coursework to get a good predicted grade), but I managed to get through pretty okay without much studying or test practice. Yet in my old system, the guys with more independence and motivation got better grades (and I did very badly).</p>
<p>Also, this means that doing well in LSE will require lots of initiative. Unlike having U of Chicago's compulsary weekly problem sets, probably LSE students will have to read a lot on their own, meaning you'd have to be very mature to do well without weekly assignments, and still manage to pull a 90% on a final exam. In another CC thread an LSE graduate mentioned that LSE's environment is much based on independent learning, which employers recognize as a good thing. </p>
<p>Of course, some would argue that coursework is superior to exams as a way of learning/ assessment. To some extent I agree. But in pure "toughness" terms, I believe that what would be considered a "mediocre effort" paid in US universities will be larger than their UK counterparts (depends on the major though), but for those aiming for a good GPA/ 1st honours, you must realize that those who do well in the UK pay no less effort in any way (they just do well in different ways).</p>
<p>Cheers~</p>
<p>thank you guys so much.
I think I will be going to Chicago. However, in your opinion, is it easy for me to find a good job in the US? I am afraid that since I don't have a US passeport, big firms would rather recruit a US citizen.....
Moreover, is the U of Chicago well respected in Asia and Europe? (I am half chinese, half french)</p>
<p>Thank you very much</p>
<p>I think going to U of Chicago will definitely land you more opportunities in the states than LSE in any way, regardless of your nationality. In fact, a different nationality might be at your advantage as 1.) you might speak French / Chinese since you're from HK, 2.) Big firms are usually international firms, and so would want to recruit people with more international exposure. </p>
<p>However, if you want to work in the UK, probably a degree from LSE will be better. Besides, you'll finish in 3 years. I know Econ majors from LSE are heavily recruited. Have a look at "The Guardian's" report on the top 5 recruiters of LSE grads and you'll get an idea how well your job prospects will be. Again, I'm not in the position to confirm this.</p>
<p>In Hong Kong, I know that U of Chicago is very well respected as one of the best schools for Economics (think Hayek and Friedman), slightly better than LSE in terms of academic rep. Yet there are three exceptions/ considering factors. 1.) This is only true for recruiters/ people who are more informed about world education, e.g. people at my current IB school know both schools, and prefer U of Chicago, yet most of the kids at my previous local school never heard of either 2.) Nowadays a undergrad degree w/o GS or work experience is unlikely to land you a fat paying job anyway. Don't expect a U of Chicago degree to do miracles 3.) U of Chicago is a boring nerd school according to what I've heard from those who went there from HK. In fact not many of the people I've heard who went didn't resent it due to its intense competition, elitist and rather anti-social nature. (to some extent the same for LSE) Most probably you would learn more about what you want to do in the future somewhere else, other than a very academic or money-oriented career in UChi. Of course, that is just what I've heard, it may not be totally true. I bet a lot of people enjoy life U of Chicago... I guess this issue is well talked about in the U of Chicago forum.</p>