<p>I love this! It's a debate of LSE vs. Chicago Economics</p>
<p>I'm on the LSE side BTW, having sent in my application for 2007 entry.
The way I see it, LSE graduates are worldly, intellectual and highly independent.
One can go on and on about the economics qualifications of either school (as bruno has started to do so for chicago)</p>
<p>But I think its notable to say that LSEs presence and reputation in economic thought was established by the 1930s when the Cam/LSE debates were taking place, well before the chicago school of economics was full-fledged in the 1950s.
So Yeahhh...your precious Friedman was just starting grad school in 1933when LSEs dominance was already undisputed, with debates involving the likes of van Hayek, Alfred marshall, and Keynes, etc. :)</p>
<p>History, while important, doesn't tell the whole story. Stanford was a no-name school in 1930. Today, it's clearly up there with the best in the business.</p>
<p>Similarly, while LSE is clearly a powerhouse in the field, it's somewhat silly to just point to the 1930s as being indicative to today.</p>
<p>London is a great city, obviously. Next to New York, it's probably the pre-eminent English speaking city of the world. Nonetheless, Chicago isn't some dinky no-name city. It was, until the 1980s, the United States' "second city," and is still today a wonderful city with a rich heritage and tons of attractions. </p>
<p>Both offer different pluses and minuses. But to say, outright, that LSE will offer a higher standard of living without considering the very HIGH cost of living in London compared to Chicago is a bit hasty, don't you think?</p>
<p>True, but from what I remember from my visit to Chicago, it was a very gritty and hard looking city (if you know what I mean). Compared to LSE, I dont think it offers the same standard of living.</p>
<p>Maybe...maybe not. I looked into LSE for grad school, and a lot of people suggested that even though I may be pleased with the aesthetics of it all, I was in for a pretty spartan life due to costs.</p>
<p>I think it depends on where you plan to live/work after graduation: if you're planning to move to the US or east Asia, I'd go with UChicago. If you're planning to live anywhere in the former British Empire, I'd go with LSE. I have a feeling that UChicago has a SLIGHT overall edge, but I really don't know.</p>
<p>Erm, to Karen, it is well known that LSE rooms are dilapilated and tiny, and so no your standard of living in LSE is going to be fairly dismal unless you're fabulously rich and rent a penthouse apartment next to harrods in your second year. </p>
<p>As to rigour, my own sources agree with what most have said here. LSE is a lot more slack than U of Chic on almost any count. </p>
<p>In terms of name, LSE is very famous in South Asia and yeah Commonwealth countries. U of Chic is hopefully famous as well, i'm not so sure on that count. But on reputation in America, U of Chic definitely doesnt have to worry about anything. So for job hunting, LSE prob is a better choice. </p>
<p>myself, i'm going to U of Chic for economics. Its a matter of preference. I prefer studying my brains out. Plus it should be cheaper. Plus I enjoy the flexibility and liberal art education offered at Chicago over LSE. </p>
<p>Karan, I have lived in London for over a year and I have visited Chicago over 100 (literally) times between 1992 and 2006. They are vastly different cities, but I believe Chicago offers as good an overall quality of life as any major city. I love both cities equally, but for students, I think Chicago is probably more affordable.</p>
<p>Anyone choosing between LSE and Chicago will certainly have a hard time choosing since everyone has a different opinion! Maybe there should be a poll on this. :)</p>
<p>The rooms in LSE are not bad. There are one or two dorms that do have tiny rooms but my one is huge. I have a double bed, kitchen, bathroom and loads of space (although this is probably one of the biggest rooms). If you want the bigger rooms apply to the newer doorms.</p>