Hi guys.
Am interested in LSE and also a career in finance. LSE is definitely heavily recruited in European financial market; however, it is not that hard to get into LSE. It seems like a person who can make a US top 20 can get into LSE, and a lot of Oxbridge rejects go to LSE each year. Although I am sure there are a lot of talented and career-oriented top students choose LSE for its econ/finan education and really good recruitment, is the overall student quality of LSE below its prestige?
Thinking you don’t know a lot about LSE and how hard it is (or isn’t) to get in 
Their offers for UK students can be the same or higher than Oxbridge. In the UK you aren’t admitted as a general student, you are admitted to study a specific subject, and the standard offer is specific by subject. For example, Econ at Oxford has a standard of AAA, while Econ at LSE requires A*AA.
So how do they get Oxbrdige rejects? at least partly because Oxbridge requires a very specific type of interview, which is partly designed to see if the student will do well in the tutorial format. LSE is not a tutorial based system and doesn’t have interviews. Not all students- even super clever ones- do well in the tutorial style of teaching. I would guess that that is also why international students (especially non-native english speakers) have higher success rates at LSE.
No, the overall student quality is not below its prestige.
@collegemom3717 Thanks for your information.
You forgot to note a person who can make it into LSE can get into any of the US Top 20.
Actually, I disagree @LutherVan: the selection criteria are too different. I agree that the overall level of student is comparable, but as an easy example of how different the selection process is: an asymmetrical student- one with high grades/scores in one set of subjects and just ordinary scores in others- has a good shot at LSE, where they won’t care about the non-relevant subjects, but is unlikely to get into a US Top 20 where you are expected to be good at everything. Similarly, a student with strong marks and scores can get into LSE with no little in the way of ECs, but would be unlikely to get into a US top 20.
It is one of the things that asymmetrical US students particularly like about the UK system: they are appreciated for what they are strong in, not penalized for not being good at everything. It works the other way as well: many UK students like that they don’t have to specialize so early.
Concur with @collegemom3717.
The American elites also look beyond academics (for better or worse). Some of it is stuff that most Brits probably believe are not legitimate criteria (like athletic aptitude, legacy, and race), but others (extracurricular achievements, giving back to the community, leadership, wisdom) are seen as virtues by many.
Because of that, I would say that most students in LSE would have a hard time getting in to the majority of the top 20 in the US. Of course, the reverse is true as well; most students in the top 20 American unis would have a tough time getting in to LSE.
^^^ I kind of like that the Top UK programs look to fill their seats with knowledgeable, wise and virtuous students. Kind of akin to the four Cardinal Virtues!
B-)
@collegemom3717 & @PurpleTitan, I disagree.
I think you have both not considered that if a LSE student was aware they would be judged on such criteria, then they would endeavour to attain these too and not focus on grades only.
Probably the bottom quarter (or even higher) of the Top 20 US universities’ students would not have the academic grades to enter LSE in the first place. They had a chance with the Top 20 based on other factors.
@LutherVan, they may endeavor, but they may not succeed.
Not every LSE student reading econ can write short stories so haunting that they still come to mind 3 decades later.
^^^Nor can every non LSE student 
Well, I think we can agree that students prepare for the hoops that they expect to have to jump through. If a UK student is looking to go to a top tier US school they are likely to have worked out that they need high grades across the board, and some strong ECs. And similarly, if a US student is interested in going to LSE they will have taken the APs that they need.
Because APs serve a different function than A levels, many schools don’t offer them and many students don’t take them (they cost ~$100/each to the student, and frequently have no further value for the student). About 2 million (out of 20 million) high school students take an average of 2 APs every year, so you are almost certainly correct when you say that many students in Top 20 universities do not have enough APs to qualify for LSE. It is reasonable to assume that if they were applying to universities where that was the entrance metric they would take more.
But even staying with grades, I believe that you are mistaken when you say that 25% or more of an entering class at a Top 20 university got in based on ‘other factors’ than grades/scores and would not be able for admission to LSE. The estimates are that about 15% of a class reflects athletic recruits and legacy- but at the top schools they will have largely met the academic standard. Recruited student athletes at Harvard get no extra support, and are expected to meet the same academic standards as ‘regular’ students.