I’m a current 2nd year student at LSE (studying Maths and Economics) and am deciding whether to go to UC Berkeley for exchange next year. The only thing holding me back is that the courses i take at UC Berkeley won’t count at all towards my degree and so am wondering whether i should go and spend a year abroad when i can just graduate next year if i stay at LSE and then do a masters (for the same amount of time)?
Whilst i am in no rush to work, it seems slightly better that i come out of 4 years with a bachelors+masters than with Bachelors and exchange at UC Berkeley.
Another question is that because i am not American, i don’t know a whole lot about UC Berkeley and was wondering if people can tell me how good UC Berkeley undergrad is compared to LSE? I’ve heard from American students who are doing their exchange at LSE that UC Berkeley has an excellent graduate school and that their undergraduate is slightly less prestigious (although still very good). I don’t know how true that is?
In terms of future plans, i may do a masters degree or an MBA sort of thing in the US and plan to work in Investment Banking/Consulting. Thanks!
Wouldn’t a Master’s cost more?
I would recommend it because at a reasonable cost, you get to attend another top uni (the best public in the US) and get that experience.
I also think that, since the classes don’t count, you’re free to take whatever you like (that you can get in to, anyway) and should take advantage of that (it’s one of the main benefits of an American college education).
You can always do the Master’s as well later if you want to.
thanks for the response. It would cost more but i’m planning to do a masters degree anyways.
Yes, i’ve heard that Berkeley is one of the best public schools. However, how is its undergraduate? i’ve always heard that Berkeley’s graduate schools are a lot better than undergraduate. Don’t know how true this is.
^Even if it is (and I’d agree with that), why does it matter?
My points would still stand. For many PhD programs, Cal would be among the very best in the world (with HYPSM and Oxbridge). Law and MBA programs have their own tiers, where Cal would not be among the top 6/7 in the US but would be among the top 14/15 (making it roughly equivalent to Said/Judge in Europe; IMO, only INSEAD and LBS in Europe are on the M7 level).
If you measure by per capita undergrad achievements, I rate Cal as a Near-Ivy:
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1893105-ivy-equivalents-ranking-based-on-alumni-outcomes-take-2-1-p1.html
That would make Cal undergrad roughly equivalent to UCL if you measure by relative prestige (really only Oxbridge and LSE in the UK are at the Ivy-level; well, Oxbridge on the HYPSM-level and LSE at an Ivy/equivalent level). And as I noted, there is almost no difference between half-tiers (such as Near-Ivy and regular Ivy or UCL and LSE).
But regardless of my own views, the experience would be so different and world-view-expanding that I don’t see why you wouldn’t go.
BTW, this is worth a read:
https://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/uc-berkeley-vs-lse-for-undergrad-economics
There are a lot of worthless comments (typical for that site), but this one is worth reading (though some would not apply to you):
"I’m an American who did undergrad abroad and grew up in an college town (dad university prof) I would suggest berkley in a heart beat.
American education
- Americans move near a university campus for university. Foreign schools students tend to live at home if they can. This translates that U.S. schools have significantly more campus life across the board. They are also more likely to guarantee class housing for freshman students.
- American education is broader and emphasizes general education. This means that you have more flexibility int American Majors. If you start an economics major at LSE and decide you want to switch to accounting.english/math/philosophy you will have to start from scratch. From Berkley you would only need to retake different prerequisites for that major. American schools majors are less concentrated this translates you get a little bit less depth, but Americans have more flexibility.
- Class Sizes. Americans tend to have more options for classes that allow direct face time with professors via smaller class rooms especially in the later year of education and seminar style classes. Foreign schools tend to have lecture halls of 100-500 people and their professor hardly ever knows their name. Generally its easier to get a better LOR in an American scool simply because professors can write more specific things about student. Where I went to school a LOR usually the professor had to ask for a resume and looked at past tests to judge quality of a student.
- 2 and 3 generally entail that American students who are focused usually have more internal options. Americans who are focused and strong students are much more likely to have an oppurtunity to become an R.A., sit on a graduate class or do a thesis with an faculty advisor. Foriegn schools there are simply too many students to allow these
practices except in special circumstances. (Believe me if they allowed it there would be a 20 or 30 undergrads asking to sit in Ph.D. courses where I went to school.)
- Less flexibility entails that its actually more difficult on average for similarly qualified Foreign students to get into American schools. Students where I went to school probably were more prepared for Ph.D. Via more difficult economics courses with more depth. They would not have an equal the oppurtunity to take 7 or 8 math courses in addition to economics curriculum to get into a Ph.D. program. Americans would have. They would not have benefit of small class sizes where professors new them. We place a few students directly into Ph.D., but most students go to Masters to recieve the benefits of thesis and face time with well known professors if nothing else."