<p>This is my first post since I just joined the community today. Everyone seems really nice so far and I am looking for some advice.</p>
<p>I was admitted to both LSE and Michigan for grad school. I was admitted to the International Relations program at LSE and the Public Policy Program at Michigan. I want to get a post-graduation job in International Relations, so you would think LSE would be the natural choice, however the course work at LSE seems to be theory heavy, while in the Michigan program is more quantitative. Also, although the Michigan program isn't outright an international program, I could still focus on IR within my focus. </p>
<p>LSE was my dream school as far as location and reputation, but Michigan has made a pretty strong case also. Michigan apparently has an excellent career services dept. and alumni network that would help me find a job right out of grad school....and I'm not sure if LSE would offer the same things.</p>
<p>So please offer any advice at all! Should I let the cold weather of Michigan be a factor in my decision making process? Would the quantitative heavy Michigan curriculum really make that much a difference in work skills? Is it the Master's degree itself that will help me get a job, or will it be a career services office?</p>
<p>How do you figure the Michigan public policy masters is "heavily quantitative"? It's got some light macroeconomics, but seriously - it's about as qualitative as anything i've seen.</p>
<p>And just so you know, the weather in London is total garbage. So you're screwed in that regard no matter which one you choose. :)</p>
<p>I would go for the LSE. It is pretty famous for IR (the program is reallly hard to get into) and London is one of the diplomatic centers of the world.</p>
<p>Well when you look at the courses, the MPP program at Michigan is much more quantitative than the MSc program at LSE. For the Public Policy program at Michigan you must take Calculus, Stat., and two courses in Microeconomics. I suppose that it isn't all that bad, but at LSE it is pretty much all theory. </p>
<p>I'm just curious about how these kind of quantitative classes would come into play in IR jobs. Anyone out there know if you need calc, stat, and microeconomics skills to succeed in an IR profession? I assume microeconomics is key, but calc. and stat. I somehow doubt are important.</p>
<p>They only make you take calculus so that you will actually have a chance at grasping microeconomics. It's not because they think you will actually use calculus in your day-to-day work. Statistics is kind of unrelated, but I suppose it's good to have a basic understanding of that.</p>
<p>:) Okay, upon closer inspection I see where you're coming from Icblatnik. The content of the Michigan program appears to be more challenging and more practical. It is also less flexible in terms of course selection.</p>
<p>LSE's program seems to be based more on reading a ton and then writing loads of 10-page essays. You get more flexibility in choosing courses though.</p>
<p>So it's a toss-up between Michigan's stronger content, and LSE's stronger brand name. I happen to be in a similar situation, deciding between offers from St Andrews for a stronger program and LSE for a weaker program but stronger brand name (not for IR though). I'll tell you right now, most people on university internet forums will tell you to go to LSE over anything but Harvard. But if you're drawn to one place/program in particular, don't ignore it. You have to make the decision yourself and hopefully you'll do it for you, and not to impress some high school kids or first year undergraduates. Both schools are well respected, but neither will land you a job simply because of the university name.</p>
<p>As an aside, I would have loved to go to Michigan but I didn't bother applying because I figured I wouldn't get in. (and I still think it would have been a waste of $50). As far as I could tell, I had a much better shot at LSE. Not that it's such a bad alternative... but my preference still would have been Michigan.</p>
<p>Thanks for the input Nauru, I do appreciate it. I think the way you summed it up perfectly with "it's a toss-up between Michigan's stronger content, and LSE's stronger brand name." That's the way I am looking at it and it makes for a tough decision. LSE had always been my top choice (and still is) and I am thrilled to have been accepted there, but I was very impressed with Michigan when I attended their "spring preview" day. I suppose I can't really go wrong either one though.</p>
<p>What programs are you considering at St. Andrews and LSE nauru? Also, you should have applied to Michigan anyway! It can never hurt to try and Michigan is known for looking at the whole package (or candidate) in the selection process and not just GPA and test scores. If that was the case I probably wouldn't have gotten into Michigan or LSE. But I wish you luck wherever you go. We both have some tough decisions to make.</p>
<p>Anyone else want to weigh in on LSE V. Michigan?</p>
<p>All depends where you want to work in the future...If you stay in America, go to Michigan...
But LSE is a really really good university, and its worldwide know...I'd say a lot more than Michigan.
At least in Europe, everybody knows LSE....</p>
<p>My goal is to work for the African Development Bank. At LSE I am considering the msc in local economic development. The title is misleading though, since the program accepts applicants from all the social sciences and requires no prior knowledge of economics or math. So the discussion and teaching will be at a low level, most of the evaluation being based on independent reading and 10-page essays. My classes would be stuff like geography, history, qualitative development studies and gender studies; no rigorous econ. But at the end I get to say I'm an LSE grad. St Andrews would be for the msc in finance, the preferred background for development banking. It's highly mathematical, and I'd learn a lot that would be very relevant and useful to me in my future career. And I get to say that I'm a St Andrews grad. Many LSE students say, though, it's better to go to LSE no matter what the actual content of the courses.</p>
<p>I think the stuff about looking at things other than grades is largely BS outside of the very top US universities. Cornell rejected me from a very multidisciplinary program even though I had a ton of very relevant and unique extracurricular activities and experiences, on top of pretty good grades. LSE seems to look at two things:
a) Grades. They don't have to be particularly high, 3.3 I think coming from the US; and
b) Whether you will be paying the overseas tuition level.</p>
<p>St Andrews actually required that I submit a detailed CV along with my letter of motivation and other application materials. LSE obviously didn't care about my extracurricular activities or they would have asked for my CV too.</p>
<p>What's Ann Arbor like? I know it's cold in the winter (winter is funny that way) but other than that? Some see the London location as a positive for LSE but I personally don't like that city at all. St Andrews is very small, absolutely gorgeous and seems to offer a great lifestyle. Is Ann Arbor conducive to study?</p>
<p>It sounds like St. Andrews is the better avenue for you to pursue. I find it baffling most people think "that it's better to go to LSE no matter what the actual content of the courses." Is this really true? Is LSE's name that great around the world? </p>
<p>I agree with you that schools looking at things other than grades is largely BS, but there are some very good schools in the U.S. that do this. Harvard is the only one of the Ivy leagues that is known to sort of do this (maybe Columbia also), thus I am not surprised Cornell turned you down even though you are highly qualified. It seems like it is the lesser Ivy's that tend to look at just scores and grades, rather than the whole picture. But schools such as Stanford, Michigan, and Berkley are know at looking for the whole applicant and not just scores. For example, in my app. to Michigan I had to given them two different essays (one on why to study public policy and one on why I was applying to Michigan specifically) along with a detailed CV. Normally, the essays topics are also bland and regulatory, this was not the case with Michigan however, as they were written to try and bring out the character of the applicant. Also, from going to the spring preview day, there were students from all walks of life, places, and races.</p>
<p>Ann Arbor is not a huge city, but a medium sized one. It gets very cold in the winter and these is normally snow on the ground constantly for 3-4 months in the winter. It was beautiful when I went to visit there last weekend there, people were saying it was misleading. See, I do see the London location as a positive, I studied abroad there during my undergraduate, loved it and have been dying to go back ever since. Ann Arbor is very conductive to study during the winter months because of the cold, but the weather is very nice during the fall and spring, and there is no humidity in the summer. Ann Arbor may be a smaller city of town, compared to London or NY, but there is still a lot to do there. Even as I'm writing this Michigan is appealing to me, it's going to be a hard choice.</p>
<p>People who go to the LSE just for the name are the same people who want to go to Harvard or princeton just for the name--ie. intelligent but misguided graduate students who don't understand the post grad job market.</p>
<p>Also, take into account that although the LSE is a great school, the percentage of US students who get admitted to one year masters students is extremely high because they pay full international tuition, usually with no aid. On this board alone there are several people who ahve applied to LSE and I dont think one of them has been rejected yet. This isn't to say you aren't a highly qualified applicant, by the way. the fact that you were accepted at Michigan and American prove that you are.</p>
<p>"I find it baffling most people think that it's better to go to LSE no matter what the actual content of the courses. Is this really true?"</p>
<p>No. I said *most LSE students *say it's better to go to LSE no matter what the content of the courses.</p>
<p>"Is LSE's name that great around the world?"</p>
<p>That's what I'm trying to find out. For getting into London investment banks apparently it is that great, because I personally know people on courses like Global Politics and Asian Studies at LSE who have landed investment banking jobs that they aren't even qualified for. As for the more interesting fields of work out there, it really is unclear. (I'm assuming here that you are one of the people who applied to LSE out of genuine interest in pursuing a career related to your course of study, not as a backdoor into investment banking.)</p>
<p>jmleadpipe-</p>
<p>Applying to Harvard or Princeton just for the name might actually make sense, if you have lofty career goals in American government or academia. They are two of the most famous universities in the world. LSE seems to be a good school, but it's nowhere near that level. The reason so many people get in is because entry requirements aren't that high. 3.3 gpa + full overseas tuition = acceptance for most courses.</p>
<p>I have meet a good few Americans who were rejected by the LSE. Although they did apply to some of the hardest course to get into: IR and Econ.</p>
<p>Regarding being qualified for I Banking, not sure in the USA, but in the UK you don't need to have a subject specific degree to enter the profession. There is training after you go in. So most people are not really "qualified" (I guess you mean a degree in finance or accounting) when they start.</p>
<p>I have heard before that LSE accepts a lot of Americans because of the high international tuition and that most can afford to pay it straight up. I however, cannot afford to do this and will have to take out loans to pay for my education. I pulled this from another post, but this in the debt I am looking at for grad school-</p>
<p>Just to clariy, I didn't get any money from any of the schools. See, based on this LSE looks like a bargain since it is the cheapest one and the shortest (1 yr.). I had also heard the IR program is very prestigious and hard to get into."</p>
<p>Like I state above, I thought the MSc in IR program at LSE was pretty prestigious and worth applying to. It was my top choice because of the 1 yr. aspect, the good IR program, and the good location. Thus, I DID NOT apply to LSE based on just the name.....I knew the IR program had a good reputation and figured London was one of the international centers of the world (I knew this from studying abroad there) and figured it couldn't hurt to study at one of the best institutions in the world. </p>
<p>As far as my career goals-</p>
<p><strong><em>I want to find some kind of job in the IR field and I am not interested in investment banking...not even a little bit. That's what this all comes down to really....will LSE with a theory based program help me find and suceed with a job in IR or should I go the public policy route with Michigan to get there?</em></strong></p>
<p>If you are paying full tuition wherever you go, than maybe LSE is actually a good bet. The one year LSE masters are not at all considered "certificates" in the US or Canada, but rather very good, and very legitimate, masters degrees. I can see why it would be appealing to go to LSE, and I certainly think there are things working for you if you do decide to attend there.</p>
<p>That said, Chicaog is a RIP OFF. I do not know where they get off charging that type of money to 24-27 year old kids for a two year education. Proposterous.</p>
<p>I deffo understand your dilemma. Last year I got accepted to the LSE, King's College London and Cambridge and had to pick. I chosse the LSE at the end although King's had what seemed like the most interesting program and Cambridge has the name. I choose LSE due to several factors: The library is amazing for the Social Sciences, It was in London giving me the oportunity to gain contacts which I might not have been able in Cambridge, the fact that the uni is so international which matched my background, I read many of the books and papers written by the faculty of my department and really liked them and to a certain extent the name of the uni. </p>
<p>As a job in IR I would say the LSE. It has the biggest name in that area and you can always pick up the more practical skills such as stats at work.</p>
<p>PS. No IB wishes either. One thing I don't like about LSE is that the careers service seems kinda heavy in this area although they are improving.</p>
<p>And regarding the large % of americans at LSE I have 2 agree that there are a lot but from personal experience I can see why they got in. All the ones I know are high achievers, went to good universities, got high grades and are very knowledgable.</p>
<p>Okay, looking at the price differences and time required, this is a no-brainer. There is no way a masters from Michigan is worth $40,000 more than a masters from LSE. There's also no way a masters from LSE is worth $40,000 more than a masters from Michigan.</p>
<p>Chicago.... lol... they can't be serious. Imagine they actually thought they are that amazing...</p>
<p>The only thing that should be keeping anyone away from LSE is the cost and if you're going to be paying <em>more</em> for the other programs, then I think you should definitely go to LSE. Probably has the most prestigious program of them all too. Plus, if you go, we can hang out next year when I go there for grad as well. =p</p>