LSE: BSc Mathematics and Economics
Columbia: will major/minor in some combination of Maths, Economics, Statistics
Goals: plan to pursue further studies in Economics (masters not PhD), then work in investment banking/hedge fund in the long term.
I know LSE is one of the best universities in the world for Economics whilst i think Columbia isn’t as strong in Economics (but is stronger than LSE in Maths). I’m quite indifferent between London/New York as obviously great cities.
Can anyone give me some advice on what i should choose?
I don’t think they are. By most metrics they aren’t. The U.K. Has Oxbridge which is similar to HYPSM in terms of strength/prestige but then there is a gap, there isn’t really a UK equivalent to schools like Caltech, Columbia, Penn, Chicago, Cornell and a few more.LSE is very strong for Econ and a few other social sciences but as an overall university it is not in the top 20 in the world.
^ Which is a bit besides the point. Nobody is going to LSE to study physics or English. In no small part because they aren’t taught there. In it’s specialties, LSE is very strong. I’d say it’s the Caltech of social science. The reason Caltech tends to rank higher in global research rankings is because those rankings tend to put more weight on STEM research than social science research. If the relative weights of STEM and social science were reversed, LSE and Caltech would change spots.
In any case, I think you’re looking at this the wrong way. Econ and math will be challenging at both. Nobody who matters is parsing the tiny differences in rankings between them.
But the educational experience will be very different. British-style with most marks dependent on a few big tests at the end vs. continuous assessment. The core at Columbia that forces you to take classes in a wide variety of areas and with the flexibility of changing majors and choosing what you want to study vs. solely reading econ and math.
A city U in London vs. a campus U in NYC.
Which would you prefer or do better in?
This also depends on which style of curriculum you prefer.
At Columbia you will get a more rounded education due to the Core/distribution requirements. You will take a mixture of STEM, social science, and humanities courses, resulting in a broad undergraduate education.
At LSE you will lose some of that breadth in exchange for greater focus on your major.
I’m with @Penn95 here: Columbia is better all-around. But if you only want to learn about Math and Econ, they’re pretty even in quality.
OP, are you planning on working in the U.S. after graduation or staying in the UK or Europe? Because if you want to work here, then I would recommend Columbia.
thanks everyone for the responses. I’m not a US citizen and don’t have a green card or anything like that, and i’ve been told that it would be quite difficult for me to get a job in the US (don’t know how true that is. So i’m slightly tilting towards London.
On another note, how different is the prestige/reputation of both around the world?
@PurpleTitan it is beside the point for grad school i feel, but to for undergrad. This is the plus of the top US universities in my opinion, they are strong across the board and they can give you a more well rounded education and a bigger variety of opportunities.
Still i don’t think LSE is stronger in social sciences than Columbia.
@Penn95: Well, in the English system, you ONLY study the subjects you were admitted in to. In that sense, it is kind of like grad-school-lite (at top English Unis like LSE, if you study only one subject, you’re getting essentially a major in that subject + a masters year in that subject but nothing else; when it’s two subjects, it’s like a double major in the US with no gen eds).
In any case, in terms of prestige, overall, about the same. Each may have a slight edge on their home continent and are equal elsewhere.
For some reason, you keep focusing on immaterial differences while ignoring some pretty big real differences between the two.