LSE vs. LAC

<p>I'm a student studying poli sci at a top 20 US liberal arts college, and I've decided recently I want to get an MBA someday and work internationally. While my school is highly ranked and well-regarded, it is not very well known among the "average" American (and overseas, almost no one has heard of it). It definitely does not have name recognition. I may have the opportunity to transfer to the London School of Economics for the last 2 years of undergrad. I would study Government or Government/Economics there. In terms of getting into a top MBA program (I'm talking Harvard, Wharton, Stanford, etc), which would be a better bachelor's degree to have, LSE or a top LAC? I'm fluent or nearly fluent in 4languages and have excellent extra curriculars. One thing I'm thinking is that LSE would probably help me a lot in terms of getting internships and jobs after graduating (before I go to business school, I mean--I'll definitely take a few years off to get some work experience). But what are your opinions? Should I transfer to LSE or stay at my LAC?</p>

<p>It depends what and where you're looking to go. Staying at a US LAC isn't going to hurt your chances for getting a job after graduation in the US or getting into a top MBA program; in fact it may be easier. If you're looking to get a job in Europe or Asia after graduation, then going to LSE could help. </p>

<p>If you're at a top 20 LAC, you're probably not looking for a job inhabited by the "average" American. University of Alabama has more "name recognition" than Colby or Davidson, but doesn't mean its students have more inherent ability. Employers and grad schools realize this, which is why there are such things as interviews and GMATs.</p>

<p>Right. The quality of your undergrad school likely will not figure substantially into your B-school admissions, by comparison to the quality of the work experience you get after college. The real question for you is, from which school can you get the best job? "best" would be defined as some combination of the following factors:</p>

<ul>
<li>The most prestigious job (i.e. traditional feeder industries of high finance, business consulting, high-profile management training programs at GM, Coke, Pepsi, GE, those kind of places)</li>
<li>The job in an industry that you are most interested in working in pre-MBA (to facilitate you giving your best effort)</li>
<li>The job in an industry that you are most interested in working in post-MBA (to facilitate gaining experience and thus better interview chances while in B-school)</li>
<li>The job where you are most likely to quickly move up through the ranks and get recognition</li>
<li>The job that gives you a set of international experience, such as a rotational program with a multinational corporation, or a consulting firm that has many international clients that analysts get sent to (in NYC, Mitchell Madison Group comes to mind, as does Gartner in Boston)</li>
<li>The job that gets you public recognition for contributing something substantial (i.e. government or nonprofit)</li>
</ul>

<p>All of those are considerations. Now think about what school will serve you best in those regards.</p>

<p>Thanks for the advice! I was thinking along the lines of what Denzera said, about which would get me a better job. I am thinking LSE would probably be better in that regard, but I do think it would depend on the job I want. And good points, gellino...I think I would probably be aiming for a job in Europe or maybe Asia, so I will take that into consideration. Of course I'm also going to take into account other factors like location, cost, "college experience," etc, but I really wanted to know whether or not it would make much difference in b-school admissions. My guess was that the difference would be marginal, but I wanted to know what others thought. Thanks again for the advice!</p>