<p>I was admitted by both the LSE and UChicago, and I'm trying to decide which one to attend in the autumn.</p>
<p>I'll be studying economics and/or philosophy and/or economic history wherever I go.</p>
<p>Can anyone shed any light on which is better for academic/social/career reasons ... ?</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>The most important difference is that the University of Chicago will have a liberal arts curriculum while in England you will begin work on your concentration at once. While at Chicago you will not declare a major until your third year (I think), at LSE you will not be able to take any classes that aren't related to your major. Each system has advantages and drawbacks depending on your background. The European model assumes you've covered much more by the time you begin work at university, and that you've made a binding decision on your course of study. In America, you have the freedom to explore different subjects until you make up your mind, and in the meantime, at Chicago, you have a core curriculum covering all disciplines no matter what major you eventually declare. I recommend this if you have not had enough exposure to various intellectual disciplines to be sure of your major. At LSE your education in your major will go deeper than at Chicago. It will also be narrower and more constricted, prescribed by the requirements of that major. It sounds as though you have not made up your mind yet as to what to study, and I think that Chicago, because of this would be more appropriate.</p>
<p>Good luck,
and congratulations on your acceptances.</p>
<p>orangetwee: thanks a lot for your most helpful response. Yeah I realise that there is a big big difference between Chicago's Core and LSE's one concentration only. Tbh though, I don't really know which oen would suit me better. On one hand I've been doing the IB for the last two years, and I'd like to focus more on depth now than breadth. But also, Chicago's two years of Core and electives sounds appealing too.</p>
<p>I know that I will study economics wherever I end up; the only question is whether I'll pursue philosophy and/or economic history too. At LSE I can choose to study a) economics and philosophy or b) economics with economic history; atm I'm undecided which to pick, and this is why I'm leaning towards Chicago.</p>
<p>Lol sorry about the long post, but I'd like to ask, is it fair to say that Chicago students are more academic-focussed whereas LSE students are more career-focussed?</p>
<p>I'm glad my last response was helpful.
Here are some more things to think about:
.While the IB program rapidly exposes you to a large breadth of knowledge, are you sure that you have been taught enough to distinguish between or prefer a particular intellectual methodology? For example lets take the philosophy v economic history question you have. Have you had enough high school coverage to identify the elements that separate these two fields, and to understand which one appeals to you and why? I think that you will be better prepared to answer such questions after two years of a core curriculum.
.Careerism v academic focus:
In the end, two different approaches can lead to the same profession. In America, the undergraduate major very often does not translate to any specific career path; often a masters or terminal degree is different from the Bachelors degree. I think that the concomitant academic freedom gives a student the opportunity to immerse themselves in their studies instead of consciously executing every task with a future career in mind. For example you decide that in your study of philosophy, you would like to know more about the philosophy of science. To do this, and to gain a background in scientific concepts, you take a course in physics that will enrich your understanding of philosophy. You will have a broader view than a student whose every subject is prescribed to him by the degree requirements of his major, as will happen at LSE. Inevitably this will produce a more career-minded student. Perhaps if you like, you can find out whether Chicago produces a larger percentage of future economics Ph.Ds among its undergraduate students than LSE or not; this would give evidence for my theory. While I do not know enough about the LSE academic culture, I do know that Chicago is famous for the theoretical, conceptual approach of both faculty and students.</p>
<p>One of the drawbacks of Chicago is that the core makes it difficult to double-major, and so something like joint economics and philosophy or economics or history will be more difficult than at LSE. However maybe someone with more experience can tell you if this is easier than I assume.</p>
<p>I have a lot of opinions on this because it is something I thought a lot about last year. I thought of studying abroad at Oxford or LSE, without understanding the difference between the European model and the liberal arts education. Ultimately, after some research, I decided that I do not have enough academic exposure to narrow my studies at this stage of my education. It is a question you want to ask yourself- of how much you want to keep learning different things, things that aren't related to the main interests you mentioned. And whether you narrowed down your interests intuitively or after careful investigation. Of course my post is biased by my own decision. If you can tackle these questions, then perhaps LSE will be better for you. If you are not feeling confident enough, then I think you should weigh toward Chicago.</p>
<p>I am actually experiencing the same dilemma at this point in time. Chicago vs LSE. I applied for BSc Business Mathematics and Statistics at LSE.</p>
<p>How hard is it to use a UK three year degree to apply for graduate study at a US university?</p>
<p>I have a similar problem as well- I<code>m debating over Imperial College and Uchicago. I</code>m planning to study Biochemistry. </p>
<p>After doing the IB, I know that I want to study Biochemistry. Uchicago has always been my dream school, but I feel living in London will give me more opportunities career wise in the future. Being an international student, I dont know if I will have similar opportunities (in terms of internship/research) if I go to Chicago due to the strict visa requirements in the US. However, my parents have told me a liberal arts education is much more valuable in terms of working in the future. </p>
<p>Anyboyd have any opinions about this?</p>
<p>japstudent12 -- I think the main problem for me is that Chicago is so so so good at economics that it is hard passing it up. I don't know how good it is for biochemistry, but it certainly doesn't have the reputation it has for biochem as it does for economics. And Imperial, everyone knows, is like God for everything science-y.</p>
<p>pak -- I've been told that it is not very hard for LSE grads to pursue graduate studies in America, if one wants to. But let us know how your decision goes ...</p>
<p>Excellent, excellent choices you all have ahead of you... congrats!!!</p>
<p>I'd just like to comment on a post which said that an LSE education would offer much more depth as far as econ is concerned. I have to say that I find that completely false. If you are so inclined, starting your second year, you could be in a situation in which you'd only take econ classes the rest of the way (assuming you placed out of given subjects). Further, know that here you can enroll in all the graduate classes simply by having instructor consent, so the world-renowned PhD classes here at Chicago are also open to you.</p>