<p>I got accepted for the MPhil in International Relations at Oxford, and the MSc in International Relations at the LSE. I did not decide where to go yet, and advice would certainly be helpful.</p>
<p>I heard that the Oxford (2ys) programme is slightly more academic, and it's reputation may be a little better since it's harder to get in. </p>
<p>However, I'm not sure, if the teaching might be a little more conservative (focussing very much on history), while the LSE is very much at the center of ongoing IR research. I am generally interested in IR theory (especially constructivism), and in the role of institutions (regimes, law) at the international level. Moreover, I would like to write my thesis on a topic related to development. </p>
<p>Thus, which school would be the better place to go for? If anyone of you went to either of the school, I would be glad to hear about your experience!</p>
<p>I do not study IR but I'm doing a MSc at the LSE in another subject. </p>
<p>I have a few friends in that do IR and History of IR. They say IR is quite theoretical and History of IR, like the name would suggest, is more about history.</p>
<p>The department is supposed to be quite good and the professors world famous. London is also quite an important international city.</p>
<p>Don't know anything about the Oxford programme except that I hear it is also very good.</p>
<p>In general, an MPhil is considerably more academic than an MSc. For development focus I would go for Oxford. And for theory I would also go for Oxford. And yes, I would say that Oxford is harder to get into.</p>
<p>The fact that you even applied for an MPhil seems to indicate that you have a reasonably academic focus anyway. </p>
<p>In all fairness the diferrences between a MSc and a MPhil have become realy bluared. I would not take either title as a fair representation of the course.</p>