<p>obviously, there are many characteristics of LSE that help alumni succeed after graduation, off the top of my head i can think of: london, strong networks especially in the commonwealth, international reputation, etc. on the other hand, in comparison, LSE teaching quality just isn't up to par. being from RJC, and seeing as how its implied that you'll be matriculating there, i'm sure you've heard disgruntlement about this before. </p>
<p>there's been some documentation about this, i can't remember most of it, but (from a quick google search) this article seems to make the essential points, Times</a> Higher Education - LSE set to refocus on teaching:</p>
<p>**"The International Student Barometer survey this year placed the LSE 53rd out of 56 UK universities for teaching quality. The Barometer, an international survey by i-Graduate, the international student insight group, came after an internal report on teaching earlier this year by Janet Hartley, the LSE's pro-director for teaching and learning...</p>
<p>...expressed concerns about an over-reliance on graduate teaching assistants, who teach about 75 per cent of undergraduate classes...</p>
<p>...At a students union meeting last month, LSE director Howard Davies was forced to defend the institution's fees in light of the concerns about teaching quality.</p>
<p>Rajan Patel, who writes for the LSE student newspaper The Beaver , said students' main gripe was with the quality of academics' English and a lack of access to department "stars".</p>
<p>A recent Beaver article quoted an economics undergraduate as saying: "I have to write in a very simple way because if I write in a complex way I need to explain to my class teachers what it means."</p>
<p>Mr Patel said: "The lecturers lack confidence in front of the class." He added that interaction with academic leaders was patchy across the institution, with students on some courses having to wait until the second or third year before meeting senior figures..." **</p>
<p>i recall a particular anecdote about a now-departed member of the teaching staff that claimed that students would get the same level of in-class experience as nearby london metropolitan university (whose predecessor institutions were 88th and 97th of 98 when last ranked in 2003).</p>
<p>now, i do think some of these claims are overblown. that is not to state that there are no grains of truth in them. LSE's focus is as a research university, consequently, certain aspects of teaching have to be compromised. making a personal judgement, i feel that when compared to top-tier LACs with a commitment to undergraduate teaching, there simply isn't any contest.</p>
<p>having said all of this, at the end of the day, teaching quality is but one factor in picking a university. LSE, and really most of the UK system sans oxbridge, does badly here, but possibly (depending on the individual) makes up for it in others. at the end of the day, where anyone chooses to matriculate is simply a matter of personal preference.</p>