LBS v. LSE

Hello so I have been fortunate enough to have received offers from:

1) London Business School - Masters in Management (MiM)

2) London School of Economics - MSc Accounting & Finance

Anybody have any advice which offer is better. LBS was recently ranked #1 MBA by FT, but their MiM program is new, but already has an impressive class profile. LSE obviously has been around for a while. Any insights, opinions, appreciated.

Thanks.

London school of economics Msc finance

The London School of Economics has the strongest international brand name. Being an alumnus of LSE would certainly help you break into investment banking in the United States. It's also arguable that it's better for Investment banking in London as well. In fact, according to the LSE website, fifteen percent of its graduates go on to work in banking and finance.

Thoughts from the community.

from certified user @rebelcross"

If your goal is FO at a top firm, why in the world would you pass that up to go to a program which is designed to help you get into FO at a top firm?

from certified user @Stringer Bell"

LSE's name carries a little better. Which might be better if you want to work in the US.

Recommended Reading

WSO Elite Modeling Package

  • 6 courses to mastery: Excel, Financial Statement, LBO, M&A, Valuation and DCF
  • Elite instructors from top BB investment banks and private equity megafunds
  • Includes Company DB + Video Library Access (1 year)

Comments (134)

Mar 5, 2010 - 7:51pm

What exactly do you want to go into? LSE is more IB focused. Not sure about the MiM program. Also do you have any previous work experience? This will factor in greatly as to how much you're going to be able to get out of recruiting from these masters programs.

Mar 5, 2010 - 8:00pm

LSE's name carries a little better. Which might be better if you want to work in the US.

Ace all your PE interview questions with the WSO Private Equity Prep Pack: http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/guide/private-equity-interview-prep-questions
Mar 6, 2010 - 12:58am

I have previous relevant experience in banking and want to continue on this road. I just feel like if a bank is coming to LSE for banking

1) they have the undergrad class
2) they have 3 other finance related Masters (Finance, Finance & Economics, Private Equity & Finance) so kind of seems like a degree factory

LBS is a one year program. The class profile for last year (its first year was pretty good average GMAT 687) and this year probably be higher. I just feel like LBS is a huge business brand although LSE does seem to be more well known in the U.S.

Mar 6, 2010 - 1:03pm

Not sure about the US, but in Europe your LBS degree will go much further.
LSE is one of the best mass monkey-banker production factory, but LBS is just elite.
LBS makes you more unique and the program is more practical.
Way harder to get into LBS than LSE (mainly due to the fact that LSE has loads of masters).

Learn More

300+ video lessons across 6 modeling courses taught by elite practitioners at the top investment banks and private equity funds -- Excel Modeling -- Financial Statement Modeling -- M&A Modeling -- LBO Modeling -- DCF and Valuation Modeling -- ALL INCLUDED + 2 Huge Bonuses.

Learn more
May 9, 2010 - 9:38am

I have the same LBS vs. LSE dilemma, but with a different LSE program.

My options are:
1) London Business School - Masters in Management (MiM), 10 months
2) London School of Economics - MSc Management, Organisations & Governance (MOG), 12 months

I'm graduating this year from a target school in the US, and I'm hoping to increase my chance of getting into a top management consulting firm with one of the programs above. I have HK citizenship and I'm fine with working in US/Euro/Asia immediately upon graduating from grad school.

Each school/program has it's pros and cons and here's a few of them:

1) Recognition: LSE is more well-known globally in general, whereas LBS' reputation is more limited to the business world (not that I don't plan to do something business-related, but regardless of what I do, I will probably interact with a number of people outside of the business world)

2) Course: LSE is more theoretical, LBS is more practical and the program is specially designed for fresh-grad such as myself

3) Career support: LSE is okay, LBS has gives much more support and guidance (the program even has a career development module as a requirement of the course)

4) Network: LSE's is much larger and broader, LBS' is narrower but more elite in business (?)

5) Program: LSE's MOG is in it's 3rd year but it seems to be overshadowed by the 2-yr Master in Management and Management & strategy programs of the same department, LBS' MiM is brand new this year (and perhaps overshadowed by the MBA program?)

6) Employment: waiting to get the info from LSE's admin, no stat on the LBS' yet (as it just started in 2009)

Right now i'm really 50/50: LSE seems to be a "safer" choice given it's global recognition and large network, LBS seems to be more suitable given the practicality of the program and and emphasis on career development support.

Any insights? Thanks!

May 9, 2010 - 12:19pm

The LBS MIM programs's curriculum looks like a joke. Essentially you'll be paying just to have the LBS brand on your resume. So, if you've got a good profile already, I would think the LBS name would help you. But education wise, it seems like a joke. LSE Accounting and Finance program content wise is probably a little better, where at least you'll feel like you learned something. Personally I would choose LSE because LBS is primarily know for its MBA program, LSE is known for its BSC and MSC programs.

May 28, 2010 - 4:40pm

What type of exit opps does the LBS MiM provide?

Would it be smart to forgo a FO at a top firm in order to go to London for a year?

How do the American banks or overseas banks value the MiM, assuming that your long term goal is to work in Asia?

May 28, 2010 - 5:37pm

If your goal is FO at a top firm, why in the world would you pass that up to go to a program which is designed to help you get into FO at a top firm?

May 28, 2010 - 6:19pm

Got it. I'm coming from a non-target and I just thought going to a program like this would help me a little. I feel like my current school is holding me back, but maybe I'll just focus on a top MBA in the future.

Conclusion: firm > school (for the most part)

May 28, 2010 - 6:39pm

It's been said before, I'll say it again, one is an end the other is a means to get to that end.

And if you got a top offer from a top firm how is your school holding you back when it would have been impossible to do any better?

You did better than a majority of kids at top targets.

  • 1
May 28, 2010 - 6:41pm

what is your background? I would say LBS is more prestigious- but you will need some work experience to get in.. LSE is more for fresh graduates out of univeristy.. LBS MBA and Master in Finance is well connected and will offer you fair chances to get into major IB associate program.

May 28, 2010 - 6:43pm

1-Yr MiM @LBS vs. MSc @Oxford vs. 2-Yr BSc @LSE (Originally Posted: 06/26/2011)

Hi,

I'm currently a sophomore at an Asian top university thinking of furthering my study at a top UK school. I'm cool with working in either Hong Kong or London after graduation. Considering that there'll be two years left for me for undergrad study, I'm thinking of these options:

  1. Spend my junior year at the current university, enroll in the LSE General Course in Sep 2012, study for one year, get distinction in 2013, and eventually transfer into LSE. Study one more year for college, graduate in 2014, get a BB IBD job.

  2. Complete my study at my current university in 2013 and then enroll in LBS MiM or Oxford MSc Economics. Since they are both 1-year program, I will also be graduating in 2014, and hopefully landing a similar decent job.

Comparing these options, I feel that the 2-year top-tier university experience @LSE can give me the chance to SA recruiting in summer 2013, whereas @LBS or Ox, it'll be only 1-year, though I can get a Master's Degree instead of a Bachelor's. However, my information about them is quite limited, and I would really like to hear your advices as to which of the 3 programs would be the best option for me in terms of recruiting. Thanks for your help in advance!

May 28, 2010 - 6:44pm

LBS is a top brand in the UK, will get you all the interviews for the top banks.
I know that its the one of the only places where Blackstone recruits in Europe, and most the kids from the MiM end up with BB jobs. Only problem is its quite hard to get into, they dont only want academic strength but you also have to have relevant experience, great essays and strong GMAT.
LSE is also good although its become clearly overrated. They are increasing the number of programs in order to be ablt to admit more ppl and make more $$$ result is the brand has been damaged in the past few years. The school is no longer what it used to be. But definitely excellent at the undergrad level.
Oxford masters is a strong name but far from the city and from recruiters. Check the employment stats of their financial economics masters students. The kids, although they are brilliant with crazy gmat scores, end up at standard chartered and HSBC because they have no social skills and not prepared for recruiting.

Bottom line I would advise you go to LBS if you manage to make it through the screening and the interview. second would be oxford because of the brand, but you'll basically be with a bunch of nerds, and you need an outstanding gmat. LSE would be your last choice unless its for undergrad.

May 28, 2010 - 6:45pm

^^^^I would disagree with what the guy above says, not so much on his reasoning but more on perceptions.

I go to Oxford (not in the business school or associated with the MSc in any way) and I can confirm that the hour train ride into the city is a hassle, but to be honest I really dont think there is any better brand worldwide. Nearly every big time finance firm recruits here and when people ask where you go to school they always get intimidated when you say 'Oxford.' I think that is the ultimate measure of your school.

How many people in the US or Asia even know what the fuck LBS is???

LSE is also a great name and well respected globally, although LeYoun may be correct in that it is getting watered down. I have no opinion on that.

To give you an Idea of Oxford. I am a non business, non econ student and I have SA interviews with all, of the following:

Merrill Lynch S&T
Goldman Sachs S&T
Morgan Stanley S&T
Credit Suisse S&T
Sankaty Advisors (Bain Capital)

and probably (waiting to hear but it looks quite probable):

BlackRock PMG
McKinsey (just applied for fun really)

Lastly, whatever you miss out on compared to being in london you can make up for with hustle (read, frequent trips to london, phone calls, networking). The ball is in your court here and all the banks com to you. I can honestly tell you that there is nothing in the world that cuts through recruiting bullshit red tape like the word 'Oxford'

I'd come here if I were you.

May 28, 2010 - 6:46pm

I would disagree with LeY in respect to lack of social skills of those who come from Oxford.

I have many friends who've been there, all great guys and girls know how to get messy etc...But they do lack hustle and that I feel is why many do end up at Big 4 or not as many in the top banks. On the other hand those who have hustle lack the social skills, an MD at DB was telling me how in a recent grad class all desk were chopping off their left ball to get this kids from Nottingham over multiple Oxbridge grads, for the pure fact he could talk to people, and the Oxbridge candidates that I saw in recruiting would fit that vein, no social skills.

And it isn't like Oxford is far from London.

LSE is losing it's lustre.

"After you work on Wall Street it’s a choice, would you rather work at McDonalds or on the sell-side? I would choose McDonalds over the sell-side.” - David Tepper
May 28, 2010 - 6:47pm

Banan,
I never meant to say Oxford was no good its obviously one of the top brands worldwide its a great uni and I would have loved to go there for undergrad. Just saying that at the graduate level where academics no longer matter as much as they do in undergrad, other programs in London are a better alternative because not only do they provide access to recruiters the same way oxford does, but they also help with the interview prep, networking and key info which eventually are key to break into banking. You also get a lot of help from the MBAs who were analysts before.

If you check the class at LBS you'll find that there is about 15 kids from oxbridge. Im pretty sure they could all have done grad school at oxbridge but they probly realized academics are not enough in a world where u need to be perfect at all levels if you want to break into the industry.

And you're right probly much more people know about oxford than LBS, but it doesnt really matter to you as long as all recruiters know LBS very well. How many people know about Blackstone and KKR compared to HSBC or Barclays? Yet I'd much rather go to Blackstone than HSBC.
check where grad students from oxford ms in financial economics go.... mostly to standard bank and KPMG as opposed to GS and DB for LBS grads

May 28, 2010 - 6:48pm

FWIW to point out the obvious, but the 15 Oxbridge kids at LBS already have the Oxbridge patina and all the doors that can open, so going to LBS makes more sense from a diversification/opportunity perspective. Oxford/SBS anyway allows all interested Oxonians through the career process, and the Oxford Business Alumni group consists of all SBS matriculants plus any other Oxford matriculants who have an interest.
Going to LBS doubles their chances.

May 28, 2010 - 6:49pm

Which one is better: LSE MSc Acc.&Fin. or LBS MSc Finance? (Originally Posted: 03/27/2012)

Hi everyone,

I have received offers from the following institutions:

  • Stockholm School of Economics - 2y Master in Finance & Accounting
  • London School of Economics - MSc Accounting and Finance
  • IE Business School - Master in Advanced Finance

Still pending, but an Interview is scheduled: London Business School - MSc Finance

My goal: Analyst Program @ Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley etc...

I intend to decline the offers from SSE and IE since I am pretty sure that LSE's program is good one the hand and the Brand Name is extremely strong on the other hand. And of course I am right in the heart of the city - should be great for networking.

But: As I stated, I will have an Interview with the LBS as well. Now, let us just assume, I would get an offer from LBS. How would you decide and why would you decide so?

I do not really now, which option would be the best. LBS is a business school and teaching will be somewhat different to the more academic and theoretical approach I will encounter at LSE. But I don't think that will have a major impact on my plans. Both LBS and LSE are great unis with strong teaching qualities and an excellent brand name. However, at LSE I failed to get into the MSc Finance which is a premium program compared to the MSc Accounting & Finance which is less competitive (does any BB Bank care about that???).
At LBS I would attent a pure MSc Finance programme. That might be an advantage. But the program costs are about 13k GBP higher than LSE (LSE: 21k, LBS: 34k) - is a MiF Degree from LBS so much more worth in contrast to LSE?

It would be great to know how you think about this issue :-)

Best regards

May 28, 2010 - 6:51pm

I would say LSE (but I'm a graduate so I would say that). Why do I say that, well the academic rigour at LSE will be greater than LBS, I'm sure LBS' MSc is more academic than their MBA but I was not impressed when I went to see them.

Location LBS is on Regents park, not exactly central London, whereas LSE is on the edge of the finance district.

LSE is far bigger than LBS, and therefore a lot more opportunities to network. And I hate to say it, given LSE's founding traditions, IT IS A FINISHING school for investment banking, during term time it is quite sickening to see nothing but banking and finance organisation recruiting on site.

LSE is truly international, you will have a great time.

May 28, 2010 - 6:55pm

LSE will be more challenging than LBS.

Brand - both excellent, those that recruit will treat equally.

Don't know the structure of either course so can not comment on what is better for you.

LSE obviously has a far bigger faculty than LBS across finance, accounting and economics.

May 28, 2010 - 6:56pm

Take LSE.

LBS has a great brand but its more limited to business and is not as well known in the US. Whenever I mention I went to LSE people are like "oooohhh". There's like a mythos around it.

Also if you go to school in London, some people will think you lived the Harry Potter life.

May 28, 2010 - 6:57pm

LSE is a no-brainer IMO

"All I know is I know nothing."
May 28, 2010 - 6:58pm

take the LBS offer.

3 reasons:

1) LSE A&F is not a great course. it allows placement into all firms -true - but it has the reputation of being the course that people attend who cant get into Mfin.

2) LSE is a non-exp program. This means you will sit in a room with people who come straight from undergrad. LBS is a pre-exp course. Go on the webpage and look at the profiles of the people and tell me who would you rather study with? People who have been working for 2 years or 20 year old undergrads

3) LBS carries a higher brand-name in London. It might be the case that people in the US only know LSE (which i doubt due to the MBA program but point taken..) nevertheless in London - LBS carries a lot of weight.

The only contra I see to the LBS Mfin is that it is normally not a course out of which people will pursue analyst positions but aim higher (usually people do have 2-3 years exp when they attend). Hence I cant speak about their analyst placement but I would be extremely surprised if you could not get an analyst position out of a course that places into higher levels in the same bank.

May 28, 2010 - 7:03pm

I guess there is no question where LDNBNKER go :) given the choice (or has been?)

I'm not going to get into who is better for what, but the one thing I would say was that when I enquired if I could have a sample of the readings for a week of an MBA module, I was sent a book title, when I questioned this, I was told that was the book for the module...

If you what an academically and theoretical focused MSc then LSE, if you want a less academically and theoretical course then LBS. Both are great, but given it's size there are a lot more LSE alumni out there than LBS...

May 28, 2010 - 7:04pm

PS. LBS does not carry a higher brand value, sorry that's just not the case. It's a great school and I would be happy to call it an equal to LSE. Some might not agree with me...

May 28, 2010 - 7:06pm

Is that because LSE grads don't apply to your organisation? Of course you're welcome to employ whomever you like but to use such a simply and blunt dichotomy in you approach to hiring would certainly set alam bells ringing for the type of culture that your company fosters...

But again companies are free to set whatever criteriathey like in their hiring policies and I wish you luck with your future LBS newbies.

Martin.

May 28, 2010 - 7:07pm

Very well, that's a wide range of opinions favouring almost equally the one or the other uni. Actually it looks like it doesn't matter how I will decide (which would actually favor LSE, since it is way cheaper).

May 28, 2010 - 7:08pm

If you were invited for an interview with LBS (btw it is Masters in Finance not MSc in finance) then you should have at least two (average six) years of WE and most likely would be considered for an associate level at GS or MS.
With LSE MSc A&F it will be extremely difficult to break into either GS or MS. I would not advise this program for your goals, at least if you want to get into front office.

If you are not considering US, then based on my research I would rank programs(only UK) in the following way:
Assuming your age between 24-30.

If you are closer to 30, then

  1. LBS Masters in Finance
  2. Cambridge Master of Finance
  3. Oxford MSc in Financial Economics
  4. LSE MSc Finance
  5. Imperial college MSc Finance

If you are closer to 24, then switch Oxford and Cambridge

Also, I would encourage you to consider top schools in the US. For instance, Master of Financial Engineering at Haas (U. Berkeley).

May 28, 2010 - 7:09pm
Bullet:

With LSE MSc A&F it will be extremely difficult to break into either GS or MS. I would not advise this program for your goals, at least if you want to get into front office.

Man, what the hell are you saying, BOTH LSE and LBS are target schools for top banks, there is not important difference

May 28, 2010 - 7:10pm

LBS hands down.
Most of the people here are Americans who know little about European universities. In the end of the day you will apply for the London offices. Everybody knows that the LBS Master in Finance is much more selective than the LSE A&F. I don't think that there is a single person in the A&F program, who did not get rejected for the MIF at LSE. That's just my opinion. But then again, I chose the HEC Master in International Finance over the LSE MIF and LBS MIF.

May 28, 2010 - 7:11pm

I got accepted in the A&F and I decided to put it as my first choice before the Fin for several reasons:
- cheaper about £5,000 less which is quite a big sum considering I already have a loan
- no dissertation since I am doing one already
- all the courses are the same except one core course in accounting

In the end, I would have been accepted in the Fin as well (GMAT 750, first, M&A & other investment banking experience, extra curricular etc.) but what's the point in the end, I m sure recruiters won't make any difference

May 28, 2010 - 7:12pm

This thread is just pathetic. As if only the university name can guarantee a position at one of the top names. Since all uni names you list are fairly decent, other things on your resume such as work experience, previous investment banking experience, languages etc, would make the difference, and not if you finally choose to go to LBS over LSE!!! Also, since I have friends doing both MSc in Finance and MSc in Accounting and Finance at LSE, and I have seen their papers etc, this is completely ridiculous, that the MSc in Finance is more competitive. It is a different programme, much more general. And I have heard the opposite, that the MSc A&F is more competitive, since it is the door opener for M&A and the first finance course the LSE ever offered. Apparently acc and finance is more targeted at people interested in corporate finance, M&A , controlling and auditing, whereas the Msc finance is more general and flexible, which is surely a plus, especially for people interested in the markets side of investment banking, such as trading etc. Both degrees are great, but I personally do believe that it would be wrong to compare two different things with each other. As I mentioned before, the difference will be made by other things than solely your degree or uni!

May 28, 2010 - 7:13pm

The thread may be pathetic but nevertheless I consider the question as relevant as the decision what university and what programme you will attend will undisputably have an impact on your chances getting through the CV screening of companies. However, I am well aware that the question "LBS or LSE" is a true "first world" problem or even rather a real luxury problem.

However, I made my decision. In the past days I received my offer for the LBS Masters in Finance programme und regarding the highlighted issue in this thread that I am 27 and thus closer to 30 than to 20 and have several years of work-experience (despite not a typical analyst programme which is the reason why I will try to enter a company on an analyst but not an associate level afterwards), I will go to LBS despite LSE was my major goal for a long time. But collegues in my office based in Frankfurt also recommend going to LBS. You might lose the "LSE myth" regarding the brand name but at least in Europe I do not consider that a disadvantage since it is obvious that LBS' brand is also very strong whereas I will profit much more from the other students in my group. I just hope that's all worth the significantly higher tuition fees.

May 28, 2010 - 7:15pm

Its is not true that LBS has a less theoretical/academic setting. It has highest research output in Finance in the UK and possibly Europe (LSE is a laggard in Finance research). Plus, professors frequently inject their classes with their research (both empirical/theoretical). This is only possible because most students already have good working knowledge in finance and are matured. I think the main difference in coursework, is that LBS MiF allows candidates to choose between corp fin and Quant Finance, and between applied and academic courses. It is surprising that people here are so poorly informed about this when all this information is on their website.

In terms of reputation, LBS is driven by its MBA rankings (and soon MiF as FT no.1 post-exp programme) and one of Europe's highest Finance research output. LSE on the other hand has the largest finance/economics alumni network and has a longer track record of producing corporate executives.

End of the day, I wld choose LBS if I want to be seen as a specialist and LSE if I want broad brand appeal in the short-term. LBS, on the other hand, is working very hard to build global branding if you have noticed.

Good luck anyway....

May 28, 2010 - 7:17pm

LDNBNKR:

take the LBS offer.

3 reasons:

1) LSE A&F is not a great course. it allows placement into all firms -true - but it has the reputation of being the course that people attend who cant get into Mfin.

2) LSE is a non-exp program. This means you will sit in a room with people who come straight from undergrad. LBS is a pre-exp course. Go on the webpage and look at the profiles of the people and tell me who would you rather study with? People who have been working for 2 years or 20 year old undergrads

3) LBS carries a higher brand-name in London. It might be the case that people in the US only know LSE (which i doubt due to the MBA program but point taken..) nevertheless in London - LBS carries a lot of weight.

The only contra I see to the LBS Mfin is that it is normally not a course out of which people will pursue analyst positions but aim higher (usually people do have 2-3 years exp when they attend). Hence I cant speak about their analyst placement but I would be extremely surprised if you could not get an analyst position out of a course that places into higher levels in the same bank.

Sorry but you're talking complete bulls___.
First of all the Accounting and Finance Master at the LSE is DIFFERENT than the MSc Finance! Most people on the programme have chosen it as their FIRST choice because it places more value on Accounting and Valuation-corp finance. Only because YOU got rejected by it does not mean that it is a bad programme. On the contrary!

The LSE A&F Master has been the traditional M&A Master for more than 20 years, The MSc Finance is relatively new. Now in terms of placement, this is highly relative issue. It takes much MORE than just a Master degree to get into M&A /Investment Banking.. a degree alone, whether from LSE or Imperial or even Cambridge won't get you far! You have to have work experience...
Also check gthat

"Given the high competition for places on this programme, applicants who indicate an interest in the MSc Accounting and Finance specifically as their first choice will maximise their prospect of admission to the programme."
taken from the LSE site

I do not beliebve in rankings but:

The MSc in Accounting and Finance at LSE is one of the most prestigious MScs in Europe. The department of accounting is probably ON PAR with Harvard and the likes.

Check the topuniversity accounting and finance raking 2013

No WAY that the LBS Msc finance is more selective than LSE. LSE is much more selective and well-known on an international scale and not only in banking but in all professions and ways of life. Also, I have had finance courses at both LSE and LBS and the LSE standard is way more challenging. difficult than LBS. Good luck!

May 28, 2010 - 7:18pm

LSE MSc Acc.&Fin. Hands down. The department is top notch and great faculty/research. Also, I agree with the post above. The MSc Acc.&Fin. is different than the MSc Finance. MSc Acc.&Fin. is a great programme not only for those wanting to go into M&A but it places really well in the top acc firms PwC, Deloitte etc..

May 28, 2010 - 7:20pm

LSE vs LBS vs Job (Originally Posted: 07/28/2013)

Folks,

In a bit of a dilemma here as I have four options to pick from:

  • MS Finance at LSE
  • Masters in Management at LBS
  • Change Management entry level role at a big global bank paying ~75,000USD
  • Internal Audit entry level role at a major financial player paying ~55,000USD

I really do not know what I want to do in the future, all I know is that I want to work in finance. Which one would you pick and why?

May 28, 2010 - 7:23pm

I'd stick with the LSE MSc, very solid and will place you no problem. What's your background?

[quote]The HBS guys have MAD SWAGGER. They frequently wear their class jackets to boston bars, strutting and acting like they own the joint. They just ooze success, confidence, swagger, basically attributes of alpha males.[/quote]
May 28, 2010 - 7:24pm

What's your background, and what are your career goals? Where did you go to undergrad?
I think it's somewhat irresponsible for people to just say "do this program" without getting some perspective on your current situation... as investing several tens of thousands of pounds into a degree is something which shouldn't be done lightly. A 75k USD job is very respectable - what is the promotion track there? Make sure to consider the likelihood of winding up in a better position after a masters program than what that job might offer.

May 28, 2010 - 7:25pm

Not sure why my username is different, but I am the original poster.

I have an undergrad in Maths and Economics from a top 10 UK university. I then worked for a year at a BB in a middle office role doing a lot of varied excel analysis (risk/operations/trading related). I've also got over six months experience in another change management role so I know what the job involves. The thing with career goals is I'm very unsure. I know I want to stick to Finance. I most likely will not get a Front Office position as I don't think I've got the soft skills to get through all those interview rounds!

May 28, 2010 - 7:26pm

LBS vs LSE master offers (Originally Posted: 02/28/2014)

Hi all,

I'm in the fortunate position of having to choose between:
- London Business School : Master in Management (1 year)
- London School of Economics: Master in Management (2 year)

I'm really in doubt between going to LSE and LBS.

My goal upon graduation is either to join a major management consulting (strategy) firm, or going into investment banking (I keep going back and fort between man. con. and IB..., I prefer remain in London upon graduation since I heard that the trip oversees to the US is almost impossible right now with the current state of the industries)

I really have trouble figuring out whether the 2nd year at LSE really adds value to my education?

How is the reputation of both schools in the fields of management consulting and IB? I hear LSE is more for IB?

How is the worldwide reputation of the school? I have read on other forums that LSE is more known in the US, and LBS in Europe..?

Any advice would be helpful!

Cheers

May 28, 2010 - 7:27pm

LBS - not even a question. LSE is not a management school. Its an economics school with great finance programs but a weak management department. LBS has one of the strongest MBAs in the world (esp. for Europe) and the MiM is the little brother program with access to the same people, job specs, teachers, companies etc.

pm me if needed but thats a no brainer. If it was LSE MSc finance my answer would be different.

May 28, 2010 - 7:29pm

No advantage in a 2 year master compared with a 1 year master? For example that students with a 2 year management degree are viewed as more accomplished and better educated?

Clear disadvantages are obviously the expenses and extra time invested.

May 28, 2010 - 7:31pm

everything said in this thread is correct
if you want to chase the name, go to LSE
if you want to be efficient, LBS

happy to give advice; no asking for referrals please
May 28, 2010 - 7:33pm

EuroLocust:

I'd argue LBS has both the better program and a better reputation.

Unless you want to have more time to figure out what you want and/or enjoy a semester abroad, go with the 1 year program.

But isn't it much harder to get a job out of a one year program since you don't have the possibility of a summer internship? Especially if OP decides to pursue a career in investment banking where the majority of FT positions are filled with summer interns?

May 28, 2010 - 7:37pm

Decision Time: LBS MiM vs. LSE Management & Strategy (Originally Posted: 03/21/2014)

Hello everyone,

I (business undergrad, EU citizen, interest/internship experience in entrepreneurship and consulting) have received offers from both LBS and LSE.
I am leaning strongly towards LBS because of the MiM's very practical approach, the MBA tradition of the school and the career services. However, I am a little concerned with regard to the curriculum as it appears to be quite repetitive after having done business on the undergaduate level.
On the other hand, about 75% of the class have done business, economics, accounting or finance in college which should suggest that you do not just repeat business fundamentals but rather use them in case studies together with your peers.
While I am sure that the LSE program is very rigorous, I do not intend to pursue an academic career and am not sure whether its (only) six classes will really help me with regard to my professional interests (see above).
How do you weigh in?
Moreover, how do you consider the LBS MiM in terms of prestige? It is a quite young program and most of its reputation probably carries over from the school's MBA and MiF. On the other hand, all relevant IBs and consulting firms hire from the program and the average gmat score of the program is just below 700.

Thank you very much in advance!

May 28, 2010 - 7:40pm

LBS MiM vs LSE MSc Management and Strategy (Originally Posted: 03/31/2014)

Hey,

I wouldn't really say I am a newbie at this forum since I've been silently gathering lots of information during my application process, but I figured this is the right time for my debut! :D

So the story is that somehow I have been able to receive offers for both of these programmes, and I was wondering if someone could give me some opinions about the comparison between the two.

SHORT VERSION:
Ok so I got into these two programmes so I just want to hear people's views on the unis and programmes :) Long-term goals are consulting and MBA

LONG VERSION:
As for myself, I aim to go into consulting, and I am at a position where I am able to pass the CV screening for the major consulting firms (McKinsey, BCG, ATKearney) within my country without the Masters programme. That being said I don't feel very confident about the case interviews, so that would be my main recruiting problem. Also, I wouldn't necessarily say I am bad at interviews, but I am not amazing either, so I think more networking and variety of experiences could help me in terms of communication and having more things to talk about.

So in the end, what I primarily seek is a programme which gives me plenty of opportunities to practice and hone my case study interview skills, opportunities to possibly consider different career paths (hey, I'm still young, shouldn't be too narrow-minded... except for Finance, never really been my thing), networking opportunities, and lastly a help me with my odds at landing a top MBA. I know that in the end getting an MBA or a good grad job is up to me, but surely it helps to increase your chances even if by small margins.

I like LBS for the opportunity to meet and network with people from their other programmes (mainly MBAs), who are well accomplished, and their great alumni base. Since the school is so focused, you can see that the faculty is really cherry-picked, I saw people with some impressive backgrounds. Lastly the programme seems to be quite interactive with a variety of group projects, international/career treks, and company visits. I am an international/EU (dual citizenship) student coming out of a UK uni, so I got quite used to the UK-style of academics, so maybe trying something different could give me some fresh outlook (don't really know if this is a + or -).

LSE is quite appealing for the curriculum, which is more focused to my aims, and the class size, which is about 50 people. I did some LinkedIn stalking (no shame, you do it too!) and the students coming out of this programme have some amazing profiles, so I wouldn't say that one class is "cooler" than the other.

In terms of reputations, I am struggling to figure out which of the programmes would give me an edge during MBA applications (as I assume both unis do well in terms of screening at major firms).

Anyways, sorry for the long post and hopefully we can generate some constructive discussion! (please no "LBS all the wayyy!!" without stating the reasons). Also, if any of the potential applicants want any tips then don't be afraid to ask me, even though I cannot guarantee that my advice will be relevant given that I will only speak from my personal experience, but I promise I will do my best to help! :)

May 28, 2010 - 7:41pm

With respect to what you are seeking from a masters, I think LBS would be the better choice. If you have read through the course description ( I think it says something along the lines of 'this program is academic, not vocational. if you want an MBA you might want to consider other progams'), you will see that the LSE program will not be optimal with regard to what you are looking for (carrying out case studies in and outside the classroom, exploring different career paths and creating a professional network rather than studying managerial economics and game theory in depth).
In terms of reputation, LSE has the edge with regard to people outside the business world. In the business world they are probably on par. The quality of the students should also be comparable.
I think, however, that LBS (and its career services office) will prepare you better for the job search, which is also backed up by the respective employment reports (96% vs. 86% employment, £36,000 vs. £32,000 starting salary).
Thus, LBS is probably the better fit in this case.

May 28, 2010 - 7:43pm

Thanks a lot for your input! Quite surprised you read all my rambling haha Yeah you're right about LSE, but I thought the deep analytical approach of the course could help me during the case studies as well. Anyways, I just noticed that you posted pretty much the same topic, so seems like we might bump into each other next year :)

May 28, 2010 - 7:42pm

Not going to read all that, but food for thought: there are a shit tonne of LSE grads walking around the city looking for jobs, differentiate yourself, come from LBS, which is if not better regarded.

"After you work on Wall Street it’s a choice, would you rather work at McDonalds or on the sell-side? I would choose McDonalds over the sell-side.” - David Tepper
May 28, 2010 - 7:45pm

I'd also recommend LBS which in my view has a slightly better reputation both for hiring as well as MBA (if you still want to do that after doing a MSc).
No offense on case study interviews but I think it's less about being truly analytical rather than just being very structured. You don't need university courses for that, it can be easily learned through own practice with some class mates who have similar goals. I'd also bet that eventually the two schools' approaches will not be THAT different.

May 28, 2010 - 7:47pm

Thanks a lot for your opinion! I contacted the Admissions of all the MBA programmes I plan to apply to (that is if I eventually apply) and they seem to be quite indifferent as long as I can show that I wasn't just studying and being antisocial during my MSc. So personally, I feel that LBS will help surpressing my inner asianness better as there are more chances to be involved..

As for the case interviews, no offence taken. To be frank, I haven't practiced much, that's why I kept pushing my interview dates for MBB as I don't wanna harness the relationships by embarrassing myself during the interviews haha Now buying myself a bit more time with MSc. Also, I reckon at LBS I could practice with others more and it's quite easy to network with the MBAs apparently, many of which hold positions at consultancies, so hopefully someone would spare a minute to help me (that's how the alumni who interviewed me got prepared for her recruiting). I just thought that the analytical approach could possibly bring something a bit new, but your point seems fair.

May 28, 2010 - 7:46pm

I would recommend LBS also. I think LSE is a top school, but you'd stand out as an LBS graduate. The coursework will be more broad also, allowing you to apply to a wider variety of jobs.

May 28, 2010 - 7:49pm

Well i am sure you made your choice by now, but ill give my 2 cents hoping it helps others having the same doubts.
First of all you do know that there are several top tier consulting firms recruiting from all top MiM schools may it be LBS, LSE HEC or IE. So you dont have to go and do an MBA after your MiM just to get into consulting. It would be really overkill in my opinion as the curriculum of MiM closely matches that of MBA, and even the teaching style is almost the same.
More ever most schools have in-house consulting clubs which prepare you for consulting cases and interviews and also do pro-bono consulting for NGO's. You can join one of these to get all necessary preparation for your upcoming interviews, it is also a good way to connect with other consultants and like minded individuals. More ever lots of consulting companies host events and case study competitions in these schools, so it is a great way to discover what the companies are looking for and also make some connections in the industry.
Also both these schools have an excellent brand and would go a long way in impressing the ad com of MBA schools, if you decide to do a MBA afterall.

Now whether to choose LBS or LSE, well both these schools are excellent and have almost at par brand image. The major differences according to me are
1) LBS is a fast paced 1 year program while LSE is a more theoretical 2 year program. In fact LSE describes its MiM program as "unshamedly academic" and touts it as a program to build a sound business foundation.

2) LBS costs around around 27500 pounds while LSE is a total of almost 50000 pounds, of course it is a 1 year vs 2 year program

3) LBS core values are more towards leadership and dynamism while LSE preaches a more in depth critical thinking approach as can be observed via its core value "Analyzing the cause of things"

4) Base Salary of 36,295£ & 97% accepted a Job offer within 3 months of graduation for LBS
86% in work/further study 6 months after graduation & 38,100 pounds avg salary for LSE

So in conclusion if you are looking for a faster way to get a good business education and get into the industry LSE isa good choice, while f you want to build a strong business foundation and dont mind a more in-depth 2 year course LSE would be optimal.
Check out my site, for a more in-depth review of both LSE & LBS.

Abhyank Srinet Founder at www.MiM-Essay.com
  • Anonymous Monkey's picture
  • Anonymous Monkey
  • Rank: Chimp
May 28, 2010 - 7:51pm
Abhyank:

Well i am sure you made your choice by now, but ill give my 2 cents hoping it helps others having the same doubts.
First of all you do know that there are several top tier consulting firms recruiting from all top MiM schools may it be LBS, LSE HEC or IE. So you dont have to go and do an MBA after your MiM just to get into consulting. It would be really overkill in my opinion as the curriculum of MiM closely matches that of MBA, and even the teaching style is almost the same.
More ever most schools have in-house consulting clubs which prepare you for consulting cases and interviews and also do pro-bono consulting for NGO's. You can join one of these to get all necessary preparation for your upcoming interviews, it is also a good way to connect with other consultants and like minded individuals. More ever lots of consulting companies host events and case study competitions in these schools, so it is a great way to discover what the companies are looking for and also make some connections in the industry.
Also both these schools have an excellent brand and would go a long way in impressing the ad com of MBA schools, if you decide to do a MBA afterall.

Now whether to choose LBS or LSE, well both these schools are excellent and have almost at par brand image. The major differences according to me are
1) LBS is a fast paced 1 year program while LSE is a more theoretical 2 year program. In fact LSE describes its MiM program as "unshamedly academic" and touts it as a program to build a sound business foundation.

2) LBS costs around around 27500 pounds while LSE is a total of almost 50000 pounds, of course it is a 1 year vs 2 year program

3) LBS core values are more towards leadership and dynamism while LSE preaches a more in depth critical thinking approach as can be observed via its core value "Analyzing the cause of things"

4) Base Salary of 36,295PS & 97% accepted a Job offer within 3 months of graduation for LBS
86% in work/further study 6 months after graduation & 38,100 pounds avg salary for LSE

So in conclusion if you are looking for a faster way to get a good business education and get into the industry LSE isa good choice, while f you want to build a strong business foundation and dont mind a more in-depth 2 year course LSE would be optimal.
Check out my site, for a more in-depth review of both LSE & LBS.

May 28, 2010 - 7:50pm

I think that for management LBS would beat LSE (the opposite is probably true for Finance). LSE is very academic and that is a negative for some people (understandably). LBS is more focused on the practical side of things. I would probably go for LBS if I were in your shoes but you can't really go wrong with these two programmes.

May 28, 2010 - 7:52pm

Is LSE brand as great as LBS? (Originally Posted: 06/23/2014)

I'm talking about their MSc in Finance. I'd like to work in Singapore, Hong Kong, or UK. But the main question is that will I be able to find a job in Asia, preferably south east and pacific, with LSE's brand? I don't know why but my gut feeling is that it's not as great as LBS's.

May 28, 2010 - 7:54pm

disregard any other comments in this thread
the above poster captures it exactly

happy to give advice; no asking for referrals please
May 28, 2010 - 7:55pm

Disjoint:

LSE > LBS for everything in general

LBS MBA > LSE

You sure? The careers service at LSE told me to do a Masters at LBS because they are better connected with I banks (source: that recruiter worked in the LBS and LSE careers service). May also depend on the division you want to enter (I've seen tonnes of LSE students get into S&T vs IBD).

May 28, 2010 - 7:59pm

From what I've seen it has the respect for Ibanking. I would guess that right after college, if you enrolled in the program and pursued trading, a similar result would ensue for trading as well. It has a strong name in general amongst finance professionals.

May 28, 2010 - 8:05pm

youjustgotlittup:

LSE places tons of students in both S&T and in IB, no need to worry at all. LSE also has a huge name in Asia. I saw kids wearing LSE t-shirts in Singapore. But why worry? LBS or LSE, that's choosing between a Lambo and a Ferrari, you can never go wrong.

Maybe because a significant amount of economics/quantitative degree holders from LSE are Asian/have the relevant language skills too?

May 28, 2010 - 8:12pm

I ve just completed in December my MiF FT at LBS so a few thoughts although I don't have a lot on LSE.

The MiM's at LBS are very well sought after. You're likely pretty young, less expensive, and also coming out with a business school experience. The predominant difference between the two programs is that at LBS you'll get more real life cases to work on (from my experience anyway). At LSE, the education will be a lot more theoretical (what I ve heard).

The key thing though is career services. You'll come out of both with a very solid grasp of all relevant concepts etc and if your goal is IB, get in touch with their respective careers services if you can and ask very probing questions - How many of last years class were recruited into IB? how many applicants were there? what banks are big recruiters at each? how does your CV stack up to previous successful IB analysts at each? (important as you need to be the stand out player rather than on the better program). The last one might be tricky to get an answer from CS but they should be willing to put you in touch with an alum who successfully made the same move. Have a chat with alums at both schools and assess where the best opportunity is.

When approaching each school - it's a big investment so you want to make sure you're making the right choice. Any push back - go to the other school.

May 28, 2010 - 8:16pm

Go with LBS. Like some of the previous posters mentioned, although LSE is a target school for IB, you're competing with 1000+ students across the various undergraduate and graduate programs. MiM is the only pre-experience program at LBS with only 140 per class. You get better access to recruiters and a fantastic alumni network.

Being in a graduate business school, the experience and polish of the MBA/MiF students will also rub off on you and you will fare better during recruiting. Do not be concerned with perceived reputation (it is different for everyone and I for one don't think very highly of LSE at all), go with the actual benefits that a school will give you - in your case its better access to recruiters, much larger alumni network and the polished demeanour that a top-tier business school education can bring.

May 28, 2010 - 8:17pm

This is an absolute no brainer dude. Even if you'd be offered gender studies at LSE vs Finance in Rotterdam you'd pick LSE. In the UK the brand name of school is much more important the the actual stuff you'll be learning there. Picking RSM over LSE or LBS would be an enormous mistake (I am aware that's a very strong statement given that I do not know you at all but I am that certain you should not).

With regards to LSE vs LBS. LSE places better than any other school in Europe into IBD, without any doubt. There's hardly even competition in this respect. Even people who have LSE degrees in Geography or something vague have landed high finance gigs. That being said, LBS is amazing as well, and the MiM programme could very well be more interesting than the AOI one. I know some people who have done the LBS MiM and they're very very smart and landed great jobs. The GMAT thing is a little shitty though, as you would actually need to take it, even though 650 is not very high. It's a tough call as both are really good options. Ignoring the GMAT issue, I think I would personally take the MiM programme as it is probably more interesting and and you will have to take into account that at LSE the star programmes are Finance and Econ & Finance whereas at LBS the MiM is not in the position where other master programmes have a better reputation. But again, you can't really go wrong here.

May 28, 2010 - 8:18pm

Very tough decision which I can't possibly make up the choice for you. Tell me a bit more about your background and experience. What did you study at undergrad? What work experience do you have? Do you require sponsorship? What languages can you speak? These answers could help put more weight on which institution to select. Also, inbox me as I can never seem to notice when someone quotes / replies back to one of my posts.

Bitch please, I love bananas! If you found my advice useful, hit me up with one.
May 28, 2010 - 8:24pm

As a current LBS student i can chime in here. I think the MiM and the new programme will be treated exactly the same by employers. So if you were set on doing the LBS programme just stick with the mim. Since you got rejected from LBS FA i would argue their is not a real chance to get into LSE Msc Finance. I would rank the programs:
LSE Msc Finance > LBS MiM > LSE Fin&Acc. It all depends on what your profile is right now. If you have decent banking internships you will get a banking job easy. Most kids want consulting and banks recruit heavily from the programme. I think that LBS also does more to help you succeed in the interview process with mock interviews etc. I heard that LSE is not as active in that part.

I think that everyone who wants IBD and has a decent profile gets it out of the MiM. For LSE I don't know, but its obviously a great school. I would keep in mind that LBS is a lot easier in terms of course load and a lot more fun in terms of clubs, sports and life at the school in generell.

Since you don't have any offers yet, I would focus on that. I would have argued that to be flat out rejected this early in the cycle (and not waitlisted) speaks to the fact that your profile might not be enough for any of them. For Msc Finance you probably need a 710+ to get in and if you had anywhere close to that score LBS would have not rejected you (all hypotheticals). Since there is still time, you can give the GMAT one more try and apply to the other programs later.

Feel free to pn me for a closer look at your profile and what i think you can improve on.

May 28, 2010 - 8:25pm

LSE MFin is the best programme there is if you want to do IBD, without a doubt. LBS MiM is good, but not as good as LSE MFin for finance jobs. Also, the LSE network > LBS network, by a stretch. LSE is a much older school with many more alumni and again, this is especially true for finance.

With a 750 on your GMAT and relevant work experience you should have a good shot at getting into LSE MFin.

May 28, 2010 - 8:26pm

Hiya, youjustgotlittup, thanks for the input.

Do you think I have a good shot at LSE even with the lowish quant? I had a score with a Q49 but only a V40, so in the end I ended up just applying with the highest overall score. Do you think I should ask them to switch out my score in favor of the higher quant one (if that is even allowed)?

Another question: how heavily do you think the work exp is weighted for LSE? I have only had internships, so would I be at a disadvantage?

Thanks a lot!

May 28, 2010 - 8:34pm

LBS MiM, Duke MMS, LSE, or None? (Originally Posted: 11/30/2015)

Hey guys and gals,

I'm currently at a top BB. I really want to break into F500 strategy, or Consulting. My ultimate goal would be to work in Tech strategy. I do want to get an M7 MBA, preferably at Chicago (or HBS, if I can get in).
I applied and was accepted to Duke and LBS, haven't applied to LSE yet. I want to work in the US, but wouldn't mind London if I can get sponsored. I can't really lateral, I've tried, but I think I'm too newly graduated to get anywhere with experienced hire recruiting.

I don't know what the 'right' move is. I don't want to continue in finance, I know that. I've done well, but I know it isn't the right career for me. These are great places to be admitted to, so I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts about the programs, and whether they make sense to get to my ideal next step.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

May 28, 2010 - 8:36pm
Start Discussion

Total Avg Compensation

June 2021 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (9) $911
  • Vice President (35) $364
  • Associates (206) $232
  • 2nd Year Analyst (116) $151
  • Intern/Summer Associate (98) $145
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (27) $145
  • 1st Year Analyst (429) $131
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (343) $82