LBS v. LSE

jjkkoo1's picture
Rank: Chimp | 9

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

Region: 
United Kingdom
France

Comments (134)

Mar 5, 2010

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

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

Mar 5, 2010

Is the LBS one a one year program? I'd probably go to LBS either way.

Mar 6, 2010

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.

    • 1
Mar 6, 2010

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).

    • 1
    • 2
May 9, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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.

May 28, 2010

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

The LBS Master's in Finance...does doing it make you eligible for the same positions at the same pay as LBS MBA students? It takes a whole year less to complete, but I'd imagine jobhunting would be harder because there's no time to do an internship.

May 28, 2010

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.

    • 1
May 28, 2010

^^^^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.

    • 1
May 28, 2010

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.

May 28, 2010

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

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
DarkwarriorSFN:

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???).

I'm interested in this as well..

May 28, 2010

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

Jetzt nimm endlich das LSE Offer! :D

May 28, 2010

Take the LSE offer.
The guys from LBS that I've seen during recruiting weren't doing quite as good as the Finance students from LSE (I'm not talking about the MBA here, just the regular graduate programs).

May 28, 2010

if you take the LSE offer over LBS offer you are crazy - LBS is a pre-exp. program that will position you very differently to LSE. Dont get me wrong the Fin&Acc program will get you analyst jobs as well... Depends who you want to study with.

May 28, 2010

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

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

LSE is a no-brainer IMO

"All I know is I know nothing."

May 28, 2010

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

Bottom line: I would interview an LBS grad who has studied in a more practical context with more senior people any day of the week over somebody from the A&F course which is a typical M&A feeder (about 30% of the analysts in my firm have done that course) but nothing special.

May 28, 2010

The whole clearly also depends on your experience. I assume you have worked before hence an internship might not be so crucial for you. If you have no relevant experience - go to SSE.

May 28, 2010

Sorry for the spam: the LSE F&A course is a pure M&A feeder. If you aim for other positions - there is not even a debate

    • 1
May 28, 2010

http://www.london.edu/assets/documents/programmes/...
compare this with 100 fresh grads (mostly asian)

May 28, 2010

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

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

it depends who you want to hire and what you are looking for. We would take an LBS resume over an LSE A&F resume every day of the week

May 28, 2010

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

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

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
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

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

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 PS5,000 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

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

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

Good choice. Always go for the flagship programs.

May 28, 2010

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

How is LBS's Master in Management portrayed for IB recruitment ?

May 28, 2010
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

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..

    • 1
May 28, 2010

my room-mate did the MSc in Accounting and Finance LSE, very reputable programme! but be prepared to study hard

May 28, 2010

FYI, I'm from England and have a degree in Economics from a top 10 ranked university.

May 28, 2010

Personally I'd go with the MSc Finance from the LSE if you can into it. All banks heavily recruit out of that, alternatively look into the MSc Accounting & Finance degree from the LSE also, huge recruitment out of it into BB M&A groups.

May 28, 2010

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

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.

May 28, 2010

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

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

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

LBS.

May 28, 2010

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

It is not a MBA. Don't waste two years. LBS is a business school. LSE is not. If you want to learn management go to the business school.

May 28, 2010

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

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.

May 28, 2010
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

I'd go with LBS MiM. It's a great program, the LBS brand will probably more than make up for the track record of the program and I wouldn't be too concerned about repetitive classes. Some things you will probably have touched upon during undergrad but I have not seen many management degrees which don't do that.

May 28, 2010

Thanks a lot EuroLocust!
What does everyone else think?

May 28, 2010

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, PS36,000 vs. PS32,000 starting salary).
Thus, LBS is probably the better fit in this case.

May 28, 2010

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

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.

May 28, 2010

Haha sorry, I finished writing and didn't feel like cutting down.. but hopefully everyone gets the story - got multiple offers, dunno which one to pick. But yeah, thanks for your opinion :)

May 28, 2010

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

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

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

Thanks! Yeah I got that a lot haha

May 28, 2010

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.

Abhyank Srinet
Founder at www.MiM-Essay.com

  • Anonymous Monkey
  •  May 28, 2010
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

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.

Best Response
May 28, 2010

LSE > LBS for everything in general
LBS MBA > LSE

    • 4
May 28, 2010

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
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

LSE is better for right after college. For MBA, it's LBS.

May 28, 2010

@TraderDaily - LSE is better for trading roles or I banking in general?

May 28, 2010

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

Thanks ya'll.

May 28, 2010

LSE is really good for finance recruitment but I am not sure how good it will be for placement in Asia. LBS is obv. England's best school for MBA.

May 28, 2010

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.

May 28, 2010

@youjustgotlittup: What were you in Singapore for? Just curious.

May 28, 2010
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

That's certainly true.

May 28, 2010

For everything MSc in Finance/Economics/Accounting, PHD in Economics/Finance/Accounting, I'd say LSE.

For MSc in MiM, MBA, and advanced MSc in Finance, I'd say LBS.

May 28, 2010

concerning the content: both programs will offer me the chance to take finance classes

May 28, 2010

LBS

May 28, 2010

Could you elaborate on the reasons for this?

May 28, 2010

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

deleted

May 28, 2010

deleted

May 28, 2010

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

deleted

May 28, 2010

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

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

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

(redacted, personal info)

May 28, 2010

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

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

So what ended up happening? Looking at applying to LBS MFA, MiM and LSE MFin soon with a profile pretty similar to yours.

May 28, 2010

Just an update: apart from the MFA I got accepted into every other single program, which is basically the MSc Finance at LSE, Imperial, and Warwick.

May 28, 2010

Bump- I know this was probably asked before, but I seriously need others' ideas. I'm afraid I'm a bit too biased in my thinking.

May 28, 2010
Comment
May 28, 2010
May 28, 2010