Talk:London School of Economics/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

What the hell?

I removed the link to the RAE results because it gives an error when clicked on. The page at that URL is (apparently) a script which expects POST data to tell it which institution to display the results for. --rbrwr

I moved this from "London School of Economics and Political Science" to conform to the common names policy.--Jiang 05:56, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"all of whom won Nobel Prizes - despite acquiring a reputation for political extremism among the student body."

Does this mean that every one of the Nobelists listed earlier in that sentence had a reputation for political extremism among the student body, or just that the latter-named of them did, or what? It seems to be that if the LSE has produced a lot of Nobelists, ALL of whom have gained that reputation, than the student body is rather fickle or easily impressed. And what is with the word "despite" here? The Nobel Prize committee cares what the students of LSE think, yet despite this, blah blah blah? Or the Nobel Prize committee doesn't care, in which acse some other conjunction would be better? --Christofurio 04:12, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

If we're listing fictional alumni here, should we also include Jim Hacker? Not that I'm convinced that listing fictional alumni is a good thing...--rbrwr± 08:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hacker is a much more valid inclusion in my opinion. His LSE background was pretty front-and-centre in the show, often being but of jokes by the Oxford and Cambridge-educated civil servants. Yes Minister is the main way that I'd heard of the LSE.--Cinephobia 05:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

LSE degrees differ from many other university degrees in that the LSE requires its students to specialise in their chosen field of study, even at the undergraduate level, rather than pursue a more wide-ranging curriculum.

Dare I ask if this was written by an American? Actually, all of the universities in the UK follow this principle - you always apply to study something, never just to study.

Except in Scotland, where your first year is a general course of study. But then Scottish undergraduate degrees take four years to complete instead of the standard three.

Yeah I reckon that must have been written by an American. We in Britain have no equivalent of their broad ranging undergraduate "liberal arts education". I'm going to take that line out though I am happy for it to go back in if someone takes the time to explain why it should be there.

I think it's worth noting the LSE in political drama and comedy, and so I have placed a section at the end as a light 'and finally...'.

REQUEST: Could a picture of the LSE library be uploaded?

Seconded. Given how much we current students complain about the library stairs (one of the few ways to bond with one's peers on campus), recognition must be made!

Alumni: Carlos the Jackal

There was some research conducted by students at LSE last year (I believe an article was published in the LSE student newspaper, "The Beaver"), suggesting that the notorious criminal Carlos the Jackal actually never attended the LSE although he is widely credited as doing so. If anyone has any time, it may be worth a bit of research and possibly removing and possibly even a sentence or two added explaining since he is so well associated with the LSE?


the lists of associated people needs to be spun off.


I've removed a lot of the hyperbole that actually got in the way of the LSE story. But there's a few inconsistencies around that someone may want to help with...

  • how many foreign students? Part of the article says 70% non-UK students, another says 38% UK students.
  • I'm not certain about the number of foreign countries represented in the student body under "general information" is it really > 130 non-EU countries?
  • do we really need to list the subjects taught? I'm not sure this adds anything
  • What is meant by "The School is regarded as a pacemaker in the study of ..."? And is there anything to back this up?

--Canthusus 18:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism by Lotsofissues

Lotsofissues has vandal-attacked this page.

This page has been vandalised by someone named LOTSOFISSUES (sic). Please revert it to the way it was before he trashed it. And please ban him from this page.

This page used to be huge, with info on collabrations etc etc. What the hell happened? Someone restore all that back please!Beatallica 08:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Somebody has removed a great deal of the LSE content. Could somebody restore them back to the content?

What happened to this article? All of the history, institutional alliances, degree info... just about EVERYTHING has been removed senselessly. Put it back, please.

Most of the article violated our copyright policy -- it was lifted from the LSE website. The alumni list was also moved to its own page. The rest of the text suffered from promotional prose so it was condensed for clarity and encyclopedic dryness. Lotsofissues 19:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Still, major changes to established articles should be discussed on this page.

Lotsofissues has severly vandalised the LSE entry. He should be banned from editing the page and the page should be reverted to the pre-lotsofissues version.

seriously, we need an editor in here to reset the page back a week or two. I'll talk to my friend who has editor (or whatever its called) status.

I agree with Lotsofissues that this entry needed to be cut down. Nevertheless Lotsofissues has gone overkill. For example, instead of moving the LSE alumni section onto the separate LSE alumni page he simply deleted the alumni section and only made minor amendemnts to the separate LSE alumni page. The result is that the separate LSE alumni page is now missing a lot of information, including many of the prominent academics who were on the "prominent academics" subsection of this LSE page.

Lotsofissues has also deleted several rankings statistics and simply merged one ranking into the introduction. Rankings should have their own section as they do in many university entries. Lotsofissues defends his deletion of the rankings section by claiming “most terrible school entries are overloaded with every flattering ranking that the school champion's find”. The Times World Rankings is the most comprehensive ranking of universities in the world (one of only two in the world). To dismiss this as a mere piece of flattery is shameful. People visit the wikipedia entry on LSE to find out official information about it. Flattering points of view have no place in an encyclopedia and should be removed. But official statistics have a proper place, often in a subsection as they do in many university entries.

Lotsofissues intervention, though needed, is heavy handed. People take a lot of time to research LSE alumni. For Lotsofissues to then delete the LSE alumni section of this page without ensuring all entries in that section are in the separate LSE alumni page is unacceptable. It's going to take a lot of time to restore those entries onto the separate LSE alumni page. In future such radical changes should be discussed first to ensure such needless damage is avoided.

I dont have any time to make the necessary changes myself. Can someone please transfer the prominent academics section now deleted from this page to the now separate LSE alumni page? - Sarah H

EDIT - I have just read Lotsofissues' comments. He freely admits he was "sloopy -- intentionally" (I assume he means "sloppy"). Why? Because he didn't like all the entries on the LSE people page (even though just about all of them have wikipedia entries themselves). He thought it "extraneous" and so simply deleted it. He then complains that he shouldn't update the LSE alumni page even though his vandalism - and it is that since he admitted to being intentionally sloppy - means that the LSE alumni page needs updating. This is disgraceful behaviour especially from a moderator. - Sarah H

Nothing was lost. In my forceful edits, the Times bullet points--bullet points!, most uninviting and lazy format possible for an encyclopedic entry--were reduced to essential lines that communicated the school's one-of-the-best importance, nothng more needed to be said. Don't be shrill. The alumni page was not hard researched; it was like all such school lists in Wikipedia and like most former content of this page were copied from somewhere. If it had actually took someone time to assemble that list (it didn't), I wouldn't have dared dump it. There are two long lists, much of it duplicate. Nothing was lost tossing one away--there are history logs. If you want to merge, be my guest, dig in. But you haven't. The essentials are on both lists, and no one wants to spend 30 minutes verifying every far-corner prince or visited Heathrow and now faculty member is represented. Ostensibly you all dislike my editing because my heavy-handed cutting of information was careless. But as an experienced editor of many university articles, I understand you are here because you have a fan club complex . You want to display every shiny accolade--both honorific and human--you can find. I am here to stop that kind of vanity fair. But I give up. There are too many of you types. This page is off my watchlist.

Lotsofissues 03:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

i disagree with most changes made by the user above - but i have to agree that there's NO need for a separate section on rankings... it can incorporated into the general information... i know of few other schools on wikipedia that have such an extended section on their global rankings -- there's just no point... we know the LSE is prestigious and is highly regarded, so why do you need to beat it into people's faces by making constant reference to it? (as the previous article did, and this article still does with the rankings section)
Lotsofissues, please continue to edit this page. Your efforts are appreciated insofar as you seek to improve the quality of this entry. No-one wants you to stop making editorial contributions. As I said, the entry needed changes to remove the points of view. What caused some disgruntlement is how you did it. The LSE entry on wikipedia was in the same form for a year. Then, over night, radical editing took place without any consultation. Sure, the plagiarised material had to go immediately and was not negotiable. But much of what you edited needed consulting. The result is that information was lost (and yes people did take time to update the LSE alumni section of this page) and an important section (rankings) was removed without any discussion.
Many visitors to this entry are prospective students. I am one such visitor – I have applied to study at LSE, as well as several other universities. I think most people want a section on rankings as rankings are very important to students applying to universities. A separate section with plenty of official statistics is clearly needed. However, I can compromise on the issue of the rankings section - I can live with a separate paragraph (not just one line) within the General Information section mentioning the official statistics.
- Sarah H

List of alumni

I've taken the list out of the main article again.

  • It duplicates the list at List of London School of Economics people, adding no useful value.
  • Having two lists is unnecessary, and confusing as they drift out of sync.
  • The list that anon user user: reinstated is an old one that contains known errors (eg David Attenborough).
  • It is far, far too long for the main LSE article, and totally unbalances it.
  • The key information that is directly relevant to the LSE article (number of Nobel Laureates, heads of state etc) is already incorporated in the article. The detailed list of names is a link away.

Lotsofissues removed the list, with explanation on 6th January. If that's not the right decision, we should discuss it here first, before putting it back.

I note that the list that user: put in is not identical to the one at List of London School of Economics people. I know it's not in alphabetic order, and I know it also has some errors, but there may be some good entries that can be merged into List of London School of Economics people. --Canthusus 13:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I am really pleased that the list is being moved from the main article for the reasons stated by Lotsofissues and Canthusus. There is however a lot of extra information in the list which has been developed on this page which is not yet in the other list. The information is far from duplicated. It should be merged and not simply deleted. This is a deletion. This is not a move. The list I reinstated was the most recent version, so it can be properly merged. 14:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, yes I was sloopy -- intentionally. The list looked so extraneous. I didn't feel like spending 30 minutes comparing with the near duplicate list. And, neither do you. :-P So don't repaste; don't place a burden us--no one wants to do it! Lotsofissues 13:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I've copied the list over to the discussion page at Talk:List_of_London_School_of_Economics_people to make it easier for some noble person to trawl through and manually merge. If there's good info, we shouldn't lose it (though I do vaguely wonder about the encyclopaedic value of such a list...). I must say, I do think the current version of the LSE page does more credit to LSE and to Wikipedia than the old one which was just a giant piece of marketing hype! (well, that's my POV)

--Canthusus 10:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

On excessive space given to rankings

Students desperate to DECLARE the greatness of their school will insist on more rankings. But the banner waving looks just as prestigious as wearing an oversized polo logo Take a look at the Harvard article for reference: minimal direct self-praise. By the comprehensive article's end, you will hate their cool patrician I-know-what-you-think-but-I-don't-have-to-say-anything tone--that's the height of prestige. Don't embarrass your school by feebly creating a trophy section.

Lotsofissues 22:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


'the second largest overall research university in the UK'- what? How can this be true in a college of only 7500 students? I will delete this phrase unless someone can justify it in the next couple of days. It is not the second largest anything in terms of student body, number of research staff or geographic area. Perplexing. Badgerpatrol 23:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


I refer you to the following source, and specifically this paragraph: "In the most recent national research assessment in the UK (2001), LSE came second after Cambridge for the quality of its research - and top if only the social sciences are taken into account. In the THES's 2004 world ratings, LSE was top of the UK institutions and second in the world, behind Harvard."

General Information About LSE

Hi Sam- I don't doubt the academic excellence of the LSE for a second- but what does this have to do with being the second largest research university in the UK? I have been to the LSE- it is emphatically not the second largest research university in the UK. I think we have our wires crossed maybe? Cheers, Badgerpatrol 23:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

you're right - it's not the second largest, but the second best overall in terms of quality and best in the social sciences (which is the only category it makes sense to put it in since Cambridge does the sciences, humanities, social sciences, et al - not fair to make an overall comparison in this sense). I'll change it to quality instead of 'largest'

I'm back briefly

My view of you LSE-ers is quite dim. Did you miss me enough that you had to vandalize my user page twice to bring me back? Lotsofissues 02:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please go away lotsofissues. I am sure that Chechnya wants you deperately.

More Vandalism

After posting this rubbish, our usual vandal largely deleted the LSE page. "My view of you LSE-ers is quite dim. Did you miss me enough that you had to vandalize my user page twice to bring me back? "

The preceding unsigned comment was added by Catstail (talk • contribs) .

Catstail please stop putting back all that copyrighted material. zzuuzz (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If you really want to expand the information on this page cite your sources... then it won't be such a big issue... there's plenty of information on the web about the history of the LSE - take the time to read it, and add necessary info to the article while citing where it came from in the notes section at the end of the page... don't be so lazy and just copy/paste the copyrighted material of others!

Lotsofissues is correct that any copyright material MUST be removed. That cant be negotiated. Like the person said above, if you want to expand this entry you need to write the material yourself. - Sarah H

OK, let's sort this out like grown-ups

(this long section by Canthusus 19:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC))

Now, let's all take a deep breath and calm down.

I'm sure we all want a good encyclopaedic entry for LSE. But obviously, we seem to have different views on what that might look like!

I think it would help to concentrate on the article, not on individual personalities. It isn't helpful to attack others for perceived vandalism, or to get into revert wars, or vandalise user pages, or take sly digs at spelling. Or to dig up old issues that are past; it doesn't matter now whether anyone had been heavy-handed or not - what matters now is how we can take the article forward.

Now. The article. Part of the problem is copyright material (though I've lost track of where it's supposed to have been copied from). This does have to come out, but could probably be paraphrased if there is material that genuinely helps the article.

From my perspective, the biggest issue is keeping a sufficiently neutral point of view. Yes, the LSE is one of the foremost institutions in its field, and we need to reflect that. But the article was degenerating into advertising hype. My personal opinion is that the article was becoming unbalanced to the point that the "best best best" dogma was getting in the way and not doing any favours to the LSE or to Wikipedia.

Some points for discussion:

Alumni list

Part of the problem was the long list of alumni - that's now in the talk page for List of London School of Economics people waiting for someone to merge it with the list there. I believe that's the best place for it. Does anyone disagree? If so, please discuss here. More to the point, does anyone want to take on the merge task?

Done. It could still do with some weeding. zzuuzz (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Brilliant! Thanks, zzuuzz. When you say "could still do with some weeding" do you mean get rid of wrong entries, or generally cut down the list? We need to get rid of erroneous entries - I've taken out David Attenborough who got an honorary degree but never studied there as far as I can ascertain. There may be more like that. Personally, I'm not bothered about the length of the list apart from that - most of the entries are blue-linked, so presumably count as notable. -Canthusus 10:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't really check for errors like Attenborough (Charles Saatchi?), and I left a few in the others section. Some are repeated (eg Currie, and Nobel winners), and not all are alumni graduates (eg Judge Jules and Mick Jagger). I think some of the descriptions could be improved. Otherwise it is much better. Wiki on. zzuuzz (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


How many rankings do we need to tell the story? My view is a small number of well-chosen rankings do the job better than a plethora. I think the current version has it about right. But I'd be happy to drop the 2004 THES rankings & swap for a Guardian or other one.


The history of the school is important from an encyclopaedic point of view. I think the older version looks closer to what I would expect, though personally, I think needs a little toning down to NPOV, especially the last couple of paragraphs. What do others think?

you're link dosen't seem to work. Whatever the case, I think we can agree we need more history. LSE has a rich and relevant history and one sentence (ONE!) does not begin to do it justice. We are going to have to go through the old history, maybe copy it into this page and see what we can agree on. I've seen it, and I remember thinking some of it was quite suspect. We'll have to go through it line by line. Shall we paste it into this page under your post? Sjjb 19:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Rats! - I think I messed up which version was which. "old version" means the catstail version @3:12 on 8th Feb. "new version" is the lotsofissues version of 3:13 on 8th Feb. Oh well. Yes, let's have a go in this discussion page to get some consensus. --Canthusus 10:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Revision as of 18:44, 6 January 2006 is the revision immediately before Lotsofissues' edit of 18:46, 6 January 2006 with edit summary: '(delete entire history section copyvio from' The text is quite clearly copyvio, and in my view mostly useless to work from. We have to start again. User Lotsofissues was correct in this case. Agree? Sjjb 13:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Hummm... that's a pain! But you're right, it's all just lifted. Thanks for digging that up, I'd lost track of what was copied & was was original puff. Are there any other good sources to use? --Canthusus 23:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Well there is the bit from the "History of the Fabian Society", chapter 7. (Edward R. Pease) and well out of copyright in the US)

"In 1894, Henry Hutchinson, who had provided the funds for much of our country lecturing, died, and to our complete surprise it was found that he had appointed Sidney Webb, whom he hardly knew personally, his executor, and had left the residue of his estate, between £9000 and £10,000, to five trustees—Sidney Webb, his daughter, myself, William Clarke, and W.S. De Mattos—with directions that the whole sum be expended within ten years. The two last named took but little part in administering the trust, and Miss Hutchinson died only fifteen months later, also leaving to her colleagues the residue of her estate, something under £1000, for similar purposes. The trustees—Mrs. Bernard Shaw, Hubert Bland, and Frederick Whelen were appointed at later dates—resolved that the money in their charge should be used exclusively for special work, as otherwise the effect would be merely to relieve the members of their obligation to pay for the maintenance of their Society. They decided to devote part of the funds to initiating the London School of Economics and Political Science, because they considered that a thorough knowledge of these sciences was a necessity for people concerned in social reconstruction, if that reconstruction was to be carried out with prudence and wisdom: and in particular it was essential that all classes of public officials should have the opportunity of learning whatever can be known of economics and politics taught on modern lines."


"The trustees, as I have said, originated the London School of Economics, but from the first they associated others with themselves in its management, and they made no attempt to retain any special share in its control. Their object was to get taught the best science that could be obtained, confident that if their own political theories were right, science would confirm them, and if they were wrong, it was better that they should be discredited. The London School of Economics, though thus founded, has never had any direct or organic connection with the Fabian Society, and therefore any further account of its successful career would be out of place in this volume. But it may be said that it has certainly more than justified the hopes of its founders, or rather, to be accurate, I should say, founder, since the other trustees were wholly guided by the initiative of Sidney Webb."

There are some discrepancies (e.g., 10,000 versus 20,000 pounds from the Hutchinson estate) and it is certainly not complete. -- 03:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

This is always going to be tricky, as it sets the scene for the rest of the article. Personally, I like the drier, factual style and feel it is more appropriate. But others may think that we need to convey the academic reputation in the opener - if so, may I plead that we use a factual statement such as "ranked as second in the World for social sciences by THES" rather than POV puff like "is the most prestigious university in the world". Can we get to a consensus of what this para should look like?

why not get to some consensus here first (its the beginning of the article after all)? This is how it read: "...regarded as the world's most prestigious social science institution. It is considered to be the best university in the UK after Oxford University and Cambridge University" This rubbish cannot stay, it is simply not factual. Can we agree on this? (Catstail e.t.c?) But as it now stands it is a bit sparse. As you say, a factual statement is good, the no.2 ranking is well known and a good candidate.Sjjb 18:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Although LSE is regarding as the best university in the UK after Oxford University and Cambridge University and the world's most prestigious social science institution nevertheless such language is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.
Ok, but to be picky, I have to say its not factual. What do you say to someone who says Imperial is regarded the best after Oxbridge, or Harvard the most prestigious soc. science institution? We cannot objectively support either claims, it is not so much we can't talk LSE up a bit-lets never get hung up on NPOV. In fact the intro as it stands is plain miserable.Sjjb 17:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
To chip in my tuppence (as an outside view)- It is obviously not an unambiguous fact that the LSE is regarded as the third-best uni/college in the UK. Many would say Imp., or even UC (as a multi-fac.), or several others. Inserting claims like that without qualification is a bit silly, and I must say that kind of thing is rather the bane of ac. institution profiles on wiki. I suggest that the merits of the LSE are sufficiently impressive as they are without resorting to hyperbole. I should also say that whilst I kind of see the rationale behind the deletions made by User: Lotsofissues, he/she was WAY too heavy-handed. Much of what was deleted could by converted to NPOV, checked for accuracy and re-inserted. Certainly the current edit is much too skeletal and really needs expanding as a matter of urgency. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 18:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Only two universities - LSE and Imperial - have a strong claim to be the best UK university after Oxbridge. Based on THES World League Tables, LSE has the slight edge over Imperial. But based on Times domestic tables, Imperial has the slight edge over LSE. It's an issue reasonable people can disagree on. However, I would say it is an indisputable fact that LSE is the most prestigious social science institution in the world. There are only a handful of social science institutions in the world (eg Sciences-Po), and LSE is the most prestigious of them (see THES world rankings for the social sciences). I think this claim should be included.
I would be inclined to agree with this, and there's no reason not to include the claim, if it can be verified by an external source- and if it is qualified by including the well-made point that there actually are very few institutions in the world academically restricted to the social sciences. As to the 3rd-best uni in the country- it's very much a matter of opinion. Many people might be inclined to point out that it may not be a level playing field, given that both Imperial and the LSE (and SOAS etc.) are not multi-faculty universities, and hence might have an advantage over those that have to keep standards up across a variety of disciplines. In some surveys I've seen recently, Imp has been above Oxford in terms of teaching and research quality. On this list the LSE is not even in the top 20 in the UK (for whatever reason). It's exactly this sort of ambiguity that requires that we avoid making grandiose claims about status unless we can back it up with proper citations. Badgerpatrol 20:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
It is not indisputable and it can never be verified. No-one can say that an institution is the 'most prestigious' is any field. I suggest we agree on a factual statement for the opening paragraph, such as the no.2 ranking for soc. sciences or the no.11 world ranking. Then we can discuss the rest of the opening paragraph. Instead of grasping for 'bests' or 'mosts' we would do better to give an overall feel of the LSE, such as a comment of its international nature or it being considered an 'academic powerhouse' or of having had a great influence on world affairs. Again we should not get hung up on bias but still cannot include something like you are discussing Sjjb 21:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you may have rather missed my point!Badgerpatrol 21:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

How is this? Because you want to qualify it by saying there are not many social science institutions? How do we define social science institutions? How do we say LSE is best?Sjjb 21:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I've got a real problem with "most prestigious social science institution in the world" - I really don't think that's indisputable. How do you define prestige? What is a social science institution? Even if you could convince me that it is strictly correct, it still reeks of POV. Let's stick to external sources. But it doesn't have to be a dry league table. I'd be happy for the opening para to have an appropriate quote, eg "George Bush described LSE as 'the most prestigiatious school of econommics in the whole world'" (with reference, of course!). How does that sound?--Canthusus 23:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I *think* you two (Badgerpatrol & Sjjb) are generally in agreement but somehow arguing past each other. I *think* you're both saying that it's not appropriate for the entry to say "most prestigious" unless we can back it up. Correct me if I'm talking nonsense again! What do you think of the idea of finding a juicy quote for the opening para? It still leaves the bigger problem in "general information", but we can sweep that under the carpet for now... --Canthusus 23:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you're pretty much spot on. I also think we are all barking up the right tree, so to speak. One doesn't have to construct a definitive list of degree-granting (or de facto degree-granting) social-science-only academic institutions in the world to say that there are very few- and if an objective list of these can be found in which the LSE is top-ranked then it is verifiable and thus encyclopaedic (note that it doesn't have to be 'true'- just 'verifiable'!). All comments should be qualified to avoid bias (e.g. 'amongst the most prestigious universities and colleges in the world'- no-one can surely argue with that?) and should be properly referenced. I personally think that the LSE very likely is the top-performing SS-only college, but I would agree that the term 'prestigious' is misleading (note that I didn't use that word myself, and that Canthusus' comment above was accidentally inserted out of position- now corrected, although always best to check the time-stamp). 'Prestigious' is overly subjective, but e.g. 'best' may not be unreasonable- provided it is put into context and properly sourced (even at that, 'among the best' or similar is almost always a better choice of words). Cheers, Badgerpatrol 00:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Great, yea. I am very happy with 'amongst the most prestigious universities and colleges in the world', or something similar. A juicy quote is also good, if we can find one. I thought the Guardian quote in here was pretty good, but as Lotsofissues pointed out, it seems to have been completely fabricated! Now, can someone take the plunge and copy directly underneath here a draft paragraph? Go on, be brave, I dont want to do it! Sjjb 20:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

General information

This seems to cause problems! Maybe because it's a vague heading, the section seems to end up being a mixture of cold facts, international reputation (which is a real danger area for POV) and possible POV-slanted facts. I really don't know what to do about this section. Should we subdivide it somehow? Ideas please!


How important are these to the encyclopaedia? I can't judge. The paragraphs read like so much hype to me - especially in early Januuary when there seemed to be half a dozen big collaborations going (and some revert-wars over the order of the names of the institutions). All universities collaborate with others - what makes these collaborations noteworthy?

Agreed. Collaborations aren't encyclopaedic.
Agreed, in general. Collaborations should be given weight according to their percieved importance, not according to how much they're promoted on the official website. But I think there is room for a very brief mention of collaborations. All universities collaborate but not all with each other to the same extent. Relations with other unis is arguably an important indicator in the attitudes and affairs of an institution. In the most general sense, we must remember that wikipedia is not paper and we shouldn't be too severe in getting everything to prove its worth. Lets also remember that a number of people who read this article are considering whether to study there in the future and prefer to read a little too much info than nothing at all. Certainly, there has been some upset on other websites [1] about the deletions by Lotsofissues. Lets keep all this in mind. Sjjb 21:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Useful points about why the collaborations info might be relevant. But please, can we avoid raking over who did what in the past? Let's stick to improving the current article. (I'm also a little concerned about letting this world encyclopaedia have its content driven by what people are saying in some students forum somewhere, but's not get into that!). I think my problem with the collaborations was partly that I had difficulty understanding why they were there, and partly that they were phrased very hyperbolically & seemed to drench the reader with the same strong view. So does it sound reasonable to mention the main collaborations, but keep the information relatively concise and factual? Say a line or two about each? --Canthusus 22:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not raking, as I said above, Lotsofissues was at least partly correct. We've just got to be careful, this world encyclopedia is valued by many more than know how to edit and argue their point. I take your point. And that does sound reasonable, exactly. One sentence even, unless it demands more for a good reason. Sjjb 20:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Two asides

  1. should we add new sections at the top or at the bottom of a talk page? I had been adding at the bottom, but I see that others had added to the top, so I'm following suit so as not to feel left out!
  2. this splurge by me is far too long! But then I noted that a lot of the entries on this talk page are rather long. Which shows that a lot of us seem to care a lot about the article. I'm sure that between us we can get something decent going!

--Canthusus 19:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Article is too short

I checked this article a while ago, it used to be longer (granted a lot of it was boasting) even so this is one of the shortest articles I've seen for a university, especially considering that LSE is a fairly influential institution, can someone add more history and info?

If you check the history of this article, you will find a great deal of information that was considered compromised by POV and was hence disregarded. However, as you say, much of this is salvageable. The article is definitely too short right now, and I don't personally know enough about this subject to edit it to the required standard. If you do, then be bold and expand the article as you see fit. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 22:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I signed up for an account and read the principles, I'll tinker and add a few more tidbits of info sticking to the NPOV. Here are some of the things I propose to do: Divid up the "general info" about LSE header into more meaningful titles, I was thinking of Organization, Campus, and Research. Under Org I would write about the LSE student union and its relation to the University of London, under campus the history of the buildings, under research I would provide a list of the names of the research institutions and laboratories with links. sound good?
  • You've done a splendid job. It's informative, interesting, and NPOV.

I still disapprove of a separate rankings section.

Lotsofissues 03:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


Hey all,

Ok so I added to the article, nothing was deleted I just re-arranged the existing info, plus added the following:

Brief line on the Fabians who founded the school, Info on the admissions process, Info on the campus' physical buildings, Info on the LSE events office,

I was going to do a section about the the student union and all that but I don't really know much about it, hopefully someone will add that info someday, most other uni pages do mention their student government.

Hi- the edits look great. But DMG413 has restored the library photo to the page and on the new British Library of Political and Economic Science page, but the photo still does not have a proper license.
Also, the last paragraph in Programmes and Admission section is confusing, as to the 'rolling' system. Can you make this clearer? are you talking exclusively about postgraduate applications?

And the final sentence on having a first class honours degress surely cant apply to undergraduate apps. thanks. Sjjb

where are your sources?

The final sentence on having a first class honors degree does not apply across the board - many departments at the LSE grad level admit students without first class honors degrees. Generally, students should have a 3.5+ in the American GPA system or a minimum of a 2.1 in the UK system. But, that's less of a concern to me. My primary concern is that you need to cite your sources. Where are you getting this information from? The LSE website? A magazine or newspaper article? Or are you just making it up? Wikipedia is constantly criticized for being a forum for people to write whatever they please without it being substantiated by sources of some kind. Those who criticize Wikipedia fail to realize that citing relevant sources is a part of Wikipedia's guidelines, but the onus is on the individual who's adding to the entry in question to cite their additions. So, do us all a favor and cite your sources, please! If you don't, you make it far easier for people to delete your hard work on the basis that it is not factual or what have you...

Applications statistics

The applications success rate for the programmes vary by their size, although most of the major courses have an intake of approximately 5%-10% of applicants[uncited]. I strongly suspect that this is not true, if it is intended to mean what I think it does. If it is correct, it is truly remarkable and congrats to the LSE, but I would like to see the citation please. The average acceptance rate for Law at Oxford is 20% of applicants. For English it is 25% and for Medicine it's 16% (see links from [2]). Most other programmes accept a much higher percentage than that (e.g. chemistry 56%, geology 50%). I suspect the ratio at Cambridge is the same or similar. So, % admitted for 'most' 'major' courses at the LSE is 1 in 20 to 1 in 10, whilst at Oxford it's about 1 in 5 or 1 in 4, or even 1 in 2? I do not understand how this is true, and (like for many other statements in the article), I think we ought to have some evidence. I have looked on the web and can't find any. Please correct me if I am wrong or have misinterpreted the situation. I hope this article isn't slipping down the POV slope just when it seemed to be getting somewhere- although it is in general much better than it was and starting to look like a decent article again. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 00:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I have just re-read the para as it was, and the above discussion, and it occurs to me that it may indeed have been refering to PG admissions only. If so, then a 5-10% admissions stat is in fact potentially true and in line with most UK universities, although I didn't realise that official statistics were kept for this (a citation would still be good). I don't know about the 'rolling admissions' scenario, but again it is not impossible; my experience of PG education in the UK is that places on Master's and Doctoral places are essentially often filled before all applications are in, although if the LSE explicitly states this before any official deadline then that would mark it out as unusual. However, if the paragraph is talking about UG applications then it is incorrect; I am almost certain that the stats are wrong, and I am equally sure that all UK uni applications are through UCAS. My edits to that para assumed it was reffing UG admissions; if not, I stand corrected. Badgerpatrol 01:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Yup Badgerpatrol you are correct, the line was in reference to PG, I'm pretty sure the school keeps stats on its UGs aswell, the info is found inside the PG prospectus but it is per programme instead of a global acceptance rate. Some of the very small programmes have very high "rates" of acceptance, eg. there's a geography programme that accepted 5 people out of 10. I based number I wrote off a few of the larger programmes, I have checked through some other programmes though and sense the truer rate of acceptance is probably 10-20%. The prospectus is the only available data on this that I could find, so in the absence of a more verifiable source should we maybe omit info on acceptance rate? It'd be a shame since its a common question about any university, i guess the other option is to manually count the numbers in the entire prospectus (not my cup of tea!) Also UG acceptance is handled totally different from PG, it is through the UCAS system and I have no idea how that works, my info is from working at one of the departments and it only deals with PGs.
Pretty much any objective info that's in the prospectus is verifiable and can go in, so long as it's made clear that it refers to PG admissions only.You could quote individual stats for the most popular courses, or work out a global average, depending on which you feel is more useful (and which flows better). Since the postgrad programmes at the LSE are of disproportionate importance relative to other unis, I guess application success rate becomes more notable- although I'm not sure how much more stringent they are relative to a lot of other places; however , if it's in the prospectus, put it in and reference it with an external link. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 16:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"The applications success rate for the programmes vary by their size, although most of the major courses have an intake of approximately 5%-10% of applicants[uncited]. I strongly suspect that this is not true...I do not understand how this is true, and (like for many other statements in the article), I think we ought to have some evidence."

For undergraduates, there are twelve applicants per place. See Sunday Times University Guide:"Competition is fierce with about 12 applicants per place, so only the brightest need apply." See Also: [3] 2325 applications for 152 places in law. That's over 15 apps. per place, or (I think...) 6.5% intake. So not too far off. Although of course somewhat more may be given offers, and decline for other unis, but still pretty competitive. I am pretty sure the most applicants per place out of UK unis. This doesn't necessarily mean its the best, but a reflection of other things, like its good location and its success in getting attracting so many foreign students. Thanks Sjjb

Hi Sjjb- You are absolutely right. Links from this page give an applications per place ratio of 11.4 for the LSE, which is far higher than Ox, Cam or Imp (about 4-5 apps per place), and seems to be the highest I can see on there. Individual courses at other unis (e.g. UC has 2500 applicants for 150 places on Law) may surpass this slightly, but not many and not by much. I think you are right re the ambiguous nature of that statistic, but the most competitive uni in the country is certainly notable and I will update the article. Only Bristol (10.5), Warwick (9.2) and York (9.0) were even close. This is probably a mixture of: a) the LSE's excellent academic reputation; b) that applicants ignore unis they have no hope of getting accepted for (making such stats a bit misleading); c) London location; d) large numbers of overseas applicants attracted by the LSE's economic specialty and international rep ; e) that candidates are not allowed to apply to both Ox and Cam in the same year, automatically halving their application numbers. I assumed that there would be a linear relationship between institutional quality and applications success; there isn't, my logic was flawed, and therefore mea culpa! Badgerpatrol 23:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
12 applicants per place doesn't mean that only 1 in 12 are given offers (speaking of UG here). Many Oxbridge applicants will apply to LSE as well, but take up the Oxbridge place if they're offered one. As the UCAS applications process allows one to apply to 6 different courses/universities, on average we should expect 6 applicants per place.
Plus the fact that OxBridge applications are separate from the standard UCAS ones, in that they (a) have an earlier submission date, and (b) cost money.

Anthony Giddens quote

The quote I attributed to Giddens, about the New Jersey emergency room, its hearsay, I was at a Lecture where a prof was talking about Giddens and his contribution to the school, including its buildings which he likened to a new jersey emergency room, i don't think there's any way to cite it, but its kinda humorous and very accurately depicts some of the older buildings, can it be left in?

2.1 Degree

What are the chances of getting accepted to LSE, either having a 2.1 or First class honours undergraduate degrees? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mulloom2 (talkcontribs) 19:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Really does depend on when you apply, references, your program, etc. I have the overseas equivalent of an Upper Second Class BA (or I will in 70 days) and I was accepted. Mind you, I had some famous professors as references, but, really, it all depends. Apply early, trust me. MarcelLionheart 07:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, thats very useful to know. Best of luck, by the way!

I've always wanted to apply to LSE, but because of it's reputation I thought it was out of my league. Is it really true you can get in with a 2.1???

  • I don't actually know what a 2.1 is (I'm Canadian), but I got accepted with a 3.3 GPA. I can't stress enough how crucial it is to apply early. Even if you have a 4.0 degree from Harvard, if you apply late, you have up to a 50% less chance of getting in. MarcelLionheart 00:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

  • What was the reasoning behind putting the cleanup tag on the main page? --DMG413 14:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

LSE-Kings rivalry

A bunch of drunken students from LSE stormed King's College London's Strand campus on a Friday afternoon just before the first semester of 2006 was completed. The attack caused damages worth an estimated £30,000. Is this worth mentioning on the article? Here is the details. Ozgurgerilla 1:35, 27 April 2006 (GMT)


Would anyone object to putting the new LSE red box symbol over the info box and place the actual seal of the university inside the box instead? ArchonMeld 00:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Golden Triangle

Another broad acronym, mostly used in referance to the sciences, is the "Golden Triangle"... I question whether this term is in broad use to describe the OxLondonBridge axis, but I won't remove it unless someone else has an objection. I certainly have never heard of this term outside of the NS article linked in the text. In addition, I can't see any specific reference to the LSE in that article, so it does seem rather redundant. A previous edit specifically mentioned that this 'Golden Triangle' DID NOT include UC, although I note that the linked article refutes this completely, extensively talking about UCL and quoting their provost- but makes absolutely no mention of the LSE at all (as a separate entity). I'm confused. Badgerpatrol 16:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It's the UL rather than the LSE.

Golden Triangle Issues

The "Golden Triangle" concept is widely used in scientific circles. References to it can be found in many more sources than the one I used to cite the paragraph in question. (These include the Guardian, The Insider, THES, the Times, and wide literature on science tertiary education). In the original write-up I mistakenly excluded UCL, although this has been rectified. The particular citation makes it clear that the third element of the triangle is the Univeristy of London, however it stresses the importance of UCL and Imperial at the beginning.

While I think the G5 issue remains and interesting and valid one, the "Golden Triangle" is probably less relevant to the LSE since it has no physical science programs, with which the "Golden Triangle" is mostly concerned. Possibly, this paragraph belongs more accurately in the University of London page (or UCL or Imperial).

      EDIT: I have removed it, since its clearly not relevant.

Place thoughts on Relevance of sections HERE

...rather than just deleting them.

If you feel compelled to act unilaterally to remove a section, the DELETION must be justified by an note explaining the deletion on grounds of innaccuracy or some such.

If you believe a section is IRRELEVANT - please move it to where it does belong (not just say it belongs somewhere else and delete it completely).

The section on Economic Impact has been replaced. If anyone feels it is still too close to an alumni list after my edits, please post a response here, and I will take another look at it. The possibility of removing the names is on the table, and just leaving the contributions to economic theory - however that will require a great deal of citations.

Personally I feel the names should remain so the creators of these economic theories can be easily linked to, so the the context is properly understood, and so that the proper accreditation is clear.

           --- Seconded Unclebob 15:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC), section does read better now.

The Article is bloated now, it can be much much more concise. Is it necessary to create an entire section to the EMBA, I'm at the school now and its totally unknown outside of the accounting and finance students, who are a minority, a healthy one, but most of the students are social science students (social psych, anthropology, government, int. relations, etc). Also the sections about the schools' economics department could be its own article. In terms of a rivalry with cambridge, the information is interesting but it seems archaic. LSE generally does not have rivalries (except maybe Kings, and this is due mostly to proximity) because a. It is not a university, it is a social science institution inside the university of london, b. athletics are marginally important among the student body, c. nearly half of the students are doing MSc degrees which are only 1 year, so the student body has a very high rate of turnover.

Does seem a bit long...the EMBA stuff doesn't seem to add anything of significant interest - so if we agree, I'll reduce it to one line and include in the programs section - that would be a good idea IMO....will keep the logo in tho...nice picture - but if someone objects they can remove that too.
Regarding the economic department...I'm not sure if there is sufficient content to make an effective seperate article yet - its just a collection of various important contributions....tricky one. Maybe if someone is willing to do the work, I personally don't have the resources to research the full history of the economics department and its various research labs etc.
The academic rivalry with Cambridge is now largely defunct it seems - as seems pretty clear from the text, but from a historical perspective it seems important in the development of the institution, and the philosophies to which it is also seems to show that the original founding Fabian link is not necessarily as strong anymore as the Austrian SoE link - the modern LSE is clearly no longer a Fabian stronghold (as its work on pensions and id cards show, both of which mirror the liberal philosophies of Hayek). Definitely important to keep IMO.
PROPOSE removing the economic research rankings - largely superfluous, with the specific major contributions in the section above remaining since they are more effective and informative about contribution to economics. Aye or Nay? Unclebob 18:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The current iteration of this article seems to be a little bit obsessed with rankings and other indicators of the LSE's global prestige. This is manifest and laudable, but I do rather think there is a propensity to beat the reader round the head with it. I notice that no mention is made of the most recent Times subject rankings, which place the LSE e.g. 18th in the Uk for politics, 17th for psychology, 6th for law, 4th for economics, and 18th for sociology- all good, but not great. Rankings and other metrics of success are fully encyclopaedic and should be included, provided they are not being cherry-picked and providing the intent is to maintain a NPOV. I personally agree that there is plenty if fat in the article that could and should be trimmed. Badgerpatrol 02:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
While I agree with the spirit of your point, that the rankings need to be trimmed and balanced - the Times rankings are many and varied. The good university guide placed the LSE 1st for economics, although there is no mention of that in this Article. While one must be wary of students selling the university, the explosion in the university rankings business is warrant enough for some significant level of inclusion. Furthermore, there are numerous ranking included in the article at present, notably in the research ranking section which feature numbers around the 17 or 18 mark. If you agree with me the research ranking should be removed since the point it portrays is largely replicated, good, but I cannot agree with your long waged war against rankings in general, or that the rankings included at present are not reflective of the university. IMO, the article is now very interesting and informative, with rankings making up at most, a 10th of the article, and that would fall with the removal of the research ranking data.
(I might point also out that the Times uses head teacher's opinions as the pre-dominant basis for their subject rankings, and on that basis alone their impartially is in question.) Just as your rankings are absent, so are the Times rankings placing LSE 1st for economics, Guardian rankings which place the LSE 3rd in economics, Social Policy 1st, Sociology 3rd, Politics 3rd, law 3rd, history 3rd blah blah blah. There's nothing rose tinted about the article at all.
Frankly I think we can do little more than ensure that the rankings that are included are not replicating each other in the information they convey, and that those included are broadly representative. From what I can see, the rankings are representative, and with the removal of the research ranking section, which I have now removed, each ranking will be informative. Unclebob 15:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't realise I had long-waged a war against rankings in general?! Are you getting me mixed up with somebody else? I don't have anything against rankings- in fact they are essential. (See my comments here, for example.) There are indeed a multitude of them however- the ones to which I refer (linked from here) were to my knowledge (or as claimed by The Times, anyway) based on independent metrics of teaching and research quality (i.e. the RAE and teaching assessments), entrant A-Level scores, and graduate employment. I did not realise that subjective opinion was invoked at all, and if you can point to some evidence that the dominant source of information is headteacher's opinions then I may revise my opinion. I do not see where there is any mention on this page of a ranking of the LSE around the 17 or 18 mark in the UK for research, by the way, and I'm surprised that such a ranking exists. I must point out, there is little doubt that the LSE is amongst the top handful of academic institutions in the UK, full stop. But I would suggest that, even after your improvements, the article is a little rose-tinted (the library is 'stunning' and provides a 'superb' environment; the LSE is described as having 'overwhelming power'; the LSE MBA is 'intelectually rigorous (like the others aren't??!!); the new halls will 'provide the ideal base from which to explore the capital's thousands of sights and attractions'). Much of the article sounds like it could have been lifted straight out of the LSE prospectus. This type of language is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Only at the end (the G5 discussion) does anything even remotely negative emerge, and even then it seems to be couched in a more-or-less positive slant. In reality, the fees for LSE courses are exorbitant, which should be stated. I don't feel that it's a bad article at all however, and to repeat once again, the quality and prestige of the LSE is manifest. I do certainly think though that in terms of factual content and especially quality of writing, the article could do with a clean-up, if not some major revisions. The Harvard University article used to be a great example of how to write an excellent NPOV account of an elite institution; if it is still in the same state as when I last read it then it may be a good one to refer to. Badgerpatrol 01:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Howdy Badger....sorry - obviously I had your opinions on rankings wrong. Regarding the times, your spot on, the subject rankings based on head teacher's opinions can be found in last years sunday times university rankings (it all gets a bit muddled). I believe a 2006-7 times ranking will be released on the 6th of June to make everything on Wikipedia out of date haha - should be fun. The article definitely uses POV language in places and I will sweep the whole article for such comments on the 7th June. Regarding fee structures, I don't know what facts you base that opinion on - I don't believe there has ever been a study or quote to that effect, and since it is not verifiable I don't see why such an opinion should be included. I doubt universities such as Oxbridge have any words to such an effect, and considered undergraduate fees are regulated by the government it certainly doesn't apply at that level. Fees for postgraduate courses at the LSE are between 9-15,000 pounds. Fees for similar courses at Stanford are priced at $55,000, so I don't think the prices for the courses are exorbitant for the standard of education they provide. Anyway, as I've said, I'll sweep for POV comments, and see if there are any uncited claims. I believe that the article on Harvard as a broad institution will inevitably be more general than that for an institution specialising in the social sciences. Better comparisons would be made with the articles on Imperial College, Indian Institutes of Technology and the best example MIT which does an excellent job of displaying the specialism of the institution. Unclebob 16:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that, prior to my editing, there were a list of rankings between 1 to 20 in the world - in the removal of the section on rankings, it has been trimmed to a couple of the most academically rigorous rankings - the ones no longer included are still cited in the notes at the bottom of the page, but they are generally poorly constructed in comparison to those retained.
Thanks for the response. By your wording above I understood that you meant the 17-18 ranking to be a negative or less favourable ranking- in fact, you meant 17-18 in the world! That is obviously not a negative ranking- in fact, it's surely broadly in line with what we might expect. My understanding is that the fees(for PG study, obviously UG fees are more-or-less set by central government) at the LSE are very high by UK standards; these data appear to show that even the basic rate for home students on a one year MSc is nearly double that of any almost every other listed UK university (including e.g. Oxbridge; see also here). Can you explain why you feel the comparison with Stanford is apt? My understanding is that Stanford is a private university in a country with a tradition of paying huge university fees, and where student debt of $100,000 plus is not unheard of. The LSE is a publicly-funded college in a country where fees for undergraduate degrees were unheard of until the recent (lamentable) changes and where the strong tradition is to minimise fees where possible. Surely the comparison should therefore with the many other public UK institutions within the same funding structure? I don't recall mentioning that the LSE article was too specific, or not general enough- I think you got the wrong end of the stick. Rather I meant that the Harvard article is (or was, I haven't checked it recently) an excellent example of how to minimise POV when writing about an elite institution. I don't see how the size or specialisation of the LSE (every university offers a variety of different courses, after all) precludes an NPOV, well-balanced, factually accurate, well-edited article? Anyway, I think we're broadly in agreement anyway, so I look forward to your edits! All the best, Badgerpatrol 19:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Its been a fun debate. While the LSE is clearly one of the highest, the cost being higher than Oxford or Cambridge, I think any data must account for variation in localised fixed costs. The costs of courses in london are invariably higher in London, especially central London, were various fixed costs are very high! Its interesting to note one of the other highest unversities for postgraduate is UCL, which may confirm that that location is an important secondary implication. Anyway, I think that data you found is fantasticly compiled, and I will include the point + some data points into the reworked version. Comparison with Stanford was on the basis it was one for which I know the fees! lol. Will definitely minimise the POV and make the article more streamlined. For the moment I have some important work to do, but will be onto it on the 7th. Unclebob 23:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough! But re the fees: my reading of that table (and it's admittedly not the best formatted or most easily read data that I have ever seen) is that the base rates for home and EU Master's students are: £3085 for Imperial; £3010 for King's; £3010 for UC; £4885 for Ox (inc. coll fees) and £3085 for Cam (presumably + coll fee) and...£8130 for the LSE. That's quite a significant difference, even with other London colleges. Badgerpatrol 00:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Stats 2006

The THES 2006 is out:

LSE: 2nd in world for social sciences 11th in world overall 4th in Europe

In the subject tables (,,716-1628873,00.html) Econ 4th (UK) Politics 18 Mathematics 13 Business studies 3rd Law 6th Social policy 1st Psychology 17

Student to staff ratio: 13.0

Library and computing spending: 7th (£1,091 per student)

Entry standards (A & AS level point scores out of 30) 4th (behind cambridge, oxford, imperial)


We need some better pictures. I'm not talking about Prospectus-style photos, but better ones than we currently have on the sight. The wikipedia entries for US universities have much better images and I don't think the problem is that LSE is an unattractive campus - because it isn't.

Leading social science institution?

In the intro, it claimd that LSE is the leading social science institution in the world. The reference is to an advertisement for LSE on LSE's website. There needs to be a better reference. Rkevins82 14:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge Suggestion

I'm not sure that the Hayek Society merits it's own article since it exists on at the London School of Economics. It appears that a merge was suggested with the original aFd but I don't see that it was ever further acted upon. James084 21:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be better if there was an article about student organizations at LSE. Until that article exists, it would be pointless to talk about a merge. I'm removing it from the Hayek Society article. Intangible 19:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


"The science magazine Nature also ranked LSE as the 11th best school overall in the world (tied with Duke)."

When on earth has Nature run rankings of worldwide universities. The results are too similar to the THES 2005 to be coincidence surely? The mention of Nature might be confusion with THES, or as a result of criticisms of the Shanghai world ranking that is biased against non-physical science universities by only considering publications in Nature etc.

Recommend this be removed unless citation (which I cannot find on the web) is provided.

Any editor is perfectly within their rights to remove anything that isn't properly verifiable (ie any material without citation). Also, what does a ranking of schools have to do with the LSE, which is, if not de facto a university proper, certainly a university college? Badgerpatrol 20:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Well quite.....(I believe school however is an Americanism....especially at a graduate level. Rather than going to Stanford University for example, you attend the Graduate School of Business at Stanford, or rather than Harvard University, you go to the Harvard Law School etc. - just a oft used, but literally incorrect american synonym for university)


What is the current status of the LSE as an institution? I have just resolved a debate (with an anonymous editor) over whether the college now has its own degree-awarding powers (which it recently acquired). Although it doesn't exercise them, and the status of the college is ambiguous, the anon is relectant for this link ([4]) (which he himself suggested) to be included. If a better one can be found specifically pertaining to the LSE then so much the better, but does anyone object to including a link describing the LSE's new degree-awarding powers? I feel it's quite an important point that is not yet explicitly made clear (although the final paras do mention it). Badgerpatrol 13:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on....does it have to be a certain source to be acceptable? Which pray? Is KCL not trustworthy?
Also regarding your edit notes about no "college" such as Imperial being a separate university because they have yet to split from the University of London or use their new powers, I refer you to the following Oxford English Dictionary definition of a University:
noun universities
1. A higher education institution with the authority to award degrees at bachelor, master and doctoral level (traditionally in academic, non-vocational subjects but now also in technical and vocational areas) and usually having research facilities.
Note that only the authority is a requirement, nor does non-use preclude university status. The right to grant degrees authorised by the Privy council has always been the recognised point at which an institution becomes a de jure university.
By the reference (which is more than adequate from what I can see) KCL, Imperial, UCL and the LSE may now be comfortably referred to as Universities.
Here's another reference I've dug up - I hope it lives up to expectation, m'lord. [5] ....its a long list of issues on the LSE Academic Registrar Division 2006-7 list. Point 4 says: "We are also closely involved in the discussions about whether the School should exercise its degree-awarding powers and, if so, on what terms."
And another [6] and I quote: "During the year we benefited from a more than usually substantial dose of attention from the Quality Assurance Authority. This was, in part, because we applied for Degree Awarding Powers. Hitherto the LSE has awarded University of London degrees. Given the uncertain prospects for the federal university it seemed prudent to us – and indeed to other colleges of the University of London - to apply for these powers.
Helpfully, the QAA team combined their assessment with their regular institutional audit. The outcome was satisfactory to the School. We were advised that we meet the requirements to award degrees, though the audit team made some useful suggestions for improvements in our processes, which we shall take forward. We are now considering the case for seeking to exercise these powers in due course, and to award LSE degrees for the first time."
I'd have to dig out the references but from recollection in the UK there are actual restrictions on whether or not a higher education institution is allowed to call itself a "university" and it's about more than just whether or not the institution has degree awarding powers or if it uses them. I'm not sure the OED definition is legally binding. Timrollpickering 19:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd tend to agree. I'm personally reasonably happy to accept the LSE (and the other major colleges) as independent unis given that they all now have the power to award degrees, but there is the separate legal definition. Similarly, is it possible to BE a university whilst being a constituent part of another university? I guess there must be precedent for this in the US and elsewhere if not in the UK? One example is Cardiff- which I believe only termed itself a university (as opposed to a university college) after it left the UoW federation. Badgerpatrol 00:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I think a more appropriate question is: "Should an encyclopedia use literal definitions or legal ones for its use of words?". I think the fact that regional variations in the meanings of words on wiki, for example the alternative use of "college" or "university" for the same thing based on location suggests that wikipedia is primarly concerned with the literal value of words - thus the dictionary definition should dominate a legal one. Any thoughts?
A key point here is that the LSE, like the other London Colleges, is currently a subsidiary part of another university, and currently does not grant its own degrees. Can an institution be termed a "university" (in either the plain and simple sense or according to any strict legal definition) when it does not describe itself as such and in fact belongs to another institution? I'm not sure. Given that even the ability to award its own degrees has been granted very recently (I presume in the past few months?) then that at least should be noted, as a tangential (and highly important) occurrence. Badgerpatrol 17:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the point above; it is school in a university. It's misleading to suggest that it's a university by itself, especially since it does not award its own degrees. Furthermore, the LSE itself is careful to call itself a School, and not a university. So, it seems better to say that it is a school of the University, which may become a separate university. --Duncan 09:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are some Admission Stats

All Undergraduate 7.39% 1199/15215

BSc Social Policy & Economics 1.72% BSc Social Policy & Criminology 3.35% BSc Human Resource Management 3.81% BA Geography 4.57% BSc Management 4.82% BSc Government & History 5.49% BSc Government & Economics 5.64% BA History 5.85% BSc Social Policy 5.88% BSc Accounting & Finance 6.11% BSc Social Policy and Sociology 6.15% BSc International Relations 6.21% BSc Government 6.50% BSc International Relations and History 6.51% BSc Econometrics & Mathematical Economics 6.97% BSc Economics with Economics History 7.23% LLB Bachelor of Laws 7.39% BSc Environmental Policy with Economics 7.59% BSc Economics 7.89% BSc Social Anthropology 8.75% BSc Business Mathematics and Statistics 8.85% BSc Management Sciences 9.47% BSc Philosophy and Economics 9.57% BSc Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method 9.65% BA Anthropology and Law 10.06% BA Social Anthropology 10.40% BSc Social Policy with Government 10.42% BSc Sociology 11.15% BSc Actuarial Science 13.15% BSc Environmental Policy 14.45% BSc Economic History 20.95% BSc Geography with Economics 21.36%

All Taught Graduate Programs** 12.94% 2629/20311

MSc Global Market Economics 0.42% MSc Public Financial Policy 1.52% MSc Economics and Economic History 2.82% MSc Econometrics and Mathematical Economics 4.69% MSc Management and Regulation of Risk 4.75% MSc Human Resource Management 4.80% MSc International Relations 5.00% MSc Finance and Economics 5.70% MSc Risk and Stochastics 6.33% Diploma in Sociology 7.14% MPA* 7.19% MSc Real Estate Economics and Finance 7.48% MSc Law and Accounting 8.47% MSc Economics and Philosophy 9.23% MSc Development Studies 8.81% MSc Economics 8.93% MSc Human Rights 10.75% MSc Criminology 10.81% MSc Media and Communications 10.88% MSc Management 11.15% MSc NGOs and Development 11.33% MSc Theory and History of International Relations 11.33% MSc Decision Sciences 12.96% MSc Social Policy and Development 13.14% LLM Master of Laws 13.15% MSc Development Management 13.15% MSc Social Policy and Planning 13.20% MSc Cities, Space and Society 13.70% MSc Political Sociology 13.83% MSc Environment and Development 13.98% MSc Public Policy and Administration 14.00% MSc Population and Development 14.17% MSc Law, Anthropology and Society 14.29% MSc International Employment Relations and HR 14.32% MSc Gender and the Media 14.86% MSc International Political Economy 15.00% MSc Global Politics 15.34% MSc New Media, Information and Society 15.91% MSc Global History 15.94% MSc European Social Policy 16.10% MSc Operational Research 16.36% MSc Statistics 16.78% MSc Sociology 16.81% MSc Environmental Policy and Regulation 17.01% MSc Philosophy and History of Science 17.02% MSc Regulation 17.28% MSc Social and Cultural Psychology 17.39% MSc Anthropology and Development 17.58% MSc Accounting & Finance 17.67% MSc Culture and Society 17.76% MSc International Health Policy 17.86% MSc Global Media and Communications 18.24% Diploma in Accounting & Finance 19.30% MSc Organisational and Social Psychology 19.43% MSc Political Theory 19.53% MSc Applicable Mathematics 19.77% MSc Social Research Methods 20.00% MSc Social Anthropology 20.62% MSc Gender and Social Policy 20.69% MSc Health, Population and Society 20.90% MSc Anthropology of Learning and Cognition 21.74% MSc Politics and Government in the European Union 21.74% MSc City Design and Social Science 22.34% MSc Criminal Justice Policy 22.39% MSc Gender, Development and Globalisation 22.70% MSc Gender 22.81% MSc Economic History 23.08% MSc Comparative Politics 23.66% MSc Social and Public Communication 23.68% MSc Biomedicine, Bioscience and Society 23.81% MSc Local Economic Development 24.82% MSc Regional and Urban Planning Studies 25.61% MSc Philosophy and Public Policy 27.40% MA/MSc History of International Relations 28.46% MSc Urbanisation and Development 30.43% MSc Philosophy of the Social Sciences 30.51% MSc Analysis, Design and Management of Information Systems 31.56% MSc Human Geography 50.00%

  • Includes both MPA Public Policy& Management and MPA Public & Economic Policy
    • This excludes program in which students are not solely admitted by the LSE. They are: the MSc/MBA Double Degree (students are admitted by both LSE and HEC), the Joint Environment Masters Plan (students are admitted by Columbia University), and MSc Health Policy, Planning and Financing (students are admitted by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine)

Public vs Private

The LSE is a private institution. Indeed, since the privatisation of the polytechnics in 1992, all higher education institutions in the United Kingdom are private entities. Most are incorporated by a royal charter. The LSE is incorporated under the UK Companies Act. Public bodies in the UK can only be established by a parliamentary act and cannot be established by Royal Charter only nor under the UK Companies Act.

The question of public vs private is indeed an ownership not a funding issue. Harvard University, a U.S. private institution, receives more public funds than some U.S. public institutions. The University of California is a public university system (with multiple campus) and its assets are owned by the State of California through its appointed Board of Regents (trustees of the state). The Swiss Federal Institute of Technologies - one in Zurich, the other in Lausanne - are both public institutions, its assets owned by the Swiss Federal Government.

Marcel Bigger Vice Chairman of the Executive Committee LSE Alumni Association

University ratings

(I'm posting this to all articles on UK universities as so far discussion hasn't really taken off on Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities.)

There needs to be a broader convention about which university rankings to include in articles. Currently it seems most pages are listing primarily those that show the institution at its best (or worst in a few cases). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#University ratings. Timrollpickering 00:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits to the Issue of Awarding Degrees

Sorry I can't source it properly (I can't find a link on the internet) but both my edits (addition to Howard Davies term and awarding degrees) are faithful paraphrasing of the Director's e-mail to alumni of the college. There is nothing in the e-mail to suggest it is not public knowledge so I suppose it has been announced somewhere and somehow - I just can't find an online source. I will be looking through LSE announcements/minutes etc. to find one.

- I found this: which validates the basic policy will be carried out, but doesn't state the date: (under the University of London section) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 08:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)