Hi - any thoughts on how Oxford compares with the London School of Economics when it comes to MC recruiting?Thanks.

Better?

nothing beats the london advantage. Oxford is a better uni brand, but LSE will take you places.

Would agree, LSE gets my vote.

Rubbish. I've been to a number of final round interviews over the last two weeks and the majority of candidates have been Oxford or Cambridge students. Both Oxford and LSE offer great prospects but Oxford is better.

Settle the argument once and for all, get them on the table and lets see who's biggest.

10 inches. It's like a baguette.

Calm down boys!!!Who are you all kidding? If you are from Oxbridge than you will know- otherwise its plain and simple EVERYBODY ( elite MCs and IBs) is looking out for Oxbridge candidates ( esp.for the London office) even if they had their degrees in Basket weaving.Come to think Mercer had their numeracy test in their London office ONLY for Oxbridge candidates.Unfair but true!I was at Oxford and I know it!

Is there a possibility that's LSE grads get headhunted before they leave uni and so don't need to sit through the standard recuruitment rounds? Not that I know much on either uni's, just speculating. However if I had to place a bet I too would think Oxbridge.

Hi - a related question. I did an MPhil at Cambridge and got interviews at 2 of the top 4 strat houses. Unfortunately, I got rejected from both. I want to try my hand again at grad recruiting but I really don't want to stay on at Cambridge. Given I already have the Cambridge stamp, does it matter if my next degree is from a London-based school like LSE or UCL? I am not too keen on the schools but would love to live in London.Would really appreciate advice. Thanks a lot.

Why do people still think that which university you choose makes such a difference?! Come on, cards on the table. If you have a 2.1 and the A-levels you'll have your application looked at. A good university helps, no doubt. Guaranteed through to the first interview stage, probably. Maybe 20% of the assessment may be quality of your course. But what's the rest? It's what work experience you have, what extra-curricuals. And where are you going to get the best 'extras'? At a university where you're most comfortable and get on best with the people! So don't think what uni will be best for a career in one narrow field, you may change your mind in 3 years time... you may not even make it through if you aren't happy there.

I disagree with part of this. To illustrate the point, a 2:2 in physics from Oxford or a 3rd in Economics from LSE is a darn sight more difficult to get than a 2:1 in some soft-skills subject from the 'university' of Westminster. I'd even go so far as to say that someone with a 3rd in ecomonics from LSE probably has significantly more intellectual horsepower than someone with a 1st in the same subject from City University, as another example. Anyone who rates the latter as being indicative of a smarter individual simply because it's a higher grade quite frankly needs their head examined.Though I definitely agree that people should go somewhere they will be happy, this is after all the raison d'etre of life.

Your general point holds but that is going a BIT far. A third is uncommon and usually evidence of total lack of effort coupled with a degree of difficulty with the subject matter. You could be either a plodder and work hard or sharp and slack a bit, and do better. Hardly a glowing recommendation.City is really not so poor a university that a 1st from there in a subject that would also be offered at LSE would rank alongside the above. London Met, perhaps.Conversely, us First-toting civic / Scots university types have all met Cambridge types with lower class degrees that do not impress and against whom a comparison would be quite misleading.

anon, I think you should have your head examined if you think someone with a 3rd from LSE mostly likely has more intellectual horsepower than someone with a 1st from City Uni.And No, before you say it, I did not go to City.A vast majority of individuals that go to the top unis are privileged kids with education only money can buy and strong homial support.A lot of kids in poor neighbourhoods would do better if they also attend this sought of schools were their teachers are probably the examiners that write the national exams itself and if their parents are quality mentors. Rich kids have mentors/parents that are CEOs.A kid from City uni is likely to have got his first whilst holding down one or two sh**t jobs and still achieved his first. Whilst an LSE kid might use the uni breaks to go on a 2 week holiday with his model-wannabe, nymphet, naive girlfriend in an exotic place only to come back and start some work experience in his dad's friends PE firm.Cut your crap!

here's my 2 penny worth:Undoubtedly, some departments are better than others. The key differentiator from my time at Oxford and earlier, at Westminster, is the brand. My department at Oxford did not have a very high research ranking and the teaching left much to be desired. But, the Oxford brand meant that I had access to the same opportunities and a world class graduate recruiting milk round. At Westminster, by contrast, the department was fabulous but the milkround was unmemorable. Maybe, Westminster made me cleverer but Oxford provided an opportunity to apply that cleverness by opening up career choices. Secondly, Oxford has the advantage of vintage. It has an excellent alumni network, many of whom are leaders in their field. Very few universities in the world can match the strength of the Oxford network and newer universities may have better labs, but their network will be a while in catching up. So, Oxford gives you that - brand and network. At the end of the day very few careers demand that you use what you learnt in uni (except e.g. medicine). It is rare to come across a Manager who can truthfully say I apply everything I learnt in Microeconomics 101 to my job. So, I would choose the brand and network over a department's research ranking any day.

Are you guys talking about graduates from the MBA program?

No. City is quite good for MBAs. Not much in it between its business school and Imperial's, which couldn't be said for undergraduate degrees.You can't really use age as an excuse for some universities poor reputation though as many of the country's best (York, Warwick, Bath) are all relatively new.