For the uninitiated, I'll contextualize just a little bit: the London School of Economics (LSE) carries the status of an elite among social science institutions. I won't wax lyrical about its reputation because odds are, you've heard about it (my assuredness should clue you in). I'm more interested in telling you a little bit more about the institution that underlies the brand name and the global repute, facts that might be important in your evaluation of the school but which might slip by you if you're preoccupied with rankings and course choices and other 'typical' factors that you'll definitely have to consider before you apply.
The first of these things is that LSE is an incredibly hard institution to be accepted to. So far, NUS High has one alumna there and to the best of my knowledge, no one else (myself included) has been accepted. This is not to say that NUS High has no rapport with LSE (perhaps we do and perhaps we don't, for reasons to be evaluated in a bit) but that LSE is simply an incredibly selective school. In fact, for those of you interested in superlatives, LSE is the most selective undergraduate institution in the world (among those following a comprehensive selection process, thus excluding the uber-selective exam-based admission systems present in several Asian countries). Some of its courses, including one that I applied for have admissions rates in the range of 2-3%. This might not be new to those of you who've gotten used to the idea that reputated institutions are also highly-sought after but for those of you who're evaluating your chances, you should know that the likelihood of rejection is far greater than the possibility of acceptance.
Second, LSE is the most internationalized school in the world, with the student body split roughly in half between internationals and domestics. This is open to two interpretations. On a positive note, this means that you, as an international, will not stand the risk of being a marginalized minority or of being treated as an exotic species (not always a bad thing). This also means exposure to the people (and by extension, to sing a hackneyed tune, the culture, politics, blah blah) of every part of the world. However, not everyone flies halfway across the world and spends a small fortune looking for the same experience. Having an international community is important, but having too large an international community compromises the opportunity to experience assimilate another culture for several years. It's very plausible that at a school with as many internationals as LSE, you'll forget that you're at a British institution and consider yourself part of an international convention that just happened to convene in London for the sake of convenience, which might not exactly be your cup of tea. One of things that makes overseas study (and again, as an LSE reject, I'm speaking broadly) exciting for me is the opportunity to meet people to whom I'm an exotic species and where I'll actually be able to patiently explain that Singapore's not a part of China. Once again, it's a matter of personal preference, but the extent of internationalization will almost certainly affect your LSE experience, so it's a good idea to be aware of it before you think about applying.
The third thing you should know about LSE is a broader UK-wide thing which might be reason enough to turn down the UK altogether, but if like me, you're an aspiring social sciences student who just can't pass over trying for LSE, it's a structural issue to be considered. The reason why I never thought too deeply about the UK (in fact, I applied only to two schools there - LSE and UCL) was its structural rigidness. There's none of that mix-and-match academic freedom that characterizes college in the US which, if you know me, is a recipe for disaster especially since my serious academic interests include at least four or five subjects. Before you judge me, I must clarify that this doesn't make me whimsical or undecided (I am both of those things, but no logical link exists here); it only shows that I see the social sciences as an interconnected whole. My strongest interests are in economics and political science, but give it some thought and you'll see how my interests in history, international studies, sociology, philosophy and mathematics play strong supporting roles. But I digress. The point is this: the UK system, depending on your views of things, might be guilty of oversimplifying some these subjects, drawing boundaries where none should exist, and in a student who doesn't supplement his formal schoolwork with a broad-based worldview, this can result in a dangerous outcome. LSE, despite its preeminence, is a victim of the same problem. Attempts at merging subjects either in equal or in major/minor configurations are obviously signs that LSE is trying to rectify the problem, but the underlying rigidness of the UK system might prove unsuitable for the intellectually diverse student.
A fourth consideration should be about your plans after undergraduate school. To say 'consideration' would be a little bit of a mistake because of the versatility of LSE's graduates, which would make this more of a 'reason for relief'. For this reason, this important factor in institutional comparisons comes nearer the end of this post. LSE manages to strike that elusive balance between schools with careeristic (or pre-professional) focuses and institutions that are decidedly academic in character. To say it another way: LSE is one of the few schools that'll train you both to be an investment banker on the fast lane at a bulge bracket (LSE graduates are incredibly popular in London's financial district) or to be a scholar at the cutting-edge of economic policy (if the 'dismal science' really does have a 'cutting-edge' to speak of). It's easy to overlook how rare a characteristic such versatility is, especially in an age where schools are becoming known for producing certain sorts of students who will be channeled in truckloads into certain industries (Wharton grads into Wall Street, Caltech grads to Silicon Valley, Harvard grads into world-domination, and so on). Curiously enough, the flexibility that LSE (like any other UK school) lacks is made up for in kind when the time comes for its graduates to decide upon their career objectives.
Finally, I come to the bit that's relevant only to students at NUS High (here in Asia, we take care of our guests first). The brevity of this part will make my title misleading but this is important: in case you didn't already know, LSE does not accept the NUS High School Diploma at this point. My own interest in this began when I asked LSE's Dean of Undergraduates (when she visited) about how an NUS High kid would be selected for admission. She said, in no uncertain terms (in fact, I made her repeat it thrice) that the NUSHS Diploma would not be part of the admissions process. It would be a lie to say I was stunned - surprise surprise, a school of economics and political science chooses not to embrace a qualification focused on mathematics and science - but I was understandably elated (this would make a lot of sense if you knew what my earlier grade reports at NUSHS looked like). But the important fact is this: LSE considers NUS High students solely on the basis of APs. In LSE's own words:
Peter's wishes evidently didn't help, but I must confess that I'm feeling a little self-satisfied when I think about everyone who was skeptical when I told them what the Dean had said. But before my smugness prevents me from finishing this post, the important takeaway is that LSE considers you on the strength of your APs.
Dear Srinath,
Thank you for your email. You are correct that LSE does not currently accept the NUS High School Diploma. If you are taking AP examinations we would base any offer of admission on your performance in these qualifications. Our standard offer is four or preferably five AP subjects with grades of four or five in each subject. We do not use SAT scores in our admissions process.
Best wishes
Peter
Peter Williams
Student Recruitment Officer
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE
Another important thing you should think about is your choice of which APs to take, bringing new relevance to Yingzhen's recent thoughts about this matter (which I may not fully agree with). The subjects LSE classifies as relevant are:
- Biology
- Calculus AB
- Calculus BC
- Chemistry
- English Language and Composition
- English Literature and Composition
- European History
- French Language
- French Literature
- German Language
- Italian Language and Culture
- Latin Literature
- Latin: Vergil
- Physics (B and C)
- Spanish Language
- Spanish Literature
- United States History
- World History
These subjects were until recently (actually, as recently as when I was applying) known as Group 1 subjects and APs not on this list were Group 2, which didn't count among the standard offer based on 4-5 APs. Perhaps the one AP that you'd find 'missing' from this list is AP Statistics, which might be something to bear in mind. From my conversation with the Dean, I can also share that AP Calculus BC is given some importance, so if you have the option to take it, don't turn it down.
In summary, if you're considering applying to LSE you should know that: (1) it's really hard to get in (2) it's an extremely internationalized institution (3) its adoption of the UK system might stifle your intellectual breadth (4) your post-college plans couldn't be better, at least within the UK (5) if you're from NUSHS, they're looking at your APs, not your school grades. I hope some of this has been new and useful to you LSE-prospectives and wish you (for what it's worth) the best of luck.
No comments:
Post a Comment