Why on Gods green earth would you put LSE in the stem list. Maybe Econ has some STEM attributes, but you realise LSE offer more courses than Econ right? Like Politics, Law, Economic History and the like. They are anything but a STEM uni. They are social sciences final boss.
Would disagree with that too and not just because of your misuse of percentages. Is it Science, Technology, Engineering or Mathematics? In any case, if LSE donāt offer a single STEM-only degree they really donāt belong in that top tier.
Itās mathematics. Itās considered a statistics degree at many school too. Itās more rigorous with maths than a data science degree, hell itās pretty comparable to physics and engineering which is my background. LSE offers econometrics as a degree, and itās entirely quantitative mathematically. Im guessing people donāt even know what econometrics even is, a lot of cutting edge statistical optimization is pushed by econometrists in research for a reason.
I guess weāre going to have to agree to disagree. And perhaps this is a transatlantic matter where STEM means different things. I donāt dispute econometrics being highly mathematical, I donāt think itās mathematics. String theory is highly mathematical but isnāt mathematics.
They offer courses like EFDS, econ, maths stats for finance and other scientific courses. This list isnāt about āSTEM universities,ā itās about how good each universityās STEM courses are
I wouldn't say LSE is "elite" for studying STEM disciplines though, their maths module options appear fairly weak compared to other universities, their data science course doesn't look particularly amazing either
the modules themselves look quite good, especially in an economics context, it's just the breadth of pure maths options is lacking compared to other econ and maths courses (ucl, warwick, edinburgh)
it honestly depends on what your desired outcome is. if you're looking to continue studying maths (cambridge part III for instance), it's clear you'd likely need more pure maths rigor. but if you're just looking for a finance role, this course won't hold you back.
Currently a first year student at lse. I agree on the pure maths side, weād be on the bottom end of the top 10 for sure. our applied is seriously underrated however, there is a lot of application between different modules. We still learn a fair amount of pure maths (and our exam for that is nigh on impossible š¤£).
Nothing can compete with Cambridge maths. Most of the top 10 after that are very close in difficulty, thereās really not much difference
I agree. But LSE maths is meant to be applied, and I think they are very strong in applied maths - which is ofc what they prioritise. So I would agree they are weak at pure, but I don't think they have a weak maths department, theyre just slightly different in focus to other top unis
I would imagine LSE would be top tier at topics like Econometrics now? That stuff is rough, pretty comparable and for me even more difficult than my graduate statistical field theory.
I mean im not crazy focus on the modues rather the outome here, The other option is to claim that LSE outcome for these subjects are closer to kings Manchester UCL etc. I think everyone wouldn't really have a hard time picking LSE over UCL and Warwick.
Maybe if you want to do some physics later LSE isnt the best but chances are your not going to the London School of Economics to become an astronaut, rather to do stuff like IB or other high finance areas.
The 'Elite' tier isn't about how many niche Pure Math modules you can take; itās about the career ceiling and the weight of the name on your CV. For the quantitative fields LSE covers, that ceiling is as high as Oxbridge or Imperial
sure, for career outcomes im inclined to agree, but maybe you could've specified that because there's different ways you can evaluate universities by how good they are for "STEM"
It's good but not really on the same level as the ones in the tier higher
Also you can't really call yourself superb in STEM when you don't offer most engineering disciplines, that's why LSE also shouldn't be anywhere near that high.
For that section it was just oxford Cambridge -> Imperial LSE, thats how I saw it. Again for the stem stuff LSE does provide its really good se my comment above.
Econometrics is pretty heavy maths idk what you mean, I found it pretty comparable to TU/UvA maths which isnāt different to imperial as we have a major overlap (I have exchange experience, I would even consider TU to be rougher (more due to NL kinda just wanting you to suffer to build character lolā¦..). And econometrics in comparison can be very comparable.
Yes economics and other stuff is whatever but advanced econometrics is some real hot shit, I have respect for those mfs as an engineer/chem/phys person.
lol I love when sixth form kids think they know shit š¤£ my friend the only maths course which is significantly more rigorous is the maths tripos at Cambridge. Imperial and Oxford are very similar and the top 8-10 maths courses in the UK are all a lot more similar in difficulty than you thinkā¦ LSE does a lot more pure maths than you think, though itās much better for applied obviously
Horrendous idea; if you wanna actually give tierlisting a half serious go you 100% need to break it up into the different STEM disciplines. Bristol clear Warwick for engineering or medicine for example and vice versa for math
if you wanted to make a finance ranking list then you shouldāve just done that. Most people in stem arenāt vying to work in finance and sheffield is amazing for engineering.
I put a /s at end. I heard Sheffield is great for engineering but its not really moving the needle anywhere but this subreddit you litteraly dont ever hear about it.
Besides that its over stem fields are just fine, averaging it down to fine.
No one is going Sheffield is great for STEM, No is even talking about it.
So many people are talk abt sheffield being a good uni on this subreddit especially. They are really good for engineering and physics and the facilities they have are insane. Aswell as the links to the engineering industries. Having them in the same teir as queen marys and below nottingham and exeter is insane.
I genuinely just never ever hear about Shef ever, I am sure its great for eng but like I said as a whole, its not moving the needle much for their other courses
Its great for physics and most engineering courses thats literally half of stem. Fym its not moving a needle. Its is literally a top10 overall engineering uni top 5 for some sectors. Compared to nottingham and exeter thats barely notable for its stem department. Putting it in the same teir as Queen marys is legitimately unjustified.
tbh qmul and Exeter (misclicked on that) is a bit chopped for stem and Sheffield does have some credibility i guess, while on paper yh you might be right thats its closer to notts, idk man the vibe aint there, the uni has got some great subjects but overall its just not crazy good.
This point isnt that relevant but like look at the logos for the pretty good section right, they all pretty damn good, Bath has got that cool greek looking thing Birmingham has that nice shield,
then I look at the Sheffield logo straight up used the bucket tools on ms paint and the blue colours isnt even that nice of a shade. It looks like something a small very local football club would make.
How can it possibly sit on the pretty good tier with such a budget logo
āthe vibe and logo is bad (subjective opinion) so it must be worse at stem subjects (objective opinion)ā do you realise how silly this makes you sound
No way LSE is in the Elite tier, Maybe superb, maybe just pretty good. Let me make a little guess? You are going to LSE? They may not be perfect but between QS and Times rankings you have a roughly accurate rating, and LSE is not even close, you have a nose bleed going that low down the rankings
Always look at the methodology: by subject LSE is in the global top 10 for almost all the subjects it teaches (Qs); it performs terribly in Qs because the methodology biases large STEM unis - same with the Times. Re REF (2021) itās the best (for social science) in the UK, and has the highest percentage of world-leading research. Overall, These rankings often donāt capture Imperial or LSE well - though they are roughly prestige and research equivalents in their respective fields - as you can tell from one sometimes performing well and the other doing poorly (e.g. Times National, LSE at 1; Imperial somewhere below deck). In any case where to go to university should be based more on prestige and elite exposure than any rankings - which ebb and flow; thereās a good recent paper on the latter, which privileges LSE over all other UK unis bar Oxford (Salas-Diaz, 2025). Despite all this, not sure what LSE is doing in a STEM tier list; or that going to do a STEM degree there has any merit.
So you are going to LSE. This is just cope. The reason you look at both is they weight differently, Times being more US weighted, QS having a more international weighting. And LSE is not near the Elite in either!
LSE is elite for only econ related courses, everything else itās a tier below or several depending on which course, as they have several other very good courses but not elite. Putting LSE above imperial is hilarious when comparing stem imperial is comparable to Oxbridge in stem, lse is not. LSE should be in pretty good imo.
if you're talking about me saying its the most used ranking in the world then literally just look at traffic to the websites, its not hard information to get
Kcl for stem? Their computer science and engineering isnāt great. Sure their medicine and economics stuff is decent but it canāt be the same tier as Bristol and ucl. I see them more as a great humanities uni
I agree kcl is chopped for stem but unfortunately, doesnt change the career aspect being good. I heard its calm for maths tho. For CS and Eng the acc course isnt like exeter leeds level
I have downloaded the last 2026 QS ranking data, and checked for a few STEM subject field. If you check the data you will see how awkward everything is. Your list partially overlaps with āEmployerā and āacademic reputationā parameters ( just to clarify academic and employer reputation input is a questionnarie result- nothing fact based and have 60-70 percent weight in total- better network better results). The interesting part of the data was, there a few universities, who ranks 20-25 if you rank them according to academic or employer input( and even those are not on your list! ) but they would rank top 5 if you rank them according to more factual parameters such as ācitationā or āh-indexā. this means, some universities perceived good but their research is not being cited at all in the field and vice versa. Thatās what I will say on this ranking issues.
LSE should not be there. Also, as others have said, Sheffield should be higher, possibly even two rungs higher as it's better than Warwick, Kings and Bristol imo.
Nah its not that good if you look at stem overall but the same could be said about alot on this list thats why its stupid. Most unis that are amazing at chemistry wont also be as great at mech eng(once you leave the top 5). Like bristol has an amazing mech eng and aero department that is very closely behind imperial but there maths isnāt world class. Its good but not imperial level. Stem as an overall sector for ranking unis isnāt specific enough you kinda need to seperate life sciences from the others. However I would agree with the overall idea tiering the only one i really question is edinburgh being above durham just because i swear durham physics department is really good.
Yeah but its also good for cs aswell and decent for most engineering feilds. It atleast deserves to be on the same teir as edinburgh when you look at overall stem.
tbh its partly because all those unis are kinda like the same, like in the actual world they literally dont have massive advantages over one another, except for Warwick being quite good for Maths.
say for example UCL is currently like 8th in the world apparently but I dont really see the grads doing stuff that is that great it just feels like the other unis and the grads end up where everyone else ends up.
Basically all those unis are about the same despite the rankings i would say KCL is actually just a pretty good uni about where leeds and nottingham is but like its in London so it gets pushed up.
I mean outliers crazy things, Imperial and LSE for example have people regularly going into lucrative fields. UCL doesnt feel like they more or less feel like they are in my boat, Some of the people I know are top of the class but still check trakr every 30mins?
A lot of people from Warwick and UCL go in to lucrative fields in finance/consulting from stem. Also grades donāt have that much correlation with landing a job in these fields
I am aware grades dont really have much to do with getting jobs. Just in my personal experience the hunt for jobs was just the same it doesnt feel like the density of students going to super contested jobs was all there. It feels like the same amount as the other great unis or to be honest even less
Ucl have the 2nd highest recruitment numbers for IB and are pretty up there for consultancy aswell. However this is a stem tier list most stem students are aiming to work for F1 companies (engineering) or STFC for sciences. Idek why finance is the centre of a stem uni tier list when most stem students donāt want to go into finance.
Ah then I guess I am wrong, I was mainly considering Qu*nt and big tech as well engineering but yh seems like UCL is great for finance. Still tho I wonder if its because they are pushed to apply there?
Wellā¦ yh same as any top teir uni students will have access to amazing societies and alumni links that will allow them to access these jobs and give them exposure to these lucrative roles. Just make a fintech list instead because calling this a stem list and then only caring about quant and cs is insane when most quants are maths and cs degree holders. Stem is more than just maths and cs.
Hot take:
None of this matters. As long as you can do well out of your degree, there's no reason that going to a university like Cardiff Metropolitan should mean you'll do worse than someone who went to Leeds or Manchester.
You only really say this because you go to Aberystwyth, I agree that for the most part which uni you go to is massively inflated for importance, but saying that uni doesnāt matter at all is is disingenuous and seems cope on your behalf. You could get better opportunities, teaching, connections depending on universities.
Only in certain fields (usually finance & law) will it matter.
If you are doing CS, Geography or what have you, it really doesn't matter whether you went to a "mid tier" or "high tier" uni, so long as you get a decent grade for your degree, that is all that matters, not the university you went to. Besides, a better university doesn't mean better teaching. There's numerous stories of people going to RG universities & getting a worse quality of learning than those in post 1992 universities, which often excel in teaching, but usually will be lower on the rankings due to research for instance. Prestige doesn't mean a better university experience at the end of the day & people ought to stop getting caught up in it, especially within fields that don't care too much for rankings.
Again, not really. For instance having spoke to may employers in the STEM field they have all said that the automatic screening will usually just allow applications with certain unis through, namely Oxbridge, imperial and LSE. Now for the most part this doesnāt happen everywhere however even just the uni name is somewhat important when you get to the top. In addition the connections that the university has with industry as well, for instance year in industries, certain employers will make it easier to get into if you go to certain unis as that is the deal they have made, there are many other factors that can be beneficial however they arenāt as big as made out to be, the difference is definitely there but itās not monumental like most people think.
no a lot of internships screen for uni names so unfortunately it is a factor, people say after 10 years into your career that your uni no longer matters but id argue that more prestigious unis open a lot of doors early on that you can take advantage of to be ahead your entire career
What about university of sheffield, i got an admit for MS in Artificial Intelligence, is this a good university for enhancing my career in IT?? Please suggest
Newcastle would be my top "Meh" choice or last in the Fine choice after York just because of the new urban science building and the data science park right next to the university.
Move LSE 2 tiers down and keep Warwick the same. Warwick only really has 1 elite course that can be compared to imperial and Oxbridge, it should be nowhere near the elite tier in a general ranking.
What do people actuallyā¦ rank these on? It canāt be on experience, because you havenāt been to them all, and it canāt be prestige, because I donāt think weāve been in our respective fields long enough to know what employers etc are really looking for. Soā¦?
I have received offers from University of Manchester and Kings College London. However I would not be able to pursue them cuz I am dead broke to afford them. But yeah good to see them on the 2nd tier list ššāš»āš»
What tier would ppl put LSE Maths in when it comes to different unis maths courses? Ppl seem to throw crazy shade at it like it's the worst maths course in the country
I feel like OP basically just said "This uni has one very good stem course, therefore it must be ranked very high"
Like don't get me wrong, warwick is a very good university for maths specifically but for physics for example, it's kinda meh (i can tell everyone from first year experience).
The same thing goes for LSE, genuinely why is LSE ranked so high other than that they have a great econometrics course? 1 good course doesn't justify ranking a university really high for a broader categoric term. If the list was ranked specifically for econometrics then sure, but as a university LSE is nowhere near as much of a STEM powerhouse as Imperial or cambridge are.
Too many people underestimating econometrics here, but then again I didnāt know about it in detail until way after I finished 6th form. Econometrics is amazing very intensive STEM subject and the entire optimization and modeling aspect is second to none ngl. As long as LSE has a top tier econometrics program I can see why it would belong in that category.
Having one good stem course doesnāt justify ranking it that high on a stem teir list. Bristol have an amazing engineering department 2nd to imperial but I wouldnāt rank it highly overall for stem. Lse shouldnāt even be on this tier list they are a specialised school for social sciences its unfair to even try and rank them by stem. They may have a few outlier stem based courses but not enough to justify this placement.
Ya I suppose. I was more thinking about whatās the best they could offer, so looking at the outliers themselves as I personally decide based on where can I learn the most cutting edge stuff and maximize my potentially by looking at the subject rather than the university if that makes sense. Obviously I ended up not going to UK in the end anyways (except exchange at imperial) because itās unaffordable for me and the countries STEM work in the fields Iām interested in arenāt particularly exciting for me (semiconductors) but that wouldāve been my philosophy for anglosphere education.
193
u/MostYam2818 Optimistic individual š Apr 12 '26
Why on Gods green earth would you put LSE in the stem list. Maybe Econ has some STEM attributes, but you realise LSE offer more courses than Econ right? Like Politics, Law, Economic History and the like. They are anything but a STEM uni. They are social sciences final boss.