Talk:London School of Economics/Archive 2

logo vs coat of arms

Seeing that now the red LSE logo has been replaced with the beaver coat of arms, I think it is reasonable to put the logo the LSE is usually associated with somewhere else on the page. Additionally, the second box with the coat of arms should be deleted. (I think the red LSE logo would not quite fit in at this position, so I did not replace it).

Furthermore, the current coat of arms logo should be replaced with one in a better resolution (without the large white borders). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.92.57.11 (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

On 23 April 2007, I have reinstated the conventional red LSE logo in the box. This has been done for two reasons: a. It is the more traditional face of LSE and is used in all public correspondence, although the beaver is the more formal b. While it is possible to show the beaver as a separate image (as is the case), this cannot be done with the red logo

Akhilc 22:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Akhilc

Is there any reason against uploading and using an LSE logo graphic with a more appropriate resolution? I think the one currently on display does not look very good. There once was a better image on the page, but this was some time ago. I have linked to this one.

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: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/meetthedirector/DirectorsReport2005-06.htm (under the University of London section) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.12.130.253 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

at the Graduate Induction Howard Davies said that we (referring to the entering graduate students) would all be awarded LSE degrees. I don't know about the situation with regards to the undergraduates, but I would assume that the class entering in 2007 would also be awarded LSE degrees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.177.115 (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of some sections

Various sections are written with the purpose of showing off the subject, rather than presenting a factual account (see Wikipedia:Avoid_peacock_terms). For example:

The LSE is exclusively dedicated to the study of social sciences and offers no natural science programmes. Numerous traits of the LSE, such as its world class academic research, specialisation in the social sciences, highly qualified and international students, and central location in London, make it an attractive environment in which to study the social sciences.

I dont think 'world class', 'highly qualified', 'attractive environment' are appropriate for a neutral tone article. The list of peacock terms goes on:

LSE is regarded as Europe's premier institution to study economics, international relations, information systems, operational research, political science, sociology, social anthropology and social policy. The school also has world class departments in accounting and finance, economic history, human geography, international history, law, Industrial relations and social psychology.

The SU is widely regarded as the UK's most politically active - a reputation it has held since the famous LSE student riots in 1968/69.

Widely regarded by whom?

LSE offers the TRIUM Global Executive MBA programme jointly with Stern School of Business of NYU and HEC School of Management, Paris. It is divided into six intellectually rigorous modules held in five international business locations over a 16-month period. Whitefield Consulting Worldwide, a global MBA consultancy, has ranked the TRIUM Executive MBA programme as second worldwide. The Financial Times' most recent rankings of executive MBA programmes placed TRIUM as fourth worldwide. [8]

Is this a testimonial for LSE or a factual article?

Located in the heart of London between the Strand and Thames Embankment, Northumberland House is a magnificent Grade II listed building, (formerly a Victorian grand hotel and lately government offices) it is a short step away from the main strip of the West End theatres and five minutes from Picadilly Circus, Leicster Square, Covent Garden and Oxford Circus. Northumberland House will provide students with the ideal base from which to explore the capital's thousands of sights and attractions.

In general, the residences on offer reflect both the old and the new of Central London in terms of architecture, combined with a high degree of interior modernity and security. [16]

Is this an advertorial?

The Library of the London School of Economics and Political Science (also known as the British Library of Political and Economic Science) is the world's largest social sciences library.

Says who? Bakashi10 16:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC) it is the worlds largest social science library, thats a fact. I study at LSE, and trust me, its enormous. 82.45.213.247 23:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally hadn't noticed it, but i guess your right, it should be edited to make it more NPOV Sherzo 03:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

this article states that there is a high level of participation in student politics. this is not true, only a certain section of the LSE student body are politically active, and they are definitley a minority 82.45.213.247 23:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

-- I have done some work on citations and pov comments.

The Accommodation section seems to be free of pov so I am removing the marker. MarcelLionheart 07:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"highly ranked"

The LSE is without doubt, a highly regarded school. However, calling any school "highly ranked" violates the rules against "academic boosterism" as outlined under the third bullet point here: [1]. One could instead cite various rankings and concrete numbers. In my view, LSE's reputation stands out its own, without vague claims of its being "highly ranked." LaszloWalrus 01:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, I don't agree with that voluntary guideline. Phrases like "elite", "world class", "renowned" etc. may be debatable as semi-abstract terms based on subjective criteria. Phrases like "highly ranked" are not. It is a fact that the LSE is *always* amongst the top handful of universities in the UK under every ranking system and is indeed very highly placed in worldwide metrics as well. That's not a subjective criterion. I should specify here that I abhor what might be called "academic boosterism" in university articles and I remove it as often as I can - including in this article in the past. This is not boosterism except in so far as it is a statement of favourable fact - the LSE is a highly-ranked institution. Badgerpatrol 14:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd just rather the phrase wasn't the first thing a reader comes to after the name of the institution. There are only two universities in the UK for which I'm altogether happy to see any mention of generalised prestige in the article intro. "Highly-ranked" asks more questions than are appropriate to answer in an introduction (by whom? for what? compared to whom?), and adds nothing to the article that a flat statement of a specific high rank wouldn't. Why not replace it with an RAE score instead? Ratings mean more than rankings. — mholland (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the RAE assesses departments, not institutions. I don't see the ambiguity, to be honest... Badgerpatrol 18:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right about the departments, but the LSE is a specialist college: without looking, I'd guess that its RAE scores for economics and politics are quite high. And its QAA rating, which has been an institution-level rating since 2001 (but which is a prose report, and not easy to parse into a stupid league table). I'm not suggesting that "highly-ranked" is ambiguous, particularly since you've linked it to the clarifying detail in the section below. I just disagree with the positioning and the bald generality of the statement. I'd go as far as to say that an article on a university should never contain the words "highly-ranked". I suggest this not because it's always untrue, or always POV (in LSE's case it is undoubted fact), but because there's a more neutral presentation available in 100% of cases.

I'm well aware there's no policy, or even a guideline, behind my stance. But if we could find consensus or a compromise here that would be nice. It's quite a minor thing, compared to the {{totally-disputed}} tag hovering over the LSE vs. Cambridge section. — mholland (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In any case, calling something "highly ranked" violates NPOV, of which the guidlines against academic boosterism are a subsection. Who decides what is "highly ranked"? To which ranking are we referring? How high must a school be ranked to be "highly ranked"? "Highly ranked" is inherently subjective. LaszloWalrus 01:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Laszlo, you're being pedantic to the point of perversity. Should we reference the fact that it's on Houghton Street? I reckon it's actually more like Portugal Street. Shall we reference the fact that it's a specialist college? I reckon it actually offers a fairly wide range of courses. Shall we reference the fact that it's off the Aldwych? I reckon it's closer to Kingsway myself. Once again, I direct you to my editing history, where you will see that I too rail against academic puffery wherever I find it. In this case however, you are just being absurd I'm afraid. I don't see a difference between quoting RAE scores and quoting league tables, except that one pertains only to a subset of departments, and the other contains an immediate encyclopaedic assessment of an institution's overall standing. Without meaning to be rude, anyone who thinks that an institution's academic standing is not of key encyclopaedic importance - particularly in the case of e.g. the LSE, which genuinely is an elite university - is an idiot. This is an encylopaedia; we need to consider what the key facts our readers will be after and we need to deliver them as succinctly as possible. Nevertheless, I've altered the lede to a version which presumably even you will have no problem with, which does not include the specific phrase "highly-ranked". And as a final aside - Laszlo, you need to do some serious homework on how Wikipedia works. WP:PRESTIGE most emphatically is not a "subsection" of NPOV, which is an official policy. You seem to be very confused as to the distinction between policy and guidelines - I assure you, there is one. Badgerpatrol 11:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• In fact, after a bit of hunting around, I'm not even sure that WP:PRESTIGE even has the quasi-official status of a guideline (I can't immediately see it in either "List of Guidelines" or Category: Guidelines. It may therefore be more accurate to describe it as an essay, which basically (more or less) means it's little better than personal opinion by an editor or group of editors. Badgerpatrol 11:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Drop the personal attacks, Badgerpatrol. Any university that needs to be called prestigious isn't. I stated before that LSE's reputation is great, and saying it ranks highly or that it is respected are violations of NPOV. Respected by whom? Every school is respected by someone. "Ranking highly" has no meaning whatsoever. What is ranking highly? Top five? Top ten? Top hundred? EVERY school could be said to "rank highly." LaszloWalrus 17:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Laszlo, do you apply the same dry as dust pedantry to every area of life? There are plenty of institutions in Wikiepedia which are similarly described, on far more tenuous grounds. I do not see your criticisms on their pages. Is it possible that you just dislike LSE?

I'm sorry that you feel that describing your argument as "absurd" or "perverse" is a personal attack. It's intended to be robust debate, not ad hominem jibes. If you're offended, I genuinely apologise. In fairness to me, you did cite WP:PRESTIGE as "rules" when in fact it certainly isn't policy and doesn't seem to be a guideline either. I see your argument, I don't agree with it mainly because it is excessively pedantic- to me, you're applying a reductio ad absurdum to NPOV. I've never made any edit describing the LSE as "prestigious" - without proper referencing that would potentially be a POV claim (albeit a "true" one). I've never said it's "respected" either (same principle). I have said that it's highly ranked, which it is. That phrase has a common sense meaning that intuitively connotes a standing in the uppermost handful of institutions. I do not agree that such a description can be extended to every university (the term "school" in the LSE's name is slightly misleading- we're talking about "university" rankings, not "school" rankings). Hopefully the current compromise wording is acceptable. Badgerpatrol 17:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I support the compromise wording: it is pleasingly specific in a way that challenged me to find a ranking which disproves it. I couldn't find one, so I endorse the statement. — mholland (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Except it's number 6 at present in the Guardian. These rankings need to be systematic. How about a yearly table with Times/Guardian global rankings? 193.132.242.1 12:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the Wikipedia staff are adding all rankings avaiable in all universities the Shanghai Jia Tong rankings should not be deleted from this page no matter how bad they may be for the LSE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.177.135 (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The Guardian's Rankings

I can't believe someone deleted those. Is it because LSE is ranked in sixth place this year? 193.132.242.1 17:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

LSE IPs keep trying to remove those rankings. Below is the table for easy copy/paste if needed:

LSE UK Rankings

Ranking	2008	2007	2006	2005	2004	2003
The Times Good University Guide	1	1	1	1	1	1
The Sunday Times Good University Guide	1	1	1	1	1	1
The Guardian University Guide	1		1	1

Codik 10:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The table has again been removed. Any reason why? Codik (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

General Rankings

Since mentioning the ranking of the MSc Management programme is seen as uncontroversial, it should be equally justified to mention the ranking of the philosophy department as well. As a possible solution, the heading 'General Rankings' could be replaced with 'Academic Rankings'.

Rankings should be more systematic, preferably placed in a table, with the ranking for each given year. This will provide a broader and more accurate perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.132.242.1 (talk) 12:03, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Someone removed the Guardian's rankings. 193.132.242.1 17:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have edited this paragraph:

"LSE is the largest recipient of research funding for the social sciences in the UK. In the latest national Research Assessment Exercise (RAE 2001), the LSE came second after Cambridge for the quality of its research - and first if only the social sciences are taken into account [2]. All of LSE's academic departments earned the top three ratings for research, with scores of 4, 5 and 5* in the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise."

The "second place" ranking refers to the percentage of staff assessed in the survey, not quality of research as was stated. I have removed the sentence as the precentage of staff assessed it is not relevant to "academic rankings". Codik 13:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC) The percentage of staff entered is highly relevant-a number of prestigious institutions for instance artificially boosted their grades by omitting their weaker staff from the exercise.

Alumni

People with the faintest relation are mentioned (Kennedy, Romano Prodi, etc.). Is this the way the list should be compiled? Codik 09:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Prodi did his postgraduate at LSE, how is that a faint relation. However i do wonder is it really correct to claim that "all members of the current cabinet are alumni of the LSE"??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.179.19 (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the mentions of JFK were misleading. It should be clear that he only intended the university for less than a week instead of making it seem as if he was an alumni of the school. I removed references of him, but it's fine if something is added back as long as it's abundantly clear that he was there for less than a week. --Suspected (talk) 05:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Title of article - LSE name

I changed the title of the article to reflect the full official name of the institution. Abbreviations and short versions are (sometimes) ok for the body of an article, but the title should at least reflect the actual name.Veggiehead 17:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That is against long standing consensus to use the current most common branding title for UK universities. The long title is rarely used these days. As this is a controversial move and not discussed beforehand I'm reverting it. Timrollpickering 11:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can source the fact that it is 'long-standing consensus', I "might" agree. Even then though, I would argue that if the institution itself uses the full name in all its material, publications, website, etc..., then it only makes sense to use this same name. There are many examples of using shortened forms of names in speech, articles, etc..., but when it comes to an encyclopedia, this is not the case. Reference to the shortened version within the article is fine, but the title should always remain official

Plus, if you are arguing to use the current popular 'brand' name, then clearly this would 'LSE', which is even far more common that either of the other two. Veggiehead 12:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I changed it back, but please ignore that it is indicated as a 'minor' edit on the history page-- I'm not sure why that's there, as it's clearly not a minor edit. Veggiehead 12:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of the consensus has settled because few people have argued for the statute titles, but the following institutions are at the current "brand name" location not the "official title":

Durham University not "University of Durham" - see Talk:Durham University#Name and Logo

Imperial College London not "Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine"

Keele University not "University of Keele"

Lancaster University not "University of Lancaster" - see Talk:Lancaster University#University Name

Birkbeck, University of London not "Birkbeck College" or other variants - see Talk:Birkbeck, University of London#Requested move

Goldsmiths, University of London not "Goldsmiths College" - see Talk:Goldsmiths, University of London#Location of article

Queen Mary, University of London not "Queen Mary and Westfield College"

Royal Holloway, University of London not "Royal Holloway and Bedford New College"

St George's, University of London not "St George's Hospital Medical School

Newcastle University not "University of Newcastle upon Tyne" - see Talk:Newcastle University#Name

Queen's University Belfast not "Queen's University of Belfast" - see Talk:Queen's University Belfast#Article location

And even the Dutch Leiden University not "University of Leiden" - see Talk:Leiden University#University of Leiden vs Leiden University

Note that several of these locations have not provoked any discussion at all, probably because the alternative names are the ones that feel heavily out of date.

As for the acroynm, these are best avoided in article titles unless the acroynm is so overwhelmingly known and the actual name less so (e.g NASA, BBC) - see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (abbreviations)#Acronyms as words in article titles. But when the name is commonly known then the acronym isn't the article title - see University College London. Timrollpickering 13:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing these examples. However, looking through most of them, if you notice, the names used as the titles for the Wiki articles are the ones actually used the institutions themselves. Even the talk pages you refer to note that using the 'brand names' is in line with using what the institutions are using on their own web pages and in their documents. LSE, from what I've read so far, always used its full name (i.e. it's 'brand name'), and nowhere, so far, have I found that it uses just "London School of Economics". Therefore, the information you provided supports my contention that the full name should be used, in line with what the college itself actively promotes. I will hold off on changing it back just yet, and will see if further discussion ensues. If not, I will revert back to my original change.

And allow me to add one quick example of my own. The University of Oxford is by and far mostly known as Oxford University. The Wikipedia article, as it should be, is entitled "University of Oxford". Veggiehead 14:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's mostly known as "Oxford" more than anything else - it's one of those institutions like "Heidelberg" where if you just say the name in an academic context you don't need to add anything. Many people will talk of someone attending "Foo College, Oxford", not "Foo College, University of Oxford". And I think the formal official title is actually "Universitas Oxoniensis" which can be translated either way round. But "University of Oxford" is what the uni as a whole is branding itself as (even if individual sections, particuarly Oxford University Press, aren't playing ball).

Has LSE rebranded itself recently? I recall in the past few years it's been predominantly using "London School of Economics" and the full title has been regarded as just what's on the statutes, like "Queen Mary and Westfield College". Certainly I can't recall this coming up much before here. If it has rebranded (not an unknown thing - look at the confusion that arose because Goldsmiths was slow at getting their website in line with their new brand identity, hence the Wikipedia article doing a bit of a tour) then I'd withdraw my objectionb but can we get clear confirmation first before another round of page moves as there's tonnes of templates, redirects and categories that will also need renaming. Timrollpickering 14:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I won't change it yet, as I too would like to hear more discussion on it. I'm not sure what you're referring too when you say LSE has been using only "London School of Economics" in the last few years. I'm just going by the correspondence I receive from them, their promotional material, their website, and everything else I've seen produced by them. I haven't checked media sources, so maybe you mean those? Although in those cases I've noticed it's usually the media outlets that use the shortened name, rather than LSE. It's not the same as the other schools and their statute names. The other schools are not using their statute names publically, while LSE is.

My point is simply that using the full name is in line with what LSE uses. I imagine they use the full name to highlight that they are more than just a university of the study of 'economics', but that's an assumption on my part and not necessarily relevant. But since that's what they use, why not use this name for the article...just as we are using the names that other institutions officially/publically use for the articles on them?

I agree we should get confirmation...but from whom? That's why I went to the LSE website to verify what it uses, and all I could find was that it uses both 'LSE' and the longer full name -- but maybe it's worth another check. Veggiehead 15:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Alumni

In section about alumni there is information that 'recent head of state of Poland' has studied at LSE. Not only wasn't it 'recent', but it was head of government, not head of state. None of Polish presidents has studied at LSE. I won't correct it, as my English is poor and I might make mistakes, but can someone please do something about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.219.130.242 (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2007

Alumni Section

Merely reorganising the alumni/staff section so that it makes more sense, it more accurate and it not one huge bulk of text is not promoting or changing any information radically (granted information on heads of state, MPs etc. has been updated and either increased or reduced depending on the current sitation, but that is all. 128.86.148.24 (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

THES World Social Science Rankings

Could someone put a table under "league tables" for THES - QS World University Rankings Social Science table (LSE, I recall, was ranked 3rd in the world for the social sciences, surely more relevant than the more general rankings given the specialist range of the LSE)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.194.10 (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Random Rants

This article seems to be a constant problem... academic boosterism is rife; likewise, it is possible that a reactionary element is also doing the inverse.

Lets just try and keep it to the best practise rules.

Comments:

(i) The article is heavily POV; I don't know what the "Recent Activity" section is about... seems very very unencyclopedic. (ii) The alumni section was deliberately condensed to a small summary section, and the beef left in the separate article on LSE alumni... now I see its been expanded again. Leave it alone! (iii) The ranking section seems pretty mindless... there are all sorts of gaps, and no logic in the way the rankings are presented. They do little inform viewers about the university. The inconsistency of the rankings demonstrate only the massive variety of techniques used by the different ranks, and how they have changed their criteria over time. I recommend that every ranking that is included should be in a sentence, not a table, and that it should be part of a valid point about the university. So if one ranking is high, that ranking should be assessed, and the reason for the high ranking should be included. E.g. The LSE ranks x in the y ranking, primarily because of its high score on its international student and staff base. The same follows for low rankings e.g. The LSE ranks x in the y ranking, primarily due to its specialist nature (or because it sucks ;)). (iv) As an LSE alum myself, I was sent the same e-mail on the LSE beginning to award its own degrees. I wrote the first entry of that information about a year ago. I dug up a source for it; it now seems there is debate over the issue again - it is out there somewhere in one of the LSE minuted meetings on their website. (v) Finally... reiterating the above. LSE grads/financial administrator... (I am one)... chill out. You would do more to improve the reputation of the university by getting on with your lives and achieving something incredible than tinkering with this article. (vi) Likewise; Imperial/Kings grads - go tinker with your own pages ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.71.97 (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Rankings

The 2009 Good University Guide is out now, this time published with The Independent. LSE is ranked 3rd overall. The rankings table should be updated accordingly. Also, there are some high rankings for individual subjects that might be worth including. Finally, LSE being ranked 3rd in the THES World Social Science Rankings really should be clearly noted in the rankings section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.194.10 (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Guardian ranking came out today - LSE is 3rd. Someone please update the rankings table correctly - the existing table is error-ridden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.194.10 (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the rankings are still not right. EG the 'Independent' ranking is not there and there is an obvious conflation of publication year and ranking year (some rankings are put down for their publication year, others for their ranking year (EG the Guardian 2009 ranking is published in 2008 ---------- the 2009 year has been listed for this, but others are listed according to their publication year)). - Öon

Also under the heading "Academic Reputation" (in the second last line) it was claimed that LSE is ranked first for Actuarial Science. There is no evidence or link to support this claim, and furthermore it is disputed whether or not it is even first in the UK (disputed with Cass Business school), this is why I have proceeded to remove this misleading part from the original text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.153.241 (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added the Academic world university rankings in text form with citations for 2005-2008, this ranking is included on many/all other university entries and should also be included here. I suspect it will be removed though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.88.248 (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculously Long

Aye or nay? Aye for me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.88.146 (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The problem is that this article keeps on being changed little by little by quite a lot of people, resulting in a long, rambling, repetitive, poorly edited article. I think this artcile should be placed under protection. - Öon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.2.191.6 (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This page is now a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.210.142 (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It reads too much like a university brochure as well. Things like the degree section could mentioned in a one off sentence somewhere. Too much stuff on academic rankings. The pogrammes section also includes a lot of rankings. The programmes section should be edited to just highlight the faculties and the awarding of lse degrees could also be mentioned there ina single sentence. Calendar dates? Accomodation? All unnecessary.93.96.157.98 (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Library

There is a separate article for the Library (the British Library of Political and Economic Science), but the entry about the Library here is longer than that article! Shouldn't there just be a brief decsription here and a link to the main article about the Library (which is justified, because it's a major social science library in its own right). Also the library entry here has unnecessary POV (e.g. "the library remains the most popular place to study on campus. This is good ...". Lonegroover (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

*The* LSE

When I was at the LSE, it was referred to as 'the LSE', and never 'LSE'. I still remember my first day there, and my surprise at the then-Director referring to it thus. Sounded weird, but I guess I soon got used to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.65.132 (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Bias in LSE vs. Cambridge section

The last few paragraphs of the LSE vs. Cambridge section of this article seem to be asserting opinion as fact.

I agree entirely with the previous comment. Particularly the very last line, there surely is no doubt that this is opinion asserted as fact. While it may have been the dominant positions(until the recent crash). It is still clearly not a plain statement of fact, rather of opinion. Janamills (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Location and Transport

Removed this section because it is absurd. Why would this article need local tarnsport links and notable landmarks its near to? This article needs a serious cleanup. It is incoherent with a poor structure and irrelevant information. This isnt a tour guide to the LSE. The number of rankings and figures is overwhelming if not ridiculous. 93.96.157.98 (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hugo Chad at LSE?

The article asserts that the musician Hugo Chad is set to commence Phd studies this fall at LSE, but provides no reference. A quick google search reveals no corroborating evidence of this claim. Someone should provide a reference, or remove this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.221.116 (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

THES World Social Science rankings

Since THES has a world league table for the social sciences, and the LSE is a social science institution, why isn't that table on here in the rankings section? Can someone insert it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.207.45 (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC) There is a Guardian quote from Japanese page that says "a large influence on the international politics today than any university in the world" but where is footnote. Also the Economics Dept. has been ranked world no.1# by several tables, including Yales.

2010 Rankings

Why do people keep removing the 2010 Times/Guardian rankings? They were published a few months ago and should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.171.101 (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Admissions section

Would somebody please stop changing the admissions section since i tidied it up in September 2009. Afterall, it was incredibly badly written prior to this. Firstly, the LSE s NOT the MOST selective university at the undergraduate level. It is ONE of the most selective and this sentence should remain that way to allow leway. Afterall, Harvard and Yale only accept around 9% of students. LSE may have 15 appliants per place but gives out more offers so in general the school probably has around a 13-14% acceptance rate. It is only for the top subjects with 20+ applicants per place that the school has a similar ivy league acceptance rate. Secondly, no courses had more than 25 applicants per place, it was just over 20 so stop changing it. Thirdly, the school does not have a university wide partnership with Hertie School in Berlin, only an MPA programme. With Sciences Po and Columbia it has numerous joint programmes and initiatives.

Firstly, the majority of course do not have "the same typical entry requirements [as Oxbridge] of three A's at A-Level" - it is implied every course requires this, whereas in fact Accounting and Finance requires A A B and Social Policy only needs B B B. However these are minimal entry offers, designed to encourage mature and disadvantaged students, and students accepted tend to have much higher grades than the minimum stated.

Secondly, if you work out the uptake percentage of people studying Government and/or Economics, it's actually about 7.4%, not "3-4%". Also, that particular paragraph is really sloppily written. There is also frequent reference to a course in "Politics", although it is actually called Government. Jessindia (talk) 08:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agreee, it seems to be a constant problem of the article, that some departments seem to heavily overrepresentated. For example, government and economics (undergrad BSc) might well be on of LSE's best courses, but is it really necerssary to quote acceptance numbers for every single course of study? (older version , just edited it: "with some courses like A,B,C... having 1 to 20 applications ... and government and economics hovering to 27:1?) I'd strongly advocate a very mucht more condensed version of all the admission numbers bickering.

a student. ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.81.141 (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, the references for the claim that the School is the 'most selective' in the UK a) are outdated, so don't work any more and b) were not even appropriate references to begin with: they were links to the admissions statistics for LSE's most competitive courses, not overall admissions statistics. This must be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.145.62 (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The article title

Shouldn't the title be "London School of Economics and Political Science" rather than the current abbreviated title "London School of Economics"? In case of Stanford University, the university has been using the abbreviated name "Stanford University" on the top page of the official website, so it is proper　to use the abbreviated name "Stanford University" rather than "Leland Stanford Junior University" for the article title. But in case of LSE, the university has not been using the abbreviated name "London School of Economics". The article titles should be official names except in special occasions.Wikipedian05 (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Douglass North Error

Douglass North was never associated with the LSE, except for that the fact that LSE students and professors are obsessed with him. Will somebody take him off the list of Nobel Laureates, please? You can verify this on the reference source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.190.19 (talk) 07:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Move to London School of Economics and Political Science

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move page as proposed. GTBacchus^(talk) 13:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

---

London School of Economics → London School of Economics and Political Science — Should be the official name. Wikipedian05 (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't mind either way, however if pushed would say Keep the name and redirect as they are - given WP:COMMONNAME, however fully aware of text on the same page urging procession.Codf1977 (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

London School of Economics and Political Science is the name the university has been officially using. Also, most of the notable sources use the official name London School of Economics and Political Science. London School of Economics is an abbreviated name, not a common name.Wikipedian05 (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It is however the name commonly used when referring to the LSE ! Codf1977 (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Commonly? I think LSE is used much more times than London School of Economics. In formal sources, London School of Economics and Political Science is commonly used.

[3] [4]

Also, the university does not use London School of Economics. They use only LSE or London School of Economics and Political Science.Wikipedian05 (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that LSE is probably used more than either of the other two options - but I can go you link for link if you want with London School of Economics Bloomberg Business Week or T3.com or Telegraph all published in a littile over the last 24 hours. Codf1977 (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep as the WP:COMMONNAME. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep the common name. --Pnm (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Oscar Arias omission

Why isn't Oscar Arias included in the world leaders section as well as the Nobel laureate section? He attended the LSE and was President of Costa Rica. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987 for his work in ending the conflicts in Central America. For some reason the school doesn't include him in its own list of Nobel Prize winners. I don't know why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmackenz1 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Magazine

The LSE Magazine is notable and probably merits mention somewhere. Drutt (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it? I'd say we'd have to see external evidence of its notability to include it - comments about in in the media etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Flickr Commons

The LSE has a collection of PD images at Flickr Commons, which may be of use to articles related to the LSE. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

References in embedded subpage

Is there any logical reason why the references on this page are treated so differently from most other articles? It is an absolute nightmare to use and will not display at all in some browsers because they cannot handle the divs etc to properly render it. Also useless for those using speech devices, ie: those with poor vision.

The only reason I can think of is that it is in order to accommodate the photos. Well, sorry, bin some photos. They'll still be available on Commons and a link can be made to them. Or stack the photos two abreast down the page instead of in a single column.

I came here to fix the deadlinks but can't be bothered while it is in this state. Gonna move to the next site on my hitlist. - Sitush (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi might be also a notable alumni.--Stone (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Reverse puffery

Much of the comment about the Libyan links is speculative and polemical: over blown reverse-puffery, designed purely to place LSE in a bad light, as opposed to an impartial presentation of information.

I note too that the picture of Lord Desai is from long ago when he was a much younger man: he does not look much like that now. Again I suspect that this is deliberate: the picture chosen will serve the purposes of the writers much better than a contemporary one, which would portray a rather genial and avuncular figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.120.190 (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The Libyan connection has been in the news much lately, so it isn't that surprising that it has attracted contributors attention: you are right though that we shouldn't be giving too much credence to speculation - I'll take a look at the sources etc, and see if I can clean it up a bit, though think the issue is of sufficient significance to merit a sentence or two.

Regarding Lord Desai, I presume you are referring to the image on his article page? I suspect that there may not be a later photo available that is freely usable - copyright is often a problem with photos. In any case, you'd do better to discuss this on the talk page for that article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've now rewritten the paragraph regarding the 'witchhunt' claim, and corrected the sourcing. The comments regarding the numbers of staff and funds involved were unsourced however, and had to be removed. I note that an external enquiry into the issue has been set up by the LSE: we will of course need to report its findings. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the second paragraph entirely. This event must be viewed in the context of the overall history of the LSE, and not treated in either an undue or recentist manner. It must also be remembered that there are separate articles for both the history of the LSE, and about the LSE-Libya links, where more detailed treatement can be given. One paragraph in the History section of this article is more than adequate.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I can accept, Grump, that you are trying to be fair here. Incidentally the staff/student figures which I cited were already available on the main Wiki LSE page and are easily checked on the LSE website. I am not sure why you removed reference to Jenni Russell's Evening Standard piece about a witch hunt, especially as other media comment, putting the other side of the argument, has been left in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.120.190 (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Evidently Rangoon11 felt that the paragraph was unnecessary. Taking another look, he may well be correct - the remaining paragraph reports the basic facts, including the setting up of an enquiry, and adding any responses to this from outsiders is possibly opening the door for more criticism - some of which, as you suggest, has been based on conjecture rather than evidence. I think it may be best to leave the article as it is for now. I'd stress that I'm writing about this article. Any comments on the LSE Libya Links article should be made on that article's talk page - frankly, I'm not too impressed with that article myself, and may look into it further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I am proposing that the article on the Population Investigation Committee, which is housed at the LSE be merged here. Reasons are:

• Lack of third party sourcing, and thus notability
• WP:MERGE criteria: 'text' (it is very short & unlikely to be expanded in the medium term future) & 'context' (it is housed by the LSE, & LSE publications are the only sources mentioning it).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - it is independently notable e.g. [5] and the article requires expansion, not merger. The Population Investigation Committee has not actually been part of the LSE for its whole history in any case. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:GOOGLEHITS≠WP:Notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps actually look at the link rather than just posting a trite and brusque response. There has been an entire book written about the Population Investigation Committee and it has featured in many other books.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I did -- it was a Google search results page -- hence WP:GOOGLEHITS. If you had meant a book, then you should have linked to a book. If you mean the book by Langford, then I would point out that he was a member of both the LSE & the PIC -- so it is nowhere close to a third party source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support as per WP:BEFORE it is preferable to a WP:AfD Mtking ^(edits) 21:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Why not put effort into expanding it instead of merging into the LSE article. Merging will make LSE worse.--Bkwillwm (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:London School of Economics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am quickfailing this article due to the presence of a few [citation needed] tags and the prevalence of paragraphs that are entirely devoid of inline citations.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

LSE vs King's

In 2008 the Penguin statue outside the bookshop disappeared and it was widely believed to have been destroyed by King's students, maybe it was actually proven to have been taken by King's students. If someone can be bothered to look that up that would be a good addition. 84.69.228.89 (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no proof as to who stole it. I don't think information on the theft belongs in this article, but it's easy enough to get sources for it i.e. [6]. Anyanghaseyo (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

it has since been replaced — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.155.204 (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Missing Word?

I am unable to correct what appears to be a minor editing issue because I am not exactly certain what the author intended:

There are nearly 7,800 full-time students and around 800 part-time students at the School. Of these, approximately 65% come from outside the United Kingdom. LSE has a highly international student body,[13] and at one time, LSE had more countries represented by students than the UN. Norlns22 (talk)

I'm not sure any editing is required for this sentence. "Student body" refers to the group of students enrolled in the university, and its composition is international (most students are from outside the UK). If you're stumbling over student body, perhaps "student population" could be used instead? Kate (talk) 09:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I apologize. I believe I was reading too quickly. I see now what the author meant.  :] Norlns22 (talk)

Further rankings needing to be inserted

Somebody with the time and inclination might want to insert the newly released law, economics, finance, sociology etc. QS world rankings: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/27/top-100-world-university-rankings-social-sciences — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.71.215 (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This is excessive, I vote for including only the major overall rankings, i.e. the Academic Ranking of World Universities, the QS World University Rankings, and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. These rankings have their own wikipedia pages, and so are noteworthy. Adding further rankings is excessive and a bit silly IMO. If nobody objects, I will make the changes. --81.158.173.194 (talk) 06:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)There is nothing 'excessive' about the rankings which have been removed, and which should have been retained: because they are more detailed and specialised they say a lot more about the School's activity than the crude 'major' rankings which aggregate incompatible criteria in a simplistic and often unfair manner. The detailed rankings should be brought back in, especially those which cover a longer time span.

Logo vs Coat of Arms

The debate over logo vs coat of arms has been raised again. In most recent memory the coat of arms has been used on the article page. The coat of arms connects with the university's history and helps the reader identify the organization, and assure the reader that they have reached the right article. While the University uses both the logo and coat of arms for current branding purposes, since this article pertains to both the historical and contemporary, it is better to use an image that spans this time period. Moreover, other University of London affiliated articles continue to use their respective coat of arms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HerrLudwig (talk • contribs) 13:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that it is true that the university still uses the coat of arms. If it does, then the new logo is the dominant branding and this page should reflect that. If nobody objects, then I will change. Thanks! --217.43.90.18 (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

While the LSE has occasionally altered its logo, the coat of arms has remained consistent. Again, since this article pertains to both the history of the LSE and the university as it is today, the coat of arms provides a better visual representation, as it spans the entirety of this time period. When this was discussed in previous talk entries, wiki editors decided to retain the coat of arms. Additionally the current LSE logo is at the end of the info box. The two images should not be seen as competing, but rather as representing two different aspects of the university. Other University of London affiliates follow similar design guidelines. Before making such an important alteration to this page please allow ample time for discussion! HerrLudwig (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

On the University of Oxford page, the info box has the university seal (which I argue is equivalent to the LSE logo). The university coat of arms is in the article in the History section. I think this is the way that the LSE logo/coat of arms should be dealt with. The coat of arms is practically absent on the LSE website and around the LSE campus and I think its use as the main image in the info box is quite misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.90.18 (talk) 10:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The square "LSE Logo" is not the "seal of the LSE". The seal of the LSE is the coat of arms. When official documents are stamped with the "seal of the LSE" they are stamped with the coat of arms, not the square "LSE Logo". The University of Oxford page uses the university's seal (which prominently features the university's coat of arms), however, it does not use the university's logo. Like the LSE's page Oxford's logo is used at the end of the info box. Again, most if not all University of London affiliates, including Imperial College London, King's College London, and University College London follow this convention. The LSE's coat of arms is also displayed on the facades and in the entrances of most buildings on campus. HerrLudwig (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Official Colors Coat of Arms

I just used this image (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:London_School_of_Economics_crest.png) to create an svg image (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:London_School_of_Economics_Coat_of_Arms.svg) but I wasn't 100% sure about the color codes. Are there any official color codes for the LSE coat of arms ? Feel free to edit the svg file. Svgnickel (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The G5

Should it really be stated in the lead paragraph that LSE is a member of the G5? The G5's existence was only noted by the Times Higher Education Supplement, and was merely a tactic to attempt to receive more funding in 2004. I cannot find any reference to it on any of the members' ranking/reputation pages; clearly, the universities themselves do not see it as a valid and legitimate grouping.

On that note, I am proposing the deletion of the statement, 'LSE is also a member of the Golden Triangle.' The Golden Triangle is an even less official group, and does not even indicate the universities receiving the most in research income. IF these two points must be kept, they should at least be moved to the 'Reputation' paragraph, and preceded by, 'The LSE has been described as belonging to an unofficial group ....', or something along those lines. ImpCollegeEng (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Misleading statistic in the lead of the article

Not long ago, I edited the article to address what appears to be a potentially misleading statistic in the article. The addition I made to the sentence was incredibly short and does not, to me, disrupt the opening few paragraphs. This was reverted by Wikiwikiwankawanka without any explanation. I have restored the content and left a message on his or her talk page. To ensure that a proper discussion takes place, if necessary, I have copied my message below so that it is more available for any editors who might wish to give suggestions. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit to the article London School of Economics. I have noticed you reverted my inclusion of a referenced comment to an important statistic in the lead of the article. My reasoning for the clarification is that the statistic by itself is rather misleading. If such a statistic is included in the lead, then it should be explained properly or not included at all. It is for this reason that I understand your previous reversion of my inclusion of a certain world ranking in the lead. By inserting the clarification, I was following WP:BOLD. I cannot see any explanation for your reversion, which, unfortunately, is particularly unhelpful. For this reason, I am restoring the addition. If you still disagree with what is written after reading this message, please reply to me either here or on the talk page of the article and we can discuss what would be most appropriate and seek guidance from other editors. For the time being, however, it is very difficult to know your opinion when you have not explained your revert. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Update: Wikiwikiwankawanka has once again reverted the article without any explanation. I have left a further message on his or her talk page and also directed him or her to this page. I maintain that this issue must be properly discussed, and it is not adequate to make such changes without any justification. I urge Wikiwikiwankawanka to discuss this matter. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you on clarifying this statistic otherwise it is misleading. Maybe the wording could be improved, the referenced article says that it is to do with access to city jobs rather than the LSE's specialisms and this should be clear. Aloneinthewild (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. How do you think the wording could be improved? The problem is that 'access to city jobs' is a very vague phrase: does it mean LSE is physically close to the City, that its specialisms are more suited to the City, that its graduates are more successful than at other universities, or something else? I just read it as being due to the specialisms. I have searched for references, and there are tremendously many for how salaries depends on the subject, but barely anything else about how salaries depend on the university. It might be preferable to remove this altogether in the lead and instead include it in the main body of the article. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Another user has now reverted the addition to the statistic without any comment on two occasions. I am taking the alternative approach of removing the entire sentence from the lead: as I wrote above, 'it should be explained properly or not included at all'. If you think it can be reinserted with a better phrasing, please suggest it here. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit: the user actually posted a message to the talk page, but inserted it at the top of the page so it was not clear. I have moved it to the bottom of the page. I apologise for suggesting that the user did not make a comment. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)