Talk:London School of Economics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the London School of Economics article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
"The Albert Memorial" - the London Portal's current "Showcase Picture" This article is part of WikiProject London, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to London. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] 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 [1]. 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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: [2]. 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)

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)

[edit] 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 4 4 3 4 4 3
The Sunday Times Good University Guide 3 3 3 4 4 3
The Guardian University Guide 6 3 5

Codik 10:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)