I would like to ask you for your oppinion about these two options: MSc in Economics at UPF and MSc in Economics (Research) at LSE. Both MSc last for 1 year and I was offered a full tuition fee waiver at UPF.
I am currently employed in Analysis&Reseach Department of a central bank and I am especially intereseted in knowledge of econometrics and macroeconomics. I probably won`t continue my studies with PhD, at least not right after MSc. I intend to continue my career at one of european institutions.
So I would like to know is it really worth to give 17,352 pounds for a tuition fee at LSE, not to mention the fact that the life is much more expensive in London than in Barcelona. So do the professors at LSE lecture much better than those at UPF.
I got accepted at both:LSE and UPF. Hands down: LSE. In everything I red, LSE is much better than UPF. Many people get out of LSE and go to PhD in very good universities. I think it is worth it to go to LSE.
LSE has better reputation in the industry and academia in comparison to UPF. UPF however places quite well from its Masters program. However, since you are not interested (in the short-term at least) in academia, LSE is the better option. The only qualifier being of course that cost does not matter.
As the UPF MSc Economics is now the BGSE MSc Economics you now have an institution that compares pretty favourably with LSE (UPF+UAB gets pretty close to LSE in rankings even without IAE-CSIC and CREI), although if you plan to work at some point in the UK the LSE brand is definitely worth quite a bit.
I personally think the LSE fees are horrendous and you can get as good, or nearly as good an MSc with access to excellent faculty in an equally vibrant location at no cost - relative to £17K! Would the LSE brand add significantly to your earning power in the public sector/ central bank to justify the cost?