I am trying to evaluate Oxford's MPhil. I'm comparing it to the LSE MSc two year program on which I have more information.
1) How is the MPhil seen? and is getting more/less recognition?
2) What is the student/faculty interaction like?
3) Do you know of very good PhD programs taking in MPhil students? If so, which ones?
4) Any other input?
I second that albertalla..im also considering and would love to hear some views..and may I add a question number 5)What are job opportunities like after Oxford Mphil?
Thank you
They are quite different programs. What you do in Oxford's MPil is more or less the same as what you do in the first 2 years in a PhD econ program. It is research oriented.
LSE's MSc curriculum is less heavy than their MRes/PhD's or Oxford MPhil's, due to different focus. It is structured as a one year program (assuming you are talking about MSc Econ). If your undergraduate major is not in econ, they usually require you to do it over 2 yeras, and in the first year you do intermediate/advanced undergrad econ courses. As I recall Oxford seems to have a one year MSc program, not too sure about that.
LSE's MSc is definitely a larger program, with around 100+ people and Oxford's MPhil is about half of them (or less?). So interaction between faculty/students is definitely less in LSE's MSc, when compared to Oxford's MPhil. It must also be noted that most students doing LSE's MSc do NOT have doing PhD in mind.
Other input? (let me say it before Reactor does) Tuition as well as living expense is much higher in London than in Oxford. This must be taken into consideration, especially if you are intending to spend 2 years there. It is very hard to get funding for MSc.
edited: Regarding reapplying for PhD. LSE: I don't think it will help much unless you reapply after you have completed your MSc. Oxford: Are you willing to start over again, since most US grad schools do not accept credit transfer, after you have finishing most of the PhD course work?
lse-ug: I get the rhetoric about LSE MSc's one year program not helping much, but what about the two year program?
For Oxford: If I decide to go on with the PhD then yes, I am willing to start again.
Are your undergraduate major economics? If yes, there is no reason doing the preliminary year at LSE. (or you are talking about their 2 years programs MSc Global Market Economics and MSc Public Financial Policy?)
The reason why doing a master degree is beneficial for PhD application:
(1) You can show to the adcom that you can handle graduate work and that you are well prepared. (2) You can get well-known professors to write LOR for you if you do you master in a top department.
LSE's MSc doesn't help because (1) you won't have your grades until you have completed the program, and (2) since you have to reapply early in the year, you may have difficulties getting your professors to write you really good LOR. But I do believe that you can signal a lot by doing very well in the program and then reapply in the year after you complete the MSc.
If you are willing to spend 2 years, I suggest you go with Oxford. Because: Suppose that you are reapplying in the beginning of your second year, what you can show to the adcom is your performance in a year of graduate work at Oxford, while what you show to them is your performance of a year of undergraduate work at LSE (assume that you are not talking about MSc GME/PFP).
Well, provided that you can perform well in both program.
lse-ug...according to your comments it seems (for the person who wants US top-5/10/20 PhD) that its better to go to oxford...it seems like that this conclusion is stronger in albertalla's case since he is going to do the 2-year stream at LSE anyway..
and
you are from LSE...what do you hear about LSE MSc grads in terms of job opportunities...Id be grateful if you can give me a couple of lines on this matter..
Why wouldn't it make sense to re-apply just after being accepted by the MSc program? If your sole weakness in the application process was your academic background (business students...), it might make a whole lot of sense, don't you think?
Moreover, how does the MSc in Econometrics and Mathematical Economics (at LSE) compare to the MPhil at Oxford in terms of preparation for PhD applications?
Just spoke to a professor from LSE who teaches at both Oxford and LSE. He was saying that the Oxford undergrad is PPE, that is only a third economics. Students going into the MPhil have therefore a weak economics basis, while people at LSE have a pure econ degree.
His thinking was that the first year of the Oxford MPhil was really just a way to catch up and was not at PhD standards.
That makes sense. Afterall what I have said is about Oxford is just based on their prospectus. But then their first year should be still heavier than LSE MSc's preliminary year, which is really undergraduate courses.Originally Posted by albertalla
Regarding MSc EME, it is a very tough program. The level of the courses is definitely not lower than PhD courses, and the level econometrics is above first year PhD. You can actually take 2nd year PhD courses in the program as well. Thus it really prepare you a lot for PhD study afterwards, well, provided you are prepared for the EME. That's why it is very hard to get in.
wow, this forum has gotten really active lately. I had to go back some way to get this.
According to students who have gone from LSE's MSc to Oxford's DPhil and had to take some first year MPhil classes, they're at the same level. Oxford MPhil's first year ~= LSE MSc in level.
I am also getting sources telling me that Oxford places its top students into America's top PhD programs. Anyone one knows how LSE fares there?
From econphd, Oxford is strong in development, 4th, but not in other fields. My interest, a priori, is development so that looks alright.
LSE is a much more expensive program; does anyone know if it has a better placement than Oxford? Even by applying after the MSc year?
What you can do
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks