UCL vs UBC: which offer should I accept?

[br3ak3r]

Hello everybody,

 

I have received two offers one from UCL (apparently no funding) and one from UBC (with guaranteed funding for five years).

From a personal perspective I have many reasons to prefer UCL. Yet I would like to ask you your opinion from a purely academic/placement point of view. Which of the two universities gives me better chances for a good career provided that my interests are in Macroeconomics?

 

Thank you for your help.

[br3ak3r]

P.S.: with UCL i mean University College London and not Université catholique de Louvain!

[setsanto]

I would be very careful accepting an offer with absolutely no funding offered. Think of it this way: Do you sincerely believe that going to UCL will increase your future earnings potential by so much more than UBC to offset the difference in funding? UCL is a very good school, but as far as I know its focus is more on micro. Indeed, UBC's ranking for macro is a great deal higher than UCL's (Field Rankings at IDEAS: Macroeconomics). Even if UCL was a higher ranked institution than UBC, there is a paper that often pops up on this forum that suggests that it is better to be the best student in your cohort at a top-30 institution than even the number 5 or 6 ranked at a top-10. Just something to consider.

 

If there are location constraints involved in your decision I imagine that will make your decision a great deal more difficult. However, from a purely academic perspective I would say it is extremely risky to take the UCL offer.

Edited March 20, 2014 by setsanto

[br3ak3r]

I would be very careful accepting an offer with absolutely no funding offered. Think of it this way: Do you sincerely believe that going to UCL will increase your future earnings potential by so much more than UBC to offset the difference in funding? UCL is a very good school, but as far as I know it's focus is more on micro. Indeed, UBC's ranking for macro is a great deal higher than UCL's (Field Rankings at IDEAS: Macroeconomics). Even if UCL was a higher ranked institution than UBC, there is a paper that often pops up on this forum that suggests that it is better to be the best student in your cohort at a top-30 institution than even the number 5 or 6 ranked at a top-10. Just something to consider.

 

If there are location constraints involved in your decision I imagine that will make your decision a great deal more difficult. However, from a purely academic perspective I would say it is extremely risky to take the UCL offer.

 

 

I see what you mean... In fact I have some strong personal reason to prefer London to Vancouver. I just thought that maybe I could "survive" the first year without funding and then try to get some for the subsequent years. Besides looking at the past placements it seems ucl is slightly better, but as you said most of them are microeconomists. It's so hard to decide...

Anyway thank you for your comment.

 

 

Other suggestions?

[santtoo]

Go to UCL for applied micro.

Not sure about UBC's strong field, but the campus definitely looks more beautiful than UCL

Edited March 23, 2014 by santtoo

[coffeehouse]

UBC has a strong macro group. Especially international macro, it's one of the best. Vancouver is a great city too.

[br3ak3r]

thanks guys for your comments.

 

Anyone else?

[Luke92]

don't know much about universities for macro. i understand you have personal reasons to prefer london, but, assuming this is happening (maybe not), do not make the error of thinking london > vancouver.

[davidoshski]

I know you ask simply about academic placement but I can speak from experience London without money is an awful place to be. In addition don't get your hopes up with funding in further years the state of funding in British academia is absolutely abysmal, slowly improving but none the less abysmal.