New to forum

[brotherbear]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with economiks. For both of the points you have been attempting to make, you seem to lack sufficient proof. I will grant you that the 'Harvard' name is a very good one, perhaps even the best (though, Oxford, Cambridge, Yale, and Princeton may have something to say about that). In any case, though, I believe you lack credible evidence to suggest that the OP could, in fact, gain admission to the Harvard PhD Econ program. For instance, do you actually know the exact number of Harvard College students who applied for the Ph.D. program this year and how many were accepted? Of those who were rejected, how many were 'qualified' applicants? I would think the OP would know pretty well the retention rates of Harvard undergrads for their Ph.D. program, and as a smart kid, he's likely not low-balling/deluding himself into believing that he's not Harvard Ph.D. material. Whether that's the case or not, the kid specifically said he does not want to go into academia, and further stated that he didn't feel he had the drive to stick with a Ph.D. program for 5+ years. Moreover, he said he simply loved economics, and wished to continue study at the master's level. If you're coming from Harvard, and you really only wish to do a master's, then LSE is just about the only place I wouldn't consider a significant downgrade. Moreover, perhaps the kid is enamoured with the notion of studying abroad. With a master's from the LSE, he'll have a different perspective than the majority of his Ivy League bretheren that went straight into the work force. The kid obviously isn't concerned with getting a job, and doesn't need another prestigous name on his CV. Maybe he just needs a year more before entering the workforce to figure out what he wants to do. And, I think it's important to point out that he cannot go straight into HBS from undergrad without any work experience whatsoever. It is true that HBS is either the best or second best business school in the world (Wharton is better in certain areas), and a degree from HBS is more highly prised than a Master's in Economics from the LSE, but we're comparing two completely different degrees, since one is available to him upon graduation, and the other is out of reach for at least 2-3 years post-undergrad. Moreover, while Harvard is a very prestigous name, it's not like people wipe their bums with LSE degrees, and he certainly wouldn't be weakening his profile by getting a postgraduate degree in economics from the world's top stand-alone master's program. Too, being in London would open a new job market to him, as he would be afforded the chance of interviewing for jobs in a locale where the Harvard name is so pervasive (top jobs in Boston and New York are filled with Harvard grads, while it is much, much less the case in London). Conversely, far fewer people in the States have a master's from a place like the LSE than do people in London. In this way, his profile would be strengthened in both job markets. In any case, I do not intend to offend, but I think economiks is a little off-base on this one.

[Golden Rule]

Originally Posted by ekonomiks

The OP is likely to get admitted to Harvard PhD if he maintains at least a minimal level of preparation as previously specified.

You make it sound easy -- it's not.

Let me tell you how I see it -- Harvard ABs going to Harvard PhD have to pass through the same hoops as everyone else applying for a PhD program. The reason why they have a larger-than-usual share of the Harvard class:
1) Harvard doesn't discriminate its own like other schools might who encourage you to go elsewhere (that could simply be in whether their dept. encourages students to apply elsewhere, or it could happen in other schools' admissions process)
2) Harvard undergrads who work with senior Harvard professors and impress them are going to be certainly well-regarded, while if you're from another school there's a level of randomness as to whether you'll be as well regarded, as the ad coms' info about other candidates is noisier.

So point is, to go from Harvard college to GSAS, you're still going need probably a 3.8 GPA overall (higher in your econ classes), possibly a little grad work, a near-800 GRE, some RA work, and a pretty good senior thesis. A superb senior thesis would probably trump shortcomings in the other areas.

So you're right that if you maintain a minimal level of prep as a Harvard undergrad, you'll stand a greater probability of getting into Harvard than others. But that level prep is still just as high as getting into anywhere else, it's a matter of taking away the randomness that you'll get in. Harvard is not going to take one of their own with less observable research potential than another candidate. If someone has a 3.8 GPA, 800 GRE, and no thesis from Harvard, they're not going to get in. There are no shortcuts to getting into a top five PhD program.

[dwigt]

I said:

Going to say Chicago and dropping out with an MA is not the best signal, but you still show you got into Chicago AND you will get the recruiting at Chicago. To my mind, this clearly dominates going to any masters besides LSE.

Cassin said:

Originally Posted by Cassin

I disagree - anyone else agrees?

Ok let me say I personally know 2 econ & 3 finance people in my school (I am in finance) who left early and had no problem getting HF/PE/MC offers.

That said, if you think Harvard+non-LSE terminal masters is better for either industry or academic opportunities/optionality than Harvard+enrolling in top econ phd, more power to you bro.

[Cassin]

Originally Posted by dwigt

f you think Harvard+non-LSE terminal masters is better for either industry or academic opportunities/optionality than Harvard+enrolling in top econ phd,

Straw man/false dilemma. Non-LSE Master's is good if money is important (it's unclear whether additional value of LSE is worth ~30k of tuition+living expenses) and want to have academia door open. Once again, if money is not important - LSE is better than UBC.

My comment was about "dropping out of top phd", not about "enrolling in top phd." Suppose OP goes to PhD but realizes he doesn't like research THAT much (which is what he's saying) - then he quits. That's the real "option" and it's not a good one (note: it might take 2 years to get Chicago's Master's). PhD is a major commitment and it takes some soul-searching to figure out whether a student wants it badly enough (necessary because research has a lot of dark moments when nothing is working out). Going into PhD right is risky if he is not yet "sure" he is ready or committed to finishing it.

It's not the end of the world but it's a dead-end because he won't be able to get a good PhD later on. Some people work for a while and decide to go back to school (several people I met at flyouts had 2-3 years of experience at an investment bank or top consulting firm) - UBC doctoral MA (just like LSE) would still have that door open for top 5. A student who failed out at Penn had to go down in ranking to Rutgers to restart his PhD.