TestMagic

Nero Caesar · 05-07-2008, 11:34 PM

Hi everybody! I hold offers for both the MSc in Economics and the MSc in Applicable Mathematics at LSE.

I am about to finish my BSc in International Economics and Management and by applying to MSc in Applicable Mathematics I intended to have the chance to study more advanced maths as I haven't had the opportunity throughout my undegrad. studies. The problem, though, is that I don't know how well respected and prestigious it is compared with the program in Economics, and which one would be preferred when applying to Phd programs in Economics.

I would like to hear your opinion about this dilemma, especially if there's anybody around who went through either one of them.

Thanks a lot!

elcapitano · 05-08-2008, 06:20 PM

I'd take the Econ, firstly I suspect it's easier to do well, although this is pure conjecture. Secondly, if you do well you can automatically transfer to the LSE PhD Econ which is a great option even if you have your heart set on somewhere else.

With respect to the hard maths angle - Msc Economics is pretty mathematical anyway especially if you take quant options and should be more than sufficient to demonstrate that you've got what it takes.

Congrats on the admits!

Nero Caesar · 05-09-2008, 12:31 AM

Thanks a lot, it really sounds very reasonable; I also got an offer for the MPhil in Economics at Cambridge, so should I opt for the econ path, I would also have to choose where. It may sound paradoxical but sometimes it's better not to have these many options. I really don't know what to do!

elcapitano · 05-09-2008, 08:32 AM

Knowing people who have done both, MPhil @ Cambridge > MSc @ LSE (unless you want to carry on to LSE). The course is more rigourous, it's (much) harder to get accepted so is a better signal, the classes are smaller, for industry Cambridge is the mutts nutts. Also, it's a lot cheaper (fees), and a lot cheaper to live. Finally, although Cambridge is a small town, London is only 45 minutes away by train and it's a much, much, nicer place especially if you're not rich.

Nero Caesar · 05-09-2008, 09:24 AM

I always thought LSE was much harder than Cambridge to get into, in terms of offers per number of applications:

LSE: 145/1,115
Cambridge: 140/500

Also, I go to Bocconi University and most professors here (I can assure you I have talked to some of the most renown economists, not just any professor) told me not to even think about Cambridge, being LSE much better for Economics.

As far as the "life" issue, I would rather study in Cambridge than in London, although I always thought of LSE as my best choice, so, again, it is first a matter of deciding between math or econ and then in case I chose econ, between LSE and Cambridge; quite a mess. Don't you guys think that a more mathematical program like the MSc in Applicable Mathematics would be better regarded by investment banks and consulting firms when recruiting? Or is it solely a matter of where you are pursuing your degree and not which degree you are pursuing?

elcapitano · 05-09-2008, 10:48 AM

I may be wrong, but I think that you've got the size of the incoming class for LSE and acceptances for Cambridge (the size of the incoming class is 45-50) so you're comparing apples and pears. I know several people who have applied for both and been rejected by Cambridge but accepted by LSE but none the other way round. I guess this could just be coincidence.

You're right that LSE is a better department and if you think you're likely to stay on for a PhD then it's probably the better option, however I think the MSc is a weaker course. The MSc lacks a significant research element - you do the short dissertation over the easter holidays - and you'll be done in eight months while the MPhil will take ten months as the longer dissertation is a summer project. Still, whicheve you choose you'll be on an awesome course.

If you're considering the private sector I don't think you should understate the impact of Oxbridge on your CV - especially if you're not going to be working in the UK - unless you're going into a really quanty area I think it's you're best option.

Nero Caesar · 05-09-2008, 12:15 PM

Yeah you are probably right, I know for sure that 140 is the number of offers that they make at Cambridge, but I don't know about the LSE figure which I just got from the website. A class of 140 people (it's probably more than my UG class) at LSE would definitely not be a great experience, at least not worth paying all that money.

But I still wonder about the math program, I thought of it as the best option after the MSc EME which was already limited availability when I applied and I would have blown one of my choices; and probably my application wouldn't have been as strong as that of the other applicants.

I always thought that having a good quantitative background would be a good thing even if you don't wanna get a very quanty job as you said, especially if you have to deal with people who do the quanty work, don't you think?

Connemara Pony · 05-09-2008, 12:23 PM

I'm going to Cambridge for the MPhil, as soon as I found out I had been accepted I didn't continue my LSE application. There's tonnes of reasons that I would chose Cambridge over LSE(most of which were pointed out above) But I think the main one is cost. Unless money is no object there is no way I could justify spending such an extra amount on LSE. Even if LSE was better I don't think the difference would be enough to justify spending extra on it.

Economics is rigorous enough in itself, in terms of getting a job it won't matter whether you've done your masters in that or applicable mathematics(unless you want to do something extremely quantitative)

Congrats on all the admits!

elcapitano · 05-09-2008, 12:49 PM

At the end of the day, any of the three courses you mentioned will be good. If you're considering doing a PhD at LSE you should do MSc Econ there, and if you might do a PhD in the UK then you ought to do one of the Econ options. I'd tend to agree with the Pony that for Investment Banking theres probably not much of a difference, however my knowledge of investment banking is limited to non-existent, so you may well be right. I do think that if you want to work in Industry outside of the UK and outside of Economic Consultancy the brand of Cambridge will be valued more highly than that of LSE.

Nero Caesar · 05-09-2008, 04:09 PM

How hard would you think it would be to get into a Phd program other than Cambridge's from the MPhil?

05-07-2008, 11:34 PM	#1 (permalink)
Nero Caesar Trying to make mom and pop proud Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 15	LSE: MSc Economics vs MSc Applicable Mathematics Hi everybody! I hold offers for both the MSc in Economics and the MSc in Applicable Mathematics at LSE. I am about to finish my BSc in International Economics and Management and by applying to MSc in Applicable Mathematics I intended to have the chance to study more advanced maths as I haven't had the opportunity throughout my undegrad. studies. The problem, though, is that I don't know how well respected and prestigious it is compared with the program in Economics, and which one would be preferred when applying to Phd programs in Economics. I would like to hear your opinion about this dilemma, especially if there's anybody around who went through either one of them. Thanks a lot!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-08-2008, 06:20 PM	#2 (permalink)
elcapitano Eager! Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 70	I'd take the Econ, firstly I suspect it's easier to do well, although this is pure conjecture. Secondly, if you do well you can automatically transfer to the LSE PhD Econ which is a great option even if you have your heart set on somewhere else. With respect to the hard maths angle - Msc Economics is pretty mathematical anyway especially if you take quant options and should be more than sufficient to demonstrate that you've got what it takes. Congrats on the admits!

05-09-2008, 12:31 AM	#3 (permalink)
Nero Caesar Trying to make mom and pop proud Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 15	Thanks a lot, it really sounds very reasonable; I also got an offer for the MPhil in Economics at Cambridge, so should I opt for the econ path, I would also have to choose where. It may sound paradoxical but sometimes it's better not to have these many options. I really don't know what to do!

05-09-2008, 08:32 AM	#4 (permalink)
elcapitano Eager! Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 70	Knowing people who have done both, MPhil @ Cambridge > MSc @ LSE (unless you want to carry on to LSE). The course is more rigourous, it's (much) harder to get accepted so is a better signal, the classes are smaller, for industry Cambridge is the mutts nutts. Also, it's a lot cheaper (fees), and a lot cheaper to live. Finally, although Cambridge is a small town, London is only 45 minutes away by train and it's a much, much, nicer place especially if you're not rich.

05-09-2008, 09:24 AM	#5 (permalink)
Nero Caesar Trying to make mom and pop proud Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 15	I always thought LSE was much harder than Cambridge to get into, in terms of offers per number of applications: LSE: 145/1,115 Cambridge: 140/500 Also, I go to Bocconi University and most professors here (I can assure you I have talked to some of the most renown economists, not just any professor) told me not to even think about Cambridge, being LSE much better for Economics. As far as the "life" issue, I would rather study in Cambridge than in London, although I always thought of LSE as my best choice, so, again, it is first a matter of deciding between math or econ and then in case I chose econ, between LSE and Cambridge; quite a mess. Don't you guys think that a more mathematical program like the MSc in Applicable Mathematics would be better regarded by investment banks and consulting firms when recruiting? Or is it solely a matter of where you are pursuing your degree and not which degree you are pursuing?

05-09-2008, 10:48 AM	#6 (permalink)
elcapitano Eager! Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 70	I may be wrong, but I think that you've got the size of the incoming class for LSE and acceptances for Cambridge (the size of the incoming class is 45-50) so you're comparing apples and pears. I know several people who have applied for both and been rejected by Cambridge but accepted by LSE but none the other way round. I guess this could just be coincidence. You're right that LSE is a better department and if you think you're likely to stay on for a PhD then it's probably the better option, however I think the MSc is a weaker course. The MSc lacks a significant research element - you do the short dissertation over the easter holidays - and you'll be done in eight months while the MPhil will take ten months as the longer dissertation is a summer project. Still, whicheve you choose you'll be on an awesome course. If you're considering the private sector I don't think you should understate the impact of Oxbridge on your CV - especially if you're not going to be working in the UK - unless you're going into a really quanty area I think it's you're best option.

05-09-2008, 12:15 PM	#7 (permalink)
Nero Caesar Trying to make mom and pop proud Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 15	Yeah you are probably right, I know for sure that 140 is the number of offers that they make at Cambridge, but I don't know about the LSE figure which I just got from the website. A class of 140 people (it's probably more than my UG class) at LSE would definitely not be a great experience, at least not worth paying all that money. But I still wonder about the math program, I thought of it as the best option after the MSc EME which was already limited availability when I applied and I would have blown one of my choices; and probably my application wouldn't have been as strong as that of the other applicants. I always thought that having a good quantitative background would be a good thing even if you don't wanna get a very quanty job as you said, especially if you have to deal with people who do the quanty work, don't you think?

05-09-2008, 12:23 PM	#8 (permalink)
Connemara Pony Eager! Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 49	I'm going to Cambridge for the MPhil, as soon as I found out I had been accepted I didn't continue my LSE application. There's tonnes of reasons that I would chose Cambridge over LSE(most of which were pointed out above) But I think the main one is cost. Unless money is no object there is no way I could justify spending such an extra amount on LSE. Even if LSE was better I don't think the difference would be enough to justify spending extra on it. Economics is rigorous enough in itself, in terms of getting a job it won't matter whether you've done your masters in that or applicable mathematics(unless you want to do something extremely quantitative) Congrats on all the admits!

05-09-2008, 12:49 PM	#9 (permalink)
elcapitano Eager! Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 70	At the end of the day, any of the three courses you mentioned will be good. If you're considering doing a PhD at LSE you should do MSc Econ there, and if you might do a PhD in the UK then you ought to do one of the Econ options. I'd tend to agree with the Pony that for Investment Banking theres probably not much of a difference, however my knowledge of investment banking is limited to non-existent, so you may well be right. I do think that if you want to work in Industry outside of the UK and outside of Economic Consultancy the brand of Cambridge will be valued more highly than that of LSE.

05-09-2008, 04:09 PM	#10 (permalink)
Nero Caesar Trying to make mom and pop proud Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 15	How hard would you think it would be to get into a Phd program other than Cambridge's from the MPhil?

TestMagic

Free GMAT, GRE, SAT Test, TOEFL practice tests