the_iceman Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Hi everybody, This is my first post here, but i've read the threads for some time. I have a question about the Warwick masters degree and whether it makes for good preparation for getting into a good US PhD programme. Long story made short, I applied for a couple of masters degrees in the UK this spring and Warwick (and York) were the best I was accepted into (no declines). I was too late to apply for LSE and University College and hadn't taken the GRE test so I was also too late to apply to UPF and Amsterdam for example (I realise this sounds awful, but I had my reasons). To give you some background: I completed my BSc degree at the best economics school in my country (non-eu) and was among the top 10%. I have solid grades and am certain that I will be able to get at least 780 on the GRE-test. I think my LoRs are good (nothing spectacular though) and I've been out of school for 2 years, working as an analyst. My main interest ly in public economics, labour economics and behavioral economics. My questions would be: 1) Should I take the Warwick masters degree this fall or wait for one year and try to get into some better schools to increase my chances of getting into a solid PhD programme in the US? I was rather inclined to go to Warwick this fall, but after reading some of the threads here I'm not so sure, as Warwick has been described as a second tier school and at a dreadful location. 2) At the risk of sounding cocky and unrealistic, I think I would be able to do well in the Warwick programme - wouldn't it be better to be among the top 10% in a 2nd tier school than a mediocre student in a 1st tier school (i.e. LSE)? 3) Berkeley would be my absolute first choice in the US - do I have any chance of getting into the PhD programme there with a BSc degree from an unknown university (albeit the best in my country) and a masters from Warwick? Should I rather wait the year and try my luck getting into a better school? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karina 07 Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Hi everybody, This is my first post here, but i've read the threads for some time. I have a question about the Warwick masters degree and whether it makes for good preparation for getting into a good US PhD programme. Long story made short, I applied for a couple of masters degrees in the UK this spring and Warwick (and York) were the best I was accepted into (no declines). I was too late to apply for LSE and University College and hadn't taken the GRE test so I was also too late to apply to UPF and Amsterdam for example (I realise this sounds awful, but I had my reasons). To give you some background: I completed my BSc degree at the best economics school in my country (non-eu) and was among the top 10%. I have solid grades and am certain that I will be able to get at least 780 on the GRE-test. I think my LoRs are good (nothing spectacular though) and I've been out of school for 2 years, working as an analyst. My main interest ly in public economics, labour economics and behavioral economics. My questions would be: 1) Should I take the Warwick masters degree this fall or wait for one year and try to get into some better schools to increase my chances of getting into a solid PhD programme in the US? I was rather inclined to go to Warwick this fall, but after reading some of the threads here I'm not so sure, as Warwick has been described as a second tier school and at a dreadful location. 2) At the risk of sounding cocky and unrealistic, I think I would be able to do well in the Warwick programme - wouldn't it be better to be among the top 10% in a 2nd tier school than a mediocre student in a 1st tier school (i.e. LSE)? 3) Berkeley would be my absolute first choice in the US - do I have any chance of getting into the PhD programme there with a BSc degree from an unknown university (albeit the best in my country) and a masters from Warwick? Should I rather wait the year and try my luck getting into a better school? To be *perfectly* honest, if I were you I would wait a year and re-apply to LSE and Oxbridge. If you went to Warwick, the schools are going to be deciding between you (say in the top 10% there) and the people who were in the top 10% at LSE/Oxbridge. But what's going to be particularly important, wherever you go, are the recommendation letters, so go somewhere that you can do research under a good prof -- it will help outweigh either it being Warwick or you being in the top 20% rather than top 10% at a better school. Overall, though, if I were you I'd wait a year, but that's just my opinion (and if you would accept a school ranked a little lower, you should still be okay and save the year). It should also make a difference, wherever you apply, if someone knows your undergrad university, e.g. is also from the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filroz Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 I do not believe much in such a advice. 1) Warwick is good school, some would argue that it is not even worse then oxbridge/lse in some ways. If warwick cannot help you, then I doubt oxbridge can either. BTW, I went through students webpages at top10 schools and I found surprisingly small number of msc graduates from lse or oxbridge 2)what will you do in your year off? if you start working, you could loose some studying skills and contact with academia 3) with msc from warwick you can apply to MRes at LSE, if you still need to boost your profile and applying to top us programs a year later anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangsiuje Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Warwick places very well into UK PhD programs, but a lot less so into US ones. The department is rising, but it just doesn't have the momentum of LSE/Oxbridge. If you are looking at the US top 10, or even top 15, then I really, really advice you to attend one of those schools. I did my undergrad at Warwick, told my prof my goal was doing a PhD at a US school and he said that I should basically look only at LSE/Oxbridge (in the UK), although Warwick and UCL might be sufficient if you're looking perhaps US 20-30 and below. Thus, unless you got plenty of funding, the Warwick MSc is a quite bad investment. If you're non-EU, I suppose you're going to end up spending £10k+ anyway, and I would think that money is a lot better spent at LSE/Oxbridge. Moreover, my impression is that you still need to be in the top 10% of your class at the LSE to have a shot with the US top 10. I don't think being in the top 10% at Warwick will quite do - you'd probably have to something like "the most excellent student I have taught in ten years". A word of warning: UK programs start quite late in autumn, and it may be quite difficult to find profs able to write you an excellent letter (which is crucial for places like Berkeley) during your master's. Finally, the Warwick location isn't that bad. It's alright if you are really fond of the countryside, and it's very green. A train to London takes about 1 hour and you can take a bus for less than £5 (£1 if you're lucky) down to London in about 2.5hrs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reactor Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 If you do excellent (80%+) at Warwick then you might have a chance in top schools. However Warwick Econ has extremely bad teaching at the master's level and I have cross-referenced that with more than 10 former Warwick MSc econ students who did well in the MSc and some of them are current PhD students at Warwick. Most of them were also talking about unfair exams. If you can do really well with extremely poor teaching and unfair exams then Warwick is for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
italos Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 I second Reactor's post!I did my MSc at Warwick and my experience has been extremely negative.All his saying is true.If you search this forum you will find other people's experience on Warwick MSc.Of course you should consider what other option do you have and if you are available wasting another year.Btw why did you not apply at UPF? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smileysquared Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 This is really scary-sounds like Warwick is not a good place to go and surprisingly it was my first choice! When I got admitted I just stopped applying elsewhere. I spoke to Professor Hodges and I got the impression that the lecturers were very helpful. I applied to the MSc Finance and Economics and was abit worried because I have absolutely no knowledge of finance....and now you people are scaring me. What do you mean by unfair exams? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reactor Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 What do you mean by unfair exams? Most students (even the ones that eventually get high grades) have no clue what will be in the exam. Past exam papers either are not made available or are irrelevant. Many times, topics that have not been taught (at least explicitly) appear in the exams in the form of such questions and even if you had studied them before, it would be hard to reproduce during the exam (let alone figuring out the answer under exam conditions). The lectures and the notes are not only useless but also give the wrong impression of what is expected in the exams. Even top students told me that studying the notes and what is presented in the lectures, guarantes failure in the exams! Approximately out of 90 students, 20 fail at least one exam. I think that if you are ready to be deceived by lecturers (and sometimes well-published professors) that do not give a damn about students (and are not embarashed to show it) then go to Warwick. Just do me a personal favor and if you fnally attend Warwick, post at TestMagic your experience. Simply put, Warwick professors' research may be rising but it's at the absolute expense of (at least) MSc students. As a former Warwick msc econ student (who is now in a well-respected PhD program) said: "You pay, you suffer, you go through agonizing and desperate times, you get no high marks and you learn nothing". I expect Italos to comment on my post and I challenge and invite anyone who has attended Warwick MSc in economics or has some honest friend who did so, to comment on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smileysquared Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Reactor you made me smile when I read your post........so frank. Anyway I am not sure about if I will attend this year-it really depends on if I get the funding but now I am wondering if it is worth it. Thanks for your honest response. By the way have others discussed their experiences at Warwick formally on other threads before? I would really like to read about other people's experiences also if it is available and don't worry I will remember your request if I do end up in Warwick. Take care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_iceman Posted June 13, 2008 Author Share Posted June 13, 2008 Thanks for the advice guys - and especially reactor for his brutaly honest 2 cents! As it stands I'm drifting farther away from going to Warwick and instead apply for fall 09 admissions in better MSc programmes. I'll probably ask your advice come application time - if I actually end up going to warwick i'll remember to post my thoughts here at TM! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
italos Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 I was referring to their Econ MSc. Reactor said the things as they stand.I hope he recalls my post about 2-3 weeks ago on Warwick hiring and Polemarchakis behavior to the MSc Macro class.It is quite true that the exams and the marks are unfair . I recall that a classmate went to the MSc Micro lecture to ask some explanation on how she should had result the question.She got the reply that it is his philosophy that students should always learn even during in an exam.I do not known that this could happen anywhere or it s just that lecture.Besides, you don't even have the right to view your exam script .The marks are all provisional and are subject to the MSc exam Board to decide if those mark will stand or not.It is circulated among students (it is not a rumor) that they do not wish to give many high marks and it is called ''adjustment process.''(or ''cooking'' ).The average mark is around 65% and it is difficult to obtain over 70% .On the MSc thesis they assign you a supervisor and s/he is obligated to see you for consultation only for 2 hours.They usually do not help or don't even care. The exams are ALL essay style except from the MSc micro and Polemarchakis part on MSc marco(you have to resolve an OLG exercise for his part).How can you write down everything you known on the question where you must also care about the correct essay style form?Is it fair for someone who does not have this experience and/or is not accustomed with this exam style? Conclusion the department cares only for its own reputation:Better reputation more customers(students).I remember last year Dixit visited the Department for a Conference.We started talking and since he was teaching at Warwick in the late 70's asked my opinion on the Master program.I was negative saying to him what I was actually believing.The graduate director hearing the conversation asked me to follow him in his office.He asked me not to be so negative(particularly to people of Dixit calibrate)as I was hurting the University's reputation.So no freedom of speech I thought.I also recall that he said to Dixit that the Department is trying to push the number of admitted students in order to obtain more funding for the PhD. Final remark, I observed that you get your MSc by studding only about 18 topics for 6 exams for the value of 7000GBP(if home student) or 388.88 GBP per topic. I am not going to tell you what to do.It is your own decision.You may go there,differ the offer for a year and reapply or decline.In any case good luck! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinkley Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 well I was a Msc student at Warwick few years back, with the intention of continuing to a phD. Unfortunately the same I applied for LSE too late and now I wish I was either more pushy or I had asked for a related discipline. I actually did do very well on my GRE. I later on went to LSE for some more research work but I lost the interest for phD. I didn't do fantastically well on my course either cos I really lost the inspiration along the way. Teaching wise, I don't see that much difference to be honest, I didn't like the exams either but I never like them and I think there is no need to complain cos everyone has to face the same thing. it is really the name and reputation, and maybe the intellectual atmosphere you have that is much better in LSE than warwick. I have been to Oxford for lectures too but my experience is too limited to make any comments. Warwick grads do fairly well though, at least in my year, a guy got into Cambridge but decided to stay in warwick because of scholarship. at least 3 went on to US phD programs, actually one princeton, one U penn and one Boston, these are the ones I know.. and some went back to home countries and work for central banks and stuff.. and few ended up working for banks.. such as loser me.. I think if you were keen on doing phD, anywhere is the same, I mean of course you can't go to a horrible school but the rest is your making, it is a long and lonely journey and if you dont have true love for knowledge, economic knowledge particularly, it is better you save your time and do something else more productive with your life. If you do, you can make the most out of what you have anywhere.. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reactor Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Nice post twinkley! :) I appreciate that you share your experience and infromation with us. I think there is no need to complain cos everyone has to face the same thing. If you refer to the exams at Warwick the not everyone has to face the same thing, just the Warwick MSc econ studets. If for example you have horrible microeconomics lecturers and they put a horrible exams only the students who take the exam "face the same thing" and there UK is nothing like the US; there is no proper scaling after the exam (unless of course no one has got above 70% or too many people are above 70%). So if you get 60% with highest mark in the course 70%, you are stuck with the 60% even if you are in the top 5 of you class (say 90 people). I think if you were keen on doing phD, anywhere is the same, I mean of course you can't go to a horrible school but the rest is your making[...] If you do, you can make the most out of what you have anywhere.. Maybe between the top 10 US econ PhD programs there is no big difference. Maybe between Warwick and Oxford, Cambridge, UCL (even LSE) the distance is not huge. But I cannot be convinced that Warwick is comparable to top 20 US econ phd programs. I'm convinced that even if a student who could go to top 20 econ PhD programs did come to Warwick, the quality of her job market paper and job prospects would end up significantly poorer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC_Blood Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Spoke to a BSc Econ student and a fellow analyst here at Deutsche Bank research who did the MSc Econ at Warwick a few years ago. They said you’re less overwhelmed by the quality of the curriculum as by the quantity of it. So I’ll expect lots of cramming. They didn’t say anything about exams being especially unfair, maybe the essay style is a big hurdle for students who are only used to multiple choice exams, but I did quite a lot of essay exams at St. Gallen so I’m not too scared =). In my opinion, if you still have to rely on good teaching to obtain good grades in your Master you’re about to face serious problems in the “real” world, i.e. your first job – from my experiences at banks and consultancy firms I can state that self-dependency in learning is one of the key assets in a working environment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HomoEconomicus Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Hey there, as most of the posts are already a little bit and being a current student in the Warwick MSc Economics programme, I will give my best to update this discussion as far as I can: First: Yes, from what I hear from other people at LSE/Oxford, Warwick does not play in their league yet. But the department and the people in place (e.g. Abhinay Muthoo, head of department) are very ambitious and want to get there. You can actually feel this in the MSc as well. Complaints or suggestions were taken always seriously so far, a lot of improvements have been made already and the atmosphere in the department is very warm. The cohort is quite large (>100 people), the elective courses cover a huge bandwidth of specializations, however I feel that overall the programme could be a bit more quantitative. Nevertheless quantitiy-wise it is still difficult to keep up with all the materials that were taught to us. And so far (after having finished the core modules) I have never encountered any unfair exams here. With regard to Top Unis in the US I can say that Warwick seems to be very well connected. There are four weekly research seminars with external speakers and you will find guests from US Top 10 Unis every week. Best, HomoEconomicus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
contagion Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Hi everyone, I think that Warwick in term of reputation is lower than LSE, UCL and Oxford. For me Cambrigde is not so well, they are living from their old glories. I think that Warwick has been improving a lot during the last years, although it would take 5 or 10 years to earn the same reputation as LSE of Oxford. Currently, they have changed their program (now they have a 2 year MRes plus 4 years Phd), they have the money to improve their students (through funding) and professors. Also, according to its webpage they are accepting people with a GRE-quant of 166. I have a friend in Warwick (Phd) and he said that a lot of their classmates are not well prepared, so I think that this requirement will keep away bad students. I think that they are in the right direction. Best! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.