A tough case - possible solutions?

[ICECOLDECON]

Originally Posted by Tex Jansen

I should probably add the same caveat. I am interpreting the LSE grades as mediocre but not awful. If I am wrong about this then I may be wrong about other stuff.

I agree that the gap between the schools that ICECOLDECON mentions and top 10 is huge when you look at the schools overall. Keep in mind, however, that program quality is very idiosyncratic outside of the top schools. FSU may be far from top 25 overall, but you could certainly argue that its grad program is top 25 in experimental economics. Likewise, UO is certainly not top 25 overall, but it may be in macroeconomics.

If the original poster is careful in selecting lower ranked schools, and if he is lucky enough not to change his research interests while in school, then the LSE experience does not have to be a career catastrophe.

Absolutely, that is one of the tricks of applying to 30-60 schools.....you want to apply to those schools that are comparatively strong in your interests. Looking at Oregon in macro for example, notice that recent placements include Tennessee, Kentucky, and UC Irvine (all PhD programs). FSU recently placed at Oklahoma and not too long ago placed at both Connecticut and WVU.

[pevdoki1]

If your grades at LSE are in the B-B+ range, I would ignore ICECOLDECON's advice. I'm sure you can get into a quite good program with those grades (top 15-30), so I would try to fix something in the LOR department (For instance, take some additional course and finish 1st in class; the rest of the letters can be from undergrad). If you can get a glowing recommendation, some less than stellar grades will not matter too much.

[Tex Jansen]

ICECOLDECON seems to be suggesting that the poster should apply to schools between 30-60 in addition to some higher ranked programs. If he is wrong, the poster is likely out the admission fees paid to the lower ranked programs. If he is right, however, following peddoki1's advice leaves him with nowhere to go for grad school, a much higher cost.

If you really want the Ph.D., at some point you have to forget about the n^{th} masters degree and m^{th{} additional math course and pick the best available doctoral program and get started.

[yetanotherecon123]

I'd like to thank everyone for their input. This has been quite useful. I will most likely apply to schools that are much lower on the list, though I haven't done sufficient research to identify which schools are strong in specific areas.

Also, although suggestions of taking further courses sound good, it's not really a feasible option for me. Similar to Tex Janses, I also feel that deferring the actual application for too long will jeopardize chances of getting in at all.

Of course that makes "fixing LOR department" a bit harder, and I'm still quite puzzled at how I would do that. Especially given that I feel awkward about asking for LORs from BA professors. Make it double awkward if I apply for anythying in top 20 range.

[andrem]

Just re-applying without stating this year on LSE would be nonsense?

[Benjones968]

It seems to be a rather common trend that otherwise outstanding North and South American students perform poorly at European universities. One has to be incredibly self-motivated at a European university to do well, as you are not whipped into working every week as in North America. In my MSc Economics program at UCL half of the North and South American students failed and none achieved distinction. Having experienced both the European and North American variety of university, I definitely prefer the North American variety.

[Tex Jansen]

Originally Posted by andrem

Just re-applying without stating this year on LSE would be nonsense?

Ignoring ethics (since I have none), this sounds like a bad idea. The two year career hole will be pretty noticable. Also, one of the letter writers is likely to mention that the poster went to LSE. If the poster looks like he is hiding the fact, schools will assume the wors.