PDA

View Full Version : Is LSE a top-10 school?



bango
02-01-2008, 04:36 PM
Where would you put LSE in a PhD Econ Ranking? I know that most people don't want to join LSE because of lack of funding, but if you were offered a funding from LSE, in which place would you order LSE in your preferences?

Do you think is it the european university with higher reputation?

What about chances into doing well in the academic job market just after the PhD? Would you think that a PhD coming from LSE has similar chances (on average, of course) that a top-10 no-top5 school?

fp3690
02-01-2008, 05:06 PM
MIT Department of Economics : Daron Acemoglu : Contact Information (http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/acemoglu/)

Olm
02-01-2008, 05:35 PM
Look at the econphd.net rankings yourself:

Rankings: All Economics (http://www.econphd.net/rank/rallec.htm)

Many consider it just outside the top ten.

Funding is hard to get at the MA level but at the PhD level it's not uncommon.

buckykatt
02-01-2008, 07:59 PM
Where would you put LSE in a PhD Econ Ranking?

A 2001 paper I've cited/linked elsewhere on the forum put LSE at only #20 worldwide. But a more recent paper from Amir & Knauff that used placements rather than citations ranked LSE at #10.

It seems to me that someone for whom attending LSE is feasible probably shouldn't ignore it as an option, though if their goal is to teach in the US it might not be preferred to a top 20 US school.

Dannyb19
02-02-2008, 12:59 AM
I am under the impression they are top 3-5 for Econometrics

zsla
02-02-2008, 02:19 AM
No they are not. They are good, but definitely not top 10. Maybe between 20-30. Also for econometrics, they are not as good as they were in the past. UCL is much better in the overall and in econometrics.

fp3690
02-02-2008, 04:08 AM
No they are not. They are good, but definitely not top 10. Maybe between 20-30. Also for econometrics, they are not as good as they were in the past. UCL is much better in the overall and in econometrics.

No, it's not. It's just not.

Ricardinho
02-02-2008, 01:06 PM
Not sure about the rankings, but I can testify that econometrics at the LSE can be brutal.........

sushigushi
02-02-2008, 01:16 PM
As far as I gathered Europe in general is more committed to theoretical econometrics. The US has a bunch of star-players/research groups, but other than that, there are far more people 'at it' on this side of the Atlantic.

Plus, we don't make you put a mortgage on your grandmother to pay for your studies ;)... seriously, the financial prospects are sooo different... too bad I don't want to go into pure metrics, so grandma is just going to have to live with it...

On a different note, a very well known (tsa/forecasting) professor of mine told me that the trend is for metrics to be moving towards Asia. According to him, in 20 years, Western students will be going to China, Korea etc. for graduate studies in metrics...

...ahhh, globalization... globalization and kids not squeeking about 'too much math' in high school...

TruDog
02-02-2008, 01:32 PM
...ahhh, globalization... globalization and kids not squeeking about 'too much math' in high school...

Well said, sushigushi. In America, high schools do a lousy job preparing students mathematically. I went to a large (~1000 person) high school and calculus was not even offered. Needless to say, that doesn't exactly help one get through analysis and other advanced math classes during college.

As my brilliant econometrics TA says whenever he reviews some 'basic' analysis topic, "That was high school math."

snappythecrab
02-03-2008, 08:08 AM
went to a large (~1000 person) high

roflcopters...country fella?



As my brilliant econometrics TA says whenever he reviews some 'basic' analysis topic, "That was high school math."
http://www.imflyn.com/images/PingHat-1.jpg

Smileysquared
02-03-2008, 01:47 PM
I thought LSE was in the top 10 universities. I remember before I started to apply to foreign universities I did a dogpile search for university rankings and LSE was in the top 10.

tangsiuje
02-03-2008, 03:39 PM
I think it depends entirely on what your personal goals are. If you're hoping to find a job in the UK, LSE is probably preferable to almost all American universities, take away the top-5, perhaps. Almost all faculty at almost all better English universities are trained at LSE/Oxbridge.

For finding an academic position in the US, I'd guesstimate the LSE is on par with American schools in the top 20-30 range, not because of lacking teaching or research, but because of preferences for "one's own" (in the sense of academic culture/traditions, not ethnicity/nationality).

Guest Who
02-03-2008, 03:55 PM
Have any of you been to LSE? It is not just a difference in preferences: the style of education is completely different. Accordingly, the training differs considerably too. It's more than just location, home-bias or aversion to British cuisine that's driving the general perception.

(This comment applies to LSE only: I know nothing about how Oxbridge or UCL approach thier graduate education.)

filroz
02-03-2008, 04:23 PM
Have any of you been to LSE? It is not just a difference in preferences: the style of education is completely different.
Guest Who: Interesting, could you be more specific?

EconPL
02-03-2008, 04:57 PM
No they are not. They are good, but definitely not top 10. Maybe between 20-30. Also for econometrics, they are not as good as they were in the past. UCL is much better in the overall and in econometrics.

I'm sorry to say that zsla but you know nothing both about UCL and LSE. The fact that you wrote that UCL is better in econometrics is pretty good joke.

Now, being more serious. LSE is regarded as a better school than UCL overall. LSE is much better in econometrics and macro. In micro UCL has a few good people and maybe in that field tthey are slightly better.

I personally will place LSE just outside top 10. I think econphd ranking reflects well the position of LSE. There wasn't much movement of faculty and if anything they are hiring lots of junior but promising faculty from top universities.

115th dream
02-03-2008, 05:04 PM
Does anyone know of people from this forum who have been accepted to LSE's PhD program in past years? (I suppose what I'm asking indirectly is... what does the profile of a successful LSE PhD applicant look like?)

zsla
02-03-2008, 05:22 PM
I'm sorry to say that zsla but you know nothing both about UCL and LSE.

I know quite a lot about both of them. You can't even imagine.

If you say that UCL has only a few good people, then you probably don't know anything about the literature.

LSE is doing the same econometrics as they were doing in 70s and 80s. They were good that time, but now they are outdated.

"LSE being better than UCL in the overall" is like a song that you sing without knowing the lyrics. People do this all the time :)

Olm
02-03-2008, 07:15 PM
I am happy to hear that UCL is a great school... the only person I know there is Richard Blundell.

asquare
02-03-2008, 11:28 PM
I know quite a lot about both of them. You can't even imagine.

If you say that UCL has only a few good people, then you probably don't know anything about the literature.

LSE is doing the same econometrics as they were doing in 70s and 80s. They were good that time, but now they are outdated.

"LSE being better than UCL in the overall" is like a song that you sing without knowing the lyrics. People do this all the time :)
I don't know which school is better. But I'm curious: when you say that UCL is better than LSE, what information are you relying on? Is there any published ranking that puts UCL above LSE? Can you cite someone credible who puts UCL above LSE? If you're not basing your claim on rankings, what information are you using?

I can understand knowing the literature in one field well enough to think that one school or the other is currently more influential in that field, but I can't imagine being familiar enough and well informed enough about all the literature in all the fields to say that one school is unequivocally better than the other.

And more than just current publications goes into comparing schools; what criteria are you using and where do you get your information? Your opinion would be a lot more useful if we knew where it was coming from. Insulting other people by saying they don't know what they are talking about doesn't give the rest of us much reason to believe you, but it would be interesting information if you could give us a reason to believe it.

zsla
02-04-2008, 12:17 AM
You were my favorite moderator asquare, and now you are letting me down. So sad!!!

asquare
02-04-2008, 12:32 AM
You were my favorite moderator asquare, and now you are letting me down. So sad!!!
Not sure how I'm letting you down, but I'm not going to stop posting my opinions and questions even if they do disappoint you ;) Being a moderator means that I'm helping Erin and company keep things running smoothly, but it also doesn't change that I participate in the forums just like everyone else. I won't ever use my "moderator powers" because I disagree with someone or don't see where they are coming from, though -- I'll do just what I did with you, reply to the post as though I weren't a moderator :)

And that said, I hope you'll comment on what I said in my earlier post. It's possible to learn a lot about how people think about this crazy field from posters here, but only when they back up opinions with reasons and evidence.

zsla
02-04-2008, 12:38 AM
Ok asquare, don't worry I will be back with the reasons, but not now. I am crying now because of what you did :)

asquare
02-04-2008, 12:48 AM
Ok asquare, don't worry I will be back with the reasons, but not now. I am crying now because of what you did :)
Yeah, well, I sometimes have that effect on people ;)

canecon
02-04-2008, 02:09 AM
awkward...:S
anyhow if it counts for anything one of my econ profs specifically told me that UCL was better for graduate school than LSE. (not including other factors: $etc). However he seemed much more knowledgeable regarding UCL than LSE.

fp3690
02-04-2008, 03:51 AM
I think that one of the factors (ceteris paribus of course) of grad school is size of department, because with a larger department size, you get more professors to choose from when doing your dissertation. LSE is vast! It could be around 100 people full time or visiting. The stars (quah, pissarides, besley, persson, redding) teach little or nothing below the phd level, which is bad for undergrads, but quite nice for phd students. Again, I'm stressing that my point was all else equal!

Olm
02-04-2008, 06:42 AM
anyhow if it counts for anything one of my econ profs specifically told me that UCL was better for graduate school than LSE. (not including other factors: $etc).

Ditto. Plus, not having to pay yet another $100 application fee was nice.

Sam_Jackson
02-04-2008, 03:21 PM
LSE is indeed better than UCL. All of their faculty have PhDs from the top 10 US schools or LSE/Oxbridge (surprisingly none from UChicago - might be wrong about this one as I didn't thoroughly check); they have very good publications in the major journals. Econometrics at the LSE rocks. I have many graduate friends at the LSE who would vouch for that.

I wouldn't read too much into zsla's opinion. If I remember correctly, there was a subjective assesment thread on the rankings of the top economics departments. Most people made three tiers and piled their unis into each. Apparently Harvard wasn't good enough for zsla to be in any of the three tiers. Nuff said.

UCL is indeed a very good department. If I'm not mistaken they have two recent PhD grad placed into Stanford. Not bad eh! However LSE is better.

Sam.

econphilomath
02-04-2008, 06:58 PM
ahhh zsla, a genuine Taliban from Chicago, once more proving that TM has room for all kinds of economic species.

My very limited and subjective info on LSE vs UCL is that several people from my school who do applied micro-econometrics have gone to UCL. Others, who do macro have gone to LSE. That been said, I have used a intro dynamic macro book by Jerome Adda from UCL "Dynamic Economics" which seems to be used there as a complement to macro textbooks in first year courses.

Summary: top of mind for me would be "UCL, applied microeconometrics" and "LSE, more macro stuff". But thats just my subjective, word of mouth, perception. I'm not appling to neither and am not claiming to know all. (kind of like a an interview of someone on the street asking what they think about the Fed cutting interest rates)

fp3690
02-04-2008, 07:18 PM
LSE is indeed better than UCL. All of their faculty have PhDs from the top 10 US schools or LSE/Oxbridge (surprisingly none from UChicago - might be wrong about this one as I didn't thoroughly check); they have very good publications in the major journals. Econometrics at the LSE rocks. I have many graduate friends at the LSE who would vouch for that.

I wouldn't read too much into zsla's opinion. If I remember correctly, there was a subjective assesment thread on the rankings of the top economics departments. Most people made three tiers and piled their unis into each. Apparently Harvard wasn't good enough for zsla to be in any of the three tiers. Nuff said.

UCL is indeed a very good department. If I'm not mistaken they have two recent PhD grad placed into Stanford. Not bad eh! However LSE is better.

Sam.

Alwyn Young - I don't know if he has a Chicago PhD, but he came from Chicago GSB.

zsla
02-04-2008, 08:05 PM
I also have used a intro dynamic macro book by Jerome Adda from LSE "Dynamic Economics"

Jerome is a Professor at UCL, NOT LSE. Check UCL's website.

econphilomath
02-04-2008, 08:30 PM
Jerome is a Professor at UCL, NOT LSE. Check UCL's website.

It has been corrected. Thank you for pointing it out.

EconPL
02-04-2008, 09:05 PM
There must be a reason why there is literally noone at LSE who I am aware of with a ph.d from Chicago in Econ department... What is also interesting, during this year recruiting cycle LSE invited candidates from all top 10 schools except, suprisingly, UChicago...

And I agree that LSE doesn't have that strong applied metrics people but for sure Robinson, Linton or Hildago are not just some random guys.

zsla
02-04-2008, 09:31 PM
There must be a reason why there is literally noone at LSE who I am aware of with a ph.d from Chicago in Econ department... What is also interesting, during this year recruiting cycle LSE invited candidates from all top 10 schools except, suprisingly, UChicago...

Hehehehehehehe, you figure out why!

If you are a grad student at LSE, you should know about the "school" you are associated with. This is very important. econphilomath says I am a Chicago taliban. yes that's true! That's why I don't like LSE and H approaches (also some part of MIT).

i agree that Robinson, Linton and Hidalgo are great technicians. But did you know that the notes that Robinson teaches now were written in the late 70s? it is not that they are wrong, but he still teaches why is it good to estimate the reduced form. He doesn't care about the economics of the problem. he doesn't like estimating decision rules in the structural sense. This is where economics and econometrics meet. So, that's why I don't like their approach. Linton is the same and so Hidalgo is.

zsla
02-04-2008, 09:42 PM
LSE should try to hire a Chicagoan. I promise, they will do it again next year :)

Ricardinho
02-04-2008, 09:57 PM
I agree with zsla about Robinson's notes and my limited experience of studying econometrics at the LSE has also been fairly frustrating. There is no economic intuition/motivation, no explanation as to why we are having to learn these techniques. Hidalgo very much like Robinson. I haven't had a class with Linton though.

fp3690
02-04-2008, 11:32 PM
Ricardinho, you obviously know your stuff, but zsla, how is it possible for you to know that stuff, unless you did an msc at LSE. Did you?

Ricardinho
02-04-2008, 11:49 PM
To get back to the general discussion of LSE vs. UCL, I still think LSE is a better choice for someone who isn't completely sure of their specialisation, because of the size of the department, as fp3690 has already mentioned.

zsla
02-05-2008, 12:20 AM
Ricardinho, you obviously know your stuff, but zsla, how is it possible for you to know that stuff, unless you did an msc at LSE. Did you?

I was Peter's RA in 70s and we typed those notes together by using an ancient typewriter. Then I got bored and came to Chicago to be a worker at a steel factory :)

fp3690
02-05-2008, 01:20 AM
I was Peter's RA in 70s and we typed those notes together by using an ancient typewriter. Then I got bored and came to Chicago to be a worker at a steel factory :)

Clever evasion! You must be the oldest PhD student in academic history.

zsla
02-05-2008, 01:31 AM
Clever evasion! You must be the oldest PhD student in academic history.

Ok, let's be serious. I know quite a lot for some reason. Maybe I have a good network, maybe something else, but I am curious and I wanna know about economics as much as I can. Not only the textbook stuff or articles that I am interested in. I like this profession as a whole. Like it or not, I know LSE more than you do (and also UCL).

asquare
02-05-2008, 01:47 AM
Ok, let's be serious. I know quite a lot for some reason. Maybe I have a good network, maybe something else, but I am curious and I wanna know about economics as much as I can. Not only the textbook stuff or articles that I am interested in. I like this profession as a whole. Like it or not, I know LSE more than you do.
Come on, how can you possibly know what fp3690 (or anyone else here) knows about LSE? Or do you think you know more than everyone? You don't have to tell us your sources or how you get your information, but you shouldn't expect us to just swallow your opinions (especially your rather high opinion of yourself!) as the gospel truth, just because you say so!

You have to be credible for anyone to believe you. Establishing credibility while mantaining anonimity on the internet is hard, but most people do it by making well informed, reasonable, comments, and by providing some sort of rationale for their opinions. You may not care if the rest of us believe you ;) and that's certainly your prerogative. But when you make claims with a clear agenda and then tell us that you just know more than we do, well, that's not much in the way of persuasion! Believing in yourself is one thing but you shouldn't expect the rest of the world to return the favor without some reason.

zsla
02-05-2008, 02:01 AM
I don't need to persuade anyone. People could believe or not. This is a matter of choice. And I don't get extra utility from being more or less persuasive. I know that there are people out there who can see what I am trying to say. I just say that I have some kind of "school of thought" concerns in my evaluations. It might sound dogmatic, maybe it is. That is fine for me. I know very well what I like and what I don't. I also know very well why I don't like what I don't like and why I like what I like. To be able to learn what I like, I must have seen what I don't like, right? So, there is no further benefit to extend this discussion.

studentecon
02-05-2008, 03:32 AM
Ok, let's be serious. I know quite a lot for some reason. Maybe I have a good network, maybe something else, but I am curious and I wanna know about economics as much as I can. Not only the textbook stuff or articles that I am interested in. I like this profession as a whole. Like it or not, I know LSE more than you do (and also UCL).

zsla: You seem to confuse economics with Heckonomics. Just because you like what Heckman does at Chicago, this does not mean that everyone likes or even cares. You base your whole ''rankings'' perception on how good a school is in YOUR narrow field of interest. This is the best strategy when selecting where to get your PhD or look for a job, but when giving general advice or making general comments about the quality of a program, your views can only be misleading. Your totalistic attitude reveals that you don't know much about economics outside your field of interest.

Harvard is a top school and LSE is better than UCL, and this is true regardless on how good they are at the kind of econometrics you like. This is the common consensus, and look at the job market outcomes to convince your self. These outcomes maybe the effect of a million things, but it is the reality.

zsla
02-05-2008, 03:46 AM
Hahahaaa... Who said that I like econometrics? It was just an observation. My field of interest is economics. We don't have micro, macro or econometrics. Didn't you hear about it?

studentecon
02-05-2008, 03:55 AM
Hahahaaa... Who said that I like econometrics? It was just an observation. My field of interest is economics. We don't have micro, macro or econometrics. Didn't you hear about it?

Of course you have, or more accurately you have it as much as other schools. The difference is that you just call it ''price theory'', ''theory of income'' and ''quantitative methods''...

polkaparty
02-05-2008, 03:57 AM
people please....

zsla
02-05-2008, 03:58 AM
Of course you have, or more accurately you have it as much as other schools. The difference is that you just call it ''price theory'', ''theory of income'' and ''quantitative methods''...

Ok, that's a good point. Then please tell me what do you think about the following question. Because it is important I think.

Why those are called like that rather than the traditional names?

studentecon
02-05-2008, 04:29 AM
Ok, that's a good point. Then please tell me what do you think about the following question. Because it is important I think.

Why those are called like that rather than the traditional names?

Stop provoking me to tell things about Chicago that I don't believe. You seem to be the problematic person, and not me! I ll try and boost your ego and admit publicly that Chicago is an extremely influential and reputed center of economics research, and I often go back and read influential papers of Becker and Lucas for my own research.

The issue however here is not whether ''to Chicago'' or ''not to Chicago'', but rather you misleading people with your totalistic views about Harvard, LSE and who knows what other school. PEOPLE: don't listen to zsla when it comes to advice about applying to schools :)

appliedtheorist
02-05-2008, 04:41 AM
I second zsla's view on LSE's econometrics people. Also, it seems obvious that UCL dominates LSE in applied micro and especially (behavioral) labor economics.

On top of that, I know zsla personally, and he is by no means a problematic person.

zsla
02-05-2008, 04:47 AM
I second zsla's view on LSE's econometrics people. Also, it seems obvious that UCL dominates LSE in applied micro and especially (behavioral) labor economics.

On top of that, I know zsla personally, and he is by no means a problematic person.

Hmmm, I know two persons who could write this. One is at LSE and the other is at UCL. I like both of them and both of them know what I am talking about.

Cheers :)

ekonomiks
02-05-2008, 05:27 AM
Dumb move...

econphilomath
02-05-2008, 12:28 PM
For some reason, the three people I know who go to or have gone to UChicago for their PhD tend to say and act the same way as zsla.... curious is it not?
Its like somewhere deep in the bowels of Mordor, the professors of UChicago carry out some arcane ritual where the "secrets" of true economics are laid bare to their otherwise chaste pupils... and they are never the same again.

econphilomath
02-05-2008, 12:44 PM
Another observation (this borders on the physiological, sorry) but it seems to me that these types of people, lets call them "Econ Talibans" (E.T. for short), tend to become radicalized when they are confronted with the consensus. It seems they revel in arguing against the established. For example, if someone says they like Harvard, an E.T. would jump out and say that Harvard is the worst university to study a PhD and that he would never go there, ever. While what they really think is that H is not as good as everyone thinks but it is probably still really good.

The whole "LSE is crap from the 70s" is another example of going off the top on something just to be provocative.

It should be noted that this whole E.T. phenomena might be a consequence of the importance that was given to the scientific method by the founding fathers of the UC line of thought (ya know, the nobels) which makes them question the status quo all the time. However it now has derived into something that borders on the dogmatic which is of course the opposite of its original inspiration...

Mr.Keen
02-05-2008, 06:14 PM
Its like somewhere deep in the bowels of Mordor, the professors of UChicago carry out some arcane ritual where the "secrets" of true economics are laid bare to their otherwise chaste pupils... and they are never the same again

I'd love to live (and possibly die) in the bowels of Mordor.

econphilomath
02-05-2008, 06:20 PM
I'd love to live (and possibly die) in the bowels of Mordor.

Don't we all...:p

EconPL
02-05-2008, 08:00 PM
Hmmm, I know two persons who could write this. One is at LSE and the other is at UCL. I like both of them and both of them know what I am talking about.

Cheers :)

Yes, of course this person is from LSE/UCL... Especially that he/she posted at 5 am British time... And acidentally, it is also the first post ever of that person. Well, call me paranoic/overly suspecious, but I don't believe at all that this person attend LSE/UCL.

appliedtheorist
02-05-2008, 08:12 PM
Sorry, EconPL, but you will have to live with the idea that I am actually at LSE and sometimes work till late at night. Also, that was not my first post - I just created a new account. Got it? Fine :-)

zsla
02-05-2008, 09:12 PM
Sorry, EconPL, but you will have to live with the idea that I am actually at LSE and sometimes work till late at night. Also, that was not my first post - I just created a new account. Got it? Fine :-)

Come on buddy, let these people believe what they wanna believe. By the way, I am fine if you go to H, but don't forget that we all missed you here in Chicago :) I owe you a dinner in downtown. We couldn't make it last time.

filroz
02-05-2008, 09:14 PM
well, now it sounds convincing :D

asianecon
02-05-2008, 09:34 PM
Sorry, EconPL, but you will have to live with the idea that I am actually at LSE and sometimes work till late at night. Also, that was not my first post - I just created a new account. Got it? Fine :-)


I think I also know this guy...hmm

1. At LSE
2. Works late at night (and tells me I'm lazy whenever I want to go clubbin instead of working on a Friday night?)
3. Created a new account
4. :-) <--this smiley

Or maybe I'm mistaken.

Anyway, I met zsla once during the summer. I assure you he knows what he's talking about. He just has strong opinions about certain things which I actually appreciate. What he says might go against any ranking, common wisdom etc, but there is some grain of truth in there. I'm not saying I completely agree with him (eg ranking of Harvard--though I'm not fond of the reduced form stuff also, that's not the only thing people do there...conversely, Chicago, specifically ChicagoGSB seems to be more fond of reduced form stuff), I'm saying one should think deeper as to why he has this opinion.

appliedtheorist
02-05-2008, 09:37 PM
Hehehehe...

Lots of :-) for you from London, my friend.

zsla
02-05-2008, 09:50 PM
That new account idea was mine!! But i had never thought that it could work against me :)

econphilomath
02-05-2008, 10:06 PM
I'm saying one should think deeper as to why he has this opinion.

So he doesn't have to convince anyone, present arguments or evidence; we just have to think really hard about any wild statement zsla makes because it must have some hindden truth in there somewhere?? Isn't that supposed to happen AFTER he wins a nobel? :)

zsla
02-05-2008, 10:08 PM
That Nobel has already been earned by somebody else. The truth is there.

econphilomath
02-05-2008, 10:14 PM
That Nobel has already been earned by somebody else. The truth is there.


LOL ok ok so your just the apostle...

I don't know why I got dragging into this discussion in the first place. I started out saying I knew UCL was better in applied micro-labor and stuff and ended up doubting the holy gospel of zsla...

asianecon
02-05-2008, 10:34 PM
So he doesn't have to convince anyone, present arguments or evidence; we just have to think really hard about any wild statement zsla makes because it must have some hindden truth in there somewhere?? Isn't that supposed to happen AFTER he wins a nobel? :)

I'm assuming that we (TM people) look at rankings to help us decide on which school to choose. What does having a Nobel got to do with this? Would you give more credence to a ranking based on faculty output or to the quality of the students they produce and most especially the sentiment of its students?

Talking to these guys (zsla, appliedtheorist) enlightened me about EME for example. Initially I thought that getting a distinction in the program will guarantee a top 2 admit. Seems like this is not true. Moreover, it seems that those who start out in the UCL MSc end up staying in the PhD program, not because they didn't get into a good school, rather because they wanted to.

econphilomath
02-05-2008, 11:41 PM
I'm assuming that we (TM people) look at rankings to help us decide on which school to choose. What does having a Nobel got to do with this? Would you give more credence to a ranking based on faculty output or to the quality of the students they produce and most especially the sentiment of its students?


I think you are right. People at TM and educated people in general usually like to discuss things with objetive facts and well taylored arguments. Different sorts of rankings might well be a part of such a discussion.

I was referring to the fact that zlsa did not produce any such evidence in the argument above and gave only his subjective opinion on LSE in econometrics to back up his claim that UCL is better than LSE. Nothing wrong with that, it is somewhat informative and amusing. Its just silly for you to call for everyone to believe him and take his word just because he is zsla and he is great.

Maybe if zsla had a Nobel he could rant all day and we would be inclined to think twice about doubting him...

The point is if your going to make strong comments its best to explain your position throughly so others can understand it. Especially if you might be offending a bunch of people on the way.

bscout
02-06-2008, 01:01 AM
zsla, just in case, do you also know this person? :D


http://z.about.com/d/movies/1/0/M/X/beautifulpub12.jpg

polkaparty
02-06-2008, 01:04 AM
Talking to these guys (zsla, appliedtheorist) enlightened me about EME for example. Initially I thought that getting a distinction in the program will guarantee a top 2 admit. Seems like this is not true.

Would one of the three people like to elaborate on this for people interested in the EME? (appliedtheorist, zsla, asianecon)

I know that a distinction won't "guarantee" a top admit, but rather talk about the quality of the program. This is obviously a recurring topic (LSE master's programs), but I'd like to hear your 3 specific opinions. Perhaps explain more than just the general "LSE is down on econometrics" which you've mentioned already. Thanks.

zsla
02-06-2008, 01:15 AM
zsla, just in case, do you also know this person? :D

Well, this is you, but I know the other guy quite a lot.

zsla
02-06-2008, 01:28 AM
Would one of the three people like to elaborate on this for people interested in the EME? (appliedtheorist, zsla, asianecon)

I know that a distinction won't "guarantee" a top admit, but rather talk about the quality of the program. This is obviously a recurring topic (LSE master's programs), but I'd like to hear your 3 specific opinions. Perhaps explain more than just the general "LSE is down on econometrics" which you've mentioned already. Thanks.

If I were an adcom member, I would strictly prefer a good undergrad student from, say, Brigham Young, to a good EME student or MSc Econ student at LSE. Why? Because I would choose people who knows the fundamentals well. LSE is pretty weak on that.

I don't have much time to write longer. Sorry.

asianecon
02-06-2008, 01:29 AM
I think you are right. People at TM and educated people in general usually like to discuss things with objetive facts and well taylored arguments. Different sorts of rankings might well be a part of such a discussion.

I was referring to the fact that zlsa did not produce any such evidence in the argument above and gave only his subjective opinion on LSE in econometrics to back up his claim that UCL is better than LSE. Nothing wrong with that, it is somewhat informative and amusing. Its just silly for you to call for everyone to believe him and take his word just because he is zsla and he is great.

Maybe if zsla had a Nobel he could rant all day and we would be inclined to think twice about doubting him...

The point is if your going to make strong comments its best to explain your position throughly so others can understand it. Especially if you might be offending a bunch of people on the way.

Why such a harsh tone?? The reason why I said people shouldn't outright place his comments as ramblings of a madman is that maybe he really does know something about UCL and/or LSE. Maybe he's from UCL or LSE or some UK school and has firsthand experience studying there, but does not want to divulge much information in order to remain anonymous.

I think we're not on the same wavelength when discussing concerns about rankings. As an applicant, I give a lot of weight on the well-being of students especially for top 10 schools. For example, when I first visited Chicago, all of the grad students I've talked to said that if I had a choice between the GSB and the dept, I should go to the GSB. This is against my initial perception that since Chicago Econ is ranked as a top 3/5 school, I should go there once admitted, no questions asked, especially over the GSB. But talking to these people made me think. They have their own (mostly personal) reasons for this, but it was still good to investigate what they are. Same thing goes for zsla. There must be some reason why he feels that way. But of course, you can't simply expect him to divulge it, you have to find out for yourself.

Anyway, shall we close this discussion now?


EDIT: I remember one of my Chicago friends told me to read "Freaks and Geeks" to understand this so called Levitt-Heckman divide. Reading this gave me an idea why there are people like zsla (geek) and appliedtheorist (freak). =)



Polka: I basically found out that EME people with distinction still do get rejected and that they're "normal" people. Initially I thought that it's a golden ticket and that EME people are gods (like everyone was at the same level as I forget his/her handle in TM---the one with an Econometrica paper) Sorry not pretty helpful. If you ask me about Toulouse, I can say more (as I always did before)

appliedtheorist
02-06-2008, 01:39 AM
kralcar.

zsla
02-06-2008, 01:50 AM
By the way, kralcar is my dear friend and he is really brilliant. He also complains about LSE a lot. I don't think that LSE contributed much to his human capital. When he was an EME student, he was mostly interested in the Londoners, female ones :)

At first I couldn't recognize him in the forum, but then I figured lately that he is. He came to Chicago to visit me in September. He will come again in April to present a paper.

zsla
02-06-2008, 02:08 AM
If you wanna see another potential "star" econ phd student, check out this guy. His name is Glen. He is gonna complete his thesis before finishing the first year at PhD program. He was my classmate at Becker's Human Capital class last quarter.

Glen Weyl's home page (http://www.princeton.edu/~eweyl/)

Or directly browse the list of first year students to verify that he is indeed in first year.

appliedtheorist
02-06-2008, 02:24 AM
EME is a solid program - it is neither just another MSc in economic theory nor truly the 1st year of a top PhD program. We get to choose from a mix of PhD-level courses (sometimes even a field such as contract theory), truly basic MSc courses (taken from the MSc in Economics) and whatever you want to embark on in graduate mathematics and statistics. I consider it sufficient preparation for a top PhD program. I second kralcar's feelings while being at LSE. 2/3 of the time I am just drunk or dating (solely for the purpose of gathering data, of course, now that asianecon has revealed I am just another Levitt-like freak). However, I found the time to co-author some papers that I have come to really like and consider the type of research I want to keep pursuing in the near future to come. So, LSE is really what you make of it.

As for the econometrics I have learnt during my two-year stay at the LSE: It is all about asymptotic theory and sophisticated exercises that train your brain to combine a myriad of theorems and proofs you have seen before. It is fun but it is nothing I will remember for the rest of my life as one of the greatest challenges ever. However, I am assured (and hope, of course) that adcoms reward a Distinction in EME which is nevertheless certainly not a sufficient condition for entering a top 5 PhD program in economics. Professors (on adcoms) do pay attention to human-capital-specific investments, which might be the primary reason that a certain grade from a certain university not necessarily safeguards a place in your favorite program. If the game were that simple, most people would not stress out about admissions and early careers in academia in general.

zsla
02-06-2008, 02:28 AM
(solely for the purpose of gathering data, of course, now that asianecon has revealed I am just another Levitt-like freak).

Hahahaha... I think I know the instrument this time :)

macroeconomicus
02-06-2008, 02:48 AM
If you wanna see another potential "star" econ phd student, check out this guy. His name is Glen. He is gonna complete his thesis before finishing the first year at PhD program. He was my classmate at Becker's Human Capital class last quarter.

Glen Weyl's home page (http://www.princeton.edu/%7Eeweyl/)

Or directly browse the list of first year students to verify that he is indeed in first year.


Impressive. But obviously, people who pull this off enter the program in advanced standing.

zsla
02-06-2008, 02:49 AM
Impressive. But obviously, people who pull this off enter the program in advanced standing.

No he just comes from the undergrad program. He had finished all the core courses when he was a senior year undergrad student at Princeton, not too advanced.

polkaparty
02-06-2008, 02:56 AM
No he just comes from the undergrad program. He had finished all the core courses when he was a senior year undergrad student at Princeton.

Does it make a difference what his official standing is? They're not going to make him take the core courses again. As far as I knew, I thought he finished the field courses as well.... So he'll start on his dissertation and graduate when that's done.

Some part of my wishes I was like this person, but another part of me is glad that there aren't crazy internet people arguing about me somewhere....

zsla
02-06-2008, 03:01 AM
I won't argue about him, he is good.

Mr.Keen
02-06-2008, 03:11 AM
It is impressive, but there are several students in other countries, i.e. Latin America, who could achieve something similar had they been born in the right country. Check out ITAM's masters program in economic theory, it's basically the first year at a top PhD program and undergrads there take the masters courses in their senior year if they choose the theory track. Alas, they have to take the core courses when they come to America (maybe because the classes are not in English). Esteban Rossi-Hansberg, a Chicago PhD now at Princeton is a good example. His name should ring a bell, for he co-authored the solutions manual for Stokey, Lucas and Prescott.

zsla
02-06-2008, 03:16 AM
Ivan Werning, a Chicago PhD, is another example teaching now at MIT. Also Chernozhukov as all of you know.

macroeconomicus
02-06-2008, 03:53 AM
Does it make a difference what his official standing is? They're not going to make him take the core courses again. As far as I knew, I thought he finished the field courses as well.... So he'll start on his dissertation and graduate when that's done.

Some part of my wishes I was like this person, but another part of me is glad that there aren't crazy internet people arguing about me somewhere....

Actually, I have seen Mr. Weyl's post on some forum (not here), where he explained how he pulled this off. He started taking core courses during his sophomore year and field courses later on. He also took the prelims and other tests when he was an undergrad (and I suppose started working on research). He doesn't have to repeat any of this because he was doing is undergraduate studies at the same place, so we might see him next year on the job market (only one year after entering the PhD program) No doubt, it's a very impressive achievement and given the numerous papers and a long list of interests posted on his web page, he is a very bright fellow., but like I said, people who complete their PhD program so fast usually had a strong prior preparation.

appliedtheorist
02-06-2008, 03:58 AM
Glen is currently finishing his PhD thesis. He will spend the forthcoming three years as Junior Fellow at the Harvard Society of Fellows. I guess that he will - if he keeps up the output - almost immediately be promoted to associate professor after being hired by a top notch economics department in 2011 (cf. Levitt) :-)

fp3690
02-06-2008, 04:33 AM
Talking to these guys (zsla, appliedtheorist) enlightened me about EME for example. Initially I thought that getting a distinction in the program will guarantee a top 2 admit. Seems like this is not true.

A prof at a top 5 US place told me that a distinction at the MSc guarantees
a top 10 admit.

zsla
02-06-2008, 04:37 AM
I wanna give the names of the guys who couldn't get admitted to anywhere with a distinction, but I cannot. But believe me I know a bunch of them. I am sure my friends here also know.

So, that's not true unfortunately.

bango
02-06-2008, 09:44 AM
ok, so after reading all your points (I initiated the thread), I still cannot say that I have not made a very good decision. I will try to be short:

I have applied in 2006/2007 to all top US Schools + LSE as everyone from my Master (in Latin America) does. This Master usually puts its 3 best students into US top-5 programs. I was second best student (by some standards, the best student)

I had a problem with one of my letters (for very strong political reasons in my department, the professor pretended he would give me a good letter to revenge himself of the other 2 professors that were giving me the LoRs) and I got rejected in all US Schools (before my application, all my colleagues thought that I would be accepted in Princeton, as every previous applicant from my Master with similar profiles were). By chance(?), LSE asks only 2 letters (this bad letter was not on LSE application) and I was accepted. I hesitated a lot if I should go into LSE or wait another year. (I could have had other good letter - this time for sure). After consulting some friends that are already in their 2nd, 3rd year in top US Schools, they told me that I would be crazy to exchange another year just to 'upgrade' from LSE to Princeton.

So I decided to come to LSE and am at the PhD Program. Do you think I should have waited and re-applied? I am very confused now. Do you think my chances of getting well into the academic American job market are very small? Any personal opinion? zsla?

zsla
02-06-2008, 01:00 PM
ok, so after reading all your points (I initiated the thread), I still cannot say that I have not made a very good decision. I will try to be short:

I have applied in 2006/2007 to all top US Schools + LSE as everyone from my Master (in Latin America) does. This Master usually puts its 3 best students into US top-5 programs. I was second best student (by some standards, the best student)

I had a problem with one of my letters (for very strong political reasons in my department, the professor pretended he would give me a good letter to revenge himself of the other 2 professors that were giving me the LoRs) and I got rejected in all US Schools (before my application, all my colleagues thought that I would be accepted in Princeton, as every previous applicant from my Master with similar profiles were). By chance(?), LSE asks only 2 letters (this bad letter was not on LSE application) and I was accepted. I hesitated a lot if I should go into LSE or wait another year. (I could have had other good letter - this time for sure). After consulting some friends that are already in their 2nd, 3rd year in top US Schools, they told me that I would be crazy to exchange another year just to 'upgrade' from LSE to Princeton.

So I decided to come to LSE and am at the PhD Program. Do you think I should have waited and re-applied? I am very confused now. Do you think my chances of getting well into the academic American job market are very small? Any personal opinion? zsla?

No, you are getting me wrong. My concerns are different. I can't explain them in a simple way, it is a long story. LSE is a good place to study. Especially the MRes/PhD program is very good. Don't worry, just work hard and try to push hard to get a good supervision. This is the problem at LSE. Professors are not eager to provide extra help unless you ask them. In US (at least in Chicago), I don't walk through the faculty offices part of the department when I don't have anything new about my projects. My (potential) supervisors ask about my research before saying Hello :). You can't believe how hard that pressure is. There is no way you can feel such a pressure in LSE or in any other place in Europe even at the dissertation stage. You should push hard. This is the key to the success at LSE I believe. So, stop worrying and try to learn economics as much as you can. London is an excellent city, you don't wanna be in Princeton after living in London. Believe me :).