UBC MSc in Finance VS. LSE MSc in Fin. & Econ. for PhD prep

[dennycrane]

Hey Guys,

 

First, I want to apologize for this super long post. I will break it down to "analysis" and "questions",

which I will put in the first reply.

 

I got admits to both UBC MSc in Finance and LSE MSc in Fin. & Econ programs and now try to decide

which is a better PhD prep (preferably to a program in the US) for me:

 

ANALYSIS

 

1, class size:

*UBC=3-5

*LSE=80

Thus: UBC>>>LSE

 

 

2, program length:

*UBC=2 years

*LSE=1 year

Thus: UBC>>LSE

(But: there is a guy from LSE who graduated in 2009, admitted to the LSE PhD, then applied again in 2010 and get to Harvard Econ, not sure if this is usually acceptable though.)

 

2, PhD placement:

 

*UBC: MSc graduates have gone to

Rochester,

Kellogg,

UToronto

UBC (need to reaply)

-but no info. on how frequently this happens. (insider info. will be extremely helpful.)

 

*LSE: MSc graduates have gone to:

Harvard Econ(one in 2009 and one in 2010, both #1 of the class)

Chicago Booth(that I can find: one in 2002 and one in 2005=Chris Opp)

MIT Sloan(that I can find: one in 2002)

Princeton Econ(one in 2003)

LSE(automatic admission if with distinction)

-again, lack info. for many years, and for the complete list.

 

##: It seems that the top3 in LSE program places better than the #1 in UBC program, if we assume Harvard Econ is harder to get in than Kellogg and Rochester Finance (which I am not sure).

 

Thus, LSE>>UBC (if we do not discount LSE for its large class size)

 

 

 

2, courseworks:

 

*UBC(share most classes with PhD students): Theory of Finance; Microecon; Statistical Methodology; Asset pricing; Corporate Finance; and 3 more of any electives.

*LSE(huge class size~100): Microecon Theory; Financial Econ; Financial Economics; and 2-3 more Finance courses (I don't think they are all at the PhD level, since I don't even see "asset pricing")

##: UBC allows me to take PhD level finance courses as core and PhD Econometrics courses as electives (I have taken PhD level math, micro, macro in my current institution so Metrics is the only one missing); while LSE allows me to take PhD level Econ but not PhD level finance.

 

Thus: UBC>LSE

 

 

 

3, opportunity to interact with faculty/do research->get good letters:

*UBC: small class, longer time, summer paper after first year,

*LSE: huge class, shorter time, no paper required.

UBC>>LSE

[dennycrane]

QUESTIONS:

 

So I guess my questions boil down to:

 

1, why UBC seems to dominate LSE in all other aspects, but LSE have better PhD placements? Is it only a result of the larger class size of LSE?

 

2, I suppose I cannot get into good PhD programs, if I have to apply for 2012 entrance. My current profile as of today is not stellar, so I do need another whole year's transcript and interaction with faculty ready before my PhD application. So the question becomes, is it practical to graduate from LSE in 2012 but apply for 2013 entry while working? Is it odd(I am cautious to use moral judgements here) to get admitted by LSE PhD program in 2012 but re-apply to other schools for 2013, just to wait out the whole year's transcript?

 

3, again, more detailed records of PhD placements for these two programs are highly appreciated.

 

4, many say if you want to apply for PhD programs in US, you want to do an MS in US rather than overseas. Is UBC better than LSE in this aspect?

[TraderJoe]

For PhD preparation, UBC >>>> LSE.

UBC and Queens MS is specifically designed to prepare students for PhD. Tuition is very low.

LSE MS is geared more toward preparation for industry jobs and they have superb alumni base and reputation in London.

For PhD admission, LSE >>>>>> UBC provided you get distinction (or maybe very high First Class with Honors) at LSE. Mainly because of the rigor of the LSE program and the reputation, the PhD adcoms know what they are getting. Distinction at LSE means automatic admit into LSE PhD program and this usually means Top 10 Faculty placement in USA or Europe.

Distinction at LSE also pretty much ensures admission into Top 10 PhD program.

HOWEVER, UBC IS ACTUALLY BETTER PREPARATION FOR THE ACTUAL PHD AND HAS GOOD EXPOSURE TO RESEARCH.

[dennycrane]

thank you for your reply. It's very thought-provoking.

do you mean that LSE is a much better selection/screening platform than UBC because its rigor and the reputation in the adcom community,

UBC MSc resembles the first two year's of PhD, in terms of the courses and research opportunities, but it's not as good a screening platform?

 

this is very insightful.

 

Could you also give me some insight on: how those successful LSE graduates circumvent the problem that it's a one year program and you don't have most of the credentials by the time you appy for PhD?

 

And... how would you select if you were in my shoe?

My profile:

Nationality: Chinese

UG: BS of a science major from China. GPA 3.3

MS1: MS of a science subject from USA big ten. GPA 3.6

MS2: MS of Math from the same US Univ. GPA 3.85.

--courses(all PhD level): Real Analysis (B), PDE(A), Stoch. Process (A), Micro Theory (A,A,A-), Macro Theory (A,B,A-), Theory of Stat (A, A), Time Serie (A-), Prediction and filtering (A)

My Goal is to get into the best PhD program in US that I can possibly can. But I didn't apply this year because another guy from the same school as I am in did not make it to very good programs..

 

Sorry for the load of information.. I think your insight may give me a very good perspective.

 

For PhD preparation, UBC >>>> LSE.

UBC and Queens MS is specifically designed to prepare students for PhD. Tuition is very low.

LSE MS is geared more toward preparation for industry jobs and they have superb alumni base and reputation in London.

For PhD admission, LSE >>>>>> UBC provided you get distinction (or maybe very high First Class with Honors) at LSE. Mainly because of the rigor of the LSE program and the reputation, the PhD adcoms know what they are getting. Distinction at LSE means automatic admit into LSE PhD program and this usually means Top 10 Faculty placement in USA or Europe.

Distinction at LSE also pretty much ensures admission into Top 10 PhD program.

HOWEVER, UBC IS ACTUALLY BETTER PREPARATION FOR THE ACTUAL PHD AND HAS GOOD EXPOSURE TO RESEARCH.

[TraderJoe]

Look I will make it real simple for you.

From the point of view of the PhD admissions people:

Distinction at LSE means intellectually very smart person, but with no exposure to research and preparation for the PhD program.

MS at UBC means exposure to research and excellent preparation for the PhD program. Not sure about the intellectual capability of the person.

 

In 100% of the cases, the PhD admissions people will select the person who is intellectually brilliant and has no research exposure or preparation for the PhD program. They have 5 years to train the person in research, but the intellectual brilliance is what they look for in the candidate.

[dennycrane]

Thank you for your input, traderjoe. I agree that top PhD adcoms prefer brilliant people to less brilliant but with some exposure to finance.

 

Is there any different opinion on this? Maybe PhD programs ranked 20-40 could (or have to) care less about the brilliancy?

 

I felt I am doomed since my record is not that brilliant. Even if I go to LSE and get distinctions, the adcom may take it for granted since I have done PhD level micro and math in my previous institution.

 

So maybe some exposure to research --> some good letters is my hope? Thus I should choose UBC?

[dennycrane]

do you know for a fact that LSE is way better than UBC in terms of PhD admission? I talked to past student in LSE FE MSc program and he said there are 4 of her class that went to Chicago, Harvard, Stanford and Cornell, but mostly Econ PhD. I suppose Econ PhD is much easier. This is comparable to Kellogg and Simon PhD I think.

 

For PhD preparation, UBC >>>> LSE.

UBC and Queens MS is specifically designed to prepare students for PhD. Tuition is very low.

LSE MS is geared more toward preparation for industry jobs and they have superb alumni base and reputation in London.

For PhD admission, LSE >>>>>> UBC provided you get distinction (or maybe very high First Class with Honors) at LSE. Mainly because of the rigoof the LSE program and the reputation, the PhD adcoms know what they are getting. Distinction at LSE means automatic admit into LSE PhD program and this usually means Top 10 Faculty placement in USA or Europe.

Distinction at LSE also pretty much ensures admission into Top 10 PhD program.

HOWEVER, UBC IS ACTUALLY BETTER PREPARATION FOR THE ACTUAL PHD AND HAS GOOD EXPOSURE TO RESEARCH.

[frayed]

my thoughts and cents x2.

 

apologies for this, but having seen this assertion that lse has a great placement record pop up quite a few times led me to think about how true this is... let's look at the two universities being discussed.

 

the placement of lse phd graduates can be found at Finance Job Market Candidates 2010/11 - Phd Finance - Prospective students - Finance - Home. in summary, the list of academic placements, 1996/97 to 2011: mcgill, arizona state, ubc, chicago x2, hec montreal, cmu, essec, american university, imperial college, carlos iii, bocconi, nus, insead, indiana, mannheim. lse does not provide much data on phd placement from their msc, in contrast - it is all filled with industry placement info. but the msc fe has two phd placements, one lse and one cornell econs (MSc Finance and Economics Student Destinations - Careers - Prospective students - Finance - Home).

 

because ubc does not have their records on a year/year basis, and since the 1996/1997 in the lse placement records appears to refer to 1996 placements based on the result of the 2010/2011 placement, we will look at the ubc record since 1996. ubc phd finance graduates have been academically placed (1996-2010) in arizona state, toronto x2, nanyang tech x2, concordia, unsw, oregon, cmu x2, ucla, texas-austin x3, exeter, beijing, laval, calgary, simon fraser x2, hec montreal, manitoba, berkeley, colorado, wilfrid laurier. Sauder School of Business - Ph.D. Job Market Candidates. one of the graduates this year placed at utah as well.

 

if we limit the data to 2005-2006 and take that as the first year of comparison...

- lse: mcgill, arizona state, ubc, chicago x2, hec montreal, cmu, essec, american university, imperial college, carlos iii

- ubc: utah, arizona state, toronto, nanyang tech, concordia, unsw, oregon, cmu, ucla, texas-austin, exeter, beijing.

 

so, recent placements over the past 6 years have lse in front, but over the 1996-2010 sample, i think ubc has the edge on average. admittedly, there aren't many schools with two chicago placements in the past 6 years. i am also rather curious to know what exactly is a top 10 placement record: placement in the top 10 schools, or placement like that of the top 10 schools? if the latter, what is considered to be a placement like the top 10?

 

anyway, based on some of my conversations with faculty, exposure to research is far more important. no matter how clever you are, research is not all about smarts, i'm afraid, not even most of it - persistence, the knack... if you have had the exposure and can hack it, that is a far more impressive thing. it also helps ensure to a certain extent that you know what you are in for (if you do apply for a phd in the end) which cannot be underestimated. but of course adcoms may not all feel that way. also, i would not underestimate the effect of strong LORs and connections - it is an extremely significant factor. personally, if i were in your shoes i would go for ubc without hesitation. based on your posts and the previous topic you started, you are looking at the top placements of past students, but this, unfortunately, may not be applicable for you, especially if the students were probably the pick of the batch. unless you are certain you will be, then all is fine...

 

you may also want to think clearly about how good a university must be for you to want to go there, especially since a lot of top candidates aren't just smart, but have the research exposure, as well as good LORs and contacts via advisors. it would be advisable not to fall into this trap of only going to the top - apply widely! how can it be that you didn't apply this year because someone else didn't get into anywhere special this year? this doesn't make sense unless you mean that the person applied last year so that you could see the result, right? you have to understand that the past few years have seen a shrinkage of budgets and hence places, especially for foreigners. i don't see your nationality being a problem considering you have masters degrees from a big ten university, other than the budget thing, but i am aware that it can be a problem otherwise.

Edited April 2, 2011 by frayed
grammar.

[mindlessme]

Correction to the previous posts: LSE F&E does require a 6,000 words dissertation. If you're capable of producing a decent research paper, you'll receive all the necessary support for it, including faculty attention.

 

LSE coursework: you have an opportunity to substitute MSc Micro for Advanced Micro. The class size for the second one is usually not more than 30 people, the content of this course is heavy, the teaching is excellent. Given that you can also choose an advanced time series course as your optional choice, the curriculum of LSE F&E will be an excellent preparation for PhD Finance. It will lack Macro though, but the importance of that depends on your research interests.

 

LSE class size: out of the 80 people in the programme only a little bunch (about 10 people on average) will be interested in pursuing PhD. These people are usually active in discussing their future with the professors, and the professors are usually supportive and interested in such students. So you can get a lot of interaction with the LSE faculty if you invest in it yourself.

 

The one and only problem with the LSE programme is that it is one year only, thus it's hard to impress the professors in time. But in my view, the right way to overcome this is to apply during your MSc year and hope for the best, but if you don't get the placement you think is best for you, you should continue to work hard, graduate Top3 in the class (this one is really tough though) and reapply next fall. Compared to 2-year Master's programmes, you'll start the grad school at the same time anyway.

 

Other than this one problem, the LSE F&E is an absolutely superb preparation for any PhD Finance programme (and Econ too).

[mindlessme]

Also, to clarify the courses' names at the LSE.

Financial Econ is in effect Theoretical Asset Pricing. First term - discrete time, second term - continuous time. The course is very advanced and well taught.

Financial Econometrics consists of 2 parts. First term - general MSc Econometrics (together with MSc Economics students), second term - Empirical Asset Pricing. You can potentially try to negotiate substituting this one for the Econometrics course that MSc EME students take as a core, but you'll have to have amazing background to be allowed (like having a Master's in Math), you'll probably have to study 12 hours a day for the entire year, and you probably don't need that much effort to get a top placement.

Advanced Micro I think is clear. First term - consumer theory, producer theory, a bit of general equilibrium... Second term - mostly game theory.

In terms of options the best for future PhDs is Forecasting Fin Time Series. Advanced course, excellent teaching, requires coding in R, overall a lot of fun (includes bits of Bayesian Econometrics, VAR methods, among a lot of other things).

Theoretical Corporate Finance might be good as well, especially if this is within your research interests. It's taught by the head of the departement.

 

Hope that helps.

[TraderJoe]

Wow, these guys did a pretty thorough analysis. I sure hope that it helped you make your decision. I apologize if I inadvertently posted any incorrect information.

You may want to consider the Finance departments where the LSE PhDs and UBC PhDs are currently teaching.

Worldwide Directory of Finance Faculty and Professionals

Worldwide Directory of Finance Faculty and Professionals

These are both excellent schools and you cannot go wrong either way.

[dennycrane]

Thank you for the excellent analyses, mindlessme. This post should be marked for the future students interested in this program to see. I guess you were or are in the program, right?

 

I have done some research over the days and observe that most of the MSc students from this program end up going to top Econ programs, like Harvard, Chicago. But few have gone to top Finance programs. Is there some obstable for us to apply to Finance programs? I think it's a bit odd considering that this program is hosted by a Finance Department and at least some students should be interested in doing a Finance PhD. Can you shed some light on that, or is my observation biased?

 

PS, I am thinking of arriving in London early in the summer and do some summer research with a faculty. Do you think this is practical in the LSE MSc setting? I have done a lot of graduate level Econ and Math, read and replicated some papers in the field I am interested in. So hopefully I won't be too much a burden for the professor.

 

Correction to the previous posts: LSE F&E does require a 6,000 words dissertation. If you're capable of producing a decent research paper, you'll receive all the necessary support for it, including faculty attention.

 

LSE coursework: you have an opportunity to substitute MSc Micro for Advanced Micro. The class size for the second one is usually not more than 30 people, the content of this course is heavy, the teaching is excellent. Given that you can also choose an advanced time series course as your optional choice, the curriculum of LSE F&E will be an excellent preparation for PhD Finance. It will lack Macro though, but the importance of that depends on your research interests.

 

LSE class size: out of the 80 people in the programme only a little bunch (about 10 people on average) will be interested in pursuing PhD. These people are usually active in discussing their future with the professors, and the professors are usually supportive and interested in such students. So you can get a lot of interaction with the LSE faculty if you invest in it yourself.

 

The one and only problem with the LSE programme is that it is one year only, thus it's hard to impress the professors in time. But in my view, the right way to overcome this is to apply during your MSc year and hope for the best, but if you don't get the placement you think is best for you, you should continue to work hard, graduate Top3 in the class (this one is really tough though) and reapply next fall. Compared to 2-year Master's programmes, you'll start the grad school at the same time anyway.

 

Other than this one problem, the LSE F&E is an absolutely superb preparation for any PhD Finance programme (and Econ too).

Edited April 4, 2011 by dennycrane

[dennycrane]

I think you made a good point that most top school adcoms value intellectual talent untainted by finance research since that is what makes a promising researcher in the long run. Thank you for sharing your thought.

 

Wow, these guys did a pretty thorough analysis. I sure hope that it helped you make your decision. I apologize if I inadvertently posted any incorrect information.

You may want to consider the Finance departments where the LSE PhDs and UBC PhDs are currently teaching.

Worldwide Directory of Finance Faculty and Professionals

Worldwide Directory of Finance Faculty and Professionals

These are both excellent schools and you cannot go wrong either way.

[dennycrane]

Thank you for your detailed reply. I learnt quite a few things from it. I cannot describe how much I appreciate guys like you and mindlessme for being willing to teach the newbies. I have responded with embedding texts below:

 

my thoughts and cents x2.

 

apologies for this, but having seen this assertion that lse has a great placement record pop up quite a few times led me to think about how true this is... let's look at the two universities being discussed.

 

the placement of lse phd graduates can be found at Finance Job Market Candidates 2010/11 - Phd Finance - Prospective students - Finance - Home. in summary, the list of academic placements, 1996/97 to 2011: mcgill, arizona state, ubc, chicago x2, hec montreal, cmu, essec, american university, imperial college, carlos iii, bocconi, nus, insead, indiana, mannheim. lse does not provide much data on phd placement from their msc, in contrast - it is all filled with industry placement info. but the msc fe has two phd placements, one lse and one cornell econs (MSc Finance and Economics Student Destinations - Careers - Prospective students - Finance - Home).

This MSc placement list is confirmed not complete. There are those who went to Harvard, Stanford and Chicago to do an Econ PhD. It's strange that the department does not feature it. But I have asked multiple students in the current class and they can name those placements that I mentioned.

 

because ubc does not have their records on a year/year basis, and since the 1996/1997 in the lse placement records appears to refer to 1996 placements based on the result of the 2010/2011 placement, we will look at the ubc record since 1996. ubc phd finance graduates have been academically placed (1996-2010) in arizona state, toronto x2, nanyang tech x2, concordia, unsw, oregon, cmu x2, ucla, texas-austin x3, exeter, beijing, laval, calgary, simon fraser x2, hec montreal, manitoba, berkeley, colorado, wilfrid laurier. Sauder School of Business - Ph.D. Job Market Candidates. one of the graduates this year placed at utah as well.

 

if we limit the data to 2005-2006 and take that as the first year of comparison...

- lse: mcgill, arizona state, ubc, chicago x2, hec montreal, cmu, essec, american university, imperial college, carlos iii

- ubc: utah, arizona state, toronto, nanyang tech, concordia, unsw, oregon, cmu, ucla, texas-austin, exeter, beijing.

 

so, recent placements over the past 6 years have lse in front, but over the 1996-2010 sample, i think ubc has the edge on average. admittedly, there aren't many schools with two chicago placements in the past 6 years. i am also rather curious to know what exactly is a top 10 placement record: placement in the top 10 schools, or placement like that of the top 10 schools? if the latter, what is considered to be a placement like the top 10?

For this issue, there is a post in this board which analyzed the different level of PhD programs in terms of the placements. It's pretty recent so I am sure you can find it. Not sure if this is what your question is though..

 

anyway, based on some of my conversations with faculty, exposure to research is far more important. no matter how clever you are, research is not all about smarts, i'm afraid, not even most of it - persistence, the knack... if you have had the exposure and can hack it, that is a far more impressive thing. it also helps ensure to a certain extent that you know what you are in for (if you do apply for a phd in the end) which cannot be underestimated. but of course adcoms may not all feel that way. also, i would not underestimate the effect of strong LORs and connections - it is an extremely significant factor. personally, if i were in your shoes i would go for ubc without hesitation.

Wait... Given LORs and connections are important, you would go for UBC?

For what I have researched so far, the UBC have VERY productive young guys (one of them produced 3 RFS per year.), but LSE Finance have more reputable mid-age professors. Excuse my naive way to rank professors, but I found that in the famous IDEAS economist ranking, there are a few from LSE Finance (yes, not only those big names from LSE Econ); but none from UBC Finance. IMHO, reputable mid-age professors' recommendation usually carry more weight than rising starts. Am I wrong?

In addition, many people in LSE have been assistant professors in top schools in US before joining LSE, would this be an indicator of well-connectedness? Or the co-authorship is a better indication?

Admittedly, in UBC you have more opportunity to work one-on-one with individual faculty and get them to really know you. Is this why you think in UBC one can better take advantage of the LORs and connections?

And there is a UBC summer conference where a lot of big guys go which might be a potential opportunity to know people as well.

 

 

based on your posts and the previous topic you started, you are looking at the top placements of past students, but this, unfortunately, may not be applicable for you, especially if the students were probably the pick of the batch. unless you are certain you will be, then all is fine...

I am trying to use the top placement as some sort of gauge here to measure the overall reputation/quality of the program.

you may also want to think clearly about how good a university must be for you to want to go there, especially since a lot of top candidates aren't just smart, but have the research exposure, as well as good LORs and contacts via advisors. it would be advisable not to fall into this trap of only

I'll definitely apply widely! Point taken. It's so scarce that luck plays an important part.

going to the top - apply widely! how can it be that you didn't apply this year because someone else didn't get into anywhere special this year? this doesn't make sense unless you mean that the person applied last year so that you could see the result, right? you have to understand that the past

Sorry, you are right. I was talking about a guy with similar background to me who applied last year and only got one offer.

few years have seen a shrinkage of budgets and hence places, especially for foreigners. i don't see your nationality being a problem considering you have masters degrees from a big ten university, other than the budget thing, but i am aware that it can be a problem otherwise.

I only hope that the Wall Street is making more jobs available!

[dennycrane]

Wow, these guys did a pretty thorough analysis. I sure hope that it helped you make your decision. I apologize if I inadvertently posted any incorrect information.

You may want to consider the Finance departments where the LSE PhDs and UBC PhDs are currently teaching.

Worldwide Directory of Finance Faculty and Professionals

Worldwide Directory of Finance Faculty and Professionals

These are both excellent schools and you cannot go wrong either way.

Thank you for sharing this tool at OSU. It's really interesting. I wish someone have made a similar tool to keep track of the co-author relationships among professors. Haha.

[frayed]

hmm, based on what i see on this forum and especially your responses on chasedream, you seem already pretty set on lse anyway, so ... haha. it seems like you are just looking for confirmation of your bias! so i don't know why i keep going with these devil's advocate like replies of mine, since both are good places to go (though as i said before, i would prefer to go to ubc). please also see my last few paragraphs on using the repec rankings as an indicator - i think you have been depending on it heavily.

 

the post on this board which analysed the different level of placements... i believe you refer to the topic which posted the link to the survey done by an anonymous person at ejmr? if so, the survey is somewhat limited as it focuses on top placement, and hence we cannot form a good idea of what the average placement by a top 10 program is - selection bias here, and i will go on further on the fallacy of looking only at the top placement later on. the only other thing i can conclude from it is that it is perhaps better to have a degree in econs or finance from a top institution than a finance degree from a second tier (top 30, to be conservative). with regards to that, as another poster says about getting into a top econ program out of the msc at lse, you still need to work hard and get great recommendations: http://www.www.urch.com/forums/phd-economics/109607-lse-msc-finance-economics-admit-please-advise.html.

 

after my previous post, i compiled a dataset of the placements of the top 50 or so finance departments as listed by the asu finance rankings 1990-2010, built upon the data provided by the departments themselves on their websites. based on the limited data available, i would say that LSE does have an enviable record, but as you posted on chasedream (but in which you said that that is representative of the recent placement), that record is largely dependent on one batch, which is the 2008-2009 batch. that was an enviable batch, to be sure... apparently, the people who left for non academic jobs had good offers as well, see another post in the econs urch forum about the finance phd: http://www.www.urch.com/forums/phd-economics/112508-phd-finance-lse-prospect-advice.html. so, we cannot say for sure how things will go moving forward yet, though there is certainly an upward trend since 2008/2009 for lse.

 

this posting on ejmr about the lse phd finance placement may also interest you: LSE finance placement « Economics Job Market Rumors Archive. the takeaway is that it is probably not top 10, but has done well considering the research ranking of the department - risky, in my book. there is a line of argument there that the placement has been great considering the size of the class - draw your own conclusions. also, someone has claimed that it is not comparable to top 10, and another has said not as good as ucla or northwestern, but comparable to michigan, and better than ut austin or maryland. and yet another says that the weakest top 10 schools are columbia, berkeley, and michigan, but that lbs and northwestern have a better record. let's see what i have on those schools and some other commonly cited ones:

• michigan - 2 indiana, syracuse, ut austin, unc chapel hill, nanyang tech, scranton, 2 chicago, oregon, baruch, wustl, smu, notre dame, case western reserve, 2 mcgill, byu, ubc, uiuc. data from Management & Organizations Ph.D. Program - Stephen M. Ross School of Business, 2003-2009. ranked 6th in asu ranking.
  
• texas - can't find data, ranked 14 in asu ranking.
  
• maryland - sabanci, usc, ui chicago, tsinghua, uc riverside, hawaii, virginia tech, ucla, minnesota, georgetown, florida state, bentley, vcu, gwu, indiana, ubc, penn state. data from Finance, 2002-2010, ranked 21 in asu ranking.
  
• columbia - lbs, uconn, albany, fordham, 2 washington, notre dame, norwegian som, unc chapel hill, univ. astral, drexel, pace, rice, oregon, ubc, cornell, brandeis. data from Finance and Economics Division : PhD, 2001-2007 so it is OLD data, ranked 9 in asu ranking.
  
• berkeley - copenhagen, melbourne, mcgill, georgia, vanderbilt, washington, nus, iese, miami, 2 hkust, cal poly, cmu, lbs, houston, nanyang tech, cornell, indiana, san fran state, chicago, santa clara, upf. data from Dissertations & Placements - Finance, PhD Program - Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley, 2002-2010, ranked 20 in asu ranking.
  
• ucla - swiss inst. of finance, harvard, 2 ut austin, 3 usc, temple, oklahoma, 3 purdue, 2 chicago, houston, singapore management, uc irvine, south carolina, 2 emory, ohio state, hkust, arizona, alberta, catolica chile, washington, wharton (rip xia yihong). data from Ph.D. Placements | UCLA Anderson School of Management, 1998-2010, ranked 5 in asu ranking.
  
• northwestern - 2 maryland, 2 unc chapel hill, 2 notre dame, boston college, ceibs, hkpu, nus, penn state, stanford, uc davis, chicago, hawaii, houston, ui chicago, wustl. data from http://www.tgs.northwestern.edu/stats/f05ph_placement.pdf, 2001-2010, ranked 10 in asu ranking.
  
• cmu - columbia, 2 iscte, wharton, illinois tech, 2 asu, colorado, michigan, cmu-heinz, pontificia catolica, lausanne, ut austin, boston u. data from Initial Placements of Tepper PhD Graduates : Tepper School of Business at Carnegie Mellon, 2001-2009, ranked 37 in asu ranking.
  
• lbs - 2 stockholm, boston college, lse, iese, new econ school (moscow), insead, toronto, yale, 2 stanford, unc chapel hill, ubc. data from http://www.london.edu/assets/documents/programmes/Placement_List3.pdf, 2002-2010, ranked 16 in asu ranking.
  

note that for the top 30 schools, i have limited or no data for mit, cornell, ut austin, boston college, hkust, purdue, rochester, wustl, yale. but based on these results i think we can say that cmu is really a heavy hitter for its current ranking. you can draw your own conclusions for the assertions made by the posters in that other forum, but i would say that michigan looks to have a better record.

 

why would you be looking at the top placement to gauge quality rather than average placement, or perhaps even worst placement? top placement is still too largely dependent on YOUR own quality. i accept that there is perhaps some correlation between top placement and program quality, but then wisconsin madison has one harvard placement - does that make it better than the ohio state, uiuc, boston college, lbs, et cetera programs? is there some cultural leaning towards your need for a top phd program? it makes no sense to look at top placement - hence the focus on TYPICAL placement. there are just way too many good people out there - there will always be another mountain that has a higher peak. based on the data i have provided above, look at the range of placements - i won't single out any, but you can see that there is a range - top, bottom, middle... it doesn't make sense to focus only on the top placements as you have. too many unknowns involved in those years. not to mention that as a foreigner you may be affected by events out of your control - the gulf war apparently caused a lot of job market problems for foreign phd finance grads back then, based on the experience of one of my professors.

 

yes i would, as you said, for the better opportunities to work with faculty because that is what helped me. the additional year ensures that you can make a better (or worse, haha) impression with the faculty and more research opportunities to prove yourself. i personally believe that the power of the LOR is largely from what is written in the LOR, but of course dependent on the stature or prominence of the recommender. in other words, once the recommender is of a certain level, the distinguishing factor is how good the LOR is, as well as the connectiveness of the recommender. but this is based on my own experience applying this year, and my experience in my current masters program. my application was lacking especially in math, but i had a very good LOR from my advisor who probably also promoted my candidacy to people he knew in whichever schools i applied to based on what i can infer from his cryptic comments - these things, i think, got me into my top choice (based on research fit and overall environment) which admittedly isn't in the top 10 but certainly in the top 30. and his connections at that university were not based on either studying under, studying with, or even working with people at that university but friendships made over the years just meeting at conferences and such based on working in the same sub field. connections need not be formal, you know? of course, this may mean that lse could be better, heh, if you want to take the years experience side of the argument, but it cuts both ways - youngsters may still have connections you don't know about even though that is less likely.

 

hmm... in that case, it makes me wonder about two things. firstly, how are the ubc mid age professors not reputable? if based on ideas at repec, then secondly, how is the ideas index built? the asu ranking is very clear as it just takes publications in the top 4 journals in the finance field (jfe, jf, rfs, jfqa) which is primitive, certainly, but the ideas index is very messy to me. please also state which rankings you used as repec has a entire catalogue of rankings. the finance ranking (Field Rankings at IDEAS: Finance) is somewhat weird though it gets most of the top characters right. repec ranks the finance journals very differently based on ranking method - jfqa is like the 8th or 9th finance journal (IDEAS/RePEc Aggregate Rankings for Journals), but that doesn't make sense to me... i don't think any finance academic would rather have an if, jef, jimf, or jfi over a jfqa - maybe jbf, but i doubt it.

 

there is a huge range of journals, not to mention working papers, included in the repec rankings based on what i see. not sure if this works well for looking at finance, but it certainly will rank schools which publish more widely in the qje, jpe, or econs journals more fairly, but at the cost of how much noise in the ranking? for context: my advisor says that if he ever publishes in the qje or jpe he would be happy to retire. haha.

 

to extend the ideas.repec ranking line of argument... let's compare it to the asu ranking (Top 20Rankings1990-2010), based on 1990-2010, including only jf, jfe, and rfs, with other schools for comparison:

• ubc ranked 27 with 62
  
• lse ranked 60 with 30
  
• unc chapel hill, 18, 90
  
• hkust, 26, 66
  
• lbs, 13, 99
  

 

if we include jfqa as well, over the same period...

• ubc, ranked 28, 74 pubs
  
• lse, 62, 34
  
• hkust, 23, 79
  
• lbs, 16, 104
  
• unc, 18, 96
  

 

based on these rankings, it appears to me that you can only make an argument that lse has a better finance academic reputation as per ideas at repec based on the possibility that lse publishes more in the qje, jpe, et cetera. which might make sense, but if you consider that the aggregate journal ranking at repec (IDEAS/RePEc Agregate Rankings for Journals) has only two finance journals in the top 20, and the ranking of finance journals is odd, there is a possibility that this ranking may be overly biased in certain directions. i read another person's posting on chasedream that lse has a big reputation in finance research, but can it really be that the lse finance faculty is so good at publishing finance articles at the top econs journals that they ignore the top finance journals? it doesn't make sense...

 

hence, i don't know if i can fully trust the repec ranking, i'm afraid - researchers even have to register to be considered in the ranking (lemons principle though?), and based on what i see with regards to my current institution's country listing, it is highly dominated by econs faculty - as in it seems only the econs faculty have registered. so based on that, i went to look at the ubc sauber finance division listing, and i find only two people listed (EDIRC/RePEc - Institution info), and both are asst profs - do you expect to see the top ubc finance department people on the ranking then? of course not.

 

i see the index, but consider the methodology first please... cheers!

Edited April 4, 2011 by frayed
should have used aggregate journal ranking, so edited. and expanded the ideas thing.

[star69]

Frayed: Just wanted to say 'WOW' to your insight and willingness to share that with us! You da man!

[frayed]

haha. you are welcome.

 

anyway, for the op, i saw this other posting on the econ board while randomly looking through and wondering why the econ board is so active compared to the business board (http://www.www.urch.com/forums/phd-economics/130816-one-go-lse-msc-econ-research-vs-u-toronto-ma-regualr-2.html#post853138), the salient point, which relates to my LOR and recommendation bias follows...

 

Here's a number of thoughts that could be helpful:

1) Are you planning on going to the Ph.D. straight out of your Master's degree? If so, it will be hard to get any letters of recommendation from your Master's school. This is particularly true if you are attending LSE because you'll have to send in your applications about a month after starting school, which is hardly long enough to get to know the professors. As a consequence, attending LSE's master's program only really gives you the benefit of the LSE name as a signal to adcoms, who will be making a decision on your file before most of your marks come in.

 

the part about the LORs was already stated by mindlessme in this very thread as well. one of the other threads i mentioned in my super long post had something like this as well, i think.

 

The one and only problem with the LSE programme is that it is one year only, thus it's hard to impress the professors in time. But in my view, the right way to overcome this is to apply during your MSc year and hope for the best, but if you don't get the placement you think is best for you, you should continue to work hard, graduate Top3 in the class (this one is really tough though) and reapply next fall. Compared to 2-year Master's programmes, you'll start the grad school at the same time anyway.

 

at first, i didn't think it's was bad as a month after starting school, but on further thought it is a realistic deadline/timing since the top schools in finance usually have deadlines in december, and that is what you are aiming for. school starts in september for the lse msc f&e, i believe. so 2 months to get to know the profs, 1 month after that to get them to write an LOR. not good odds. and if you end up being required to do the toefl/ielts... woo. workload!

 

another thing: your other idea to work after finishing the lse masters and then apply. since the course takes ten months it means it ends in july. i don't know if it is really good form to apply for a job, get it, work and then drop it when you get a phd offer, but that is up to you. it will certainly be challenging to work in the financial sector and still contribute to research though if you do want to get a good LOR and working papers going.

[mindlessme]

About Finance vs. Economics PhD for LSE F&E - well, that's not completely true that most of the students end up in the Econ departments. If I'm not mistaken, one of the top3 guys from 2008/09 batch is now in Chicago Booth Financial Economics programme (you might be referring to him when you're mentioning a Chicago placement). The Harvard guy from the same batch had some top Finance offers as well (I think MIT Sloan, maybe something else, but I'm not sure), he just chose Harvard over them. There have been quite a few offers made by the LBS Finance to the LSE F&E students over the years. And of course the major part of the people from LSE F&E who are interested in pursuing PhD Finance just stay to do it at the LSE. Plus among the people who choose Econ departments for PhD a lot actually continue working on Financial Economics in the future, which is definitely an option in most Econ PhD programmes.

I don't know what's the reason why more people go to Econ programmes. One guess would be that their research interests happen to be broader than Finance only, or they believe they can receive more suitable training at an Econ department (might be the case for example if you want to study some parts of the Finance theory which are heavily Microeconomic theory based). Another guess would be that due to the fact that a lot of the Finance professors at the LSE have done Econ PhDs themselves, they might often advise students to choose the same path. But of course they are not pushy with this advice and are more than supportive to the students who choose to apply to PhD Finance programmes only.

 

Yes, I happen to be a graduate of the LSE F&E programme (and I enjoyed it immensely, as you can probably tell from my posts).

 

About doing summer research with an LSE professor - I don't have such experience myself, but I would probably suggest you trying to politely contact the professors you're interested in working with and finding out what are their thoughts about it. There's no harm in it if done politely, and it's the only way to find out for sure anyway.

 

And about the MSc placements at the LSE website - the department only publishes the MSc placements of the students who have given their written consent for it. So if the Harvard, Stanford etc. guys did not give their consent for whatever reason, they would not appear in the list of placements on the website. So yes, that list is definitely not complete (also true for industry placements).

 

And finally about the possibility of getting LSE professors' recommendations after one month into the programme. This is definitely not impossible! Quite a few professors would agree to provide a recommendation for you based on the results of your winter mock exams. In fact they do it every year. It's fine in terms of timing, because the results of the mocks get released in mid-December, when it's still not past the deadline for LORs. This is quite risky though, as you'll usually have to approach the professors before you know your marks. Not to mention that you have to do very-very well on these mocks... So it's quite challenging. But definitely possible.

 

 

Thank you for the excellent analyses, mindlessme. This post should be marked for the future students interested in this program to see. I guess you were or are in the program, right?

 

I have done some research over the days and observe that most of the MSc students from this program end up going to top Econ programs, like Harvard, Chicago. But few have gone to top Finance programs. Is there some obstable for us to apply to Finance programs? I think it's a bit odd considering that this program is hosted by a Finance Department and at least some students should be interested in doing a Finance PhD. Can you shed some light on that, or is my observation biased?

 

PS, I am thinking of arriving in London early in the summer and do some summer research with a faculty. Do you think this is practical in the LSE MSc setting? I have done a lot of graduate level Econ and Math, read and replicated some papers in the field I am interested in. So hopefully I won't be too much a burden for the professor.

[dennycrane]

another informative and well written respond. Everyone interested in LSE FE should read this.

 

 

About Finance vs. Economics PhD for LSE F&E - well, that's not completely true that most of the students end up in the Econ departments. If I'm not mistaken, one of the top3 guys from 2008/09 batch is now in Chicago Booth Financial Economics programme (you might be referring to him when you're mentioning a Chicago placement). The Harvard guy from the same batch had some top Finance offers as well (I think MIT Sloan, maybe something else, but I'm not sure), he just chose Harvard over them. There have been quite a few offers made by the LBS Finance to the LSE F&E students over the years. And of course the major part of the people from LSE F&E who are interested in pursuing PhD Finance just stay to do it at the LSE. Plus among the people who choose Econ departments for PhD a lot actually continue working on Financial Economics in the future, which is definitely an option in most Econ PhD programmes.

I don't know what's the reason why more people go to Econ programmes. One guess would be that their research interests happen to be broader than Finance only, or they believe they can receive more suitable training at an Econ department (might be the case for example if you want to study some parts of the Finance theory which are heavily Microeconomic theory based). Another guess would be that due to the fact that a lot of the Finance professors at the LSE have done Econ PhDs themselves, they might often advise students to choose the same path. But of course they are not pushy with this advice and are more than supportive to the students who choose to apply to PhD Finance programmes only.

 

Yes, I happen to be a graduate of the LSE F&E programme (and I enjoyed it immensely, as you can probably tell from my posts).

 

About doing summer research with an LSE professor - I don't have such experience myself, but I would probably suggest you trying to politely contact the professors you're interested in working with and finding out what are their thoughts about it. There's no harm in it if done politely, and it's the only way to find out for sure anyway.

 

And about the MSc placements at the LSE website - the department only publishes the MSc placements of the students who have given their written consent for it. So if the Harvard, Stanford etc. guys did not give their consent for whatever reason, they would not appear in the list of placements on the website. So yes, that list is definitely not complete (also true for industry placements).

 

And finally about the possibility of getting LSE professors' recommendations after one month into the programme. This is definitely not impossible! Quite a few professors would agree to provide a recommendation for you based on the results of your winter mock exams. In fact they do it every year. It's fine in terms of timing, because the results of the mocks get released in mid-December, when it's still not past the deadline for LORs. This is quite risky though, as you'll usually have to approach the professors before you know your marks. Not to mention that you have to do very-very well on these mocks... So it's quite challenging. But definitely possible.

[dennycrane]

There is another issue with the one-year problem as you pointed out. And I thought you might have some insight in it. Thanks again!

 

Correction to the previous posts: LSE F&E does require a 6,000 words dissertation. If you're capable of producing a decent research paper, you'll receive all the necessary support for it, including faculty attention.

 

LSE coursework: you have an opportunity to substitute MSc Micro for Advanced Micro. The class size for the second one is usually not more than 30 people, the content of this course is heavy, the teaching is excellent. Given that you can also choose an advanced time series course as your optional choice, the curriculum of LSE F&E will be an excellent preparation for PhD Finance. It will lack Macro though, but the importance of that depends on your research interests.

 

LSE class size: out of the 80 people in the programme only a little bunch (about 10 people on average) will be interested in pursuing PhD. These people are usually active in discussing their future with the professors, and the professors are usually supportive and interested in such students. So you can get a lot of interaction with the LSE faculty if you invest in it yourself.

 

The one and only problem with the LSE programme is that it is one year only, thus it's hard to impress the professors in time. But in my view, the right way to overcome this is to apply during your MSc year and hope for the best, but if you don't get the placement you think is best for you, you should continue to work hard, graduate Top3 in the class (this one is really tough though) and reapply next fall. Compared to 2-year Master's programmes, you'll start the grad school at the same time anyway.

 

If he would apply for the second time the next year, what can a MSc graduate do for the year after graduation then? An ideal situation would be to be a researcher/research assistant somewhere (preferrably in LSE, for the continuation of the existing project; and preferrably, of course, with funding; Last but not least, does not break the UK immigration law, as Chinese or other non-EU students.). Some options that I can think of:

1, continue as an MRes at LSE. But not sure if this is funded, and whether there are appropriate MRes courses that is complementary to your MSc, i.e.: does not repeat the classes you have taken, and allow you much time for research.

1': admitted as PhD in Finance in LSE (if distinction).And apply for the next year. But this is kind of imoral and hard to get good letters, isn't it?

2, continue as an MRes/MPhil elsewhere. I heard some Chinese F&E graduates doing this after they graduate.

3, work as a researcher in company or NGOs. In this case you have to start another (potentially you don't like) research project. So not very favorable. But will the work permit thing work out for such positions?

4, work in the financial service, like IB. In this case your work involves little research. Not favorable.

 

Could you please give some idea what have people in similar 1-year-problem done before?

 

Other than this one problem, the LSE F&E is an absolutely superb preparation for any PhD Finance programme (and Econ too).

[mindlessme]

To be honest, I don't know a perfect answer to this question. The best outcome is of course to get a good RA position. There are some positions advertised online (like on the NBER website). I'm not sure whether any are available at the LSE for non-doctorates.

 

There were precedents in the past when MSc students re-applied during the first year of the LSE PhD Finance programme and got very strong placements.

I'm not sure whether the professors are going to be frustrated with your want to re-apply. I guess, if you're awesome and they acknowledge that you are underplaced being at the LSE, they can be supportive. You probably have to be really awesome though... Also, it does help a lot to be frank with the professors about your plans for the future.

 

Note that usually MRes in the UK means just the coursework part of a PhD programme. So to do an MRes, you'll usually have to be admitted to a PhD programme first. LSE offers MRes as a part of the Economics PhD programme, but not Finance PhD programme (for Finance PhD the coursework part leads to an MPhil).

 

As of now, non-EU nationals can get a 2-year post-study visa after completing a Master's in the UK, which will allow you to stay in the country and do pretty much anything you want (meaning you can work, but you don't have to, and this will not affect your visa eligibility). However, the UK immigration laws have been lately changing rapidly, so I don't know whether this will be still available in a couple of years' time. You can get a proper work visa, if your employer is able to provide a certificate of sponsorship.

[dennycrane]

Thank you already. Your answer helped a lot! Indeed. I think it should be featured. Not sure why this function is not available here at this forum.

 

To be honest, I don't know a perfect answer to this question. The best outcome is of course to get a good RA position. There are some positions advertised online (like on the NBER website). I'm not sure whether any are available at the LSE for non-doctorates.

 

There were precedents in the past when MSc students re-applied during the first year of the LSE PhD Finance programme and got very strong placements.

I'm not sure whether the professors are going to be frustrated with your want to re-apply. I guess, if you're awesome and they acknowledge that you are underplaced being at the LSE, they can be supportive. You probably have to be really awesome though... Also, it does help a lot to be frank with the professors about your plans for the future.

 

Note that usually MRes in the UK means just the coursework part of a PhD programme. So to do an MRes, you'll usually have to be admitted to a PhD programme first. LSE offers MRes as a part of the Economics PhD programme, but not Finance PhD programme (for Finance PhD the coursework part leads to an MPhil).

 

As of now, non-EU nationals can get a 2-year post-study visa after completing a Master's in the UK, which will allow you to stay in the country and do pretty much anything you want (meaning you can work, but you don't have to, and this will not affect your visa eligibility). However, the UK immigration laws have been lately changing rapidly, so I don't know whether this will be still available in a couple of years' time. You can get a proper work visa, if your employer is able to provide a certificate of sponsorship.

[zhu8pi]

Thanks a lot guys, I learnt a great deal for your posts!

 

I have similar dilemma here, I'm deciding between Cambridge Mphil Finance and LSE MSc Finance & Econ.

 

I also want to apply to Finance PhD later.

 

Which program is better?

 

Thank you!

[frayed]

i remain somewhat unconvinced of the cambridge mphil, i'm afraid. in my opinion, between these two, lse.