Jump to content
Urch Forums

Int'l student, where to take masters?


jongrud

Recommended Posts

*You could just skip straight down to the three questions below.

 

Hello, I'm an int'l student in Korea trying to get into us ph.d programs and this forum has always been of enormous help to me. I thank you all nice people and this place to share similar thoughts and exchange useful info. I would like to let you know in advance that my English isn't good, so please be patient with any possible non-fluency you find as you scroll down my post.

 

I'm currently an undergrad in Economics in top 3 econ department in Korea. It has been only 6 months or so since I made up my mind to pursue my career as an economist (To be an economist for int’l financial institutons like IMF or World Bank is my dream), so I'm really hustling these days to boost my profile to be good enough. I have two more semesters to go till I graduate, and with my resonable expectation, I will graduate with CGPA of about 3.75~3.8 out of 4, with my econ & math gpa being just around the range. By then, I will have taken lots of econ classes, and 9~10 math subjects. Roughly speaking, I will be about top 3% of my cohort.

 

I expected that if I achieve this kind of profile by the time I graduate and also continue my studies in graduate school of the same institution, I will be able to aim for top 20 by the time I take masters degree here. But as far as what I have heard from my seniors who are already in the grad school preparing for us Ph.D in econ, top 20 school like Rochester, Maryland,. etc are reserved for those who were the very top students in the undergrad, and I could reasonably expect to give a shot for 25~45 US programs. I don't want Maryland to be out of my reach, (because it's the best school around the DC area, where IMF, WB are located), so I started to look for alternatives, where I can get better letters and perhaps get away with the int'l student pedigree (terrible in English and not proactive and stuff like that)

 

So, I looked up the posts in this forum regarding the MA programs that can be good bridges to US ph.d program, and the ones that I found nice are: CEMFI, BGSE, PSE, Tolouse, Boconni and etc. (I didn't include those in England because they were too expensive) I thought it would be very nice if I can get into these good MA programs, but I have found literally NO record of Korean student who took these programs to later apply for us Ph. Ds, so I'm worried about a couple things. (There's tons of Koreans who did their MA in LSE, but none in the aformentioned ones)

 

---‐‐‐---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Given that I get a decent score in GRE, what do you think are my chances of getting into these MA programs (they seem pretty tough to get into) and if possible, of receiving some finincial aid? I also have a 6 month RA experience (not economic RA) in an UN office in Korea if it is any of help. Also, if they are off my range, other alternatives you would recommend for good briges?

 

2. Do you think it is recommendable for an asian student like me to take masters in those programs? I'm afraid that I'll be like the only asian in those program whose English isn't good and because of that, the faculty will not likely consider me for RA or write a good letter for me. I'm particularly worried about this, because in my grad schools, competition seems pretty tough among grad econ students to stand out and get better letters. If the same thing goes for European MA's, I'm afriad it is unlikely for asian student like me to stand out and get a good letter, in which case I might as well just stay in Korea.

 

3. If it is all okay for me to be in the programs, I would try to get a letter from the faculty who have strong connection to US adcoms. How would I be able to tell who have strong connection?

 

Any comment would be very appreciated.

Big thanks in advance :)

Edited by jongrud
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asian student here. I highly recommend you to pursue your masters in the US as your prospective letter writers are likely to have enough connections within the US (if you can afford this option). Duke MAE, Wisconsin MS, Chicago MAXSS, etc. are very suitable for you. The programs you mentioned in Europe are decent and cheaper for sure, but they may not be the most helpful ones since you wanna pursue your PhD in the US, which is because the faculty members there generally have less connections to US institutions. As far as I know, there was a Chinese student who did her masters at CEMFI and then came to Maryland for PhD. There are also some other Chinese students who completed masters in other programs in Europe and got into a top 30 school in the US, and I guess your case would be comparable.

 

Among the programs you listed, I think BGSE, CEMFI, Bocconi are very good. I don't know much about PSE. The master program at TSE may not be that good because of poor teaching. (confirmed by several current students) Of course if you have enough money just go to the US for master directly. I notice that some Korean PhD students in top 20 programs did their masters at SNU, so do you think it's a good idea to do your master at SNU? I guess that would be the cheapest choice? (don't know much about tuition fees in Korea)

 

I hope the information above could be helpful. Don't hesitate to let me know if you have further questions. And, good luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to slightly disagree with Kexin on European master's because the thing is all thsoe prominent institutes that Jongrud talked about has teachers that have done their PhD from top 10 and have worked in those schools quite a while before going there. Hence, they have very decent connection between those schools so their LOR is as credible as their counterparts in USA.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Kexin,

 

Whoo, it's the first comment, thank you! It's nice to hear a couple cases of Asians who have made it into US ph.d. programs through the Masters. You assured me those programs would be also suitable for non-English speaking students like me. But you aren't entirely sure about my chances into the programs, are you?

 

For your suggestions on US masters, I completely agree with you that they are good bridges, but it's the $$ that deters me from them. Also, as you mentioned, SNU is no doubt the top school in Korea, but I noticed that the professors in SNU are mostly theory-oriented scholars, which bis direct opposite to my research interest. Besides, I've heard that the professors in SNU tend to favor the students who came from the same undergraduate the most, which is pretty discouraging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to slightly disagree with Kexin on European master's because the thing is all thsoe prominent institutes that Jongrud talked about has teachers that have done their PhD from top 10 and have worked in those schools quite a while before going there. Hence, they have very decent connection between those schools so their LOR is as credible as their counterparts in USA.

 

This makes me want to join those programs even more! But do you have any idea about how difficult it is to get into the institutes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Kexin says is nonsense. Kexin's unsupported assumptions and personal anecdotes cannot replace empirical placement data. First of all, "suitability" should never be a concern in a masters program. You attend a masters to send a positive signal. Secondly, all of those European MA's listed use MWG tier instruction in their MA core courses. Even Duke's program is not as rigorous.. Plus, one cannot make the assumption that they will be the top student; with this fact in mind, and the fact that one is going to pay at least 45-60k in the USA, attending a US masters would be a very bad decision. Kexin, you frankly do not know what you are talking about and this is just misinformation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a friend who was top of his class with 3.71 GPA in Economics from Istanbul University which is basically no name school in US and also none of his professor did even do their PhD in USA however, he got accepted from BGSE. If you specifically want to do macro, I think BGSE is one of the best choice. Sadly it is a bit expensive than the ones that you talked about only marginally. Also you get to meet the 'M' in MWG :) in Macro they have Jordi Gali, coming from MIT and almost all of his professors are coming from top 10 institutions. I am pretty sure though with your current GPA and LOR, you should be able to get an acceptance from BGSE, without funding. I have no knowledge about other schools so I cannot make any comments. I hope I was helpful!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The general consensus is that you go to Europe to get a rigorous masters programme, since (as Bayes mentioned above) there is the option of taking the PhD-level sequences to fulfill your masters course requirement. Doing well in them will send a credible signal of ability (but only if you attend the reputable programmes like BGSE, CEMFI and Bocconi).

 

With regards to BGSE, there are a couple things to note. By default, you'll have access to the normal track which allows you to take MSc-level coursework. You'll need to apply for special permission to take the Advanced Track at BGSE. This is because the Advanced Track is essentially the first-year PhD sequence. If you Google a little bit, you'll learn that the Advanced track at BGSE is rightfully demanding, based on past experience from students. Secondly, BGSE does offer merit-based tuition waivers (both partial and full ones) to all students, regardless of nationality. The "easiest" way to boost your chances of getting a waiver is to get 170 Q for your GRE, based on past results.

 

CEMFI used to offer full-funding to all students but now reserve funding only to those in the PhD programme. For CEMFI, you're essentially doing the first 2 years worth of coursework, alongside the PhD students, so it is similarly rigorous as the one at BGSE.

 

If you are financially constrained, PSE is worth considering, since there's essentially no school fees, except for an administrative fee of a couple hundred euros, per academic year, so you'll only need to cover living expenses.

 

Echoing what Bayes said above, you should never assume that you'll be the top student enrolled in any of the good masters programmes listed above here. This is because virtually everyone who enters have the same intention as you; i.e. to perform well in the programme and use it to springboard into a better PhD programme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh, I know decent European programs provide very rigorous training, but what I say is about connections. I didn't assume OP would be the best student in the MS program, but given OP's rank and the undergraduate institution, my educated guess would be OP would get a satisfactory ranking as long as OP put enough efforts. Finally, different consumers have different willingness to pay and budget constraints. Although some consumers may think it is a bad idea to attend a costly US program, others don't. I know many would like to pay a lot for a marginal increase in the probability to get into a top 20 PhD program in the US.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a friend who was top of his class with 3.71 GPA in Economics from Istanbul University which is basically no name school in US and also none of his professor did even do their PhD in USA however, he got accepted from BGSE. If you specifically want to do macro, I think BGSE is one of the best choice. Sadly it is a bit expensive than the ones that you talked about only marginally. Also you get to meet the 'M' in MWG :) in Macro they have Jordi Gali, coming from MIT and almost all of his professors are coming from top 10 institutions. I am pretty sure though with your current GPA and LOR, you should be able to get an acceptance from BGSE, without funding. I have no knowledge about other schools so I cannot make any comments. I hope I was helpful!

 

I just realized what "MWG" stood for lol. I didn't know getting acceptance wasn't that much of a deal. My research interest isn't specific enough yet, but I'm interested in international macro and macro development for now. It sounds like an overwhelming experience to be part of the program; being taught by renowned faculty would be an wonderful experience per se.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The general consensus is that you go to Europe to get a rigorous masters programme, since (as Bayes mentioned above) there is the option of taking the PhD-level sequences to fulfill your masters course requirement. Doing well in them will send a credible signal of ability (but only if you attend the reputable programmes like BGSE, CEMFI and Bocconi).

 

With regards to BGSE, there are a couple things to note. By default, you'll have access to the normal track which allows you to take MSc-level coursework. You'll need to apply for special permission to take the Advanced Track at BGSE. This is because the Advanced Track is essentially the first-year PhD sequence. If you Google a little bit, you'll learn that the Advanced track at BGSE is rightfully demanding, based on past experience from students. Secondly, BGSE does offer merit-based tuition waivers (both partial and full ones) to all students, regardless of nationality. The "easiest" way to boost your chances of getting a waiver is to get 170 Q for your GRE, based on past results.

 

CEMFI used to offer full-funding to all students but now reserve funding only to those in the PhD programme. For CEMFI, you're essentially doing the first 2 years worth of coursework, alongside the PhD students, so it is similarly rigorous as the one at BGSE.

 

If you are financially constrained, PSE is worth considering, since there's essentially no school fees, except for an administrative fee of a couple hundred euros, per academic year, so you'll only need to cover living expenses.

 

Echoing what Bayes said above, you should never assume that you'll be the top student enrolled in any of the good masters programmes listed above here. This is because virtually everyone who enters have the same intention as you; i.e. to perform well in the programme and use it to springboard into a better PhD programme.

 

It seems like the programs that I've found were indeed the rigorous ones. I'd better get myself well-prepared for them if I end up in those programs. Your reply is very specific and informative. I appreciate that. I'll take your advice and try to get 170 Q for GRE, and definitely apply to PSE because I'd like to minimize the financial burden. But it leaves me a question: do only the top students there make themselves into top 20 US? I'm not really obsessed with the ranking as long as I could expect better chances there than here in Korean grad school (top 25) I mean, the connection is apparently better there, but do I have to be the top student in order to take advantage of the connection? I would work my butt of to show good performance, but I can't expect myself to be the top as you said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Kexin says is nonsense. Kexin's unsupported assumptions and personal anecdotes cannot replace empirical placement data. First of all, "suitability" should never be a concern in a masters program. You attend a masters to send a positive signal. Secondly, all of those European MA's listed use MWG tier instruction in their MA core courses. Even Duke's program is not as rigorous.. Plus, one cannot make the assumption that they will be the top student; with this fact in mind, and the fact that one is going to pay at least 45-60k in the USA, attending a US masters would be a very bad decision. Kexin, you frankly do not know what you are talking about and this is just misinformation.

 

The pooled placement data of European programs are not that informative to Asian students. Most of sparkly placement records are from Europeans rather than Asians. Asians are not in the sample pool with others when adcom in the US review applications. There are so many Asian applicants! That's why I have to rely on anecdotal evidence. I do agree that getting good grades in a rigorous European program is super helpful signal, as the GPA inflation is so severe in the US such that many applicants have a near 4.0 grade, then only letters tell apart applicants. But conditional on one may not be the best student, it is more likely to get a near-perfect transcript in a US program. If one get an awful transcript in a rigorous European program, that would hurt unless he/she has super strong recommendations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pooled placement data of European programs are not that informative to Asian students. Most of sparkly placement records are from Europeans rather than Asians. Asians are not in the sample pool with others when adcom in the US review applications. There are so many Asian applicants! That's why I have to rely on anecdotal evidence. I do agree that getting good grades in a rigorous European program is super helpful signal, as the GPA inflation is so severe in the US such that many applicants have a near 4.0 grade, then only letters tell apart applicants. But conditional on one may not be the best student, it is more likely to get a near-perfect transcript in a US program. If one get an awful transcript in a rigorous European program, that would hurt unless he/she has super strong recommendations.

 

I know what you are saying Kexin. It makes perfect sense to me. It's just that they are not affordable to me very sadly. On the other hand, it does sound very scary to get an awful transcript in European programs. Would it be that difficult to get good grades in European programs? I know they are rigorous, but would they just throw out terrible grades to anyone who fails to meet their high standards?..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kexin, regardless of the validity of whatever you brought up above, masters programme in the US are simply not a good choice if your end goal is a PhD programme, since they aren't sufficiently rigorous; i.e. most programmes don't allow you to take the full breath of the first year PhD courses.

 

 

It seems like the programs that I've found were indeed the rigorous ones. I'd better get myself well-prepared for them if I end up in those programs. Your reply is very specific and informative. I appreciate that. I'll take your advice and try to get 170 Q for GRE, and definitely apply to PSE because I'd like to minimize the financial burden. But it leaves me a question: do only the top students there make themselves into top 20 US? I'm not really obsessed with the ranking as long as I could expect better chances there than here in Korean grad school (top 25) I mean, the connection is apparently better there, but do I have to be the top student in order to take advantage of the connection? I would work my butt of to show good performance, but I can't expect myself to be the top as you said.

 

Honestly, if you can realistically get into a Top 25 programme from the masters at where you are currently at, there isn't a whole lot of merit in spending (a lot of) money to do a masters abroad instead, as the admission into Top 10, or even Top 20 is very noisy. You're better off completing the masters in Korea, and spend maybe a year or two as a full-time RA in a pre-doc position in the US, to get better letters. That's also an alternative path to consider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kexin, regardless of the validity of whatever you brought up above, masters programme in the US are simply not a good choice if your end goal is a PhD programme, since they aren't sufficiently rigorous; i.e. most programmes don't allow you to take the full breath of the first year PhD courses.

 

But a successful applicant don't need to take the full breath of PhD sequences, right? The chair and other members of adcom in my department told us that take micro and got A is basically enough; if two, marginally better. All three? May not worth it for most students. That's what I heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quoting Kexin: “The pooled placement data of European programs are not that informative to Asian students. Most of sparkly placement records are from Europeans rather than Asians. Asians are not in the sample pool with others when adcom in the US review applications”.

 

Your assumption is that race matters when applying from an European program. Your next assumption is that placements records are from Europeans rather than Asians. I am not sure if you are actually in a PhD program because you have some pretty obvious flaws in your Econometrics reasoning. Race does not matter. It does not matter whether the student is black, asian or whatever when attending the masters. Since the course structure is the same for everyone, the signal sent is also the same be it asian or european.

 

Secondly, did you entertain the fact that maybe asians are not represented in CEMFI or whatever is because they aren’t that many applying to these places? And if I may ask, how do you know the race of each master attendee that has been places from these unis?. From what I know, they do not hold demographic data when discussing placements. If you have passed MWG you have passed it; the signal is the same for everyone.

 

You need to also define what a sucessful applicant is. Prof. Startz had awesome data on the differences between US vs Foreign students entering into US PhDs. US applicants typically possess almost always research experience when entering top 10-20. Foreign students on the other hand were always entering PhDs with a masters. So to close the gap of research experience, yes they would benefit from taking the full sequence at their masters in Europe. As this also gives positive signal for research ability (indirectly signaling intuition).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kexin, regardless of the validity of whatever you brought up above, masters programme in the US are simply not a good choice if your end goal is a PhD programme, since they aren't sufficiently rigorous; i.e. most programmes don't allow you to take the full breath of the first year PhD courses.

 

 

 

 

Honestly, if you can realistically get into a Top 25 programme from the masters at where you are currently at, there isn't a whole lot of merit in spending (a lot of) money to do a masters abroad instead, as the admission into Top 10, or even Top 20 is very noisy. You're better off completing the masters in Korea, and spend maybe a year or two as a full-time RA in a pre-doc position in the US, to get better letters. That's also an alternative path to consider.

 

Oh I think you got me wrong. What I intended was that I could expect top 25 school "at maximum" even if I work super hard. In other words, Maryland and Rochester are out of my reach here in Korean grad, no matter how hard I try from now. I'm not particularly obsessed with those schools, but I want to be able to have some chances on top15~25 programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But a successful applicant don't need to take the full breath of PhD sequences, right? The chair and other members of adcom in my department told us that take micro and got A is basically enough; if two, marginally better. All three? May not worth it for most students. That's what I heard.

 

That might be true. However, the reason those few European programmes can place their students into good PhD programmes is because the grades obtained there serve as a credible signal. Doing well in PhD Micro I at BGSE or CEMFI, for example, will serve as a better signal than doing well in one at an unknown university, even if hypothetically, the content are identical (as most PhD courses rightfully are) and of the same level of rigour. That's because an A in the former is more credible of a signal than one from the latter since adcoms will have some frame of reference. They would be more familiar with how one candidate measure up against past candidates from a programme that has consistently placed students into Top 20/30 programmes, for example. It is all about overcoming any information asymmetry. That's why, if you look at the Past Profiles & Results thread, you'll notice some fantastic candidates with perfect or near-perfect GPAs and graduate courses but still are unable to break into Top 20, for example. Information asymmetry has a role to play there.

 

Oh I think you got me wrong. What I intended was that I could expect top 25 school "at maximum" even if I work super hard. In other words, Maryland and Rochester are out of my reach here in Korean grad, no matter how hard I try from now. I'm not particularly obsessed with those schools, but I want to be able to have some chances on top15~25 programs.

 

Got it. Regardless, if the masters programme can place students consistently in the 25-40 range, in my opinion, it is sufficiently rigorous, and by extension, the grades obtained in the programme is at least, a credible signal of ability when applying. I think staying in Korea and then doing a pre-doc/full-time RA-ship is a better path forward, especially if you currently lack in research experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quoting Kexin: “The pooled placement data of European programs are not that informative to Asian students. Most of sparkly placement records are from Europeans rather than Asians. Asians are not in the sample pool with others when adcom in the US review applications”.

 

Your assumption is that race matters when applying from an European program. Your next assumption is that placements records are from Europeans rather than Asians. I am not sure if you are actually in a PhD program because you have some pretty obvious flaws in your Econometrics reasoning. Race does not matter. It does not matter whether the student is black, asian or whatever when attending the masters. Since the course structure is the same for everyone, the signal sent is also the same be it asian or european.

 

Secondly, did you entertain the fact that maybe asians are not represented in CEMFI or whatever is because they aren’t that many applying to these places? And if I may ask, how do you know the race of each master attendee that has been places from these unis?. From what I know, they do not hold demographic data when discussing placements. If you have passed MWG you have passed it; the signal is the same for everyone.

 

You need to also define what a sucessful applicant is. Prof. Startz had awesome data on the differences between US vs Foreign students entering into US PhDs. US applicants typically possess almost always research experience when entering top 10-20. Foreign students on the other hand were always entering PhDs with a masters. So to close the gap of research experience, yes they would benefit from taking the full sequence at their masters in Europe. As this also gives positive signal for research ability (indirectly signaling intuition).

 

 

1. Race matters in review of PhD admissions in the US, because diversity matters. Don't know whether that's true or not in Europe. 2. My point is, the systematic differences in the placement records btw Europeans and Asians are from the quality of students, not the training per se. Of course the signal sent is same within the same cohort, given the same performance. 3. The demographic information of successful applicants is from some graduates. Almost every year, there is about one student share info he/she like this on online forum (not urch).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That might be true. However, the reason those few European programmes can place their students into good PhD programmes is because the grades obtained there serve as a credible signal. Doing well in PhD Micro I at BGSE or CEMFI, for example, will serve as a better signal than doing well in one at an unknown university, even if hypothetically, the content are identical (as most PhD courses rightfully are) and of the same level of rigour.

 

Agree! But why do you compare BGSE and CEMFI with an unknown university? I would tend to think US institutions know how rigorous the PhD Micro is in another US institution with a master program. Because you think first-year micro/metrics/macro is more rigorous in Europe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree! But why do you compare BGSE and CEMFI with an unknown university? I would tend to think US institutions know how rigorous the PhD Micro is in another US institution with a master program. Because you think first-year micro/metrics/macro is more rigorous in Europe?

 

Because you can't take PhD-level courses in most US masters programme.. Most masters in the US are terminal degrees, by construction. MSc-level Econ courses are essentially just advanced undergraduate courses that have been repackaged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because you can't take PhD-level courses in most US masters programme.. Most masters in the US are terminal degrees, by construction. MSc-level Econ courses are essentially just advanced undergraduate courses that have been repackaged.

 

But why would one potential PhD applicant apply to such a program? There are still a couple of masters program designed for PhD preparation, and some of them have already built reputation. One can only apply to academic-oriented masters programs, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why would one potential PhD applicant apply to such a program? There are still a couple of masters program designed for PhD preparation, and some of them have already built reputation. One can only apply to academic-oriented masters programs, right?

 

That's precisely the point that we're making... Someone preparing for a PhD should not apply to such a programme. Hence, why European masters programmes are much better since the ones listed here are specifically geared towards students preparing for a PhD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...