Lombardo

OK these are not rumours anymore, all of these recruitments have been announced on the department web page :).

Crawford had been announced on the department webpage some time ago. He'll be the new Drummond Professor, which as far as I know is a very respected post in the department. However, I have no other recruitment news, unfortunately :( Of course, given that I'm not really 'connected' in the department, this does not necessarily mean your information is not true :)

I don't think this is very common at the MPhil level. Although I have no idea about how it would be at the DPhil level, my guess is that if your research is serious (or if your professor thinks you are a serious researcher) then they would probably consider to write a paper with you. Of course, that paper would probably be published after your graduation since it takes a long time to finally get published. But this is my two-cents really, so don't take it too seriously. The basic answer is, I think it's rare that a professor starts working with you on your MPhil thesis with the objective of turning it into a co-authored paper. :hmm:

You know, I've never thought of it this way, but it's a very interesting observation. I think it makes great sense because people might apply to LSE from Oxford as a sort of plan B (not to mean that LSE is Oxford's plan B or something :)). Especially if they already have college funding, given the very thin funding from LSE, people may end up staying in Oxford. In addition, I think if you go to LSE after the MPhil in Oxford, they still ask you to take courses. Actually a friend of mine emailed them to ask about whether MPhil graduates would be required to do coursework again at the LSE and the reply was positive and the reason according to them was that the level of coursework at Oxford is not at MRes level. I can ask my friend again but that's how I remember it. But again, if you get into the Oxford DPhil from outside, they do the same thing and ask you to take one or two courses until you reach DPhil-Candidate status. Just out of curiosity: have you applied to LSE before when you graduated from Oxford? If you were rejected then, maybe that's why they gave you an early reject because that happened to me before, as well:(. I think an MPhil graduate should have a fair chance at getting into LSE PhD unless the grades are not that high or there are no faculty members willing to work on the applicant's research subject? Hope you'll get good news soon!:)

I believe the level of mathematics is certainly lower than that in top-20 US PhD programmes but it's still a technical degree. The difference is, you can do well without doing stuff like real analysis or any other advanced maths course. Actually calculus, linear algebra and undergrad statistics is supposed to be a fine background. In any case, don't worry about having a weak background, because in my opinion if they admit you they expect you to pass the exams; and if you keep studying you pass the exams, but getting into DPhil is another story because you'll need higher grades:hmm: However, having a strong background helps certainly because you will panic less and keep things under control easily. Having said that, the difficulty of the MPhil programme in Oxford is not it's technical level but the amount of material they try to teach. The other problem is that the syllabi are too general for some modules, say Game Theory; I mean, there are lots of references in them and in that particular case the lecturer told us that Osborne and Rubinstein was the relevant book whereas in reality it was way too technical for the level of the course and thus the wrong pick. Unlike in the American system, sometimes lecturers don't tell you what paper or book to read and expect you to do your own choice. Except for a few cases, using just the textbooks and reading no papers is OK but it takes some time to realise that :rolleyes:. I definitely agree with Kelei on macro being a weakness at Oxford. In 2007 they hired Tony Venables who was at the LSE previously. Then in 2008 Martin Ellison from Warwick joined the department. I don't know much about him because I don't take the elective Macro but people say he's a great teacher and I think he tries teaching more advanced stuff which is what this department needs. I mean, for someone who wants to learn serious PhD level macro, my guess is that the first year macro sequence is just horrible. As for competitiveness, people are usually friendly towards each other and failing the MPhil is not very easy unless you really try hard:) That doesn't mean that the exams are easy - to be honest, I had a hard time preparing for them for many reasons including the ones I mentioned above. However, if you study hard, you manage to pass the exams somehow. To get into DPhil, you need to have an average of at least 64 - but I think it's still more lenient than the LSE MSc Economics condition of 70, though the MPhil is much tougher than the MSc IMHO. Lastly, if you consider the UK degrees as more of a stepping stone for good US degrees, then... well I'm a bit skeptical about this strategy because you need a lot of stuff to make it work, like really high grades, good contact with a few faculty members etc which are always easier said than done. I mean that strategy is definitely a possible strategy but it doesn't happen directly:(. However, yes, there are people who are well connected and if you can impress them - which IMHO can only happen through thesis work - they might want to write good letters for you. I've heard of one faculty member who encouraged their supervisee to apply to very good places while another one actually failed to send the letters on time. I don't know if anyone got into a top PhD programme (or any PhD programme) in the US this year because I haven't spoken with people about that but I know that some did apply to US programmes. Kelei, maybe you can give some insight from your cohort's experience? I think this year's applicant pool is really an outlier so my year's experience (or that of those who applied this year) might not be representative of the department's general performance:hmm:? Good luck with the applications! Hope you'll get a great admit soon!

Don't worry about MSc applicants getting admits while you wait for a decision :) As you probably already know for MSc applications there is a rolling admission mechanism so they keep admitting until the class is full. It's strange that they ask applicants about their courses. I would have expected adcoms to direct such questions to referees maybe? In any case I think it's a very good sign. Good luck to both of you :)

I guess Amemiya is getting a bit 'old'? Probably it's impossible to recommend just one book :hmm:I'd go for Cameron and Trivedi for microeconometrics and even for estimation methods (it helped me a lot when I was trying to read more advanced texts) while Hamilton is still a standard in time-series. Wooldridge is more demanding compared to Cameron and Trivedi but I believe, for someone who is interested in the asymptotic theory part it is better. I think Casella and Berger is widely used in PhD and some masters level courses to teach statistics. By the way, check Jan Magnus' website for a link to a free online copy of the linear algebra book. It's really a cool surprise :) Lastly, for someone not much familiar with econometrics, I would recommend Griffiths, Hill, Judge (Learning and Practicing Econometrics) to get an overview of the classical linear model. However, I think not many people use it for undergrad so it's not a standard book really. Maybe there can be a better option.

Sure, it's open to everyone :) I may not be able to answer quickly though as things are starting to get busy with the studies here :rolleyes:. Actually some of my earlier posts should give lots of information about the degree structure, syllabus, exam style etc. Check the ones from the thread 'first year impressions' or something like that.

Hmm, I exactly know what you mean. When I started here last year I used to think that going to LSE would have been much better and now I know that if I were given the option I would definitely stay here. It's not because I realised that one department is superior to another - it's just because I got used to the department and, just like in your case, I know who I will work with if I manage to stay for the DPhil. I guess once you start specialising on something you start focusing on faculty members in your area rather than the department in general. Btw, feel free to contact me if you have any questions about Oxford :)

Just out of curiosity (and if you don't mind me asking :) ) would you prefer to stay at Cambridge or go to another university in the UK for PhD?

My guess is that as soon as the unofficial results are ready you receive it by email. Once it gets official you see it at LSE for You.

That's what they say at Oxford. The minimum they expect is 64, though I think a good thesis would help a lot. That a faculty member wants to work with you is a big plus. I have heard of rumours such as even if your grades are (on paper) enough, if your supervisor isn't supportive of you, you might be rejected. Nevertheless, I'd guess that your supervisor wouldn't do that unless you give a very bad impression.

I don't think it's less painful. Admission committees are highly likely to expect your performance to be similar to what they expect from their own students. Also, once you're connected to the department things are a bit easier. For example, 1-Most probably you'll want to work with your MPhil thesis advisor, who'll hopefully be likely to want to work with you in turn. 2-The department will probably have more flexibility in evaluating your case if you fail to attain a certain benchmark for admission. I don't think the above would apply to MSc at the LSE though, because the class size is huge while the dissertation is more like an extended essay. However, if you get into MRes/PhD at LSE I guess it would be similar to this.

Unfortunately, schools like Oxford and LSE like to have people start with their own MSc/MPhil programmes and then progress to the PhD/DPhil. I don't know the other schools, say Cambridge or UCL but I guess it must be more or less the same. So don't worry about not having applied to PhD directly; actually by applying to the MSc first you made the right thing IMHO.

So true. And even when you manage to get something like that, or close to 70, when you tell it to people outside this system the expression on their face is something like 'hmm maybe you are not that good a student after all'. :)