vanRijn

there's a pretty sharp difference between MSc. Econ and everything else the Barcelona GSE offers. If you take the theory sequences (and possibly math in the first period), the MSc. Econ is comparable to a first year of a Phd. getting strong grades there is a very good signal. the other masters, on the other hand, have a different focus on applied/policy issues. In fact, if you wanted to get a Phd from UPF coming from non-econ gse masters, you would have to enroll in the msc econ first! Also, taking econ theory courses in the msc econ coming from other masters is in theory feasible (I think) but in practice not so easy. If your program is based in Bellaterra, it would be a logistical nightmare. And competing with econ students who have taken the whole sequence+math would make it hard to excel.....

Xxx Xxx

CONDITIONAL ON BEING TOP10 MATERIAL, imho placement differences are not so important. overlooking the omitted variables is not very clever when gauging placement. moreover, I think you will apply to phd with the grades of the first semester if you go to upf. if you get to be on top of the class, you'll have letters. However, definitely pick EME if you might end up in the private sector, or if your upf admit is not funded.

if you are a top student at upf you can go wherever you want. if you are very sure that you are top10 material, dont hesitate. chances are, however, that you'll not learn spanish that much, since the program is very intensive. however, if you are not that sure that you'll come out on top, dont take any chance and go to lse. if you ever happen to look for a job, your life will be easier. Depending on the choice of your courses, moreover, msc at upf can be way more demanding than 2yr route at lse. bottom line: although lse is way more expensive, and in my view does not dominates with respect to the quality of academics, there's the chance that you'll go to upf, not get to be among the top students, get not so great grades (they're tough on grading) and then you'll regret you didnt go to lse. if you are very risk averse, think about this. However, if your profile is already strong (ie you have already 1-2 recs of the kind required to get into top10), you're confident you can do well, then go to barcelona: you'll save money, time, and maybe you'll learn spanish. Since you'll be gone the year after, grades after the first semester wont matter that much, but still you'll learn a lot. hope this helps edit: i didnt see the post above mine (: but, just to say, it is cut throat everywhere, really. and no fun for upf students either....you'll realize that you'd lead exactly the same life in bcn as if you were in St Paul Minnesota. the pursuit of top10 admission itself will take you to competitive and harsh enviroments no matter where you go....

IMHO for Macro/Growth, say UPF/LSE/CEMFI>>Stockholm/Warwick/CarlosIII/UAB and I wouldnt consider anything else in Europe. if you are just considering masters and are unsure about your interests, definitely add to the first group Toulouse and UCL. just my 2c

I dont think EME is a great idea for you. For what I gathered from LSE staff (who were mainly talkin about the 1yr program, tho), it's meant more for math undergrad and physics/engineering people who want to learn some econ, that for addressing the needs of people who took less math in undergrad. In fact, provided that you manage to get in, you might easily find yourself in the lowest quartile of the class, given the strong competition of math-heavy people. Bad grades, or even worse, having to withdraw from the program (attrition is relevant in EME), would then hurt your phd chances forever. 770q and non straight As in undergrad math just point out that such an occurence is not to be ruled out completely. If you wanna take more math, just find a decent undergrad institution which will allow you to take analysis and the courses you need. If you need recs, a 2years masters in econ from lse or elsewhere will suit your needs better than eme, which is meant for people who will actually specialize in theory/metrics, not for those who just wanna learn this stuff as a tool. just :2cents:

I see no point in applying to EUI if there's no faculty who matches your interests. UPF-they almost don't take anyone into their doctoral program directly, you have to go thru their MSc Econ. hope this helps

goo for WUSTL!

IMHO your question is just not well formulated. I really think it takes exactly the same math to go for a Swedish Phd that it takes to go to a comparably ranked US phd. Moreover, US programs tend to be more structured and state more clearly their prerequisites, whereas (low ranked) european ones are usually much smaller, and not meant for "outsiders". Hence, no mention of formal prerequisites on the website of the program might not mean that there are no actual prerequisites at all. Plus in my opinion a calc and optimization prerequisite for a phd=no prerequisite, since not only you do calc in high school almost everywhere, but also without calc you cannot even do decent undergrad econ.....so its kind of assumed.

even tho the pound is not worth much nowadays, I'd save those 35£ and wouldnt bother apply to MRes LSE, because it's just not doable. As far as my understanding goes, is really tough to get into. don't send those scores to UPF, and I think you probably stand a good chance, if you don't need funding. It's not a tough place to get into, even if it's not easy to manage to get out with good grades. It's not a very good place for developement, tho. best of luck.

Your remark about LORs makes lots of sense. However, I think that the more the applicant comes from a background which is unfamiliar to the adcom, the more the LORs have weight. Based on my experience with past outcomes, I would say that, at least for internationals, LORs are probably the single most important factor to get you in a program (given of course that gre/grades dont keep you out).

1-if you have never actually studied finance, I'd definitely start with a MBA level course, just to familiarize with the basic ideas. I found the one by Grinblatt and Titman pretty good, and I sincerely recommend to start from it, as it would make for a pretty enjoyable and quick read. Then you can go on to something serious (and demanding--I for one would find it hard to work my way thru those without an instructor) about asset pricing. if you are into macro/metrics stuff, john cochrane's book would be my pic. key words: consumption-based model, stochastic discount factor, GMM: its the economists' way to finance. There are other approaches as well to asset pricing and derivatives, which probably require mandatory familiarity with stochastic calculus. The book by darrell duffie is another classic. I dont want to scare you, but I reiterate that self studying books like these is very very hard, imho. There's also the field of corporate finance if you are more micro/infoecon oriented, ad in that case I absolutely recommend the theory of corp finance by jean tirole, a terrific book for both scope and depth. easy to self study, especially after G&T and some advanced micro. have fun (:

@ WUSTL with Boldrin? or if you are into developement try ECONOMIC GROWTH CENTER HOMEPAGE

I think that your profile is extremely strong, as you have extremely sound math backgorund, more than sufficient econ preparation and research experience. You have also signalled your "innate ability" with high test scores and top class ranking thru your studies. So your application's outcome its gonna be an interesting test of how much "politics" (=connection, thus LORs) matter for international students' admissions. Given your interests, I would really consider the LSE and Oxford (because of Dr. Patton). good luck!!

I know only a school in Europe which has placed students in top10 programs straight from an undergrad 3yrs degree (Bocconi), but that could just be due to my scarce information. If it were true tho masters would look more like a necessity than like an option for european phd seekers. However, Imho for international applicants it's not mainly about which masters, but about the recs. Then when you're in having a "serious masters degree" can help you with coursework. But then I think that american undergrads in good school who can take grad courses are not at such a great disadvantage, quite the opposite in fact.