JesusLovesATrier

Hi Sandino, If you want to see where Birkbeck fits, rankings for the UK were just recently released. You can view a good summary of them here: RAE 2008: economics and econometrics results | Education | guardian.co.uk I think you're right in that it's MSc is ranked much higher than this would suggest (some of those ahead of it do not even offer a Masters), as is its reputation. You get alot of very smart people on the programme that work in consultancy or government and take it part-time. One of the big advantages is that Birkbeck's PhD is joint with UCL (the Bloomsbury PhD Programme) and rated highly. All the best.

Hi Goddess of the Geeks, UPF is very strong in macroeconomics so if that is the area you think you might want to specialise in, I'd definitely give UPF serious consideration and look into other factors that might affect your choice (cost differences, city living, etc.). However, if you don't want to specialise in macro or are not sure what you might want to specialise in yet, LSE is probably the better choice. It's a safer bet as it has a general strength across most fields. UPF is particularly weak, for example, in econometrics. I don't think it will make much difference as a signal: if you do very well in either, you will be set up. The two-year programme at LSE offers the chance to get to know professors better and possibly obtain some good LORs but you can do 2 years at UPF, as with most Masters. Class sizes at LSE and the UK style of teaching may not be conducive to getting to know profs anyway. Hope that helps. All the best.

I would agree with emanuele, you are better equipped for graduate economics than most undergraduate economics majors and you could do very well with your great undergrad background. You are at an immediate advantage. If you stick to the more advanced subjects, you will find they are quite mathematical and some economics undergraduates begin to struggle. The more applied subjects can be taken later as part of a PhD or MRes or whatever else. For a PHd programme in the US, I'd recommend LSE then UPF over Cambridge. Just look at recent rankings of the departments. Plus factor in the length of the course and the cost. However, if you are at all uncertain about the PhD and want to leave the option to return to work in the UK after the MSc, I'd recommend Cambridge over UPF in the UK job market. UPF just isn't well-known to UK employers. (LSE would still top Cambridge for jobs as well). Hope that helps. All the best.

While UCL and Toulouse are excellent departments, I would always consider their strengths to be in micro. If you are focusing on macro, I would favour LSE and then UPF. That said, why don't you have a look at the faculty of all the institutions and see if there are groups of researchers, or a number of individual professors, working in areas that interest you. All the best.

Economics aside, that is possibly the hottest economist I've ever come across. I don't think I've ever found myself remotely interested in the 'Personal' section of an economist's webpage. Until now.

Thanks for your help. I´d like to say the brick wall has been demolished but it´s probably more of a dent.

Does anyone know where these might be available? I am really struggling with a couple of the problems and feel like I´m hitting a brick wall (as we all do sometimes). I´ve tried searching but can´t find any. Thanks for any help in advance.

UPF-GSE is one year. In fact it´s only 9 months so as to clear the classrooms for the cash cow that is Summer School. I think some of the others are just a year as well. On TAs, the UK offers far more opportunities than if you go to Toulouse and don´t speak French or UC3 and don´t speak Spanish. Then you have no TA opportunities as you are generally teaching UGs. The exception I guess may be Holland? You might want to check out some other threads as many of the questions you are asking, and most of the specific Masters programmes, have been discussed in depth. There is a huge amount of information here, just try a search. You can even see what people having taken the programmes thought of them. I certainly found it useful when I was applying.

Don´t rule out all of the UK. While LSE may be prohibitively expensive (18K!)for so many people, UCL is better value for money. It is slightly cheaper (13.5K GBP) and has an excellent programme. At a domestic level they are really pushing LSE for top spot. If it is living in London that fills you with bankruptcy nightmares then have a look at Warwick. It also has an excellent programme (top 3/4 UK) and is cheaper still (10.25K). It´s also a cheaper (albeit quieter) place to live. I´ve found Warwick fees more comparable with some top-end European fees. For example, UPF is just under 10K GBP. One other thing you might want to consider is the extent of TA opportunities for Masters students. They don´t always involve that much work, can allow you to build a rapport with faculty, and give you some much needed extra $$$$ to offset the tuition fees. Best wishes with whatever/wherever you decide.

I don't understand why you are applying for MSc at LSE, UCL and Warwick when you already have an MSc? Maybe a waste of a year? I'm with filroz, go for MRes at LSE or even EME, or PhD routes at UCL and Warwick. For the US programmes: 1) given your interests why not add Chicago as a reach? 2) why not consider balancing your reaches (MIT, Yale, Princeton, NWU, etc.) with more tier 2-3 targets. This is easier with specific interests.

Do you have solid TOEFL scores? They can sometimes mitigate a bad GRE V score.

Good advice, thanks. It's been a few years since I did UG though and I can't help but feel I'll start off a little behind and fear spending first semester struggling to stay on top of things. There will be people coming straight from UG that are ahead of where I should be when I start. :( I'll plough on as I don't think it can be harmful...

I have a tendency to fall asleep when I study. I used to find studying on my bed quite productive for some things - reading an article or a book chapter without exercises but in my final year of UG I began to dose off after around 10 minutes. Now I find myself falling asleep at my desk, in the library or even out in public. It might reflect the increasing excitement of the books I'm reading... Nonetheless, after falling asleep in cafes, woken by a stranger, handed back some horrifically geeky textbook that fell on the floor or told it's closing time, I'm inclined to think I might be suffering some mild narcolepsy. Alongside this, intense periods of study seem to bring on inexcusable eating disorders. The kitchen becomes the best way to put off study and I bloat about 10 lbs. Exam season is just a nightmare. And by the time the holidays come round I'm bordering on obese.

I'd agree with that. Although crude I think it's an honest summary. I chose UPF-GSE over Warwick and UCL. I will go back to UK employment and am not currently considering a US PhD. :hmm: No regrets though, yet.

There seems to be an increasing trend in recent years for institutions to come together to offer multi-institution programmes in Europe, possibly to compete better with top US institutions(?). There's Barcelona GSE, PSE, Tinbergen and I'm sure there are others I don't know of. Some of the contributory institutions are excellent in their own right (UPF was top 3-5 before, right?). I just wondered what people thought about these moves. The programmes' actual rankings shoot way up (BGSE and PSE would all get right up there beside LSE in Europe and Tinbergen has an excellent reputation) but their explicit ranking is rarely taken into account and applied only to the separate institutions. Both PSE and BGSE seem to have gone down like a lead balloon on these forums as they are such young programmes and maybe therefore risky? I can understand the benefit for the institution as there may be varying efficient scales in different programmes, it allows them to better build a brand and acts as a good feeder for their PhD programmes. But is the only benefit for the student in being able to access multiple professor groupings and a better overall faculty? Any views?

For those about to start their programme this Fall, what have you been doing in preparation? - Kicking back and having one last month of freedom in the sun? - Catching up with some revision? - Reading the books used on your up-coming courses? - Still working like a dog in a job you really need to escape from? It'd be interesting to know what you're reading/ have read over the last few months in prep. (or any other preparation not reading). I am working at the moment but in free time I am doing some revision of some of the basics, scooting through Chiang and Simon & Blume on the maths side and Casella/Berger and Verbeek for metrics. I'm trying to make headway with MWG and Romer as well but it's very slow and I'm matching them up to intermediate textbooks, reading them simultaneously, to make more sense of it. I'm not sure I'll have them finished before starting. I'm also trying to improve my focus and ways of fitting in physical activity to short periods where I can still be productive afterwards and not pass out. Any good stories?

I currently live in London. Most flatshare options can be found here. There are local papers with flatshare ads as well but by the time the paper has been published you find most of them have been taken. You would probably only need a week staying in a hostel/hotel to view rooms before finding somewhere you can move into. Planning ahead is not really necessary and would probably cost you more. You may find it takes longer than you think to find somewhere you're happy with though. There are loads of cheap hotels and hostels for the transitional week you can find on google. If you're stuck, start with Hostelling International and work either way depending on your price. If you have tried to get in to halls but didn't make it there are a few private halls springing up (e.g. Unite) but I think they tend to be quite expensive compared to private flatshares. If you do go for a private flatshare try to share with other students as this means you won't have to pay council tax (local government tax for local services). Hope that helps.

Sorry I should have explained. Tuition fees were recently introduced for undergraduate courses in the UK. My hope was that because students now pay for courses they would demand a better service. This would feed through to graduate teaching as well.

I would agree with those critical of UK teaching. It really is pathetic. I accept there will be exceptions to this. At undergraduate they may be able to get away with it but at graduate level it is just obscene. I've always wondered how we could shift incentives to place more emphasis on teaching. In research objective metrics dominate and are effective at rating programmes and faculty but there is a gap on the teaching side. We all know a good researcher isn't always a good teacher. In the UK (limited experience) student ratings/surveys/evaluations are rare or given little weight yet I see US teachers (lecturers/profs) state their ratings on their CVs (even if it is just receipt of a teaching award). Unfortunately even such evaluations are a poor means of focusing on teaching quality. There are perverse incentives as the teaching results are also used to rate the institution so the student ought to rate as highly as possible so their institution is deemed as good as possible and so the student's award is then considered more valuable. Plus any criticism at the end of a course is of little benefit to a departing student. Anyone think of or come across a means of incentivising better teaching more effectively than it is at the moment? I really hope the introduction of tuition fees might change things.

As the UPF MSc Economics is now the BGSE MSc Economics you now have an institution that compares pretty favourably with LSE (UPF+UAB gets pretty close to LSE in rankings even without IAE-CSIC and CREI), although if you plan to work at some point in the UK the LSE brand is definitely worth quite a bit. I personally think the LSE fees are horrendous and you can get as good, or nearly as good an MSc with access to excellent faculty in an equally vibrant location at no cost - relative to £17K! Would the LSE brand add significantly to your earning power in the public sector/ central bank to justify the cost? Just my take, maybe you've had to decide already?