amsicora

nitwit, I'm afraid that your post is somehwat incomplete. Thing is that your master is taught by the business school (in cooperation with the dept of economics, of course; but generally speaking the cooperation between the two is quite weak, I have to say) but the thing is that the PhD in Economics is completely under the dept of economics, and according to what I remember from the list of students doing research in Ww, the cooperation between Warwick business school and the economics dept at PhD level is almost inexistent (perhaps only a couple of guys have a scholar from the WBS as second supervisor). In the end, those who are interested should be aware that the PhD in Warwick in either of these two tracks (WBS and dept of economics) are different; and IMHO, somewhat less appealing than in the past.

about Warwick: they've been quite strong on money/finance/int'l economics in the recent past, but a couple of lecturers left and others are going to get retired, so Ww is in the process of refocusing on development and applied metrics. In general, for PhD I would say LSE>UCL>Ox>Ww=Cambridge as of now...

MIT and Stanford out, Princeton in

according to what I know they have a good faculty (dewatripont and weil among others) and an interesting placement (not only in academic environment). Moreover, I remember having read on past TMs that they had a high attrition rate between 1st and 2nd year, as high as 30%. I don't know much more than this, but I hope somebody else will be able to tell you more. good luck !

I agree about the fact that Carlos III is a good dept., especially for those interested in econometrics, and they have a rigorous master programme with an interesting fellowship (it involves TAing for one or two courses in each term). But it is based in Madrid, not in Barcelona ! :-)

..."with" a DES master, sorry about that.

well, it might not probably be enough to receive offers from harvard, I'm afraid :-) but depending on your ambitions (and on your grades and LORs), I guess that a DES master you could easily receive offers from a top 20-50 uni !

I reckon you should choose appropriate exams in your MSc (the italian "+2" formula, I guess). I don't know which exams are part of your master's course structure, but if you're able to choose some optional modules you could opt for something like math for economists (usually such courses include some advanced linear algebra, static and dynamic optimisation, perhaps differential/difference equations; these courses in your uni shouldn't be too bad) and in econometrics. I don't think you need much more than this. If you have a bachelor in business you have passed at least one exam in undergrad statistics with probability and inference, as you mention in your post. Your business background needs not be a drawback, in particular if you're young and your GPA supports you (say, at least 105/110, in italian terms). You could of course improve your GRE score if you plan to apply for US unis, whereas in European unis shouldn't be crucial, considering you're attending a master in a reasonably well ranked european university. You could add some more as a signalling device, such as intro real analysis, but I'm afraid it would be somewhat challenging to manage all this sort of stuff (including your current master !). good luck!

I ignore how competitive their selection is (guess highly competitive, though), but if you're going for a career in economics and finance, probably you should consider tinbergen...

Consider as well the lenght of the master you're looking for. If I'm not wrong, making exception for Toulouse (and excluding UK, as you said) the remaining top master programmes in Europe (UPF, CEMFI, UC3M, Bonn, Stockholm, Tilburg, Tinbergen group, ECARES) have adopted the Bologna scheme, that is they are 2-year programmes. Then, if you're looking for a one-year programme, Toulouse and any programme in UK are the only choices, I'm afraid.

yep, but one of them is doing research into IO, whereas the other two guys do research into the macro/money/finance area. Honestly, I don't remember who does what now... :rolleyes:

For a quick revision of game theory, a good idea could be to read the relevant chapters on Jehle/Reny (but look for errata on the web: that book is crammed with typos...)

I second general vote for Wooldridge. Verbeek could be used to get some more insight on panel data...

btw, warwick chose the guys who will replace neil rankin and martin ellison. They are two guys from Cambridge and LSE, and got their phds few months ago. their names can be found in the website of the dept. of economics...

Having said that my opinions just reflect my personal experience and taste, I would like to stress that they were only instrumental to give econmsc some info to base his/her choice on. @ italos: the general opinion I reported about Neil Rankin's lectures is a matter of fact and needs not be my personal opinion, but just what I heard from most of my classmates. @ tangsiuje: I'm sure it is possible to find a lot of sensible reasons to make people pay for anything; that's why guys who manage Universities are usually so clever: they have to find as many sensible reasons to make students pay (and be happy for that) as they can. And that's why I think that the most sensible choice of all for a student would be not to go to WW, and perhaps go to a Uni which is managed by people who are slightly less clever... :) My position on exam revision is that it has nothing to do with being satisfied or not about the marks received: students should have the chance to learn from the courses they attended, and exams (it doesn't matter whether candidates wrote something wrong or not) are just a part of those courses, not an extra service to be extra paid. Therefore, as I see it, when a University claims a payment from students to allow exam revision, that Uni is simply cheating on students, as it shifts part of the fee from one moment in time (when students accept offers) to the future. Of course Unis can advocate the opposite opinion, and they actually do, as you did... but again, you can advocate any opinion, with respect to the side of the wallet you are on...

@ italos: yep, but leaving it in September @ tangsiuje: basically they find every possible way to make you pay for anything. You have to pay to review your written exams, whether you passed them or not. You have to pay if you ask to shift your accommodation on campus. you have to pay to buy a printing card (pay attention: a card WITHOUT credit; you'll have to pay more to buy some credit). I heard from friends that their printing credit had been mysteriously lost for problems in the computer system (?) so that they had to wait a lot and ask a lot to have their credit back. It seems they want to increase the number of students admitted to 2008/09 MSc Economics (this year there were 96 students) as to collect more money. Basically, there's no lunch for free, that's perfectly clear, but I had the impression that in WW they are much more interested in what students pay rather than in what students learn...

double posted, sorry about that

Here are some facts: - on average, teaching quality is not really good in WW. In micro courses is particularly bad, whereas in econometrics area is good. BTW, it's really difficult to teach in front of 100 students (this was the figure, this year) - you said location is not an issue. Consider that WW is in the middle of nowhere (even though the campus is so green and quiet... probably too much !), whereas Barcelona is a completely different (and better, IMHO) story - WW lost two "monetarist" lecturers (Neil Rankin went to York, Martin Ellison to Oxford), so money area is not covered adequately, at the moment. Btw many considered Neil Rankin the best lecturer in the MSc Economics: his lectures were really crowded, but they left him go anyway (the message is: they are completely not interested in what students think about teaching quality). They are hiring other guys to fill the gap, but their names have not been disclosed yet - WW has excellent structures (good library, a lot of PC clusters, etc.) - in WW the expression "for free" doesn't exist. You have to pay even for the oxygen you breath, literally - I read in other posts that UPF is currently stuck in the transition towards GSE, but somebody else will be able to give you more details -some of my fellow classmates already have good job offers, even before the MSc is over. And I heard that, in general, British employers have a good opinion of Warwick alumni I don't know if your offers are comparable from a financial point of view, and I don't know your interest, but as a bottom line I would say that if you intend to apply for a PhD in US, probably UPF is a better choice, whereas if you intend to work in UK Warwick should best fit this intention. That's my 2p.

Here are some facts: - on average, teaching quality is not really good in WW. In micro courses is particularly bad, whereas in econometrics area is good. BTW, it's really difficult to teach in front of 100 students (this was the figure, this year) - you said location is not an issue. Consider that WW is in the middle of nowhere (even though the campus is so green and quiet... probably too much !), whereas Barcelona is a completely different (and better, IMHO) story - WW lost two "monetarist" lecturers (Neil Rankin went to York, Martin Ellison to Oxford), so money area is not covered adequately, at the moment. Btw many considered Neil Rankin the best lecturer in the MSc Economics: his lectures were really crowded, but they left him go anyway (the message is: they are completely not interested in what students think about teaching quality). They are hiring other guys to fill the gap, but their names have not been disclosed yet - WW has excellent structures (good library, a lot of PC clusters, etc.) - in WW the expression "for free" doesn't exist. You have to pay even for the oxygen you breath, literally - I read in other posts that UPF is currently stuck in the transition towards GSE, but somebody else will be able to give you more details -some of my fellow classmates already have good job offers, even before the MSc is over. And I heard that, in general, British employers have a good opinion of Warwick alumni I don't know if your offers are comparable from a financial point of view, and I don't know your interest, but as a bottom line I would say that if you intend to apply for a PhD in US, probably UPF is a better choice, whereas if you intend to work in UK Warwick should best fit this intention. That's my 2p.