MicroMacro

Bear in mind that Land Economy at Cambridge is taught in an entirely different department from Economics and, at the least at the undergraduate and Mphil levels, is considered one of the finest programmes/departments of it's kind. I've never seen a ranking for PhD level Land Economy though...

I definitely see what you're saying... it's certainly true that a very large number of students take econ 101 or perhaps a handful of basic courses and then develop the "Oh I've covered economics" mindset (or similarly non-students absorb a fair amount of economics day-to-day from the media or pop-econ books). What no-one seems to teach them is that these courses are perfectly sound for gaining the right intuition and for laying the groundwork for further study, but generally insufficient for professional use under real world conditions. It reminds me of a similar problem in finance. I have an EMBA and undertook some further postgraduate work in pure finance which made me come to realise the stuff we were taught on the EMBA wasn't just overly simplified, it was downright dangerous. One problem seemed to be the fact that the executives like to feel that they have walked away with some tools to use but there is simply insufficient time to cover the tools and to properly address the caveats/issues/health warnings. In an ideal world they should be told: "you are only being taught this for context, so that you know when to get an expert involved or can at least understand the expert when you're dealing with him/her". Somehow I don't think people will pay six figures to be told that unfortunately. In the case of undergrad economics what general student wants to hear something similar... But I'm not sure this superficial learning approach is the main driver of malformed "economic" policy... surely the issues with policy stem from politics and special interest groups. Sometimes it feels like the "economic analysis", however half-baked or over-simplified, has simply been tacked on after the fact to help obscure the political reality.

By comparison at masters level the UK system tries to accommodate students with a broader range of objectives within the same programme structure. But it's certainly quite stressful for those intending to continue to PhD at the outset as in effect you need to run the gauntlet twice.

In the US 4 years seems more like an ideal outcome rather than reasonable or expected (i.e. you are making the assumption that everything goes well and you choose a topic that's readily tractable) whereas 3 years in the UK seems to be achievable in principle (if you already have a strong masters), however, even in the UK there are some programmes with an expected duration of 4 years (e.g. LSE, UCL). From my discussions with some non-top UK schools I had the impression it would be possible to finish a lot faster in such places as some had no further coursework requirements (beyond the masters) or mentioned a focus on applied topics that would almost certainly be completed in good time. Similarly I'm sure you can also find some lower ranked US institutions that are amenable to finishing in the shortest time possible based on similar points...

Whilst your view of micro seems pretty narrow there are undoubtedly various "core" topics in micro that seem more "at home" than others. From my experience in consulting many are used to very productive means and sometimes are applied straight from the pages of MWG (i.e. yes the raw theory does find direct application). For some easy to find examples take a look at EIO which is a heavy user of production, cost and demand functions. n.b. I'm trying to fish out an EIO paper used in a large competition commission analysis that I remember didn't even bother explaining the equations - you are instead pointed at pages in MWG - will edit post when I find it. That said, surely the better answer to your friend's question is that micro is at the very foundation of economics - how many fields could exist without micro? So aside from it's own direct applications, of which there are surely many, micro underpins or has informed numerous sub-fields and disciplines and therefore one can imply a productive role throughout economics. Perhaps then the answer to "who uses microeconomics?" is "nearly anyone that has studied economics". Is that facetious enough for you ;) P.S. Business strategy might use game theory in its toolkit but that doesn't mean the field is "really all game theory". Far from it.

Good question! The website was changed very recently so it's not clear if this just a matter of being transparent about what was already in place or whether they're actually raising the bar from this year onwards. I don't imagine you're missing anything - they want to restrict access to the PhD and asking for a distinction grade at masters level is by no means an unusual way to accomplish this... (Personally I expect there will be further information on progression made available at the start of the programme, but if you do hear anything from them in the meantime please post to the forum!)

And yet 40% of the ranking comes from the academic reputation index that presumably includes responses from the economics profession (and those closely aligned to it). Weird. That's not the only factor at play here - the employer ranking will likely be heavily influenced by the quality of candidates entering the workforce from undergraduate programmes (and the three schools that you cite all have stellar undergraduate programmes in economics...) That is interesting isn't it. Here we have empirical findings that differ substantially from our previously held beliefs - on the one hand this should ask us to reassess the subjective plucked out-of-the-air profession rankings but on the other hand we all know rankings are flawed. All I know for sure is that my own perception of economics rankings (derived from Urch and limited faculty discussions regarding the topic) are quite wildly out of sync with those of the typical man on the street, and to my surprise, practicing economists in industry. So for me the QS rankings are a reminder that I'm in an econ "bubble" and need to reset my reference points when dealing with outsiders ;)

Take out the earplugs ;) Mobility is definitely a benefit but it all comes down to what sort of budget you have and why you think the current laptop isn't doing the job. I've worked with a dual 24" monitor setup for nearly 10 years now and a dual 20" for about 4 years before that (CRTs... nice!). It's ace. Even so I don't spend nearly as much time using those desktop systems as I do on my 13" laptop (54 months old now too). If I had to choose between the two setups... well honestly I can't because it's simply how I work these days but I tend to think it would be an ultraportable + desktop monitor + department cluster/EC2 for computation.

What in particular failed to meet your expectations or, perhaps more to the point, are there any specific characteristics you're looking for in your new laptop? In any case consider a nice desktop screen(s) to plug into when you're at home!

IMO this forum works so well because it's so tightly focused on admissions and at the end of the day there are numerous other sites where people can ask questions and have discussions regarding economics itself...

0. Take girlfriend somewhere sunny 1. Make some money 2. Complete summer 'homework' to be sent by programmes 3. De la Fuente 4. Shone's Economic Dynamics 5. Learn (more) Python 6. Write an R package Basically your average busy summer...

Regarding my general query of relative department strength and faculty focus, neither. As suspected, my acceptances are to the masters programmes at the respective schools however I'm intending to stay on (at the same) and hence dept expertise remains an important factor in my current decision, especially given the inherent nature and similarity of the masters courses themselves (and obviously there is a whole can of worms relating to "staying-on" i.e. at Cambridge this is but a formality subject to grades whereas at UCL one must make a full application to the MRes but that's a substantially less pressing concern from my point of view).

I couldn't have said it better myself - as a Londoner even the thought of visiting Coventry for a day sends shivers down my spine. Cambridge at least has a quaint charm ;) I'll confess that the Cambridge brand name distortion field is having more than an insignificant effect but more interestingly I'm really trying to square the circle on IDEAs field rankings. For a strictly dominated department, world field rankings between top 3 and top 10 in my areas of interest (IND, CMP, MIC, ECM, COM, REG) seem somewhat out of place (see Field Rankings at IDEAS: Industrial Organization for example). Are these rankings really just a broken wheel-of-fortune or could there be more going on at Cambridge that I thought?? Anyway thanks all for the additional insights!

I've read some musings that Cambridge's economics dept might be back on an upward trajectory - does anyone have a view on whether Cambridge or UCL would be the department of choice for empirical IO? Many thanks

It is somewhat more subtle than this in the UK - it is almost always the case that prospective PhD students are initially enrolled onto the MPhil and then transfer to PhD status after one or two years. It's also the norm that a student wishing to quit the process and leave with an MPhil would still be required to submit a substantial thesis in addition to completing any coursework otherwise they would receive some other award such as a post-graduate certificate of advanced studies or the like. Of course Cambridge and Oxford confuse matters somewhat with Cambridge's MPhil Econ being just an idiosyncratic name for a taught MSc Econ elsewhere and Oxford's MPhil Econ being a two-year hybrid taught/research masters. Interestingly UCL have recently changed the format of their doctoral process and it's definitely a step in the right direction given the ever more confusing mix of MSc/MRes/MPhil's used by various UK institutions. In their new system: MSc Econ --apply to--> MRes Econ --upgrade to--> MPhil Econ --transfer to--> PhD Econ. Quite similar to LSE actually.

Subjectivity and rigour are not mutually exclusive (quite the opposite in my opinion). Note that a "good explanation of the answers" does not necessarily suggest a situation where lots of words have been wrapped around a correct result - in my experience it typically refers to an answer being more precise and perhaps stated in an even more rigorous mathematical manner than was required. One of my professors once responded to exactly this question with "Why is 80% the maximum and not 100%? Well, Keynes might walk in and sit that exam with you, and let's face it, you might get everything 'right' but I'll still bet his answer will be better than yours". Hardly perfect logic but nonetheless a pretty accurate description of my experiences with the UK grading system...

I would recommend more econometrics in your last year. If you want to apply to US schools, take analysis as well.

I was told the same thing when I called to ask about the 'missing email' earlier this month.

I'm fairly sure everyone has the same feeling! You'll find that many departments have course outlines and even lectures/course material available on their public websites that will help you understand how prepared you are. The MSc Econ from Warwick and UCL in the UK, both analogues of Canadian MAs, put quite a bit of material up: ECONG100 - Research Methods (the 'math-camp' outline including all books used); Postgraduate Modules (shows at least the books used). I remember doing some digging and finding similar for the UBC MA, including all the exercise questions for the first semester, but don't have the url to hand.

I'm particularly surprised that you are not using it, or some substitute, during your masters - whereabouts are you studying?

You've obviously done more research into this however every indication suggests that the MSc Macro Policy is a terminal degree targeting those looking for "immediate employment in government institutions, central banks, investment banks, financial and development agencies, and consulting firms" rather than as a bridge to PhD; it's not entirely clear that such a program would bolster your future PhD application in a significant way. Would you be willing to elaborate on this - what were your main issues with the program?

Just curious - how does this answer the OP's question?

I'm guessing you didn't elaborate on these points in your SOP? ;)

Good MSc Economics programmes are not conversion courses i.e. they assume the candidate has undertaken training in economics to undergraduate honours level prior to entry. The Graduate Diplomas (numerous schools now offer them) cram the core modules from the last two years of an undergraduate economics degree into one year. For the most part they do a decent job of preparing you for the MSc however a full degree is obviously > graduate diploma. Regarding Bologna compliance (or lack thereof) this is complicated... LSE are stating the fact that technically speaking their 9 & 10 month masters programmes do not comply with the European standard and in theory may not be fully recognised throughout Europe. In practice however this is simply not going to be the case... for a no-name university this would be a serious issue however it's just not a problem for LSE.

Let's face it, this is a tough one to answer. I suppose we need to know how big a rush you are in to make this transition... there is simply no such thing as too much preparation given the competitiveness of MSc Econ courses not to mention the prevailing mathematicalisation of economics in general. If you have the time & money, doing another degree as prep is hardly a bad option but depending on what you intend to do post-MSc may be overkill!!! On the other hand you have many months before the start of GradDip programmes in the UK and can learn a fair amount of targeted maths & stats before then...