Cuak2000

It all depends on what you want to do...If you are thinking about Academia, then definitely UPenn will be usually better than Cambridge. Cambridge does have a couple of good areas: theoretical econometrics with Pesaran, Harvey and now Linton is pretty strong, but if you want to do, say, empirical micro or macro then UPenn is just in a completely different category, not only regarding professors, but also in terms of students.

Last year it was 65 and I think they increased it to 70. This increase is due to a University wide policy to increase the master passing grade to 60 (quite stupid, since I think it just prompted a rescaling of grades) I believe around half of the MPhil research got over 70 last year, when the continuation mark was 65. They might rescale scores again though, so the proportion of people over 70 might increase. E-mail the people in Cambridge and UPenn to ask for more details.

Hey, For metrix 1st year, the profs tend to use their own stuff. There's a bit of Hamilton for time series, but Hansen, for example, just does his own thing. Last quarter has Wooldridge's Panel Data & etc. plus Cameron & Trivedi.

Check the relevant chapters of Wooldridge's "Panel Data and etc.". You can complement that with Whats New in Econometrics?

At least a couple of years ago, you could progress to the PhD without reapplying as long as you had a required score. You should e-mail somebody in the department (or search the webpage with care) to confirm this.

First year PhD here. It's been a lot of work, but definitely doesn't look like it will be the toughest year of my life. I don't think the whole "you'll have a miserable year" makes much sense; if you're in a PhD in economics you probably have many other (fine and reasonable) options to do with your life. If you voluntarily choose to stay it's either because you are a masochist or you like what you're doing, even if it's tough work, even if sometimes it feels like it's too much.

You can take Cochrane's courses in the second year (whether it is listed under econ or booth), they are pretty flexible with that. Many people from the PhD also have advisors from Booth or Harris. I wouldn't stress too much Cochrane's stuff in your SoP though. Regarding chances, I'm pretty sure you have more chances getting into economics than into Booth, though it might depend on your particular case.

My experience is that Oxbridge is fine for an unfunded EU student, since most of the scholarships are only for them. If you're a non-EU student, funds can be difficult to get.

As far as I know there is only one edition, but get the hardcover! If there is one book that you might use again and again over the years, I bet it's Mas-Colell, so you need a durable version.

Ok, I'm coming to Chicago next week. Any plans on a TM meeting? Feel free to PM me.

Maybe rather off-topic, but this is like saying that chess players use the law of gravity to move the pieces of chess. Yes, they will follow law of gravity, but to actually play they only need the laws of chess. For this reason, I don't think you can say people use microeconomic theory...at the most they exemplify it. In any case, you are assuming that microeconomic laws are true the same way the law of gravity is, with which I also disagree.

Definitely apply to both and see what happens. I think Time Series is good in both places. Check out a few articles from lecturers in both unis. Also, you might try contacting some PhD students to see what's the atmosphere like and if there is a lot happening in Time Series. Seeing the topics of present job-market papers might give you info too.

With all due respect guys, aren't you pushing this admission thing a little too much??

Nice! Just saw the video...seems very intuitive

International version here....Bought it for about 40 dollars and pretty decent binding. It makes sense to offer books in developing countries at different prices. ( DVD sellers should understand that 20 dollars in some countries is 10% of the salary of many people)

He is: Vacancies, appointments, etc. - Cambridge University Reporter 6221 By the way, MicroMacro, are you talking about PhD or MSc?

Sorry, but that is just not true. A lot of people prepare it and get 740-750 even the second time they do it. I agree the material is not advanced at all, but you need to be quick and focused the whole time, which for many people, including myself, is difficult.

I don't know for sure, but, if you know some spanish, the sounds in catalan are pretty similar. If it helps, the last ll should be Palatal lateral approximant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey MicroMacro, Cambridge is certainly hiring new people on the rise and it seems it will get better in the future. Their strengths, I think, are in theoretical econometrics (Pesaran, Harvey, Smith) and some areas of theoretical micro (Goyal, Sabourian, Harris). They are getting better also in Macro, now that they have Corsetti. Empirical micro, on the other hand, is comparatively weak, so there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that UCL is a better place than Cambridge for empirical micro.

Rigorous math is a strange thing. If you're studying, say, biology, even if you don't understand the big picture you can still pick things up while you are reading. You might be frustrated sometimes, but every time you try you get something out of your studying, even if it's marginal. On the other hand, when you're first starting to construct proofs, you are stuck with a blank paper. You can try for hours and not get anything; math has that binary thing sometimes where you either get it or you don't. Then somebody tells you how to prove and it's "ahhh, of course...yeah", but then for the next problem you're stuck again. The problem is that math is more of a habit that an accumulation of knowledge, so at first it can be very frustration. However, with enough effort, I'm convinced that most people overcome this problem and they get into the math frame of mind. Because it is so frustrating at the beginning, a lot of people give up before they reach that point where proofs come more naturally. Of course, some people are gifted or they have had good teachers that have gradually introduced the proof habit in them. Personally, I finished my B.A. without taking a single math course and then taking a proof-based course was really frustrating. (Eventually it worked out!).

Hey joako... I think if you do well in that course you should have enough preparation for a PhD. People in this forum seem to have taken a lot of math, but most of my friends doing PhDs did only three Calculus and maybe a RA I. By the way, PUC or UChile?

Zing...

Relax, take stuff that you find interesting and come back here about 2 years from now!

Heyy, finally going to Chi Town in September!...well, at least if we get our VISAs

Sorry, but this has been discusses ad nauseam. Use the search!!