mack

How do programs like CEMFI and ITAM compare to programs like Barcelona GSE(UPF), LSE, UCL etc. Their placements seem very impressive, even better than the schools I mentioned. I'm wondering why the programs at CEMFI and ITAM aren't better known? Is the atmosphere less international? In my country at least, the UK programs, BGSE and Tilburg are considered more 'mainstream'. It sort makes sense with ITAM, given that Mexico might be harder to move to for a lot of Asians/Europeans. But given that CEMFI and BGSE are in the same country and CEMFI seems to place better, it seems strange that BGSE is so much better known. Or is this just my perception and most applicants do actually apply to these programs?

Ya I suppose it would be too much to handle. Is about one advanced course per term the usual number?

I meant the regular MSc Econ. The EME is definitely more rigorous, but I think the BGSE MSc seems to be at a higher level than than the regular MSc. I'm not sure how UCL stacks up, on paper it seems a bit better than LSE's MSc Econ. In terms of reputation LSE does dominate though.

I don't know how many of the advanced courses one can take at BGSE. If they allow you to take a fair number of them, the MSc at BGSE seems to be a far higher level than LSE. I don't know if BGSE has caught up in terms of reputation as yet though. BGSE's PhD placements look very good, but I don't think the list is comprehensive-they seem to leave out the lower ranked placements..

If one is only interested in Macro, is HBS a bad idea? Or do HBS students have access to the Macro faculty in the Econ department? Also, is there significant difference in terms of funding between Econ/HBS, apart from the lack of TA/RA responsibilities in HBS?

Is learning R worthwhile if I want to focus on Macro? Almost everyone seems to be doing Macro on MATLAB. Is this because packages like Dynare aren't available on R?

The best answer I can give you is that knowing the deeper math such as analysis often allows you to understand why the models are set up the way they are, for instance you know first hand the level of generality the math allows. It doesn't really provide any 'economic' intuition though.

I agree with you, which is why I added Starchurski etc.- what I meant is that it'll teach you a lot of the math you need at first pass- enough to make the material accessible for the first time, it's definitely not a substitute for learning the math properly though.

I've never studied out of specialized texts for inflation/monetary theory. A really good way to get into modern macro is to start with The ABCs of RBCs and then move onto Sargent/Ljungqvist. After that if you want to learn some New Keynesian Monetary stuff you can use Gali or Woodford. The ABCs of RBCs and Sargent/Ljungqvist will also teach you a lot of the math you need to know and will get you coding. For international finance check out Obstfeld and Rogoff- it's a bit outdated but very well written. If you want a compendium that's better written and slightly more rigorous than Romer- check out Heijdra and Van Der Ploeg- The Foundations of Modern Macroeconomics- it isn't very good for learning technique but is a good way to get a first introduction to the issues in macro and the approaches the literature takes. Edit: To add, functional analysis, dynamic programming and stochastic processes are all very important to learn Macro theory better. A really good text that deals with dynamic stochastic processes really well is Starchurski's Dynamic Economics: Theory and Computation- it's reasonably rigorous and teaches you the code in R. To do the code in R you need to get the older version, the new one uses Python. All the code is available on Starchurski's website and I think the chapters from the book are available too. Adda and Cooper does similar things but in a less rigorous, more cookbook-ish way. Unless you are taking those classes, don't try and learn all the math first and then do the macro- learn the macro and then learn the math as and when you need it- you'll lose motivation otherwise.

It was a soft copy of one of my transcripts- there was some confusion over whether my college transcript was an official transcript or if I needed a separate one from the university.

Thanks, I needed the reassurance. Anyone around with late submission experience.

I submitted my application to the MSc EME and MSc Econ in early November. But due to a hold up with references and one supporting document- the entire thing was completed only today. Will this delay really count against me given the rolling admissions? Will I not be considered with the first lot of applicants? I'm really stressed about this. Please let me know about any experiences/info you might have.

On the UCL website it says MRes/MPhil/PhD- this made me think that the MRes was just the first year of PhD coursework. When I looked at the application form though, it listed MRes as a separate option- this is doubly confusing since the econ department website says that the online application is not valid for the MRes/MPhil/Phd. Can one apply only to the MRes as a terminal degree or is it part of the PhD? I have asked the department but haven't received a response yet.

Aren't your grades in the BGSE good enough for their PhD? You might need to do the MSc Econ though first. It might not be ideal having to go through a third Master's but you'll repeat a lot of course work at any program you go to. Given your interests BGSE seems a great choice.

How good is Tilburg's program considered as preparation for a PhD? Does it place well in US programs? I'm worried about whether they expect you to stay on for a PhD once you finish your Master's, particularly after the new program was introduced a few years ago. Their website states that they expect 75% of their students to continue to a PhD. Could this create difficulties with getting letters etc. I know that this is a problem for the Tinbergen Institute. I was wondering if anyone has any Tilburg specific information.