doomy

I would highly recommend against applying after the first term. Exams in UCL's MSc are in May and as their website says regarding every single core module: "Assessment is based solely on the final examination". Even if you do extremely well in pre-sessional math course and the problem classes (marks on them count for nothing though) in the Term I Macro, Micro and Econometrics, I highly highly doubt you will find a single person in the department willing to give you a reference for your 2-3 months of non-graded work. Even so, staying in London for 1 extra year isn't necessarily a bad thing if you are an EU citizen. There are a number of Economic consultancies in London, hiring UCL and LSE Economics graduates for 8-10 weeks to 1 year graduate schemes. Add to that the Treasury, Bank of England, CEBR and, I suppose, numerous investment banks hiring economists on research roles. I am actually currently trying to choose between UCL and Warwick's MSc and am probably going to accept the latter offer, given my interest in financial, monetary and macro, and UCL's high focus on micro.

Apologies for hijacking the thread, but what do you mean by not being "eligible to work for Fed" as an international student? I had the impression that non-US citizens, that did their education in the US/have a work permit, were considered for government jobs as long as they met the criteria.

I can't necessarily think of something at the moment, but I can recommend watching some of Yoram Bauman's stand-ups. He describes himself as "the world's first and only stand-up economist" and while I don't find him hillariously funny , he is both engaging to an economic "illiterate" audience, as well as to other academic economists, able to catch all sublayers of his jokes. I am not suggesting you simply steal his jokes (if you decide to do so, don't steal the whole routine and make sure how well-known he is, I guess), but you might get some ideas from him as to how to engage such an audience. If you manage to talk about complex economic problems with everyday life examples and some witty jokes, the admission members from your target university will certainly be impressed (something along the lines of that overused Einstein or not-so-Einstein quote about explaining things to a six year old).

I usually tend to process and transform (aggregations, logs, deflators etc.) my data in Excel too. Loading a ready to use .xls in any statistical software seems quite straight forward and I am quire used to Excel. Never really thought about what fakeo said regarding reproduction. Might be a serious time wasting mistake I make.

Hey guys. :) I couldn't find a similar thread using the search engine, so I thought I'd start one. The question is - Which statistical / econometric package or programming language are you mostly using on a daily basis? I have some experience with Microfit and EViews but am not very proficient in any way with both. So before really dedicating myself to "mastering" a single programme, I thought I'd ask for your opinions, hoping to create a discussion. What is best for time series analysis? Cross-sectional data?, Panel data? R? MATLAB? Stata? Python (SciPy etc.)? Which syntax do you prefer - C, C++, Python? Which software do you feel like wins in terms of visual representation of data? Assuming that uhm... *cough* *cough* there were no budget constrains, which one do you consider to be superior or have that extra utility you need? Additionally, from your experience, under job skills, proficiency with which software is most looked for? From what I have seen in job descriptions (mostly in the financial sector) EViews and R are somewhat frequently mentioned. Obviously, knowing your econometric theory is the most important when conducting any empirical research, but it's 2015 and learning a new interface and syntax can be annoying and time consuming. However, sticking to something outdated can also prove to be a bad decision in the long run. What's your opinion on these thoughts?

Thanks for the quick reply. :) I think I am leaning towards Warwick and Notts as well. If I had to choose an undergraduate degree in a university from those listed, I'd probably go for Durham, as it seems to offer the best overall experience. However, regarding a one year MSc, programme strength comes first. I have heard many positive things about Warwick from a few current econ undergrads there, who by the way keep landing JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley etc. internships. I also had the pleasure of meeting a Warwick MSc Economics student (the 2 year route) at a summer internship at my country's Finance Ministry. He was very much praising the course and the teaching staff. And other than my Advanced Econometrics lecturer, he has the most extensive knowledge of econometrics I have seen in person. I believe he is doing a PhD in Oxford at the moment. I seriously consider Nottingham mainly because of the affordable down to earth fees and the relative recognition the department has worldwide. Also, from what I have seen in my correspondence with the admission and department staff, they all seem nice, punctual and approachable people. And I value that a lot in case I decide to have a go at a PhD. Regarding that, as an insider, what would you say are the chances of a Notts graduate to continue towards a funded PhD in the department? Furthermore, burgers > education. Every fool knows that. :D What worries me the most at the moment is whether I should wait for the UCL decision before I make one myself. The MSc Economics there, though, seems to cover much more advanced material and that combined with the horrible exam schedule makes me weep and pray for time and motivation to sit down and read.

Hello, guys. I am an Economics & Politics UK undergrad doing my third and last year. I would very much appreciate if you could help me on UK Graduate degrees rankings and specifics. I am split between choosing an MSc course in Economics/Finance. In a nutshell - I have offers for the MSc Economics in Warwick, the MSc Economics and Financial Economics in Nottingham, the MSc Finance (Economics and Finance) in Durham and the MSc Economics and Finance in Bristol. I am still waiting for a reply from MSc Economics at UCL. I have spent an immense amount of time researching for degrees and since my budget is not unlimited, Oxbridge, Imperial and LSE had to go. Briefly, my career goal is to become an analyst-side economist in the private sector/ work as an Economist at a Central Bank or some multinational institution / IFI. At this point of my life, pursuing a PhD does not seem to fit my interests, however I would like to choose a degree that would allow me to return to a PhD i I decide to do so later on. Simply to have more options. Since my main interests are in financial and monetary economics, I went for the above courses. However, I really cannot make an objective choice on my own.if I haven't bored you too much yet - here are the pros and cons I have "collected" about the four programmes: On Durham - At first glance - an old and very respected university; perhaps the strongest university over all from these four after UCL. An ex-girlfriend of mine studied there and I absolutely loved the university and the city. However, I am not sure if the fact that there is no real department of Economics there and the lower rankings in Tilburg, econphd. and The Complete University Guide make the course average. I very much like the wide variety of modules the MSc Finance and Economics offers, as well as the option to go on a placement instead of writing a dissertation. Not that I don't want to write one, I just feel that experience is more valuable in this job market. 10.5k fees seems reasonable. On Nottingham - From what I have read and heard, the Economics department there is very strong, especially in time series, panel data and econometrics as a whole. Price also comes in favour here - only 7600. The syllabus seems to be standard for a Masters degree in Economics. Have never been in the city but it seems pleasant to live in. However, I am not sure how top employers in the UK would perceive a Nottingham degree and whether it would be competitive to Warwick/LSE/Imperial/Oxbridge. On Bristol - basically the same as Nottingham. Again the down to earth price (9900) here is quite the factor. On Warwick - The logical top choice from the four I have been accepted to, I guess. The strongest department, highest ranking (again perhaps slightly I am really hesitant on whether to wait for a reply from UCL, as I have heard they usually answer around the beginning of March and some of the above programmes have deadlines in late February. Plus, even if I get accepted, to be honest, the MSc Economics there seems extremely demanding. From what I have researched, I am not sure I could be able to score high on modules so quantitative. I mean the syllabus seems to cover really advanced topics in microeconomics I am not really that interested in, while module options in the other universities seem to offer more flexibility. Adding to that, the microeconomic strength and focus of the department there and the fact that you have all your exams in May seems to discourage me a bit. However, London seems to be the top choice for any living in the UK economics and finance interested person. Plus I absolutely enjoyed the stay this summer, while i attended the LSE Summer School. I would very much appreciate if people with more experience, who have faced a similar choice, or simply disagree with my silly reflections, could help me in ranking the above MSc and give their honest opinion on whether paying the Warwick fees is worth it. Would also appreciate any other advice on these institutions and the cities they are in. P.S. I remembered one more thing - how do the Warwick, Nottingham and Bristol departments of Economics, and the Durham Business School rank among employers? I understand that there are target universities for Banking & Finance, but regarding UK government / Bank of England economist positions, how hard would landing a job with an MSc from one of the above institutions be? I guess it heavily depends on personal qualities and interview impressions, however, would for example a Warwick Masters in Economics heavily increase my chances or are graduate positions at such institutions extremely competitive, meaning Oxbridge, LSE and UCl are heavily favoured? What I mean is - Do most HR departments familiar with syllabus and intensity of the top 10 courses in the UK go like 'Hmmmm he finished Nottingham and their financial econometrics teaching is rigorous so he must be very good' or 'Durham is quite weak in Monetary and Time Series analysis so we better get someone else'? Kind regards and thanks again in advance for any insights you are kind enough to share.