irony

OP, by this point you have managed to alienate every member of this forum who cared to read at least a couple of your responses in this thread. What it means for you is that you are not going to receive any constructive advice whatsoever. So, if you were after some good advice - you may just go home now, because that's simply not going to happen. If, on the other hand, you just want to bump your self-esteem at other people's expense - keep doing exactly what you've been doing, it seems spot on.

DiddlyDoo, did you ask them why 2017 as well? It's seems on the verge of unbelievable that the professors will not be able to give you a recommendation after you have already received your grades for the programme. Looks like some sort of a typo to me.

Agree that you are a very strong candidate for all of the programmes you've listed. And no, EME will not be any harder because of your MBA. There's a very wide gap in the quality of signalling between a typical US/European MBA and IIMs. However, I also agree that you probably have a good shot at a PhD if you apply directly. You need to make sure the quality of your LORs is high - maybe you want to get some fresh research experience with a professor between now and applications in the fall and then apply to both a few PhDs and the Master's programmes you've listed. Overall, IIT+IIM with good grades is the killer combination for people coming from your country. I have seen the following trajectory once in the past: IIT+IIM, a few years of work experience, then a Master's from one of the schools on your list, super high result (like top3 in class, having chosen hard classes) => top2 US PhD Econ. On the unrelated note, with this background and good work experience you can also get into the private sector in the UK (I have no experience with the US) directly, without additional training. It's not easy, but it's possible, and it probably won't be any easier with another Master's on your cv.

From what I've seen having attended one of the schools on your list, the strength of signalling will very much depend on how well you do at the Master's programme. If you manage to get a distinction, especially if you manage to get a department prize (e.g. top3 performance in you class) + get some RA experience with the professors and/or impress them with your thesis - you become a very likely candidate to crack top10. And this signalling is almost independent of the quality of your undergrad (with the exception that people with stronger undergrad prep tend to do better in a master's). There is little value in having attended a master's programme per se. It's all about how well you do in it.

It is not impossible in general to successfully apply after 1 semester of a UK masters. Some things that might help: 1. Find out whether the program has mock exams in December (or earlier). The professors may be willing to write you a letter based on the results of the mocks. This is however a highly risky strategy (you won't know your grade until very close to deadlines) and it does require you to do very, very well on the exams (like top 5% of your class, ideally top 1). You also need to try to build relationship with the professors during the semester. Talk to them about your interest in the PhD program early. Ask smart questions in class. Etc. 2. One avenue you can explore is emailing the UCL professors upfront (like, now) and trying to get a research assistantship. If your visa situation permits, you may even want to arrive a couple of months before the start of your course and spend them RAing full-time. Be prepared that you send a bunch of letters and will maybe get 1 positive response. That would be a good outcome. 3. Generally, your success with any such strategy is going to be dependent on how good your undergrad record is. Aim to have at least one letter from your undergrad professors to give more credibility to your overall recommendations (for the adcoms to have a perspective from someone who's known you longer than a couple of months). In any case - it will be risky, and you should be prepared to be unsuccessful with your application in the year of your programme and reapply after you graduate. Lots of people do that.

I am trying to understand what exactly people mean when they state their interests as Applied Micro. Apologies if some of the questions might be naive. 1. My understanding is that Applied Micro broadly includes the following sub-fields: - Development (although, I'd probably put it in a field of its own) - IO (again, a field of its own?) - Labour - Public Finance / Tax - Health and Ageing - Education - Energy/Environmental - Other: Family/Demography, Regional/Spatial, else? Is there anything major I have overlooked? 2. Does Applied Micro always/mostly imply empirical work? Not really, right? Would same people work on both theoretical models, say in Labour, and their empirical verification? Also, what is the difference between Applied Micro and Applied Econometrics? I've seen these being used to mean similar things... 3. What is the general feeling about Applied Micro prospects on the job market? My impression is that it's one of the safe choices as most schools would hire into this field (although, that depends on sub-fields I suppose). Would most people have a double specialisation in another field? If yes, what are the most common ones? Econometrics? 4. When people state Applied Micro as their main research interest prior to grad school, are they usually quite flexible between the subfields? Do most people end up changing interests within Applied Micro? or outside it 5. When looking for a list of target schools, is it better to concentrate on your preferred subfield and search for professors who work in it, or is it generally ok only to make sure that there is a substantial number of active researchers in any of the Applied Micro topics? Say, I'm interested in Education, but a certain school is strong in Labour/Public Finance - should I consider it despite lack of Education researchers? 6. Outside of top 10, what are the schools that are generally considered strong in Applied Micro? Are there any schools in top 30 where Applied Micro is really problematic to focus on, e.g. due to lack of researchers? (I'm thinking Minnesota maybe?)

Some questions from a prospective applicant: 1. How damaging can it be if an applicant has been out of school for a few years (4-6) working in the industry? Can it shut out an applicant with an otherwise very strong profile from top10? If yes, what's a possible solution - trying to find a full-time RA position? 2. Regarding LORs: - A letter from non-economist is not considered useful, but what about an economist working in a department other than pure econ? Say a public policy school or med school? - Is getting a letter from a freshly minted assistant professor not a good idea (say 1-2 years after PhD)?