aclax2k

The exams for Oxford do have essays in them, but you generally have to answer problem questions as well on all exams. The quals for micro/macro is 3 questions from 8 modules, you have to answer at least one analytic and one essay. Econometrics is all analytic basically. It is a bit looser in the second year exams, but they are based more on subject matter, so if you take advanced theory or econometrics, you obviously have to be pretty good at math to do well on the exams. Also, the essays are supposed to be testing your understanding of the intuition behind the maths and your ability to communicate the stuff you learned in class. The best essays have an extremely high amount of analytic components in them though, as you are expected to derive key results from the papers references if possible. So whereas you have to be excellent at math to pass your quals in the states, you have to be excellent at math and a very good writer to score one of the top marks in Oxford's version of Quals, which are the MPhil first and second year exams. As a result, you generally see a couple people from the top of the class walk onto top 5 phd progs in the states and take the quals immediately and pass. The people who stay back are generally rhodes and Europeans who don't want to go to the states. I would say though, that it is possible to go through to the DPhil with a bit less math than people in top US Phd programs. The problem with comparing where people end up is there is a STRONG selection effect for the people who complete their DPhil (phd) here to want to stay in Oxford or Europe. As a result, there is not a very good cross-atlantic market, because most if not all of the stars of the department just end up staying at Oxford. If you don't believe me go check out the CVs of the professors. Over 50% of the department got their DPhil at Oxford, and most of the one's who did stay were at the top of the class. So invariably, the people who want to go to the states are not a representative sample of the people in the program and as a result, the expected/inferred quality of DPhils from Oxford is low for Americans. It is also much easier to tap into the Oxford academic market coming from Oxford, as it is MUCH more ad hoc than the market in the states as a result of the college system. Add to that the fact you can, and most people do, get a Dphil in 4 years (as opposed to 6-7 in the states) and as a result a lot of them have to do post-docs to get enough papers to go out on the market like US Phds. Basically, if you want to be a Econ prof in the states, it is NOT the place to go, but if you want to work in Europe, or specifically Oxford, it is definitely one of the best places to go.

Oxford, rent is around 350-450 pound a month, so ~$700-900 in my area. Food and any day-to-day expenses are basically double what you would pay in the US, except for booze.

Part of it is the same reason that the elite private sector focuses on elite universities, they only have so many resources devoted to the job search, so it pays more to do an exhaustive search in a limited sample, then broaden the search and be more shallow in evaluation. A good non-econ example is how the atlanta braves scout the heck out of high school kids in Georgia and the region. They just don't pay as much attention to other kinds of player, but they do a terrific job of figuring out who the quality players are just in that limited sample.

I agree with the rankings except for one thing: LSE EME (1 yr) > OX Mphil > LSE EME (2 yr) > LSE Msc Econ Largely for reasons already posted, basically, the Mphil gives you time to work on a thesis which if you bust your butt, you can use part of in US phd apps, plus the recommendation thing.

The Oxford MPhil CAN reduce the number of years to a phd in the US through two means: 1. You pass your quals upon arriving at schools, I have heard about 1-2 people a year (out of 50) who go this route after Oxford. 2. Your Phd dissertation goes much quicker because you have a better and clearer idea of what to research and you may have already done some work on it as part of the mphil thesis. As for LSE 2 yr vs. Mphil, here is how I see it, note, both are expensive and it is hard to find funding unless you have a big external scholarship (see rhodes, marshall etc). The main advantage of LSE in my eyes is access to more prominent economists and a backdoor into LSE if you want to get a phd there. On the other hand, you basically get a whole year to work on a thesis here at Oxford (there is coursework but nothing of the sort of the first year) with intense supervision. At LSE I get the feeling the paper at the end of the year is a bit rushed. If you really want something to apply to us depts with, the oxford mphil is better. Doing spectacularly at LSE might open a few more doors than Oxford, but if you can excel in the coursework at Oxford you can at LSE. I think the big difference is at Oxford you get more time on the mphil thesis, plus I think oxford is a cooler place to spend 2 years of your life (you can always live in the big city).

I would definitely, definitely, go to either oxford or lse than columbia if you have an intention of pursuing a phd. 1st of all, if you do pretty well in either place, you have a straight track into the phd programs if all else fails. 2nd, they test you with the math on which you can then apply to phd programs with experience in the harder side of the disciplines. This is particularly important if you do not have a good math/econ background. In fact the columbia degree will basically not help you at all in getting admitted to a phd program (i have heard this type of thing from numerous sources). The obvious problem with the lse/oxon thing is the immense cost. If you have the coin, then go to lse or ox, the experience will be amazing and you are much more likely to get into places that you would not have with the rigorous experience.

The LSE 2 year program is going to take a long time and cost a lot of money, but if you truly want to do a Phd in Econ at eitther a top place in the states or LSE, you have to go there. Nottingham wouldn't help you all that much applying to US schools I would think. Also, you might consider working in business/finance/consulting for a year or two and reapplying. US schools won't like it as much, but I know UK schools are fine with it, I hear the US institutions want people rearing to go...

well, off the top of my head, getting into the Phd program through the backdoor applies to LSE, UoT, Oxford, Cambridge (where they don't really let people into the Phd straight anyway), and UBC. Which are all top 30 programs. Also, this paper: http://207.150.192.12/temp/andrewgr/SurviveThenThrive.pdf has evidence that people who have taken a masters in econ are much more likely to pass their Quals...so take it for what it's worth but interesting. I think the advice is clear, if you can get into a good department, with the funding you want, then do it, but if you need the extra push, or you aren't 100% certain then a masters is a good strategy (as long as you don't go in the US!)

well he does have a point that if you aren't comfortable with doing lots and lots and lots of math, then you won't make it through an Econ Phd. The numbers are low enough for people who LIKE math, you just don't see the 'I hate math' people coming out with Phds anymore.

If you are considering the MA course, definitely look into UoT and UBC, you are basically an auto admit at both and UBC has a tuition waiver that cuts it down to a little over $3000 for the whole thing, plus Vancouver is amazing. But like I just posted in the other thread, you have a profile that gives you a decent shot to get straight into decent Phd programs so I would definitely apply to them to. Don't apply to US MA programs, it is a waste of your time. Also, as I said in the other thread if you are looking at banks, try the LSE fin and econ program, it has a lower acceptance ratio than a lot of Phd programs and it puts you right in the heart of the 2nd best financial district in the world. Plus working in london is better in finance than NY anyway, hehe.

most of you guys are completely missing the boat. As some one who has often counselled people to 'get an MA' let me clear a few things up: NO ONE says 'get an MA' from a US school, you are completely right that if you have a BA in Econ a MA from a US school won't help at all. However, going to a rigorous Canadian or UK masters program where they do the 3/4 of the level of a Phd can be a huge signal. Especially if you get into a place like LSE. Now, the problem is you might have to wait a year to apply with the grades you have, but it can make all the difference in the world if you go to a good school, LSE, UBC, UoT, UCL and do well. US grad econ uses math that is a bit tougher, but if you can come out ahead in one of these programs it can do a lot. Now all of this is conditional on usually having something wrong in your profile that prevents you from getting into the kind of school you want to go to. Simply put an econ Phd is not worth it for some people if they don't get to go into a top school. Going to a mid level school, as a result of a sketchy undergrad, can handicap your whole academic career. Remember, if you want to be a researcher, where you get in AFTER the Phd is very important, because the less the school focuses on research the more likely you are to get sucked into spending all your time teaching, which means you don't publish, which means you are stuck where you are. If you have dreams of being a world class economist, you want to go to best school you can possibly get into. If you are sure it is what you want to do, then postponing a little to do more econ isn't the worst thing in the world, and if you decide you don't like it you can leverage the Masters into something business related using some comparative advantages of the technical skill you picked up. I don't understand why everyone is complaining, it's not like someone came on the board and said "hey guys, I have a 4.0 from MIT with a double majors in math and economics, research experience with a Nobel Prize winner and a 'wink-wink' offer to come do a Phd. You think I should go to Canada for a year to do an MSc in Econ?" and we were all like, 'of course!' In almost all the cases of people being recommended to try the Masters the person had serious mark against their record for getting into a top 20 program, GPA, bad math, no research etc. If someone comes on this board and sees those posts and decides to do a Masters where they get no funding, when they could get into Harvard Phd already full ride, and is convinced to NOT apply for a Phd, are we really concerned that this person is someone the Phd community may lose out on. Also, even if the US doesn't value or understand the level of the programs, people in Canada and the UK do. I am one of the people doing a masters in econ in the UK and employers have been jumping all over me, if you can get into the LSE MSc in Econ or even Econ and Finance, you are pretty much assured of a place in a top 10 investment bank if you decide you want it. It is a VERY strong signal. Finally, by far the best way to backdoor your way into a great program is to do their MA/MSc/MPhil and continue on for the Phd. At LSE if you get above certain grades they have a RULE they have to let you take the Phd. Find me another way into a top 15 department for someone who couldn't get into a top 30 Phd program? So yeah, if you can already get into a great Phd program and that is what you want to do, of course you take it, but I don't think we need to be making sure that those poor math geniuses don't get all confused when they come to the board and see people with 3.2 GPAs being recommended for a Masters.

I would wholeheartedly agree with the folks who say go the MA/MSc/MPhil route. If you KNOW you want to do a Phd, I would apply to all of UoT, UBC, Queens, McGill (good school but econ rankings suck) and of course LSE, Oxbridge and UCL. It's kind of ironic that you are posting this given the other thread I just started but if I were you and I knew I was going to go for a Phd I would go to LSE or one of the Canadian schools if I didn't get funding. It is just really hard to get funding to Oxbridge if you don't get a full ride, and with the CGPA it might be hard (trust me I know, I had basically the exact same stats as you but probably with better and more current recs and research experience and I got nothing). LSE might be hard to get into, so my call would be you end up at a place like UBC, which is a fantastic school for going on to Phds in an amazing city. If you don't believe the thing about going onto a Phd from UBC check out their site or this placement track: http://www.econ.ubc.ca/grads/00_02.pdf From the last class they have stats for going onto Phds: Wisconsin McGill UBC -lots Georgetown UPenn Northwestern UoToronto Stanford but a couple meh schools in Canada as well. anyway, good luck.

I don't regret coming here at all, the thing is my undergraduate GPA is such that I couldn't have gotten into a Phd program of equal rank anywhere else. I mean of course I am going to apply to Cambridge as well, since they DO accept the coursework and maybe they will provide funding, but that isn't my point. Applying to US schools for a Phd is just not an option, I mean if I went back to the US the time to completion would be 5+ years vs. 2, even if I had to pay out of pocket, full funding wouldn't make sense. To clarify, I am asking how far people think a Phd from Oxford goes in terms of economics. Meaning, I know the ranking isn't very high, but does the fact that it is in the top 3 in the UK mean I have a better shot at landing at a decent school back home? It's not the decision to do a Phd which is my real question, it is how far the Phd would take me (which could change the answer to the 'should I do it' question)

Hey folks, I am currently finsihing the 1st year of the 2 year MPhil in Econ at Oxford with NO funding. I rationaled this by saying if I didn't go into the Phd program I could always be a banker for a couple years and make the money back quick. I have good test scores, good recs, good SOPs and a good backstory, but I completely screwed my first couple of years at undergrad and the CGPA basically gets me written off for any money...anywhere, and as a North American in Oxford there is very very little funding if you aren't a Rhodes or Marshall or Fullbright. Now I am wondering about a Phd, and it looks like I am not going to have any funding for that either, but at Oxford you only pay tuition for 3 years, so the 4th year would be only college fees (2000 pounds) and I could probably make back living expenses from teaching. So here's the thing, I am basically the prime example of sunk costs, at the end of next year, I will be 30,000 pounds ~ $60,000 in debt. Is it worth it to take on another 20,000 for a Phd even if they don't fund me. My first instincts said no, but then I thought about it this way, if I don't get the Phd I will end up going to business or law school. Both of which would be MORE expensive in the same or more time, and I would be constrained into being a consultant or banker or law firm wage slave. With a Phd I can go into business if I want, I can do public government stuff, hell I could even teach (but it doesn't seem likely as who knows what kind of departments I would be able to get into with Oxford's 30th or so ranking, I don't fancy spending the next 15 years in the middle of nowhere, city boy at heart). What do you all think? This makes sense? How far does a Oxford Phd go in the states, is it respected by departments in the US, I know it isn't MIT/Harvard/Stanford or even LSE, but would I be able to get any good jobs if I decided to be an academic? Anyway, sorry for the narcissitic post, but now that apps are over, the board would probably be dead anyway. Any help would be appreciated... Thanks.

If you want to do a Phd: Canada and the UK, Canada and the UK I can't stress this enough, a MA from a US university will be of almost NO help in getting into a Phd program, they don't do the maths, and no one takes the grades seriously. Canada and the UK still have MA/MSc Programs that give people the math they would need for a Phd, well not all, but most. LSE, UCL, UBC, UoT, Queens, McGill, and Ox and Cam although the last two are 2 year programs...

the verbal section does tell you about a native speaking science student. it tells you how much they read. A low verbal score from an American or Brit means this person doesn't read a whole hell of a lot. I could see how this could be important for some admissions, or how it could be very important all other things being equal.

sure UoT is #1 when you average stuff out, but I have heard that waterloo or mcgill are better in CS, and i know UBC is better in Econ than UoT. Like everything it depends on the program. UoT is a great place, but Macleans is not a good place to determine what programs are best.

see, I completely agree, with one caveat, I think doing an Masters at a school might help you get into the Phd program, if you just demolish the tests (ie: are one of the best in the class), I have seen a couple things that lead me to believe that some schools, especially in the UK say that they generally accept people who get exceptional grades in the Masters program. Myself, I think a Masters is a great tool to be qualified as a professional economist, but that people shouldn't decide to spend all that money in the dream that a Masters will get them into Harvard. Just my $.02

guys, clearly it doesn't hurt, and it does at least some good, I guess my question is does anyone have any idea how much it helps. In terms or quantification, there is a simple way of defining it...how much does it lower the bar to be admitted for people who normally wouldn't? If you are going to get in anyway, let's say 4.0 Everything in a 1st class Honours in Math, Perfect GRE, with a co-written and published paper with the professor you want to be your advisor etc...well, then it is irrelevant. The question of changing a 'no' to a 'yes' is only relevant to those who are facing a no. Here are some ways. -For a person who hits the Masters out of the park, as good as can be expected with a prof who gives a great rec, so bet case scenario, how many ranks do you think that would be worth over what you could do without the MA? Is it 5 ranks, or 40? Does anyone have any idea. -Put another way, how much is the bar lowered to get entrance into a top program? If these answers to these questions are very little, and the costs of doing the MSc at LSE can be ~$35,000+ is it really worth it to go to do the LSE? Let's say it is 5 ranks, so from 25-20 or whatever, not top 10, it obviously isn't worth it just in terms of with a view towards getting into a better school (there are obvously different issues here to, but I am isolating one). So, does anyone actually know any of these answers our are we all shooting in the dark?

I know Waterloo has a strong reputation in CS As for econ check out econphd.net they have a ranking by subject which is pretty helpful to view what a department looks like. UBC and UT are the highest ranked in Canada, then Queens, then a whole bunch of others. It depends on what you are looking for, if you want to come back to the States and not doing academic stuff but like business, than I would say McGill/UT should realistically be the only schools you consider (UBC is on the same level in general, and so is Queens, but as far as name recognition in the states, those are the only two, and in my experience just McGill, that people have realistically heard of).

hey folks, so people talk a lot about going to England or Canada and getting a MA/Msc/MPhil and that being helpful when applying for the Phd, but my question is how much does it help? Like, I have seen people advising others to do it when they have a ok or so-so background. Assuming you get the result before you apply, how much of an impact does this have on a app to do a Phd. I mean, I know at some of the British schools, they do a Masters first, so the initial coursework is at least comparable to doing a Phd in the states. But how much do you think they weight those results compared to undergrad. Personally, I think if you do a Masters in Canada or the UK, you might better off going to a Phd in those places where you won't have to start all over, but I think a lot of people consider doing it so they have a shot at the big time (top 10 say) when there initial profile would exclude them. Under these circumstances, I don't think the Masters is going to do that much for their application. What d'ya say?

well, I was given a conditional offer for a M.Phil Economics for this year pending I bring my GRE scores up to V: 85th percentile Q: 90th percentile (from V:580, Q:780)

well, I retook it upon Oxford's request, and got these scores (previously scored 6.0 AW and they let me not redo that part). 710 - woah - much better than I have scored on anything else (previous 580), but I have been cramming words for the last week (which is funner than you would think if you have nothing better to do than walk around a city with flashcards) and read like crazy. Advice: just learn all the words in the Barrons book (I only got to 'H' and the high freq words) and read aldaily and political blogs with technical arguments. Does anyone know what percentile that is??? Oxford wanted an 85th.. As for Q790, missed the mark...again. Oxford wants a 90th percentile, and it is 89th, so I do not know if they will let me get away with it. We'll see. If anyone knows what percentile V710 is, I would be very appreciative, I need to compensate for the 1% of the Quant. 'yeah' and 'arg' at the same time...:rolleyes: EDIT: yeah, so I

So I took it again, didn't study as much as I should, didn't really do many practice problems. and got a Q790. I have been told I need a 90th percentile as a condition for MSc Econ (long story, mediocre undergrad GPA) I also have a condition for Verbal (85th percentile) and didn't get it, but that was simply because I haven't done any vocab studying. So I got another 590, which is like only 82nd percentile. So..back to the drawing board, will have to really study after I take the LSAT...ug. I get untill September to get the scores, I just need to study more, but it still sucks to be in limbo.

Actually, especially from top US schools (with rampant grade inflation), the closer to 4.0 the better.