lse-ug

Hm... I would say taking graph theory is a waste of time in your case. Since you haven't even taken Intro to Proof, graduate analysis might be too tough for you as well. Maybe you can skip Intro to Proof and take Real Analysis directly. Then take graduate analysis afterwards. That's what I did.

If you are already in a top 10 program and are going to transfer, I would say your grades in your graduate econ classes matter much much much more than any other math classes. But if you really want to help your application with some math classes, do some first year graduate analysis (They are usually measure theory, intro functional analysis, and complex analysis. The last one is quite useless for econ). Still I would suggest you spend more time on getting good grades in your econ classes. You may also have to worry about getting good LOR...which I think might be your biggest problem.

I think the level and the position of that book is embarrassing. It covers phd level materials but not presenting them at that level. It is called "theory and method" but is not doing well on both aspects. I guess when one is studying at phd level, one should have already get used to (or getting used to) definition-theorem-proof style. In particular, by definition of econmetrics, it should be the most math-heavy compared to other classes like micro and macro. The first challenge you have to face in graduate level econometrics is interpreting probability in measure-theoretical sense, and asymptotics. This book does not introduce probability deeper than your average intermediate/introduction undergraduate statistics classes. It introduces LLN and CLT, but never differentiate between the different modes of convergence and the various LLNs and CLTs. It does not even formally state anyone of the LLNs/CLTs and under what conditions they hold. As a result, when talking about convergence there are A LOT of handwavings. These things are crucial in graduate econometrics classes in my opinion. Worse still, most theorems and definitions in this book are not separately stated, they are buried in the text. This makes it very inconvenient to use as a reference. But the book is by no mean a "very easy" book. As I said above, they are just not using the right language or style to present the materials. I read the first half of the book in my final undergraduate year, the result is that I was very unsatisfied with it. Very often I turned to their older book "estimation and inference in econometrics", which was much better written. In the preface of this book "econometric theory and methods", they said that they wrote this new book thinking the older one was in some sense too advanced for first year graduate econometrics. I strongly disagree with that. The new one is not rigorous for first year phd program. I must admit that their chapter on geometry of OLS is quite good. Understanding the geometry there saves you a lot of algebra. But this is covered in their older book too. Besides, you don't see OLS that much in graduate courses these days.

Initially I quite enjoy reading Glaeser's work ... but now, after watching the video. Hm... oh, Antichron I thought you were going to Stanford? How come you picked MIT in the end?

Since LSE is offering me full funding, I am staying at LSE. Unless somehow someone is willing to pay for my first year at NWU or UPenn is going to make me a fully funded offer.

Called Northwestern, Prof Wolinsky said all their offers have been accepted and they cannot offer me first year funding.

I was not able to bump the earlier back to the top, so I am starting a new one instead. Any news? It's April 14 now. I have heard nothing from NWU and UPenn.

sorry double post

no news here as well (waiting for northwestern and upenn) update: still waiting...

How is Northwestern econometrics actually?

Another vote for Blanchard for macro. As for micro, Varian's intermediate micro is good, intuitive, brief and concise.

can somebody please comment on Northwestern and UPenn campuses? and the nearby environment? Thanks

How did you manage to get the insider info?

I am waiting here as well. Emailed the department today, asked me to check back early next week... Northwestern told me to check back on around April 12th... waiting.......

Because they have only 1 final exam in the summer

First thing to do, email Oxford regarding the funding decision. With funding, and if you are willing to spend an extra two years, I will pick Oxford over Cornell. Without funding, I will pick Cornell. This is assuming that you won't get funding for all 2 years at Oxford and I suppose it is likely that you can get funding from Cornell working at TA/RA, as is the case in many PhD program. I am not too sure about this but you should email the department and ask about potential funding opportunities in the future. What is your undergrad major? I think an important factor to consdier is whether you think you are ready for the course work of PhD econ. If you are in doubt, maybe Oxford will be a safer choice.

yes, they are the same except that.

The difference between MSc and MSc Research is that, the latter is guaranteed a conditional offer to transfer to PhD after the first year while MSc students have to apply for the transfer and may get rejected directly (without the conditional offer!). You got a distinction in a paper if you score 70%+, a merit if 60-69%, etc. http://www.lse.ac.uk/resources/schoolRegulations/regulationsForMAandMScDegreees.htm I guess the overal distinction means that you obtain an average of 70%+ out of all the papers.

Those for econ are still listed as "Ranked in 2005"

Reactor, how did your friend got notified? By postal mail or email or phone? I applied for the schoarship as well. I sent them an email about a month ago and they replied saying that the decision will be made in early April. I don't think telling the schools that have already rejected him about the scholarship could make them reconsider his application again. But I do think that this is a very positive signal to those waitlisted him, because (1) the schools don't have to provide him funding, and (2) his acceptence by IMF means that yet another institution have consider his profile superb.

That makes sense. Afterall what I have said is about Oxford is just based on their prospectus. But then their first year should be still heavier than LSE MSc's preliminary year, which is really undergraduate courses. Regarding MSc EME, it is a very tough program. The level of the courses is definitely not lower than PhD courses, and the level econometrics is above first year PhD. You can actually take 2nd year PhD courses in the program as well. Thus it really prepare you a lot for PhD study afterwards, well, provided you are prepared for the EME. That's why it is very hard to get in.

far from finishing .... I think that basically means that we are on the unofficial waiting list.

Are your undergraduate major economics? If yes, there is no reason doing the preliminary year at LSE. (or you are talking about their 2 years programs MSc Global Market Economics and MSc Public Financial Policy?) The reason why doing a master degree is beneficial for PhD application: (1) You can show to the adcom that you can handle graduate work and that you are well prepared. (2) You can get well-known professors to write LOR for you if you do you master in a top department. LSE's MSc doesn't help because (1) you won't have your grades until you have completed the program, and (2) since you have to reapply early in the year, you may have difficulties getting your professors to write you really good LOR. But I do believe that you can signal a lot by doing very well in the program and then reapply in the year after you complete the MSc. If you are willing to spend 2 years, I suggest you go with Oxford. Because: Suppose that you are reapplying in the beginning of your second year, what you can show to the adcom is your performance in a year of graduate work at Oxford, while what you show to them is your performance of a year of undergraduate work at LSE (assume that you are not talking about MSc GME/PFP). Well, provided that you can perform well in both program.

They are quite different programs. What you do in Oxford's MPil is more or less the same as what you do in the first 2 years in a PhD econ program. It is research oriented. LSE's MSc curriculum is less heavy than their MRes/PhD's or Oxford MPhil's, due to different focus. It is structured as a one year program (assuming you are talking about MSc Econ). If your undergraduate major is not in econ, they usually require you to do it over 2 yeras, and in the first year you do intermediate/advanced undergrad econ courses. As I recall Oxford seems to have a one year MSc program, not too sure about that. LSE's MSc is definitely a larger program, with around 100+ people and Oxford's MPhil is about half of them (or less?). So interaction between faculty/students is definitely less in LSE's MSc, when compared to Oxford's MPhil. It must also be noted that most students doing LSE's MSc do NOT have doing PhD in mind. Other input? (let me say it before Reactor does) Tuition as well as living expense is much higher in London than in Oxford. This must be taken into consideration, especially if you are intending to spend 2 years there. It is very hard to get funding for MSc. edited: Regarding reapplying for PhD. LSE: I don't think it will help much unless you reapply after you have completed your MSc. Oxford: Are you willing to start over again, since most US grad schools do not accept credit transfer, after you have finishing most of the PhD course work?

And you will attend more of your morning lectures too, which is a good thing I suppose.