UCL Msc Economics 2012....Who is going?

OP

They say clearly what you may know before arrival to the programme in terms of math knowledge:

The entire Pemberton's book, excluding chapters 22, 23, 24, 28, 29 and 30. That's it. Now if you know more, it never hurts, but this should be your base, and after that it depends on how numerical are you and your learning rate on this type of subjects.
If you want to be more prepared, then go ahead and it's not bad at all, but they are clear about the requirements in maths to start the programme.

Reply 22

janjanmmm

Original post by Econla

They say clearly what you may know before arrival to the programme in terms of math knowledge:

The entire Pemberton's book, excluding chapters 22, 23, 24, 28, 29 and 30. That's it. Now if you know more, it never hurts, but this should be your base, and after that it depends on how numerical are you and your learning rate on this type of subjects.
If you want to be more prepared, then go ahead and it's not bad at all, but they are clear about the requirements in maths to start the programme.

There are different ways "to know".
You can learn basic math without proofs and rigor. This is usually not enough when you move further. Exactly the problem for many students, hence the 30% drop out rate.

Reply 23

OP

Original post by janjanmmm

But this is the whole point, though:
In my uni, too, I only needed to take Precal I and Finite Math to graduate. Finite math covers calculus and matrices in brief and you are done. However, to get into Econ gradschool (no matter masters or PhD) you need more than that! In fact, here in the US they tell us point blank - if you want to go further, DO NOT TAKE MATH FOR SOCIAL SCIENCE/BUSINESS classes! They are not good enough. You have to take math for science and engineering, "real" math, with mathematics department. You have to learn proofs. Otherwise - forget it!

Well remember that this is a Master not a PhD, so proof at the level of a first year in PhD I don't think you'll see so. I am not saying that the programme is soft but if you have the level of Pemberton's book I think you can manage. Still you'll have to learn advanced tools but you already have the base for it, and this is the most important issue.
I agree that for PhD to be a strong applicant they request Real Analysis, Topology and that level of maths, this is why so many prospective PhD applicants go for a Msc before, so they can learn some of this stuff.
I would see strange that an applicant with e.g 10 courses in maths including RA II, Topology and more advanced stuff, was not admitted to a PhD, assuming a good GRE, GPA and LORs. With that profile, you just apply for a PhD unless you want to go only for a Msc.

Reply 24

OP

Original post by janjanmmm

There are different ways "to know".
You can learn basic math without proofs and rigor. This is usually not enough when you move further. Exactly the problem for many students, hence the 30% drop out rate.

Ok there you have http://moodle.ucl.ac.uk/file.php/7003/ExamandAns09.pdf.

That is the last year Micro exam. Section B Question 2, the most mathematical part. You say to me that in your ug you never did something vaguely like that in your exams?

Reply 25

janjanmmm

Original post by Econla

I would see strange that an applicant with e.g 10 courses in maths including RA II, Topology and more advanced stuff, was not admitted to a PhD, assuming a good GRE, GPA and LORs. With that profile, you just apply for a PhD unless you want to go only for a Msc.

Here in the US most Econ programs are PhD. Very few good schools offer MSc (NYU is the only one I know), for the most part you get into PhD, receive your Masters after two years and if you want you can drop out with Masters. Of course another thing is - if you go into PhD you receive funding, but with Masters you get nothing, so, again, you are better off doing a PhD even if you do not want to. As for admissions - sure, if you want to do your PhD in an obscure regional school they will admit you, no problem. If you want top level programs like Harvard, Berkley or Stanford - you need more then perfect results in GRE, GPA and LORs, you need to be the best of the best, and even then they may not give you funding for the first year, until you prove yourself.

As far as I know in the UK you can not go directly into PhD, you must do Masters first. Perhaps it makes it easier on undergrad students. But UCL has very good level masters program, and as far as I know the level of difficulty is the same as the first two years of PhD programs in the US.

Reply 26

OP

Original post by janjanmmm

Here in the US most Econ programs are PhD. Very few good schools offer MSc (NYU is the only one I know), for the most part you get into PhD, receive your Masters after two years and if you want you can drop out with Masters. Of course another thing is - if you go into PhD you receive funding, but with Masters you get nothing, so, again, you are better off doing a PhD even if you do not want to. As for admissions - sure, if you want to do your PhD in an obscure regional school they will admit you, no problem. If you want top level programs like Harvard, Berkley or Stanford - you need more then perfect results in GRE, GPA and LORs, you need to be the best of the best, and even then they may not give you funding for the first year, until you prove yourself.

As far as I know in the UK you can not go directly into PhD, you must do Masters first. Perhaps it makes it easier on undergrad students. But UCL has very good level masters program, and as far as I know the level of difficulty is the same as the first two years of PhD programs in the US.

I know pretty well how is the US system, one of my recommenders is from Chicago.
I know UCL has a rigorous and well reputed Master, this is why I applied to, but don't overestimate it.....It's tough, you have to work very much harder than in your whole ug, but it is not unraechable.
I would agree with you if we were talking about the 1 yr Ms EME in LSE, for what I know there you need a lot more background in maths. In fact I've known that people that have studied there and then go for a PhD, they spent the first year working only on the intuition side but not sweating with maths.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 27

sj27

14

Original post by janjanmmm

If the program is less rigorous the employers will know it, too.

I think you (and Lalafell) might be missing the point a bit.
The point of a policy program is not to provide an "easy option"; it is to prepare people for policymaking roles surely...so yes it will be more applied and less mathematical than those who want to basically do applied maths in an ivory tower for ever. I had a look at the exams link for MSc Economics posted, and - with the benefit of having worked as an economist given that I wrote similar exams when I did my MSc - was somewhat amazed at the absolute lack of any practical relevance or application in any of them (with a possible exception in the micro paper), even the econometrics one did not have any real applied problems! Might be fine to train you for a PhD entrance, doesn't do much at all to train you for the real world. This is exactly what Caballero's paper on the failure of economics in the crisis was arguing. [\end rant :smile:

]

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 28

janjanmmm

Original post by Econla

.It's tough, you have to work very much harder than in your whole ug, but it is not unraechable.
.

Who said it was unreachable? :wink:

Coming back to the original point, though: I really do not think two math courses will be enough. This is all.

Reply 29

Lalafell

Original post by janjanmmm

Can you say how much easier and less mathematical Policy is? I have tried to access the course materials on Moodle, but unlike Economics most of Policy is closed to unregistered lookers.

It is much easier... I can guarantee.

One indication is, in order for a policy students to take a MSc Economics module, the student needs to have a first in the related module in the third year of his/her undergrad and to score top 30% in the maths and stat test in the beginning of the course.

Another indication is many people got distinction in the MSc Economic Policy programme.

I have the materials for the metrics. But dunno how to send them to you.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 30

Lalafell

Original post by sj27

I think you (and Lalafell) might be missing the point a bit.
The point of a policy program is not to provide an "easy option"; it is to prepare people for policymaking roles surely...so yes it will be more applied and less mathematical than those who want to basically do applied maths in an ivory tower for ever. I had a look at the exams link for MSc Economics posted, and - with the benefit of having worked as an economist given that I wrote similar exams when I did my MSc - was somewhat amazed at the absolute lack of any practical relevance or application in any of them (with a possible exception in the micro paper), even the econometrics one did not have any real applied problems! Might be fine to train you for a PhD entrance, doesn't do much at all to train you for the real world. This is exactly what Caballero's paper on the failure of economics in the crisis was arguing. [\end rant :smile:

]

What point did I miss? I think I know more about both the UCL MSc Economcis and MSc Economic Policy than most of the people in this forum. Actually, I have been auditing the lectures from the beggining of this year in order to prepare for my graduate study.

Reply 31

OP

Original post by Lalafell

What point did I miss? I think I know more about both the UCL MSc Economcis and MSc Economic Policy than most of the people in this forum. Actually, I have been auditing the lectures from the beggining of this year in order to prepare for my graduate study.

Lalafell, why aren't you applying to the programme?, honestly, you didn't like it, doesn't have the electives that you want or are you looking for a better brand or just to change the air??, I really would like to know.

Reply 32

Lalafell