[Budgie]

(Original post by Lalafell)
A quick look at the Ox Mphil 2008 Microeconometric and Macroeconometric notes found that they are indeed less technical.

You said you used Hayashi... but the 2008 lecture notes are defintiely not level as Hayashi.

http://www.oxford-mphil.com/index.ph...roeconometrics

Those are the applied notes (2 weeks of lectures); the core theory notes (9 weeks of lectures) are missing from that website, and are at the Hayashi level.

EDIT: in actual fact they are publicly available here: http://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/teaching/economics/bond/

[Lalafell]

(Original post by Budgie)
Those are the applied notes (2 weeks of lectures); the core theory notes (9 weeks of lectures) are missing from that website, and are at the Hayashi level.

EDIT: in actual fact they are publicly available here: http://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/teaching/economics/bond/

"2You are not authorized to view this page"

I can't get access to the page.

But I have the lecture note for Ox 2007 Microeconometric II, which is what people do in their second year MPhil. That seems to be right level for a top MPhil programme. But the first year is definitely less technical than Cam MPhil Economic Research, UCL MSc Economics, LSE EME. I have confirmed this from multiple sources. But as a fact, the Ox Mphil is one of the most prestigious MPhil in the world.

http://www.oxford-mphil.com/oxford-m...ear-models.pdf

[Budgie]

(Original post by Lalafell)
"2You are not authorized to view this page"

I can't get access to the page.

But I have the lecture note for Ox 2007 Microeconometric II, which is what people do in their second year MPhil. That seems to be right level for a top MPhil programme. But the first year is definitely less technical than Cam MPhil Economic Research, UCL MSc Economics, LSE EME. I have confirmed this from multiple sources. But as a fact, the Ox Mphil is one of the most prestigious MPhil in the world.

http://www.oxford-mphil.com/oxford-m...ear-models.pdf

Ah, shame. Having thought about it in the shower, I think it would be fair to characterise the first year of the M.Phil thus: in micro and econometrics, you do everything, plus a tad more, that you would do if you could take every most advanced theory option at undergrad. Thus, most people have covered some part of the course already, but nobody has covered all of the course, and you have to be sufficiently flexible that you can do all of it.

In macro it's different as, as you know, undergrad and grad tend to cover radically different content, so it's a bit harder to characterise.

Certainly I'd be very surprised if diploma years are as intense and advanced as 1st year on the M.Phil.

[Tucking Fypo]

When you apply, the admission tutor will usually get back to you to make sure you know how much Maths is involved if you don't have much of a quantitative background. For some courses, they may invite you to workshops or something to get your knowledge up to the right level but I don't know how common that is for something like Econ. Just know what you're getting yourself into tbh, it's a big investment.

[Lalafell]

(Original post by Budgie)
Ah, shame. Having thought about it in the shower, I think it would be fair to characterise the first year of the M.Phil thus: in micro and econometrics, you do everything, plus a tad more, that you would do if you could take every most advanced theory option at undergrad. Thus, most people have covered some part of the course already, but nobody has covered all of the course, and you have to be sufficiently flexible that you can do all of it.

In macro it's different as, as you know, undergrad and grad tend to cover radically different content, so it's a bit harder to characterise.

Certainly I'd be very surprised if diploma years are as intense and advanced as 1st year on the M.Phil.

That is exactly what I said at other posts in this thread. The Ox MPhil Econ is designed for people who do not necessarily have econ background and so the first year is fairly qualitative in order to develop people's economic intuition.

[Budgie]

(Original post by Lalafell)
That is exactly what I said at other posts in this thread. The Ox MPhil Econ is designed for people who do not necessarily have econ background and so the first year is fairly qualitative in order to develop people's economic intuition.

That's really not what I just said. And it is certainly not designed with that in mind - if there is a gap, then Oxford should address it, given that they do not state what you are saying anywhere and indeed give the opposite impression, saying that the M.Phil aims to be equivalent to the first two years of a U.S PhD (which are definitely not 'qualitative'). And a healthy majority of people on the course have very strong undergrad economics backgrounds.

EDIT: Sorry - I realise that you may have misread my original post. I meant you do the equivalent of just the advanced theory options at undergrad; you don't do anything more basic (indeed, one of my undergrad theory options at Oxford was explicitly characterised as aiming to be at the level of the first year M.Phil). The course is beyond an intermediate theory course; Oxford recommends that non-economists read an intermediate textbook before they arrive because of this.

[.ACS.]

(Original post by Budgie)
And it is certainly not designed with that in mind

I swear I read on either the Oxford website or in one of the pamphlets for the MPhil programme that it is exactly this - aimed at those without an undergraduate Economics background. (I'm not talking about the quantitiative merits; just that it's primarily aimed at non-econmists.)

[Lalafell]

(Original post by .ACS.)
I swear I read on either the Oxford website or in one of the pamphlets for the MPhil programme that it is exactly this - aimed at those without an undergraduate Economics background. (I'm not talking about the quantitiative merits; just that it's primarily aimed at non-econmists.)

Yes, either website or pamphlets. Actually, this was the first piece of information I got for the Ox MPhil.

Anyway, the Ox MPhil is extremely prestigious. And I am not so sure which of the Mphils will be more worthwhile

ACS, what is your opinion on the Cam MPhil and the Ox MPhil? I have seen you around for so many years XD I really want to know what you think.

[sj27]

(Original post by .ACS.)
I swear I read on either the Oxford website or in one of the pamphlets for the MPhil programme that it is exactly this - aimed at those without an undergraduate Economics background. (I'm not talking about the quantitiative merits; just that it's primarily aimed at non-econmists.)

So i decided to see what they had to say for themselves. Oxford MPhil website says it is aimed at those who do not have a good taught postgraduate degree in economics and, just like Budgie says, that it is meant to be comparable to the first two years of the best US PhD programmes. It would be extremely odd for a uni like Oxford to make that statement if it were misleading.

[Lalafell]

"Most students on the course have had their undergraduate studies devoted in whole or in part to economics, but we also have significant numbers with an undergraduate degree in other subjects. It is possible for students without exposure to formal economics (for example, students with an undergraduate degree in mathematics or the physical sciences) to do very well on the course. The two-year structure allows those without an undergraduate background in economics to develop a good understanding of the subject."

http://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/index...._in_economics/

On the prospectus. The wordings may be different from those in the previous prospctus or pamphlets. But the message is clear, significant number of people do not have undergradute economic background and traing will be given to those without undergraduate econ background. I do not remember the exact wordings I saw in the past. But they were something like "People do not necessarily require undergraduate econ background... the two-years structure is designed to accomodate such people" etc.

[Lalafell]

Anyway, stop this argument now.

We can change the topic to Ox vs Cam in terms of teaching, social life, etc...

I have never been to these two places and I need to decide between them.

[sj27]

(Original post by Lalafell)
Anyway, stop this argument now.

lol. what, because you don't like the way it's going? Anyway your own post shows that the people who don't have eco as background tend to have a quantitative background (maths, physics) which kind of defeats your argument about the maths. Incidentally you are aware that some of the top US PhD programmes also take students without an economics undergrad major, if they have majors in quantitative subjects?

As for

(Original post by Lalafell)
We can change the topic to Ox vs Cam in terms of teaching, social life, etc...

... why don't you start a new thread on this one rather than trying to hijack someone else's thread on a different topic??

[Lalafell]

(Original post by sj27)
lol. what, because you don't like the way it's going? Anyway your own post shows that the people who don't have eco as background tend to have a quantitative background (maths, physics) which kind of defeats your argument about the maths. Incidentally you are aware that some of the top US PhD programmes also take students without an economics undergrad major, if they have majors in quantitative subjects?

As for
... why don't you start a new thread on this one rather than trying to hijack someone else's thread on a different topic??

...

Dude, I said that the first year MPhil is fairy qualitative but not saying that the students in the first year MPhil don't have the quantitative background. Where did you see that I said that the people in the first year MPhil do not possess strong quantitative background? Without a solid background in maths and statitics, how could people get admitted into Ox Mphil Econ?? I still maintain my argument that the first year MPhil is fairly qualitative and I strongly believe that this is true...


Further, if you search my profile, you will see that I started a nrew thread about Ox vs. Cam a few days ago but there was only one person replied and my thread was removed to other part of the forum... Since there are many informative econ students here I asked the question again here...

One more thing, the whole 2008 MPhil Econ lecture notes are in the following site. If you can read them, you can indeed appreciate my point that the first year is failry qualitative.

http://www.oxford-mphil.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

[sj27]

(Original post by Lalafell)
...

Dude, I said that the first year MPhil is fairy qualitative but not saying that the students in the first year MPhil don't have the quantitative background. Where did you see that I said that the people in the first year MPhil do not possess strong quantitative background? Without a solid background in maths and statitics, how could people get admitted into Ox Mphil Econ?? I still maintain my argument that the first year MPhil is fairly qualitative and I strongly believe that this is true...


Further, if you search my profile, you will see that I started a nrew thread about Ox vs. Cam a few days ago but there was only one person replied and my thread was removed to other part of the forum... Since there are many informative econ students here I asked the question again here...

One more thing, the whole 2008 MPhil Econ lecture notes are in the following site. If you can read them, you can indeed appreciate my point that the first year is failry qualitative.

http://www.oxford-mphil.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Just because no-one answered your other thread doesn't give you the right to hijack someone else's. In any case, seeing as you seem to have a lot of criticism of the Oxford MPhil in this and other threads, apart from the "prestige" I don't know why you even appear to be considering it. fwiw I know quite a few more people who have done the Cam one than the Ox one, as well as someone who did MFE at Ox, apart from one person who left Ox after a term because he hated it all of them seem to have (a) enjoyed their time wherever they were and (b) feel they got what should have out of the courses.

[Lalafell]

(Original post by sj27)
Just because no-one answered your other thread doesn't give you the right to hijack someone else's. In any case, seeing as you seem to have a lot of criticism of the Oxford MPhil in this and other threads, apart from the "prestige" I don't know why you even appear to be considering it. fwiw I know quite a few more people who have done the Cam one than the Ox one, as well as someone who did MFE at Ox, apart from one person who left Ox after a term because he hated it all of them seem to have (a) enjoyed their time wherever they were and (b) feel they got what should have out of the courses.

Dude, you misunderstood once again... Where did you see that I am criticising the Ox MPhil? What I am saying is that the first year is fairly qualitative, in response to what Budgie insisting that the first year MPhil is highly mathematical and technical...


I have never made any point that the qualitative nature is bad. Actually, the qualitative nature of the first year has the merit that it allows one to have a better understanding of the theories and how to apply the theories to real world problem.

In contrast, I am quite against the UCL MSc Economics and LSE EME as they almost have no connection to the real world...