Oxford vs. free education.

Original post by janjanmmm

Well, the actual cost for Oxford is 65 000 pounds or 110 000 dollars, and the actual cost for Freiburg (considering the cost of living, since there is nothing else) is 20 000 dollars or thereabouts, so the difference is, like I said, 90 000 dollars or almost 60 000 pounds, not 30 000. This is the result of tuition fees (36 000 pounds), higher cost of living (mainly housing, since I can not compare the other costs) and 4% origination fee I have to pay on PLUS loans (I can actually cough up 20 000 myself, so there is zero origination fee).

For what it's worth (though I suppose it won't really have any impact on your decision): living in Freiburg isn't particularly cheap by German standards, but living costs will still be quite a bit lower than in Oxford. Food, for example, will definitely be cheaper.

Regarding your main dilemma, I suppose it really depends on how badly you want to do economics. :dontknow:

Reply 22

Original post by Sternumator

There is massive potential for economics, there is so much we dont know and so much to learn. You say it will only model society better and not help but if we understand how society works then we can use it to make better decisions.

Economics will never be that much more useful than it is already, because markets are inherently chaotic and every model has its limitations on how realistic it is in the first place. Physics is different because objects stick to the same laws every time they do something, economies and people don't. The experiment you were thinking of was used to confirm relativity by the way.

And to the OP, I'd go to Freiburg if I were you.

Reply 23

hobnob

No you don't. The only difference is that successful DPhil applicants who have already completed an MPhil at Oxford are normally given DPhil status straight away (as opposed to starting out as a PRS and transferring at the end of their first year). That's not really a massive advantage, though.

Original post by TBD

Do you need the Oxford MPhil to progress to the Oxford PhD ? Oxford Phds are not cheap either so unless you want to pauper yourself for the rest of your life then I would go to Freiburg for this stage and maybe Oxford later if you still feel the need.

Reply 24

Never mind food. I can confirm that the important stuff in life is significantly cheaper in Freiburg than Oxford. Using The Turf, Kings Arms and Chequers as yardsticks.

Expect to pay about 2.8EUR in Baden-Württemberg for a 0,5l beer. It is also a wine-growing area. Which is nice.

TBD

Original post by hobnob

For what it's worth (though I suppose it won't really have any impact on your decision): living in Freiburg isn't particularly cheap by German standards, but living costs will still be quite a bit lower than in Oxford. Food, for example, will definitely be cheaper.

Regarding your main dilemma, I suppose it really depends on how badly you want to do economics. :dontknow:

Reply 25

hobnob

Fair point. :p:

And yes, it's a very good wine region, though I'm not too sure whether most students would care too much about the quality aspect... :wink:

Original post by TBD

Never mind food. I can confirm that the important stuff in life is significantly cheaper in Freiburg than Oxford. Using The Turf, Kings Arms and Chequers as yardsticks.

Expect to pay about 2.8EUR in Baden-Württemberg for a 0,5l beer. It is also a wine-growing area. Which is nice.

Reply 26

The Mr Z

13

Original post by TBD

Never mind food. I can confirm that the important stuff in life is significantly cheaper in Freiburg than Oxford. Using The Turf, Kings Arms and Chequers as yardsticks.

Expect to pay about 2.8EUR in Baden-Württemberg for a 0,5l beer. It is also a wine-growing area. Which is nice.

TBD

You forget that in Oxford there are college bars with much lower prices. Expect to pay no more than £2 for a pint, so really it's the same price.

Reply 27

But it gets better, in terms of cultural experience , you are close to Alsace (which is currently in France) which produces the best white wine in the world in my opinion. Or you can head a couple of hours south and be bored witless in Zürich or an hour further for skiing.

My feeling is that in terms of lifestyle you would have a lot more fun as a student in Freiburg than you would in the living museum that is Oxford.

TBD

Original post by hobnob

Fair point. :p:

And yes, it's a very good wine region, though I'm not too sure whether most students would care too much about the quality aspect... :wink:

Reply 28

Sorry I was quoting the tourist price in Freiburg for beer. Students pay a lot less.
There is a local byelaw that states that at least one soft drink must be served that is cheaper than the beer...

TBD

Original post by The Mr Z

You forget that in Oxford there are college bars with much lower prices. Expect to pay no more than £2 for a pint, so really it's the same price.

Reply 29

ddrrzzeerr

17

Original post by LeeC

Economics will never be that much more useful than it is already, because markets are inherently chaotic and every model has its limitations on how realistic it is in the first place. Physics is different because objects stick to the same laws every time they do something, economies and people don't. The experiment you were thinking of was used to confirm relativity by the way.

And to the OP, I'd go to Freiburg if I were you.

Models have there limitations and that is why we can improve them. Like I said before, the difference is in economics you dont know if it follows the same laws every time because you cant repeat stuff you dont really have the same thing more than once. People respond in the same way to incentives and we can model this. We will never understand it perfectly because there is just too much stuff going on at once and not enough data to work with but we can understand it better which will make it much more useful.

Things in physics don't always do the same thing for example in nuclear physics. People could have timed when an atom decays, found out it decays at different times every time and then said 'well we have no idea when its going to decay, we will probably never know so we may as well give up on the whole subject now'. We still don't know when an atom will decay but nuclear physics is much more useful now than back then.

Reply 30

Origami Bullets

19

Original post by janjanmmm

I am a US citizen, my tuition is going to be 18 000 pounds per year (15 500 university and 2500 college fee), so it is 36 000 tuition plus 26 000 living expenses (13000 per year) plus 4% loan origination fee = 65 000 pounds total.

£13000 is still a bit high - if you're living a student lifestyle, then you don't need to budget more than £8000 (£9000 if you want to live in relative luxury and never lift a finger in terms of part time / holiday work)

Reply 31

Original post by Sternumator

1) Models have there limitations and that is why we can improve them. Like I said before, the difference is in economics you dont know if it follows the same laws every time because you cant repeat stuff you dont really have the same thing more than once. 2) People respond in the same way to incentives and we can model this. 3)We will never understand it perfectly because there is just too much stuff going on at once and not enough data to work with but we can understand it better which will make it much more useful.

4)Things in physics don't always do the same thing for example in nuclear physics. People could have timed when an atom decays, found out it decays at different times every time and then said 'well we have no idea when its going to decay, we will probably never know so we may as well give up on the whole subject now'. We still don't know when an atom will decay but nuclear physics is much more useful now than back then.

1) Something having limitations does not mean that you can improve it.

2) No, people respond very differently to incentives depending on culture, upbringing, education and a million other things. You can assume that they all act the same and this is a huge limitation of the model that you will never be able to overcome, hence why I said economic models will never be much more useful than they are today.

3) Exactly, this is why the models will never be much more accurate than they are today.

4)I didn't say they do the same thing every time I said they obey the same laws of physics all the time.

Reply 32

sj27

Original post by LeeC

1) Something having limitations does not mean that you can improve it.

2) No, people respond very differently to incentives depending on culture, upbringing, education and a million other things. You can assume that they all act the same and this is a huge limitation of the model that you will never be able to overcome, hence why I said economic models will never be much more useful than they are today.

3) Exactly, this is why the models will never be much more accurate than they are today.

I don't want to sidetrack this thread much more, but this is...well, rubbish. Are you even aware of the current developments in modeling and what people are doing? Can you honestly say, after the events of the past few years, that people cannot improve on models of the financial sector and its impacts? Do you think no-one is working on this? I could go on...suffice to say you sound like one of those guys who went around in the mid-80s saying that computing technology had gone about as far as it would ever go.

Reply 33

Original post by sj27

I don't want to sidetrack this thread much more, but this is...well, rubbish. Are you even aware of the current developments in modeling and what people are doing? Can you honestly say, after the events of the past few years, that people cannot improve on models of the financial sector and its impacts? Do you think no-one is working on this? I could go on...suffice to say you sound like one of those guys who went around in the mid-80s saying that computing technology had gone about as far as it would ever go.

Much like how you can't predict the weather more than a week in advance, accurate, large scale, long term economic predictions will never be possible due to chaos. The guy seems to think that it's just a matter of time before we get an amazing economic model that means economics will become an exact science, it won't happen. I'm being realistic not pessimistic. I never said models couldn't be improved upon, and I know people are working on it, that's just a straw man. Suffice to say you sound like one of those guys in the 70s who thought everyone would have flying cars by 1995.

So what's the most accurate model at the moment?

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 34

sj27

Original post by LeeC

I never said models couldn't be improved upon,

So what exactly did you mean by point 1 in the post I answered then? Sounded like you said precisely that.

I'm well aware that economics isn't a proper science and actually i don't place much store in people who believe in models rather than using them as a tool. I also happen to think the current trend of economics education in churning out people who seem to think that because they're smart at maths they can model anything is misguided, but that's a lack in other areas of economics not being focused on rather than a critique of modeling per se. But some of your 'objections' to the limitations of models (your point 2) are already being in incorporated into them and have been for a while now, so you do seem a bit behind the times. Anything else you want to backtrack on?

Reply 35

Ghost6

Original post by TBD

My feeling is that in terms of lifestyle you would have a lot more fun as a student in Freiburg than you would in the living museum that is Oxford.

TBD

I disagree. Oxford students get to live in colleges which are generally very well located and which provide tons of perks to students. In Europe most students commute and don't really enjoy a student experience that is comparable to that of the collegiate and campus universities. It will definitely be harder to feel part of a community as a foreign student in this environment as most other local students will already have their own friends. And €2.8 for beer ain't cheap by any means, its really expensive actually, that is the price of a meal at an Oxbridge college.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 36

Original post by sj27

So what exactly did you mean by point 1 in the post I answered then? Sounded like you said precisely that.

I'm well aware that economics isn't a proper science and actually i don't place much store in people who believe in models rather than using them as a tool. I also happen to think the current trend of economics education in churning out people who seem to think that because they're smart at maths they can model anything is misguided, but that's a lack in other areas of economics not being focused on rather than a critique of modeling per se. But some of your 'objections' to the limitations of models (your point 2) are already being in incorporated into them and have been for a while now, so you do seem a bit behind the times. Anything else you want to backtrack on?

1)Something having limitations does not mean that you can improve it.

Well I meant exactly that! This doesn't say that things can't be improved upon! It says something being bad is a reason that it can be improved upon, which is what the guy said. Something might be the best it can be, but still be bad. Where did I backtrack?

Regarding my point 2, please show me a model where the preferences of individual people based on culture, upbringing or whatever are accurately included in the model?

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 37

sj27

Original post by LeeC

1)Something having limitations does not mean that you can improve it.

Well I meant exactly that! This doesn't say that things can't be improved upon! It says something being bad is a reason that it can be improved upon, which is what the guy said. Something might be the best it can be, but still be bad. Where did I backtrack?

Regarding my point 2, please show me a model where the preferences of individual people based on culture, upbringing or whatever are accurately included in the model?

You should learn to express yourself better. You use exactly the same sentence except with the word "can" in one instance and "can't" in the next.

As to the models, ones where these matter tend to be micro econometric models. There are thousands out there, and probably at least half of those if not more are proprietary to various companies or consultancies. You do understand, don't you, that for macro models you only need to model the average person, or at best some average subgroups of people? Or maybe you don't. Whatever, why don't you take your diatribe to the economics forum, and leave this thread to the OP's stated question?

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 38

To disagree is your perogative. Remember the OP will be a foreigner in either of the two university towns.

Please don't try and tell me that the hugely-expensive Oxford experience is likely to be a frugal one when compared with a German university that has similar subsidised student perks.

Regarding the price of beer, I refer you to my previous post (clarification).

TBD

Original post by Ghost6

I disagree. Oxford students get to live in colleges which are generally very well located and which provide tons of perks to students. In Europe most students commute and don't really enjoy a student experience that is comparable to that of the collegiate and campus universities. It will definitely be harder to feel part of a community as a foreign student in this environment as most other local students will already have their own friends. And €2.8 for beer ain't cheap by any means, its really expensive actually, that is the price of a meal at an Oxbridge college.

Reply 39