[Econla]

(Original post by Lalafell)
I agree that the research power of Cambridge was on decline in the 2000s. Yet, over the past few years, Cambridge is very active in investing in recruiting the top professors around the world. Currently, Cambridge has the best and some of the best macroeconometrician in the UK (Pasaran, Harvey, R.J. Smith and others). It has head hunted professors from other top universities across the world.

The sharp decline in LSE's ranking on IDEAS was exactly due to the fact that some of the top 5% economists of the school left the school over the past few years, as the ranking depends solely on the publications and other research indicators of an institution's professors. For example, Cam headhunted Professor Oliver from LSE, one of the best political economists and microeconometrician in the world.

Further, it is a fact that it is much harder to get into Oxbridge than getting into LSE and UCL (not mentioning Warwick here cos it is trivial as it admits loads of 2:1 ex-poly). In terms of job prospects, I don't think UCL and Warwick can compare with Oxbridge and LSE Econ graduates. And I am saying from the position of a UCL econ graduate. The social presitige of having an econ master degree from Oxbridge and LSE is greater than having a UCL degree (once again, not mentioning Warwick cos it is trivial).

Nevertheless, it is true that all top econ departments have their own strengths and weaknesses. And Econla is somewhat wrong. Finance is not the key strength of Cam. But rather time series, macroeconomics and macroeconomic policies are. And UCL is indeed the best in microeconometrics and industrial organization in the UK.

Funny, you have a post where you state that in rigour would be LSE EME > Cam Research > UCL > LSE Msc Econ = Cam (plain vanilla option).

[sj27]

(Original post by Econla)
Funny, you have a post where you state that in rigour would be LSE EME > Cam Research > UCL > LSE Msc Econ = Cam (plain vanilla option).

Have you not figured out the trend of his posts yet?

[kka25]

(Original post by mrory)

For example, some may find interesting that your favorite professor told you that all of the above programs were crap and that a tier three state school in Kentucky was your best bet. Why don't we care in this thread? For one, you're lying. You never asked your professor. And secondly, your professor doesn't know what he is talking about, because he went to some tier three state school in Kentucky.

But, lets get serious. Most of the so called 'facts' you've cited are not credible as well. How can you be sure yourself that you will get the best outcome from the programme? How do you even know the programme suits you? How do you know the teaching is not crappy (LSE is famous for this)? How do you know the supervision is going to be excellent by these famous supervisors? Some of these so-called brilliant minds won't even have the time to supervise you. How would you know they might help you to do your PG? How do you know they will be supportive? Personally how? There are a lot of questions the facts you cited can't answer really.

[Econla]

(Original post by kka25)


But, lets get serious. Most of the so called 'facts' you've cited are not credible as well. How can you be sure yourself that you will get the best outcome from the programme? How do you even know the programme suits you? How do you know the teaching is not crappy (LSE is famous for this)? How do you know the supervision is going to be excellent by these famous supervisors? Some of these so-called brilliant minds won't even have the time to supervise you. How would you know they might help you to do your PG? How do you know they will be supportive? Personally how? There are a lot of questions the facts you cited can't answer really.

Absolutely agree with you!!!!!.....Furthermore for just a Msc I think it is very hard to compare since they will teach you almost the same!!...It is a foundation programme, so trying to differentiate between 2 programmes it's only usefull about some course that is taught here but not there. All of them would probably use MCW for Micro I, Romer for Macro I, Sargent, J. Cochrane, etc etc.

I think that if you want to compare between departments it is usefull only for Phd or research purposes. There you can have big differences because of the strengths of each school and supervisors availables in function of your interests, but for a Msc it makes no sense.

Obviously, Oxford and Cambridge are superbrands almost in everything and it's nice to have these names in your cv because they give you some kind of social status but this not imply that per se their programmes are best than their pairs in LSE or UCL for example.

[Econla]

(Original post by sj27)
Have you not figured out the trend of his posts yet?

[e1s]

you are comparing Oxford's PhD statistics and Cambridge's PhD statistics to LSE's master statistics ...

[Econla]

Guys, after a thorough research that included university overall ranking, department ranking, strengths in major sub-field, compulsory and elective courses, location, brand, job and Phd prospects, I arrived to the following ranking of the top 5 Master in Economics in UK:

1) Oxford (Super overall brand, 2 years = LORs and better preparation for Phd, many electives, strengths in almost all major sub-fields)

2) Cambridge (Super overall Brand, many electives, strengths in almost all major sub-fields)

3) LSE (Superbrand in Social Sciences, strengths in almost all major sub-fields, but the programme is so rigid. excellent location for jobs)

4) UCL (Good overall brand, strengths mainly in metrics and micro, but few for macro and finance despite it has some macro and finance electives. excellent location for jobs)

5) Warwick (strengths mainly in macro and finance. Poor location. A rising star)

Now if you are planning to go for a Phd and for example you want to do microeconometrics, then go to UCL because they are top in that particular field and so on, but if you are not clear about what you want to specialize in your Phd or just want to go to the private sector, I think this would be the order of where to go if you are targeting la créme de la créme of UK economics departments.

The only difference between Cam and Ox would be 1 yr vs 2 yr, otherwise I would place them even and then it would be just a thing of personal taste.

P.S: Note that I got admitted to UCL. I didn't take GRE so I have to pay the price (Couldn't apply to Oxbridge and LSE)

P.S 2: If we add LSE EME, then just for Phd purposes this would rank first and then Ox, Cam, UCL and Warwick.

[Econla]

I have to add that the quality of education of the programmes mentioned above are at the same level. Excellent professors and high rigour as expected, which means that for example, not for going to Cambridge a graduate of the programme will be a better economist than one from Warwick. Basically they will learn the same, with minimal variations just on the focus some professors give to their lectures.

[geesingsn]

This might not be the right place to ask, but just wondering:

Coming from continental Europe (NL) with a degree from a university with a good reputation in Economics & Econometrics (or so I was told, its Erasmus University) and having an undergraduate degree in Economics & Business Economics with a lot of additional coursework that makes one admittable to a Msc degree in Econometrics here in the Netherlands, does one even have a change to be accepted into any of these programmes (especially Oxford Mphil/LSE Mres)?

It seems like that with so many good applicants from the UK (first class degrees from Oxbridge, LSE) and Ivy League graduates from the US applying to prepare for a PhD, people from universities in continental Europe hardly stand a chance (especially for a programme like the Oxford Mphil which only accepts 30 or so)

[danny111]

(Original post by mrory)

2006 academic paper ranking schools by post-PhD placement record:
Oxford > LSE > Cambridge (Source)

Obviously the academic ranking statistics above are a little thin, so if anyone is aware of further statistics I would be very interested! Specifically on the following topics:

1. Placement statistics for PhD programs (e.g. "x% of the graduating class at M.Sc. in Economics at LSE went on to a top 10 US PhD", or something similar)
2. Research/Publications/Citations statistics for economics sub disciplines for each university's economics faculty (e.g. "Cambridge is third in the world for time series econometrics")

If anyone has seen credible statistics along these lines, please post with link to source.

Disclaimer: if you want to go to the US, you should go to Oxford or to LSE and do MSc EME. Oxford because its longer than a year meaning professors get to know you, you can apply with masters grades from first year. EME coz its the best.

ps not saying u wont make it from cambridge, 2 friends from LSE just did the MPhil at Cambridge, but what I said stays, 2 year advantage from Oxford and EME is the most prestigious, so just getting in means a LOT.

[danny111]

(Original post by Econla)
Guys, after a thorough research that included university overall ranking, department ranking, strengths in major sub-field, compulsory and elective courses, location, brand, job and Phd prospects, I arrived to the following ranking of the top 5 Master in Economics in UK:

1) Oxford (Super overall brand, 2 years = LORs and better preparation for Phd, many electives, strengths in almost all major sub-fields)

2) Cambridge (Super overall Brand, many electives, strengths in almost all major sub-fields)

3) LSE (Superbrand in Social Sciences, strengths in almost all major sub-fields, but the programme is so rigid. excellent location for jobs)

4) UCL (Good overall brand, strengths mainly in metrics and micro, but few for macro and finance despite it has some macro and finance electives. excellent location for jobs)

5) Warwick (strengths mainly in macro and finance. Poor location. A rising star)

Now if you are planning to go for a Phd and for example you want to do microeconometrics, then go to UCL because they are top in that particular field and so on, but if you are not clear about what you want to specialize in your Phd or just want to go to the private sector, I think this would be the order of where to go if you are targeting la créme de la créme of UK economics departments.

The only difference between Cam and Ox would be 1 yr vs 2 yr, otherwise I would place them even and then it would be just a thing of personal taste.

P.S: Note that I got admitted to UCL. I didn't take GRE so I have to pay the price (Couldn't apply to Oxbridge and LSE)

P.S 2: If we add LSE EME, then just for Phd purposes this would rank first and then Ox, Cam, UCL and Warwick.

And why do you think that is. And what do you think the first 2 years of a Phd in the US is like in terms of learning micro/macro/metrics...(I assume those 3 being compulsory and 3/4 of the course is your "rigidity").

[wadders24]

One thing that has been overlooked here is LSE's reputation as an institution.

Looking at RePEc ranking, in both the European and U.K. rankings, LSE is ranked higher than Oxford and Cambridge. Rather inconsistently, Oxford is ranked above LSE in the Global ranking of institutions??

Ranking of European Institutions: http://ideas.repec.org/top/top.europe.html

Ranking of Global Institutions: http://ideas.repec.org/top/top.toplevel.html

I would say that these rankings are largely irrelevant for the MSc and that there is very little difference between the reputations of Ox, Cam and LSE at master's level.

Although the UCL MSc is undoubtedly an excellent course (along with many other U.K. master's) I think it would lag slightly behind the three above only in that UCL maybe doesn't have as strong a global brand.

[Econla]

(Original post by wadders24)
Although the UCL MSc is undoubtedly an excellent course (along with many other U.K. master's) I think it would lag slightly behind the three above only in that UCL maybe doesn't have as strong a global brand.

So true!!!!!!!!, UCL doesn't have a strong brand, which is a shame if you see the caliber of its research. They should invest in branding.

[Econla]

(Original post by danny111)
And why do you think that is. And what do you think the first 2 years of a Phd in the US is like in terms of learning micro/macro/metrics...(I assume those 3 being compulsory and 3/4 of the course is your "rigidity").

LSE Msc has only 1 elective course. Not everybody wants to continue for a Phd, and if it's that the case, then probably I would choose EME 100 times before Msc in Econ.....in LSE.

[LisaJD]

(Original post by mrory)
I should also note (full disclosure) that I applied to all three schools this year, with the following results:
Oxford MPhil Economics => Rejection
Cambridge MPhil Econmics => Offer, accepted
LSE M.Sc. Finance and Economics => Offer, turned down

How did you apply to both oxford and cambridge? O.o

[sj27]

(Original post by LisaJD)
How did you apply to both oxford and cambridge? O.o

Because you can at postgrad level and many people do.

[danny111]

(Original post by sj27)
Because you can at postgrad level and many people do.

Not true. I applied to Cambridge only and I know others who only applied to one (they actually wanted to go to. If you come from a top UK uni and you have the grades and you know you will get LORs that are good, then you will get into your uni of choice, unless you are applying to EME from outside LSE).

[Econla]

(Original post by danny111)
Not true. I applied to Cambridge only and I know others who only applied to one (they actually wanted to go to. If you come from a top UK uni and you have the grades and you know you will get LORs that are good, then you will get into your uni of choice, unless you are applying to EME from outside LSE).

Man, who cares if you were invited by cambridge, maybe you are a rockstar and not like the rest of the world that needs to apply to more than 1. Try to practice humility!!!.....

P.s: you are too much for Cambridge



This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Econla]

(Original post by sj27)
Because you can at postgrad level and many people do.

That's right. Maybe at the time Of your application you are not so sure, or try to hedge your preferences.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[billydisco]

Why do yanks continue to call them schools and not universities...... or even - colleges???