Msc Economics Admissions Guide (including a Warwick specific post)

Original post by laangleey

...
since i have very little formal maths training or modules done..will the two years program still be an option i can follow? i am eager to continue with my economics studies and am aware of the mathematical hurdle i must leap in order to achieve it...but the question is for the first year diploma coming in to this program must you have a basic understanding and aptitude for maths in which in the structure of the program will teach you the math you will need for the second year...or are you still expected to come in knowing alot of maths??
secondly what are the rates of people who fail in LSE's economics masters
and out of curiosity i am wondering is LSE considered a public or private university?
also i've read alot on the LSE websites but i don't have a full comprehension about how to proceed onto the PHD stage...can you do a masters and take a break and then proceed on to PHD?
lastly is LSE so impossibly hard that you have to be a genius to make it there? or can a hard worker still thrive there?
thanks for all your time and effort :smile:

I don't think you have any chance with LSE. Their program is highly mathematical and highly competitive, the fact that you could not do better than B in math and stats classes you took will automatically disqualify you, never mind the fact that you do not have enough math to begin with. There is a two weeks refresher program at the beginning, but it is not humanly possible to cover what is suppose to be two years of high level math in two weeks, this is really just to remind people who already covered the material what it was.

You do not have to be a genius to make it there, but you do need to have a solid math background and proven ability to achieve high grades in the subject.

Reply 442

wadders24

I have offers from the following schools - please help me rank them in terms of quality and value for money. My goal is to take the PhD, but I must also consider the case where I don't make the cut.

LSE - MSc Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
UCL- MSc Economics
Barcelona GSE - MSc Economics
Cambridge - MPhil Economic Research
Manchester - MSc Economics and Econometrics
York - MSc Economics
Birkbeck - MSc Economics

Any thoughts will be appreciated!!!

Reply 443

Original post by wadders24

I have offers from the following schools - please help me rank them in terms of quality and value for money. My goal is to take the PhD, but I must also consider the case where I don't make the cut.

LSE - MSc Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
UCL- MSc Economics
Barcelona GSE - MSc Economics
Cambridge - MPhil Economic Research
Manchester - MSc Economics and Econometrics
York - MSc Economics
Birkbeck - MSc Economics

Any thoughts will be appreciated!!!

Wow, you really killed it! Congrats.
LSE, Cambridge and Barcelona are your top choices, pick any one of them. Forget the rest.

Also if you do not mind - could you go to the decisions thread and leave the timeline for your applications?
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1925559

Reply 444

Hanshen

8

Original post by janjanmmm

Wow, you really killed it! Congrats.
LSE, Cambridge and Barcelona are your top choices, pick any one of them. Forget the rest.

Also if you do not mind - could you go to the decisions thread and leave the timeline for your applications?
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1925559

You wouldn't consider UCL? It is a research titan, and very high quality output. My housemate is an economist, he didn't even bother applying to Cambridge, went straight for LSE, UCL, Oxford and MIT. I'm not saying it's better, merely you shouldn't be so hasty to 'forget' it.

Anyway, I'd probably pick LSE or Cambridge out of that line up. For my money I'd take Cambridge due to the research element.

Reply 445

Original post by Hanshen

You wouldn't consider UCL? It is a research titan, and very high quality output. My housemate is an economist, he didn't even bother applying to Cambridge, went straight for LSE, UCL, Oxford and MIT. I'm not saying it's better, merely you shouldn't be so hasty to 'forget' it.

Anyway, I'd probably pick LSE or Cambridge out of that line up. For my money I'd take Cambridge due to the research element.

Don't get me wrong, UCL is an excellent school, but it is no match for Cambridge or LSE.
I have actually applied to UCL MSc Economics myself, (still no answer), but the reason I did not even try LSE and Cambridge for Economics is that they require GRE, and my quantitative result is not good enough for them.
I am yet to hear from Cambridge for Real Estate finance, and right now it is my top choice, regardless of whether or not UCL even gives me an offer, so I am speaking from my own point of view, obviously. But I would choose Cambridge any day, it is Number 1 school in the world now, and also one of top 10 for Economics. LSE for Economics is even better, more or less top 5:

http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2011/subject-rankings/social-sciences/economics

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 446

Overmars

17

There is a lot of bad advice here.

Wadders24, LSE EME is the strongest course there. It is unrivalled and the stand-out course, really. If you want to do a PhD, do that course. It is very well regarded in academic circles and you'll be favoured in your applications if you have done well in that course.

All the other economics masters from Cambridge, LSE (regular MSc Economics, not EME), UCL are roughly on the same level. All strong departments and all those master courses would carry a strong signal for PhD applications. I wouldn't consider any other UK ones (Manchester, York etc.). I don't know about other European courses (Barcelona) to comment.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 447

Original post by Overmars

There is a lot of bad advice here.

Wadders24, LSE EME is the strongest course there. It is unrivalled and the stand-out course, really. If you want to do a PhD, do that course. It is very well regarded in academic circles and you'll be favoured in your applications if you have done well in that course.

All the other economics masters from Cambridge, LSE (regular MSc Economics, not EME), UCL are roughly on the same level. All strong departments and all those master courses would carry a strong signal for PhD applications. I wouldn't consider any other UK ones (Manchester, York etc.). I don't know about other European courses (Barcelona) to comment.

Well, what's "a bad advice"? You pretty much repeated the same thing with a very slight variation.

Reply 448

Overmars

17

Original post by janjanmmm

Well, what's "a bad advice"? You pretty much repeated the same thing with a very slight variation.

"Don't get me wrong, UCL is an excellent school, but it is no match for Cambridge or LSE."

Reply 449

UCL MSc Economics is the second hardest Economics MSc in the UK (just after MSc Econometrics and Mathematical Economics)... you will need to work extremely hard to get a distinction if you wanna do a PhD afterwards...

Last year there were about 30% failed the MSc Economics...and the overall fail rate for the MSc Economics and MSc Economic Policy altogether is 20%, according to internal report.......

I can 100% guarantee what I am saying is the official figures...

Reply 450

Original post by Overmars

"Don't get me wrong, UCL is an excellent school, but it is no match for Cambridge or LSE."

You are advising him to go to LSE!

Original post by Overmars

Wadders24, LSE EME is the strongest course there. It is unrivalled and the stand-out course, really. If you want to do a PhD, do that course.

Reply 451

sj27

14

Original post by Lalafell

UCL MSc Economics is the second hardest Economics MSc in the UK (just after MSc Econometrics and Mathematical Economics)... you will need to work extremely hard to get a distinction if you wanna do a PhD afterwards...

Last year there were about 30% failed the MSc Economics...and the overall fail rate for the MSc Economics and MSc Economic Policy altogether is 20%, according to internal report.......

I can 100% guarantee what I am saying is the official figures...

Are you basing how hard the course is purely on the failure rate??

And do you have comparative data for the % of class obtaining distinctions at UCL, vs the other programmes?

Reply 452

Original post by sj27

Are you basing how hard the course is purely on the failure rate??

And do you have comparative data for the % of class obtaining distinctions at UCL, vs the other programmes?

Exactly, and also one has to keep in mind that it could also mean:

1) Bad teaching and unrealistic expectations
or/and
2) Lower acceptance standards, when people who are not ready get offers

I am not saying it is a fact, but basing anything on failure rate alone is quite ridiculous.

On the other hand, if the point is that the course is good, but too hard and it is wiser to choose something just as highly rated but not as demanding, - then it makes sense. All you need to know to stay away from a particular uni is that its failure rate does not match its relative reputation, the reasons for failure rate being so high don't really matter much.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 453

sj27

14

Original post by janjanmmm

Exactly, and also one has to keep in mind that it could also mean:

1) Bad teaching and unrealistic expectations
or/and
2) Lower acceptance standards, when people who are not ready get offers

I am not saying it is a fact, but basing anything on failure rate alone is quite ridiculous.

Precisely...if two courses have the same failure rate, but one has basically only admitted people who were at the top of their class, and the other (for argument's sake) admitted half of its class with 2:1s, you can't say they are "equally hard". Similarly, if the latter has a failure rate higher than the first, it doesn't mean it was "harder".

And re bad teaching - well, I'm sure we have all had experience of academics who might be brilliant at research, but just don't teach very well. (I once attended a lecture by an Economics Nobel prizewinner, and it was appalling.)

Reply 454

Original post by janjanmmm

Exactly, and also one has to keep in mind that it could also mean:

1) Bad teaching and unrealistic expectations
or/and
2) Lower acceptance standards, when people who are not ready get offers

I am not saying it is a fact, but basing anything on failure rate alone is quite ridiculous.

There were many confident people like you at the beginning of the course :frown:

I am just giving my candid evaluation. Believe or not, your choice. There is nothing to do with me though...

Reply 455

One more thing to say... the fact that UCL MSc Economics is very technical (relative to LSE MSc Economics, Warwick MSc Economics, Cambridge MPhil Economics) is nothing new...

If you search the Student Room you will collect loads of evidence about this issue.

Believe or not, your choice.

Reply 456

Original post by Lalafell

There were many confident people like you at the beginning of the course :frown:

I am just giving my candid evaluation. Believe or not, your choice. There is nothing to do with me though...

Like me? How am I "confident"?? All I am saying is that we do not know the reasons for these failures.

PLUS- read my edited version, I think I may have misunderstood your intention. In any case I was advising him not to go to UCL, and choose between Cambridge-LSE-Barcelona.

Reply 457

Original post by sj27

And re bad teaching - well, I'm sure we have all had experience of academics who might be brilliant at research, but just don't teach very well. (I once attended a lecture by an Economics Nobel prizewinner, and it was appalling.)

Yes, and I have noticed UCL to have strangely low student satisfaction ratings... Usually they are compensated by research/works published points, but gives one a food for thought.

Reply 458