Durham, Leeds, SOAS, Queen Mary---which Economics course should I choose?
Hi everyone, here are the list of offer I've got:
Durham- Economics & Mathematics A*AA
SOAS- Economics & Development Study AAA
Queen Mary- Economics, Statistics, Mathematics AAB
Leeds- Asian Pacific Study & Economics AAB
My questions are:
1. For working in Finance industry, which one should be the best choice?
2. For being scholar like university professor, which would you recommend?
3. How much is the tuition fee of Durham's course? When I check the official website, it shows £17900 as it is Natural Science. But on another page, it shows 14000 as it is lecture-based. No answer for my question to the fee status admission...= =
4. I myself prefer Durham, while friends and my families think that London is better as it offer you more chances for jobs. Can you tell me normally, what graduates do after studying Eco & Maths?
Thank you very much!! > <
Durham- Economics & Mathematics A*AA
SOAS- Economics & Development Study AAA
Queen Mary- Economics, Statistics, Mathematics AAB
Leeds- Asian Pacific Study & Economics AAB
My questions are:
1. For working in Finance industry, which one should be the best choice?
2. For being scholar like university professor, which would you recommend?
3. How much is the tuition fee of Durham's course? When I check the official website, it shows £17900 as it is Natural Science. But on another page, it shows 14000 as it is lecture-based. No answer for my question to the fee status admission...= =
4. I myself prefer Durham, while friends and my families think that London is better as it offer you more chances for jobs. Can you tell me normally, what graduates do after studying Eco & Maths?
Thank you very much!! > <
Original post by Amy6095
My questions are:
1. For working in Finance industry, which one should be the best choice?
My questions are:
1. For working in Finance industry, which one should be the best choice?
Little between them, particularly Durham, Leeds and Queen Mary. Most would say Durham has the edge, pointing to it having more of what I'd call "superficial" prestige (top five/ten in league tables, historic, very middle class) but, in all honesty, I don't think there's will be a significant difference. Your degree, and yourself as a person, matter more.
In terms of course content, Durham and Queen Mary are the only two with fully . As SOAS and Leeds are joint honours (with social science subjects). How much having a degree with less maths/stats/economics content would disadvantage you in Finance I can't say, though I wager not a great deal.
I can move this to the Finance forum instead where those who are more experienced in Finance can comment? Ultimately it's probably better there anywhere for these reasons. But if you want to ask something specific about Durham then feel free to post in the Durham forum
2. For being scholar like university professor, which would you recommend?
It's irrelevant. Where you get your undergraduate degree from has little to no relevance when it comes to Master's/Doctorate study. You will be able to get a postgraduate place at any university in the country with a degree from one of those universities IF you have the academic background. No one degree will give you any more of an advantage over the other
Once you've finished a PhD, and get your first post-doctororal position, the name matters even less. What will matter is how many publications you've published and their quality. In other words, your research.
Like I said earlier, what might be of importance is how quantitative/numerical your degree is, if applying for postgraduate study in Economics. So in this case Durham and Queen Mary might be the better choices. But, again, the Leeds and SOAS degree won't put you at a disadvantage providing the economics modules they do contain are still numerical enough.
So in terms of how the university name itself will be perceived in postgraduate applications it doesn't matter. Degree subject there's still probably no difference.
So, given this, far better chose the location and course your prefer. That way you should be as motivated as possible and gain the best degree you can. At least in theory.
3. How much is the tuition fee of Durham's course? When I check the official website, it shows £17900 as it is Natural Science. But on another page, it shows 14000 as it is lecture-based. No answer for my question to the fee status admission...
Checking the website now says that fees have not been set yet for next academic year.
I'd try contacting admissions again.
4. I myself prefer Durham, while friends and my families think that London is better as it offer you more chances for jobs. Can you tell me normally, what graduates do after studying Eco & Maths?
Thank you very much!! > <
Thank you very much!! > <
No. Durham is sufficiently well targeted by firms, perhaps more than Queen Mary (and certainly more than SOAS). It is still one of the country's strongest universities so its graduates tend to be well represented.
I've never understood the argument that a London university gives better career prospects. It can have some truth in the sense that vacation schemes and internships (during summer holidays) are more accessible if already living in London, but even then financial firms will have regional offices you can work at. You're very unlikely to bump into the head of recruitment at firm x while waiting for the Tube in London, get talking, and get offered a job.
Original post by River85
Your degree, and yourself as a person, matter more.
I've never understood the argument that a London university gives better career prospects. It can have some truth in the sense that vacation schemes and internships (during summer holidays) are more accessible if already living in London, but even then financial firms will have regional offices you can work at. You're very unlikely to bump into the head of recruitment at firm x while waiting for the Tube in London, get talking, and get offered a job.
I've never understood the argument that a London university gives better career prospects. It can have some truth in the sense that vacation schemes and internships (during summer holidays) are more accessible if already living in London, but even then financial firms will have regional offices you can work at. You're very unlikely to bump into the head of recruitment at firm x while waiting for the Tube in London, get talking, and get offered a job.
)
Thank you very much! What you've said is really helpful.Actually I still don't know what I want do in the future while choices I make today do connect to my future life, so it's difficult for me to make a decision.
But anyway, I am more inclined to make Durham as my first choice after reading your reply
Once again, thank you~ BTW, are you a student of Durham? Nothing else just curious.
Original post by Amy6095)Thank you very much! What you've said is really helpful.
Actually I still don't know what I want do in the future while choices I make today do connect to my future life, so it's difficult for me to make a decision.
But anyway, I am more inclined to make Durham as my first choice after reading your reply Once again, thank you~
BTW, are you a student of Durham? Nothing else just curious.
)Thank you very much! What you've said is really helpful.Actually I still don't know what I want do in the future while choices I make today do connect to my future life, so it's difficult for me to make a decision.
But anyway, I am more inclined to make Durham as my first choice after reading your reply
Once again, thank you~ BTW, are you a student of Durham? Nothing else just curious.
I've got an offer for Natural sciences Maths & Econ too!!
straight forward answer: QUEEN MARY!
The reputation of the Economics department at QM is by far! better than all these other universities listed. Durham is extremely poor in Economics.
Queen Mary has a well established Dept in Economics and excellent staff teaching "quants".
In terms of quant. subjects QM is approx. on the same level as University College and you if you do well at QM you may have a good chance for a job in the city. Go for Queen Mary!
The reputation of the Economics department at QM is by far! better than all these other universities listed. Durham is extremely poor in Economics.
Queen Mary has a well established Dept in Economics and excellent staff teaching "quants".
In terms of quant. subjects QM is approx. on the same level as University College and you if you do well at QM you may have a good chance for a job in the city. Go for Queen Mary!
Hi, I'm a Durham graduate (Philosophy and Politics), yes.
To call a department which has a teaching rating of 24 out of 24 in the last teaching assessment (which is admittedly outdated) as extremely poor seems odd.
To put it simply, research is not one of Durham's major research strengths, but I always thought of undergraduate teaching as being comparable.
Queen Mary does have a good economics department, admittedly.
Nevertheless, the OP's chosen course at Durham is Natural Sciences/Economics+Maths. I see the difference in economics as being more pronounced in research than teaching, and research has a very arguable influence on undergraduates.
I don't feel the difference between the two is significant to influence someone to go to "the other" university, if they have a clear preference (and I'd say this if it was Queen Mary the OP preferred and a different course, as I've regularly done).
Can you provide a link to explain this, please? What exactly are you referring to as "quants". At first I thought you mean quantifiers, but by the "quant subjects" I assume you mean quantitative. If so then, yes, I do hear of Durham's course as being a little less quantitative than some. I'm not sure how valid such concerns are, though.
Plus, the OP is studying it jointly with maths.
[QUOTE]you if you do well at QM you may have a good chance for a job in the city. Go for Queen Mary![/QUOTE
If someone does well at Durham they may have a good chance for a job in "the city". The same goes for any Russell Group university. If anything Durham is more targeted than Queen Mary (ask in the Investment Banking thread).
Original post by EmilioAlzamora
The reputation of the Economics department at QM is by far! better than all these other universities listed. Durham is extremely poor in Economics.
To call a department which has a teaching rating of 24 out of 24 in the last teaching assessment (which is admittedly outdated) as extremely poor seems odd.
To put it simply, research is not one of Durham's major research strengths, but I always thought of undergraduate teaching as being comparable.
Queen Mary does have a good economics department, admittedly.
Nevertheless, the OP's chosen course at Durham is Natural Sciences/Economics+Maths. I see the difference in economics as being more pronounced in research than teaching, and research has a very arguable influence on undergraduates.
I don't feel the difference between the two is significant to influence someone to go to "the other" university, if they have a clear preference (and I'd say this if it was Queen Mary the OP preferred and a different course, as I've regularly done).
In terms of quant. subjects QM is approx. on the same level as University College and you if you do well at QM you may have a good chance for a job in the city. Go for Queen Mary!
Queen Mary has a well established Dept in Economics and excellent staff teaching "quants".
Can you provide a link to explain this, please? What exactly are you referring to as "quants". At first I thought you mean quantifiers, but by the "quant subjects" I assume you mean quantitative. If so then, yes, I do hear of Durham's course as being a little less quantitative than some. I'm not sure how valid such concerns are, though.
Plus, the OP is studying it jointly with maths.
[QUOTE]you if you do well at QM you may have a good chance for a job in the city. Go for Queen Mary![/QUOTE
If someone does well at Durham they may have a good chance for a job in "the city". The same goes for any Russell Group university. If anything Durham is more targeted than Queen Mary (ask in the Investment Banking thread).
well, it seems that you simply have no idea about Economics at all & the quality of the staff between QM vs. Durham.
There will be a new ranking this year, admittedly the RAE 2008 is somewhat superseded, I agree, but Durham have not even handed in any research for Economics compared to QM. Compare the current staff of the the two universities (I mean the background of each lecturer/professor and in which journals they have published and so forth) and you'll notice that a QM degree in Economics is by far!! more valuable than a Durham degree.
http://www.rae.ac.uk/results/qualityProfile.aspx?id=34&type=uoa
"Quants" means "Quantitative subjects" related to topics in Economics.
You simply follow the general that Durham is more "targeted"; on the whole (Durham as an entire university) this istrue, but it does definitely not hold for Economics. In terms of the quality of what and how!! it is taught a Durham degree in Economics is very poor compared to QM.
We are only comparing these two univ. now, I am not talking about the fact that you could get a "better" education in Economics at the LSE, Warwick, Oxbrige, Exeter, UCL and Bath.
People simply look at the overall rankings, but do not look at the quality of the staff. If you look at the "GeneralUniversityGuide" you will notice that in the subject ranking "Economics" Durham is slightly higher ranked than QM, yes, but if you look at the Research Quality there is glaring difference in favour of QM and that is what really counts in the end. The quality of the "research" of a Department.
There will be a new ranking this year, admittedly the RAE 2008 is somewhat superseded, I agree, but Durham have not even handed in any research for Economics compared to QM. Compare the current staff of the the two universities (I mean the background of each lecturer/professor and in which journals they have published and so forth) and you'll notice that a QM degree in Economics is by far!! more valuable than a Durham degree.
http://www.rae.ac.uk/results/qualityProfile.aspx?id=34&type=uoa
"Quants" means "Quantitative subjects" related to topics in Economics.
You simply follow the general that Durham is more "targeted"; on the whole (Durham as an entire university) this istrue, but it does definitely not hold for Economics. In terms of the quality of what and how!! it is taught a Durham degree in Economics is very poor compared to QM.
We are only comparing these two univ. now, I am not talking about the fact that you could get a "better" education in Economics at the LSE, Warwick, Oxbrige, Exeter, UCL and Bath.
People simply look at the overall rankings, but do not look at the quality of the staff. If you look at the "GeneralUniversityGuide" you will notice that in the subject ranking "Economics" Durham is slightly higher ranked than QM, yes, but if you look at the Research Quality there is glaring difference in favour of QM and that is what really counts in the end. The quality of the "research" of a Department.
Original post by marthawyt
I've got an offer for Natural sciences Maths & Econ too!!
Wow congratulations! Would you choose Durham as the firm choice?
[QUOTE="River85;46090138"]Hi, I'm a Durham graduate (Philosophy and Politics), yes.
To call a department which has a teaching rating of 24 out of 24 in the last teaching assessment (which is admittedly outdated) as extremely poor seems odd.
To put it simply, research is not one of Durham's major research strengths, but I always thought of undergraduate teaching as being comparable.
Queen Mary does have a good economics department, admittedly.
Nevertheless, the OP's chosen course at Durham is Natural Sciences/Economics+Maths. I see the difference in economics as being more pronounced in research than teaching, and research has a very arguable influence on undergraduates.
I don't feel the difference between the two is significant to influence someone to go to "the other" university, if they have a clear preference (and I'd say this if it was Queen Mary the OP preferred and a different course, as I've regularly done).
Can you provide a link to explain this, please? What exactly are you referring to as "quants". At first I thought you mean quantifiers, but by the "quant subjects" I assume you mean quantitative. If so then, yes, I do hear of Durham's course as being a little less quantitative than some. I'm not sure how valid such concerns are, though.
Plus, the OP is studying it jointly with maths.
Thank you both for your replies. Both of you really help me a lot!
I first chose LSE, Durham, Bath, SOAS and Leeds. Later I substituted Bath for QM because I heard that Bath is difficult to graduate from, plus in my opinion studying in London does help you get relatively more resources. But after the UCAS replication, I gradually recognize that I actually prefer to study in a peaceful place like Durham, which is also beautiful, to make myself settle down and concentrate on my study. London is wonderful but distractive, therefor I think studying master course in London or Cambridge would be better while during undergraduate, Durham is more suitable for me.
Actually, when I was in my home country, I was a student of art who learned subjects like History, Politics and geography. But because of my poor English, I could not study my favourite subject History in 1-year A-level but Economics, which I am also interested in. So courses in SOAS and Leeds are more interesting than those in Durham and QM, for me. But as River85 said, I finally decide to choose Durham as the firm choice.
I don't really care about whether I can get a job from the financial city but whether I can learn something real which can help me to gain a better understanding of the world. My family would prefer me take a course with more career prospective, I agree with them. But I still want to give a chance to my interest, so I will make a decision of the insurance between Leeds and SOAS, by visiting the school myself. I agree--but I hate those rankings now. Any university can not be represented by just figures.
Anyway, I know what I should do now.
Once again, thank you all very much
To call a department which has a teaching rating of 24 out of 24 in the last teaching assessment (which is admittedly outdated) as extremely poor seems odd.
To put it simply, research is not one of Durham's major research strengths, but I always thought of undergraduate teaching as being comparable.
Queen Mary does have a good economics department, admittedly.
Nevertheless, the OP's chosen course at Durham is Natural Sciences/Economics+Maths. I see the difference in economics as being more pronounced in research than teaching, and research has a very arguable influence on undergraduates.
I don't feel the difference between the two is significant to influence someone to go to "the other" university, if they have a clear preference (and I'd say this if it was Queen Mary the OP preferred and a different course, as I've regularly done).
Can you provide a link to explain this, please? What exactly are you referring to as "quants". At first I thought you mean quantifiers, but by the "quant subjects" I assume you mean quantitative. If so then, yes, I do hear of Durham's course as being a little less quantitative than some. I'm not sure how valid such concerns are, though.
Plus, the OP is studying it jointly with maths.
you if you do well at QM you may have a good chance for a job in the city. Go for Queen Mary
