PhD in economics Watch

davidbristol
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#21
Report 10 years ago
#21
TSReader, ask the majority of academics and you'll find out that hardly anyone thinks the RAE in it's current, past or future form adequately assess the quality of a department. As for Manchester there are several reasons why they don't get a high RAE rating which have nothing to do with the quality of the department. A massive factor is the number of publications staff members have in "leading journals" such as Econometrica. Now that's all good and well if you publish mainstream research - and it's why so many departments have changed their recruitment policy to employ academics who work on and publish a "certain type of research".

Economics is dominated by mathematical neo-classical approaches, and in turn it dominates the literature. This is not just me saying this - accross academia people understand the RAE is seriously flawed - but it's the only measure we have. Thus taking some care to look at the profiles of the staff members of a department can quite quickly show WHY a department has a low RAE rating. In Manchesters case many of their academics quite simply don't publish enough - [A] because they work on a relatively obscure area (Hist of Econ Thought) or [B] concentrate on teaching rather than research. Does this make them rubish? Of course not!

The RAE basically says which departments are publishing excellent articles in leading journals on main stream topics, now there's why Warwick, LSE, UCL and Oxbridge are so highly rated. If I where to go back into economics I'd personally want a department that was open minded and a rounded approach to economics.

For me the sense of alternative thinking is a great benefit to Manchester - and that's why any prospective PhD student should consider them.

On your comments about entry standards, EVERY department will vary them, even if their website says 1st only, in reality if you meet with an academic and can show them that you have something to other above their other candidates that's all that matters. They just want top students first, not some certificate.
0
reply
TSRreader
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#22
Report 10 years ago
#22
(Original post by davidbristol)
TSReader, ask the majority of academics and you'll find out that hardly anyone thinks the RAE in it's current, past or future form adequately assess the quality of a department. As for Manchester there are several reasons why they don't get a high RAE rating which have nothing to do with the quality of the department. A massive factor is the number of publications staff members have in "leading journals" such as Econometrica. Now that's all good and well if you publish mainstream research - and it's why so many departments have changed their recruitment policy to employ academics who work on and publish a "certain type of research".

Economics is dominated by mathematical neo-classical approaches, and in turn it dominates the literature. This is not just me saying this - accross academia people understand the RAE is seriously flawed - but it's the only measure we have. Thus taking some care to look at the profiles of the staff members of a department can quite quickly show WHY a department has a low RAE rating. In Manchesters case many of their academics quite simply don't publish enough - [A] because they work on a relatively obscure area (Hist of Econ Thought) or [B] concentrate on teaching rather than research. Does this make them rubish? Of course not!

The RAE basically says which departments are publishing excellent articles in leading journals on main stream topics, now there's why Warwick, LSE, UCL and Oxbridge are so highly rated. If I where to go back into economics I'd personally want a department that was open minded and a rounded approach to economics.

For me the sense of alternative thinking is a great benefit to Manchester - and that's why any prospective PhD student should consider them.

On your comments about entry standards, EVERY department will vary them, even if their website says 1st only, in reality if you meet with an academic and can show them that you have something to other above their other candidates that's all that matters. They just want top students first, not some certificate.
Agreed, RAE ranking is outdated. That's why I also posted other resources in addition to RAE. What I wanted to point out that's if you look at the other quite recent rankings, Manchester's mainstream research quality hasn't changed much to stand with the likes of LSE etc. The econphd ranking also includes Economic History of Thoughts so I think using such ranking would be quite fair on Manchester. I think I jumped the gun a bit by simply emphasizing RAE as the sole evidence to my conclusion.

I understand there's a general bias towards orthodox economics. But Manchester is orthodox so it wouldn't be unfair to compare it with other orthodox school. I doubt U Manchester is sacrificing research over teaching for economics. Manchester has its 2015 dream. It want to become world leading university by dramatically increasing its research than improving its teaching. Also, according to its research groups, they don't seem to research in obscure areas but actually quite popular areas in mainstream economics.
http://www.socialsciences.manchester...rag/index.html
Manchester research groups in Environmental and Resources Economics may seem to be the only uncommon one compared to other departments. But UC Berkeley have a renowned program in Agricultural and Resource Economics. If I am not mistaken, Berkeley's ARE is quite respected among the economic programs. So I don't think such research field will be considered as obscure. (Though it's possible I might be mistaken about Environmental Economics as I lack adequate knowledge about this field.)

I have no argument to state Manchester's Economics as 'crap' or rubbish. U Manchester's economic is known for its poverty research. I believe its chaired by Joseph Stigiliz so I am aware that's it's far from rubbish. Manchester's Economics group is good but not prestigious or top in mainstream. That's what I am trying to say. I speculate that other than their poverty and development group, U Manchester's other Economic group aren't as research active.

It's would be in best interest of a PhD prospective student to enter a department that can get you an active researcher in the interested field to supervise you. Again, another reason why I wouldn't recommend a PhD student to consider Manchester into a top uni list for economics. Unless you are studying economics in PhD for sole interest in the field without further desire to do research or teach, otherwise PhD placement is very important. Even in non-academia, IMF and World Bank, you barely seem any UK PhD placements not from the top economic department; it's possible that SOAS might be an exception to the case.

I respect your opinion in Manchester being an alternative but I would have recommended SOAS if you truly want an alternative to orthodox economics.

It's obvious that university differs in entry standards but implying that you can get, with high chance, into LSE for economics with a 2:i is ridiculous and misleading. No doubt, there are exceptions but it's rare and the odds are high. Though I don't think LSE will have accepted below its standard in its recent time. There's just so many bright student with first class to choose from that apply to LSE's economics.

Again, allow me to be clear: I don't think Manchester is bad, it's good but not a top mainstream economic department or highly regarded internationally. And definitely not prestigious, it even accept 2:2 economic grad to do its economic postgrad diploma. The only other institution that I am aware of that offers diploma in economics is Cambridge and LSE. And they don't accept 2:2 but ppl who don't have adequate previous economic training.
0
reply
Aegilia
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#23
Report 10 years ago
#23
(Original post by TSRreader)
http://www.lse.ac.uk/resources/gradu...cEconomics.htm
Are we talking about economics or some another random subject? LSE have specified its needs a first class honour, it's not my anecdote but a fact. You are the one running on wild assumptions that I was speculating.

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/study/post...mics/tdegrees/
You are generalising about entry standards. As you can see Warwick's entry standard are different from LSE for economics.

And where are your proof that Manchester's Economic Department is highly regarded in International Economic Community?
http://ideas.repec.org/top/top.inst.all.html
And above ranking I posted previously are actually done by economic academics in the field. I can safely be assured that they are more experienced and knowledgeable about economics than you.
Again, you are confusing an university's overall prestige versus its subject field.
In fact, can you find me with one Manchester PhD graduate in economics working in the world top 30 economic department?

I am a human so I will make silly mistakes like typos and spelling errors. Seriously, are you suggesting you're mister perfect?

Please can you contribute anything useful to an economic PhD prospective student rather than rambling on something else?

Edit: You should be aware of how silly your statement is about Manchester as you try to refute the results of the RAE. So in fact you are claiming that the academia in both UK and US are all lying about Manchester's standard of economics in world standing.
You make me laugh. Just like your statement of the maths in A-level physics being really hard. Furthermore - Manchester is comparable to the likes of LSE for the PhD in economics. Don't put manchester down.. i'd like to know which university you have studied at, or will be studying at.
0
reply
prospectivEEconomist
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#24
Report 10 years ago
#24
How can Manchester be comparable to LSE for a Phd when no other department in the UK is?
0
reply
TSRreader
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#25
Report 10 years ago
#25
It's quite clear Aegilia have more interest to drag me into a personal insults fight rather than contribute anything constructive to the discussion. I will ignore your further comments as I have no interest in helping you to derail this discussion, as you have done with other one.
0
reply
davidbristol
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#26
Report 10 years ago
#26
TSReader, some sensible comments there.

It's obviously difficult for me to be unbiased about Manchester's department, I definitely think it's probably the most unrated by the RAE. A good example of what I meant by "not publishing much" are Walters & Peach (who I rated very highly as lecturers). Like most other departments I think Manchester reacted to the RAE by employing some people who are clearly going to do well in the RAE Picard & Chiu. Now you correctly point out that Manchester do want to be world class by 2015, but that doesn't mean you can get rid of existing lecturers, you can see the "pressure" some of the guys must be under as all of a sudden they've started to publish a few papers lol.

Your completely right that having a research active supervisor is important, but that can certainly be done at Manchester too, look at Osborne who is not only a very well known econometrician, but also sits on the RAE 2008 assessment panel (not only for economics but for business and finance too).

Both the RAE and the rating you posted are based on the same premise - publications. Now I say this now I'm at a 5* department (albeit not economics), and even though I'm not "staff" you still get a real feel there's a real push for research that will be published in top journals. So to be fair I think you're right that any prospective PhD students should be aiming for LSE/UCL/Oxford (or in reality ay department rated 5 or above).

My final point really demonstrates the problem with rating Manchester. Now there are three centers which are certainly world class PREST (now under MBS), IDPM and the World Poverty Institute - now all three have a significant contingent of economists, all three certainly rival LSE/UCL/Oxford for quality - but somehow have no impact on the economics departments rating! That's what I find strange? I'd like to see a UK department with as much strength in development economics as Manchester.

I'd say that perhaps you slightly miss the point a little on orthodox economics, you can very easily label a research group "Microeconomics" but the actual approach to topic can be very different to what mainstream economics is today. For me it's a real shame to see RAE ratings having such an impact - to me it looks like the RAE is almost resulting in homogenous departments with people researching similar topics with similar approaches - why? Well quite simply because they know it will be easier to publish that research. For me (and you obviously feel differently) the fact that Manchester still has a good number of academics who don't "follow the mold" is really a strength and not a weakness. When I was their the department was rated about 10-12 in the league tables - now it's further down which is a bit odd as they've added a nobel prize winner and some research active staff members!
0
reply
TSRreader
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#27
Report 10 years ago
#27
(Original post by davidbristol)
Your completely right that having a research active supervisor is important, but that can certainly be done at Manchester too, look at Osborne who is not only a very well known econometrician, but also sits on the RAE 2008 assessment panel (not only for economics but for business and finance too).
I admit there are active researchers in U Manchester's economic department but the diversity of active researchers in different fields aren't as high as top economic university. Sometimes PhD student in economic haven't made their minds yet about their research interest and U Manchester wouldn't be advisable as the student might end not finding an active researcher in his field of interest.

(Original post by davidbristol)
Both the RAE and the rating you posted are based on the same premise - publications.
Yes, they all uses publication as an indicator but they cover more topics in economics and more international journals than RAE. This can, to a certain extent, eliminate some bias on U Manchester economic research therefore allowing us to have more accurate view of U Manchester's research quality. I am may not be fully aware of how U Manchester's approach to economics differ from other groups but I am not convince that such an issue would have an enormous effect on U Manchester that will force it be lowly ranked in world standings for economics when it has actually a highly distinguished research group in economic compared to other economic research groups.

Why? You won't be able to find SOAS in those rankings as SOAS is intentionally omitted due to its heterodox approach.
So my first hypothesise is that if U Manchester takes a significant different approach to economic research then U Manchester would been omitted from the those rankings. But it is ranked within these rankings, I can conclude that U Manchester's research approach to economic science is not disrespected by other mainstream departments.

Cambridge have faculty members like Ha-Joong Chang. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ha-Joon_Chang But yet its mainstream economic rankings is considerably respected. Then the second hypothesise is that U Manchester shouldn't be heavily punished in mainstream ranking for having heterodox researchers when its orthodox researchers are also considerably decent.

From these two ideas, there seem to have some evidence that U Manchester's economic research output is not comparable to other top economic universities. Also, I think we are both aware that publication is one of the crucial indicator to a PhD prospective student on how research active the department is.

I am willing to hear from you if you find any fault on my deduction.

(Original post by davidbristol)
My final point really demonstrates the problem with rating Manchester. Now there are three centers which are certainly world class PREST (now under MBS), IDPM and the World Poverty Institute - now all three have a significant contingent of economists, all three certainly rival LSE/UCL/Oxford for quality - but somehow have no impact on the economics departments rating! That's what I find strange? I'd like to see a UK department with as much strength in development economics as Manchester.
The World Poverty Institute is still quite young, it was only established in 2005. Also it's more multidisciplinary, so it not as focused in economic research but also politics, sociology and etc. It will be fair to say its still need time to develop. I don't know what will happen in the future so I can't argue whether WPI's prospect in economic research will challenge Cambridge or Oxford's development group's studies in economics.

I believe Oxford's Development Economic group is definitely strongest in the UK. Not even mentioning the Oxford's Economic Department itself, its poverty think-tank Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative have more experienced and economic orientated members on board compared to WPI.

LSE also have numerous think-tanks that involves in development such as The Kuwait Research Program on Development.

Nottingham also have also a more well established think-tank on development than Manchester's WPI. Just give a browse on Nott's Centre for Research in Economic Development and International Trade.

Again, U Manchester's WPI is still a new kid on the block. But I do have to admit that WPI is more well advertised than Nottingham's development group.

http://www.mbs.ac.uk/research/engine.../about-us.aspx
PREST sounds less dedicated to economic research than WPI. Sounds like more towards studying policies in relation to technology than economics. I wouldn't be surprised if PREST is world class research group as U Manchester's MBS and hard science research are renowned in the world.

IDPM is more development policy study orientated than economic research orientated. That's explains why it received a 5 and U Manchester only a 4 for economics. IDPM can only be faired to compared with other university's policy groups. Since general development policy often involve a balance of sociology, politics and etc. Policy is more involved in studying on how to effectively put economic science into real society while economic research is more about explaining the phenomena within the economic.

(Original post by davidbristol)
When I was their the department was rated about 10-12 in the league tables - now it's further down which is a bit odd as they've added a nobel prize winner and some research active staff members!
Tbh, I ignore the local British league tables, they tend to confuse student more than helping them. Manchester is a brilliant Uni for science (hence it's an alma mater for a quite a few science nobel prize winners) and MBS is also well respected amongst business community. But Economic Science isn't U Manchester's strong point.
0
reply
prospectivEEconomist
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#28
Report 10 years ago
#28
How would you rate economics at Nottingham TSReader? Does it rival any of the good economic schools?
0
reply
TSRreader
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#29
Report 10 years ago
#29
(Original post by prospectivEEconomist)
How would you rate economics at Nottingham TSReader? Does it rival any of the good economic schools?
Nottingham is, without a doubt, top 10 UK economics for postgrad and undergrad. And a definite top 30 and possible top 15 in Europe (If university of Tel Aviv is also part of European ranking) for economics. In postgrad, Nottingham and York might be equal as general ranking of economics. Essex, York and Nottingham are the most definite departments behind the top 5.
I am rather certain of a range where Nottingham may be in but I am not definite which place it actually takes between top 6-8.

Nottingham is known well for development, international trade, econometrics and possibly other fields too. From those fields I mentioned above, some of them can rival UCL and Warwick, I am not so sure if they can challenge Oxbridge or LSE but York and Essex are very likely behind in those fields.

I am not certain if this is true but I heard Oxford is known to be weaker in macroeconomics. If it's so then Nottingham's strength might equals Oxford's strength in macroeconomics.
0
reply
davidbristol
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#30
Report 10 years ago
#30
Firstly I'd agree that other universities have more established poverty centers, however I would not accept
[A] they have better known staff [as you know the WPI is headed by a Nobel prize winner]
[B] they have more history in poverty and welfare research

PREST certainly should not be considered seperately from Economics in my view. A major contributor (and I believe ex-director!) of prest is the Manchester economics professor Prof Metcalfe.

With the IDPM you have more of an arguement - what I'd personally say is that development and economics are far to interlinked to seperate (true with poverty research too in my view).

For me, like I say, when you put the picture together it all points to a top class economics department, not a RAE 4 department.


Personally WRT your first point - I'm extremely against any student starting a PhD without a clearly idea of what they'd like to do. If that is the case, I'd argue that they shouldn't consider it until they have done further research into areas which interest them.

It's interesting that you use Nobel Prize winners to defend Manchester repuation in science, yet ignore it from my arguemet to defend their economics department? Like I say how many of your "top 10" departments have a current Nobel Prize winner on staff? How many of them can claim the form of modern economics is in large part down to a previous staff member??
0
reply
prospectivEEconomist
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#31
Report 10 years ago
#31
Is Manchester really that good for economics? It got 4B in the last RAE and its average tariff is 400.
0
reply
davidbristol
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#32
Report 10 years ago
#32
(Original post by prospectivEEconomist)
Is Manchester really that good for economics? It got 4B in the last RAE and its average tariff is 400.
prospectivEEconomist, I guess it depends on your prospective - I'd certainly say Manchester is not as good as UCL/LSE/Cambridge/Oxford which I regard as truely excellent economics departments.

The RAE isn't designed for league tables, it's designed to show the strongest *research* groups based in the main on publications.

As an undergraduate you should try to get into UCL/LSE/Cambridge/Oxford after that (possibly add Warwick to that list) Manchester, along with many other universitites are the ones to consider. Like I said to TSReader Manchester is a heavy weight historically and in terms of department size

In terms of number of staff entererd for the RAE 2001 it ranks only below the follow [ RAE rating first, No. entered staff last]:

Cambridge [5 B 44.9] /LSE [5* A 51] /Nottingham [5 A 37] / Oxford[5 B 62.5] and York [5 A 37.2] - Manchester [4 B 34] *Hmmm all of those have ratings of 5 and higher but not Manchester, thats a bit odd?*

If you look at the RAE 2001 results you should see a clear correlation between the number of staff a department has, and RAE rating - and real outlier is guess who? Mancester, I don't even think TSReader could doubt that! Like say I all along - Manchester have been screwed by the RAE for economics, no two ways about it.
0
reply
prospectivEEconomist
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#33
Report 10 years ago
#33
Why would you place Manchester in the same bracket as the other 6-10 universities for an undergraduate? The top 6-10 have tariff points almost as high as the top 5 and significantly higher than Manchester and the like.
0
reply
TSRreader
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#34
Report 10 years ago
#34
(Original post by davidbristol)
PREST certainly should not be considered seperately from Economics in my view. A major contributor (and I believe ex-director!) of prest is the Manchester economics professor Prof Metcalfe.

With the IDPM you have more of an arguement - what I'd personally say is that development and economics are far to interlinked to seperate (true with poverty research too in my view).
Agreed, normative and positive views are what forms economic in reality. But as a science for research, positive view is more preferred as it has less strings attached to political affiliation and corruption.

(Original post by davidbristol)
For me, like I say, when you put the picture together it all points to a top class economics department, not a RAE 4 department.
RAE 4 is actually good but economic departments' competition amongst one another are just very intense tbh. To be considered top is very difficult. Only the top academic economists are invited to discuss about economic policies. And most of the time, only top departments have links with International organisations. To be able to distinguish oneself from the rest of the crowd, it requires a lot of input. I don't believe Manchester's economic department have done enough to considered a top.


(Original post by davidbristol)
Personally WRT your first point - I'm extremely against any student starting a PhD without a clearly idea of what they'd like to do. If that is the case, I'd argue that they shouldn't consider it until they have done further research into areas which interest them.
It would be beneficial to research further about your field of interest before you embark. But it wouldn't hurt either to follow a PhD stream (Msc+MPhil+PhD) in a top department as they offer core areas so giving you some time to consider. If you like private, academia or public at the end, a LSE, Oxbridge, Warwick and UCL PhD will give you chance to be placed in positions that only other than top US PhD can do. Otherwise, it would be more advisable to research your field of interest if you can't make into those top 5.

(Original post by davidbristol)
It's interesting that you use Nobel Prize winners to defend Manchester repuation in science, yet ignore it from my arguemet to defend their economics department? Like I say how many of your "top 10" departments have a current Nobel Prize winner on staff? How many of them can claim the form of modern economics is in large part down to a previous staff member??
Joseph Stiligiz, the Nobel Memorial Prize winner, receive his award for his asymmetry of information's research. When he done this research, he didn't do it in U Manchester but I believe in Columbia University. So such research wouldn't be credited to U Manchester but to Columbia U. The fact that he was awarded with John Bates Clark Medal further strengthen his Nobel research is more affiliated with the states than the UK. He is chairing WPI not because of his work on asymmetry of information but rather his status as a former World Bank Chief Economist. If you read his famous book called 'Globalisation and Its Discontent', you will understand the reason that its was his time in World Bank, instead of his Nobel research, that turned him to work on poverty.

So how does his previous research credit U Manchester? If he joined Manchester to further his research in his Nobel Prize's relate field, it's arguable that it can strengthen U Manchester's research. Also, Columbia U has not yet relinquished Joseph Stigiliz. Joseph is still a research professor in U Columbia Economic Department and not in U Manchester's Economic Department. So you can't actually include many of his current research belonging to U Manchester but rather to U Columbia. Tbh, I don't know what he actually do in WPI.

Scientists like Ernst Rutherford did some crucial work in U Manchester that help him to get his Nobel Prize. So indisputably, their research are credited with U Manchester. The same thing can't be said about Joseph's work.

Tbh, I wouldn't be surprised that UK's economic department don't even have Nobel Prize staff members as currently UK economic department funding just can't compete with the states. But during the Cold War period, there were quite a few researchers in Oxbridge that won the prize. But now, it seems US is stealing all the limelight for its researchers with the prize.
0
reply
TSRreader
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#35
Report 10 years ago
#35
(Original post by davidbristol)
If you look at the RAE 2001 results you should see a clear correlation between the number of staff a department has, and RAE rating - and real outlier is guess who? Mancester, I don't even think TSReader could doubt that! Like say I all along - Manchester have been screwed by the RAE for economics, no two ways about it.
You are aware that different researcher have different caliber and research quality. Essex got 5* with only 28, Birkbeck College got a 5 with 20, Queen Mary got 5 with 20.

Then again, I wouldn't wish to use RAE as reference again as I will accept your point of possible bias by RAE. But I am yet to see further proof that the other rankings are also heavily faulted in terms of evaluating true research strength of Manchester.
0
reply
davidbristol
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#36
Report 10 years ago
#36
Again good points. I think the point about Joesph (ha ha I like you're using his first name) joing the Manchester group is quite simply that we can attract a Nobel prize winner, and more over how it represents the departments history. Lets look at Authur Lewis:
"for their pioneering research into economic development research with particular consideration of the problems of developing countries"
This was the citation for why Lewis and Schultz won the Nobel Prize in 1979, and we begin to see why the current development of the department, the IDPM and the WPI come into play. Further what was it that made Lewis look at development economics??
" but it was the throng of Asian and African students at Manchester that set me lecturing systematically on development economics from about 1950" - there's your answer form the man himself.


I, of course agree, that Physics at Manchester had huge tradition well above that of the Economics department. My point is that relative to Nottingham and UCL, Manchester is far more responsible for modern economics.

In terms of modern 1+3 programes, I'm sorry but no, anyone who cannot understand what area of economics they prefer after three years of instruction does not belong on a PhD program.
0
reply
TSRreader
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#37
Report 10 years ago
#37
(Original post by davidbristol)
Again good points. I think the point about Joesph (ha ha I like you're using his first name) joing the Manchester group is quite simply that we can attract a Nobel prize winner, and more over how it represents the departments history. Lets look at Authur Lewis:
"for their pioneering research into economic development research with particular consideration of the problems of developing countries"
This was the citation for why Lewis and Schultz won the Nobel Prize in 1979, and we begin to see why the current development of the department, the IDPM and the WPI come into play. Further what was it that made Lewis look at development economics??
" but it was the throng of Asian and African students at Manchester that set me lecturing systematically on development economics from about 1950" - there's your answer form the man himself.

I, of course agree, that Physics at Manchester had huge tradition well above that of the Economics department. My point is that relative to Nottingham and UCL, Manchester is far more responsible for modern economics.
Haha, I accept that Manchester had influence over Lewis in terms of helping him to get into his interest of Nobel Prize field. But I feel it's kind of going off the topic, after all we are debating about U Manchester's economic research output strength.

Tbh, not all academic economists that shape modern economics get awarded with Nobel Prize. That's why the US set up other awards like the John Bates Clark Medal. It wouldn't be fair to suggest Nottingham and UCL have not given a fair share in contributing to economic science as they haven't produce any research economist with a Nobel Prize. I believe that the other rankings do show, to certain extent, that UCL and Nottingham have done certain contributions with their research to economic science. If they published journals that weren't brilliant, they wouldn't have been ranked so considerably high.
0
reply
davidbristol
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#38
Report 10 years ago
#38
Well not necessarily - the OP was saying which are good departements and that isn't the same as "economic research output strength". In actuality I guess Nottingham do have one recent Nobel prize winner in Granger for his work on Co-integration and the subsequent Nobel prize in 2003 along with Engle. I actually think both Nottingham and UCL are better now than Manchester - I'm only really arguing that Manchester should certainly be considered alongside Nottingham, just because they really do get a bad "reference" if you look at the RAE. Is Manchester a "world class" economics department - well being totally fair I think it has a shout - rankings change, but true innovation in economics doesn't. The likes of Adam Smith, David Ricardo founded the subject and after that it's only Jeavons and Walras that can claim any real credit for advancing the subject - with a very major mention of Nash. The rest is just fluff, great work but not revolutionary. For me, that bit of innovation lives on in Manchester (though it might be getting pushed out now) and why it really is quite a special place to study economics. For me, reading Jeavons work reminds me of just how much of a visionary he was, and how the macro work out of modern "great" departments is really in the greater view of things pretty average. For me I dont care what RAE rating a department has, how many Nobel prize winners they have, just that their academics think originally and passonately, and on that score I think Manchester is certainly one of the best.

WRT to your reply to my view on Nottingham, I was just saying there *is* a significant correlation between the number of submitted staff and the RAE rating. Only the two you mention (as I can see) violate that trend.
0
reply
Paulwhy
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#39
Report 10 years ago
#39
(Original post by AlanRef)
i was wondering what top uni's offer PhDs and how many people do it? also how much does it cost? and is it a two year course if you have your masters? finally, how do people get scholarships for it?
Top unis for economics commonly thought to be the top 5 LSE,Cambridge,Oxford, UCL,Warwick. But which is correct for you depends on what your research interests are: i.e. you need an appropriate supervisor. However generally want a PhD course with a good taught component to get your general economic skills up.
Numbers vary by uni but maybe 10-20 a year for each one. (Numbers are mainly international. i.e. at warwick this year 3 British and 15 non-British)
Most places it is a 3 year course after the 1 year masters. (But most students take longer to do a PhD e.g. an extra year). At Warwick the PhD is now offically a 4 year course.
Funding would come from ESRC, the university you apply to or the department you apply to.
0
reply
Drogue
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#40
Report 10 years ago
#40
(Original post by Aegilia)
Even LSE and Oxbridge accept 2:1's, i'll have you know.
No they don't. Cambridge requires a first, and Oxford, while technically requiring a "high 2:1", tends to only give offers to people who get firsts. And rejects quite a few that do.

Economics at Manchester is good in some areas. Their masters is pretty good, though I wouldn't consider it up with Oxbridge, London, Warwick or Nottingham. Their PhDs are very good in the right areas, such as development/poverty, but I haven't heard much about them in other areas.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

University open days

  • Cranfield University
    Cranfield Forensic MSc Programme Open Day Postgraduate
    Thu, 25 Apr '19
  • University of the Arts London
    Open day: MA Footwear and MA Fashion Artefact Postgraduate
    Thu, 25 Apr '19
  • Cardiff Metropolitan University
    Undergraduate Open Day - Llandaff Campus Undergraduate
    Sat, 27 Apr '19

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (129)
38.62%
No - but I will (19)
5.69%
No - I don't want to (25)
7.49%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (161)
48.2%

Watched Threads

View All