This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Graduating with undergraduate degree at 24. Bad for career?
- What are the best degrees to work in marketing?
- NUS singapore international admissions
- Uni chioces ?? Help asp
- confused between courses
- Applying to Politics and Economics in Gap Year
- Oxford Economics and Management
- Personal Statement for LSE
- Reapplication to Oxford
- Economics at either Oxford or Cambridge #university #oxford #cambridge
- How to focus your PS when you're applying to E & M?
- LSE economics courses vs Oxford
- Application prospects for MSc Financial Economics from Oxford
- Economics: Oxford or LSE
- Economics at Oxford: is there enough maths?
- Personal statement
- Marketing degree vs cim
- Oxford PPE
- Oxford or LSE
- Economics VS PPE
D.Phil and PRS Economics- Oxford
Hi there:
Oxford as a PRS in Economics- any thoughts? I see that there were only 8 PRS' taken on. Finished my Master's at the LSE, and probably finished in top 25 percent of my Master's cohort. I might be a fraction below the cut-off for the LSE, which is my top choice (I will apply for 2005 entry) but looking at Oxford and UCL too.
Oxford is the only place that I wrote to which didn't mention a strict cutoff in terms of marks. This, however, makes it quite nebulous. Will they refuse to look at anyone with the slightest blemish (e.g., didn't quite get a distinction on the master's)? Or is the recruitment process more personalised? Any thoughts, experiences etc welcomed.....
I realise this is a pretty specialised and narrow thread of interest to a very few....apologies....
Oxford as a PRS in Economics- any thoughts? I see that there were only 8 PRS' taken on. Finished my Master's at the LSE, and probably finished in top 25 percent of my Master's cohort. I might be a fraction below the cut-off for the LSE, which is my top choice (I will apply for 2005 entry) but looking at Oxford and UCL too.
Oxford is the only place that I wrote to which didn't mention a strict cutoff in terms of marks. This, however, makes it quite nebulous. Will they refuse to look at anyone with the slightest blemish (e.g., didn't quite get a distinction on the master's)? Or is the recruitment process more personalised? Any thoughts, experiences etc welcomed.....
I realise this is a pretty specialised and narrow thread of interest to a very few....apologies....
Scroll to see replies
BIDDLESTICKS
Hi there:
Oxford as a PRS in Economics- any thoughts? I see that there were only 8 PRS' taken on. Finished my Master's at the LSE, and probably finished in top 25 percent of my Master's cohort. I might be a fraction below the cut-off for the LSE, which is my top choice (I will apply for 2005 entry) but looking at Oxford and UCL too.
Oxford is the only place that I wrote to which didn't mention a strict cutoff in terms of marks. This, however, makes it quite nebulous. Will they refuse to look at anyone with the slightest blemish (e.g., didn't quite get a distinction on the master's)? Or is the recruitment process more personalised? Any thoughts, experiences etc welcomed.....
I realise this is a pretty specialised and narrow thread of interest to a very few....apologies....
Oxford as a PRS in Economics- any thoughts? I see that there were only 8 PRS' taken on. Finished my Master's at the LSE, and probably finished in top 25 percent of my Master's cohort. I might be a fraction below the cut-off for the LSE, which is my top choice (I will apply for 2005 entry) but looking at Oxford and UCL too.
Oxford is the only place that I wrote to which didn't mention a strict cutoff in terms of marks. This, however, makes it quite nebulous. Will they refuse to look at anyone with the slightest blemish (e.g., didn't quite get a distinction on the master's)? Or is the recruitment process more personalised? Any thoughts, experiences etc welcomed.....
I realise this is a pretty specialised and narrow thread of interest to a very few....apologies....
As you've gotten onto the Economics MSc at LSE, I'm going to assume you have a first class degree, this will obviously help. Although, they're likely to pay greater attention to your most recent qualification. A distinction obviously would have really helped your cause. I think if you submit an interesting research proposal - something original, and you're able to identify a suitable supervisor and that you've done well on the masters modules which closely relate to your proposed research - you will have a very good chance. Also, the fact that you've a masters from the LSE will be of help to you, least it was for me in applying to Oxbridge.
As for the admissions, Oxford, unlike Cambridge, sometimes tend to be rather vague in what they look for, sometimes even appear misleading at the graduate level. It can give the impression that they're more 'broadminded' on when it comes to the breakdown of your academic grades than Cambridge are; this isn't quite true though, I know of quite a few people who've been given offers in soc sciences specifying that they attain a first class degree - even from Oxford itself. I think, overall, the standards of admissions for Econ-Oxford are pretty much the same as the LSE and Cambridge. Also, when applying for a doctorate, there are so many other factors to take into account, even in addition to your academic profile, i.e. your research proposal, so it's especially difficult to try and predict what their decision is likely to be. One thing that you should really bear in mind though, the extent to which your previous qualifications, i.e. even specifically the modules you’ve taken, or any dissertation you’ve written, relate to your proposed research is very important in the admissions process and even more so for funding.
Also, even though this is just stating the obvious, it would help if you've written an outstanding dissertation, esp at the graduate level, this can sometimes help make up for not having an overall distinction/first. I'd also spend a great deal of time discussing you application with whomever you're looking to nominate as a referee. If they're able to make specific　comments regarding your academic ability and whatever you're proposing to research, rather than vague statements, I think that'd help, especially if they're highly regarded in the field. Try and ensure that the admissions people, particularly your potential supervisor is well aware of the reputation of the person who's writing your reference, this should be easy to ensure as you're coming from the LSE. Oh and as with any Econ dept., they're especially on the look out for people of exceptional ability in Maths/Stats.
UCL is a lot easier to get into - although I think they specify a GRE. The top 3 for difficulty of entry are LSE, Cam and Oxf - in no particular order. After those 3, it's a fair bit easier to ensure entry.
Best of Luck
Interesting.
But as an American returnee (I did my undergrad there), I get the impression that in Britain a distinction is a distinction regardless of where earned and what kinds of subjects were taken. So a distinction in health economics or environmental economics at York is better than a near distinction at the LSE, regardless of the fact that the latter attracts some great students, offers a harder curriculum....
Very socialist in many ways....at least this is the impression I've been led to have.
However it's also very snobbish if it's true that LSE/Ox/Cam are equally selective at the doctoral level. I'd have to say that internationally LSE is seen as the top European department. If anyone could be offered a Ph.D. place at both LSE and Oxford why would they opt for the latter expect for lifestyle reasons and/or the name?
But as an American returnee (I did my undergrad there), I get the impression that in Britain a distinction is a distinction regardless of where earned and what kinds of subjects were taken. So a distinction in health economics or environmental economics at York is better than a near distinction at the LSE, regardless of the fact that the latter attracts some great students, offers a harder curriculum....
Very socialist in many ways....at least this is the impression I've been led to have.
However it's also very snobbish if it's true that LSE/Ox/Cam are equally selective at the doctoral level. I'd have to say that internationally LSE is seen as the top European department. If anyone could be offered a Ph.D. place at both LSE and Oxford why would they opt for the latter expect for lifestyle reasons and/or the name?
BIDDLESTICKS
Interesting.
But as an American returnee (I did my undergrad there), I get the impression that in Britain a distinction is a distinction regardless of where earned and what kinds of subjects were taken. So a distinction in health economics or environmental economics at York is better than a near distinction at the LSE, regardless of the fact that the latter attracts some great students, offers a harder curriculum....
Very socialist in many ways....at least this is the impression I've been led to have.
But as an American returnee (I did my undergrad there), I get the impression that in Britain a distinction is a distinction regardless of where earned and what kinds of subjects were taken. So a distinction in health economics or environmental economics at York is better than a near distinction at the LSE, regardless of the fact that the latter attracts some great students, offers a harder curriculum....
Very socialist in many ways....at least this is the impression I've been led to have.
BIDDLESTICKS
Interesting.
But as an American returnee (I did my undergrad there), I get the impression that in Britain a distinction is a distinction regardless of where earned and what kinds of subjects were taken. So a distinction in health economics or environmental economics at York is better than a near distinction at the LSE, regardless of the fact that the latter attracts some great students, offers a harder curriculum....
Very socialist in many ways....at least this is the impression I've been led to have.
However it's also very snobbish if it's true that LSE/Ox/Cam are equally selective at the doctoral level. I'd have to say that internationally LSE is seen as the top European department. If anyone could be offered a Ph.D. place at both LSE and Oxford why would they opt for the latter expect for lifestyle reasons and/or the name?
But as an American returnee (I did my undergrad there), I get the impression that in Britain a distinction is a distinction regardless of where earned and what kinds of subjects were taken. So a distinction in health economics or environmental economics at York is better than a near distinction at the LSE, regardless of the fact that the latter attracts some great students, offers a harder curriculum....
Very socialist in many ways....at least this is the impression I've been led to have.
However it's also very snobbish if it's true that LSE/Ox/Cam are equally selective at the doctoral level. I'd have to say that internationally LSE is seen as the top European department. If anyone could be offered a Ph.D. place at both LSE and Oxford why would they opt for the latter expect for lifestyle reasons and/or the name?
What you say about the distinction at masters level is quite simply not true, it just sounds bizarre. Of course any faculty is likely to want to accept the best qualified people, why would they not? It’s perfectly natural for them to distinguish between students who’ve taken relevant courses at institutions which have a reputation for academic excellence as opposed to a masters which is largely irrelevant to your proposed research and from a less respected institution.
Oxford's Econ. is actually very prestigious, that's why. Perhaps it's not as well known on this newsgroup due to Oxford not having a single honours Econ. degree at undergrad level. There have been no less than 9 Nobel Prize winners in Econ. associated with Oxford. Also, for journal citations, and this is what the LSE uses to show that it has the best Econ. dept in Europe, Oxford is 2nd place -ahead of Cambridge. Overall, for journal citations, the difference between Oxford and LSE is negligible. Also, Oxford has an excellent MPhil programme from which many people transfer onto the DPhil, so that too is one of its attractions.
Fluffy: the criteria varies to a huge degree depending on which dept you're looking studying at
No, I kid you not. No one has said that in as many words, but I've had discouraging responses from one or two departments, which I do know admit people with credentials similar to those (albeit my intention is not to state that these are weak or insufficient) I mentioned in my last post.
I do think LSE is definitely better than Ox currently. If you look at the last 10 years then the lead of LSE over Oxford in publications in top journals has widened (albeit both have declined relative to American departments) and in the 1994-1998 and 1996-2000 series that I've seen, UCL is second to LSE in the UK.
Having said that, from the perspective of the potential doctoral student, some of OX's older faculty are very well known and so references and supervision from them would still count for something.
I do think that the RAE ratings are bizzarre. As is the Warwick cult- so many people I've spoken to recommend that looking at Warwick is worthwhile but seem dismissive of Oxford. I have to disagree. I think Oxford is better by any measure and certainly better known outside the UK. It might just be fashionable. But I don't think that LSE and UCL's high ratings are merely down to fashion...I do think they are very strong departments, but LSE more so.
I do think LSE is definitely better than Ox currently. If you look at the last 10 years then the lead of LSE over Oxford in publications in top journals has widened (albeit both have declined relative to American departments) and in the 1994-1998 and 1996-2000 series that I've seen, UCL is second to LSE in the UK.
Having said that, from the perspective of the potential doctoral student, some of OX's older faculty are very well known and so references and supervision from them would still count for something.
I do think that the RAE ratings are bizzarre. As is the Warwick cult- so many people I've spoken to recommend that looking at Warwick is worthwhile but seem dismissive of Oxford. I have to disagree. I think Oxford is better by any measure and certainly better known outside the UK. It might just be fashionable. But I don't think that LSE and UCL's high ratings are merely down to fashion...I do think they are very strong departments, but LSE more so.
Fluffy
I have a 2i and did a DPhil at Oxford.
The criteria for a PhD/DPhil tends to be a 2i or above or a 2.2, mitigating circumstances and a bloody good masters!
The criteria for a PhD/DPhil tends to be a 2i or above or a 2.2, mitigating circumstances and a bloody good masters!
yes but like me you're a scientist right? No-one wants to do science. No money. So much less competition. I think a 2.1 is the minimum they will accept for graduate studies (or a 2.2 with a masters) but if everyone else who applies has a first it would be very difficult. (I'm not trying to put you down. What i mean is, economics is a zillion times more competitive than science because the graduates will go on to earn meagbucks.)
d750
In funding terms, 'though, there seems to be much more money in the sciences than in the humanities.
Are you making the novel accusation that Economics is a "humanities" subject? Most people think its the ultimate "inhumanities" subject....
I do agree re: funding, it's tough in Economics.
Not sure that there's no money for scientists. I think the pickings aren't bad and good quantitative skills are always sought after...an applied math or applied physics Ph.D. can be leveraged into a number of marketable applications surely?
I mean there are no jobs with money at the end. Maybe there is in physics? I don't know any physics students. There aren't any jobs in biology. So there is loads of funding because no-one wants to do the PhDs. I could have had about 10 fully funded PhDs at different places. They seem to be desparate.
My brother did a Ph.D. in Physics. It's a hard life if you want to stick with physics, but if you smarten yourself up a bit then it appears that it's really quite marketable and several of his colleagues have gone into quantitative analysis jobs at Investment Banks.
I had the impression that were jobs for people in Chemistry, Biology etc too though- but like everything else it does depend on your specialism.
It's not plain sailing for Ph.Ds in Econ either. Without prior experience it's not that easy to get a private-sector job if you specialised in theory. People with prior experience or with applied specialisms have it much easier. But all in all it's easy to see why a Master's is often preferred to a Ph.D....
I had the impression that were jobs for people in Chemistry, Biology etc too though- but like everything else it does depend on your specialism.
It's not plain sailing for Ph.Ds in Econ either. Without prior experience it's not that easy to get a private-sector job if you specialised in theory. People with prior experience or with applied specialisms have it much easier. But all in all it's easy to see why a Master's is often preferred to a Ph.D....
babyballerina
yes but like me you're a scientist right? No-one wants to do science. No money. So much less competition. I think a 2.1 is the minimum they will accept for graduate studies (or a 2.2 with a masters) but if everyone else who applies has a first it would be very difficult. (I'm not trying to put you down. What i mean is, economics is a zillion times more competitive than science because the graduates will go on to earn meagbucks.)
My partner did a law D.Phil with a 2i (admitedly with a V.comp inthe BVC). Most of my friends on DPhil courses in other disciplines have 2i's too....
Specifically w.r.t. the Econ DPHIL: I know that Oxford's M.Phil is 2 years versus the 1-year M.Sc. Econ at the LSE. So all PRS' are admitted as second-year M.Phil students, right? Is this likely to make it easier or harder- the fact that you are effectively given a "trial" period as a senior master's student?
BIDDLESTICKS
Specifically w.r.t. the Econ DPHIL: I know that Oxford's M.Phil is 2 years versus the 1-year M.Sc. Econ at the LSE. So all PRS' are admitted as second-year M.Phil students, right? Is this likely to make it easier or harder- the fact that you are effectively given a "trial" period as a senior master's student?
I'm not sure that's the case. I thought PRS weren't initially registered for any degree in their first year, but after they complete their first year report, they are registered for the DPhil. This first year is the trial period.
The MPhil may be 2 years, but the MSt is just one year, by the way.
Related discussions
- Graduating with undergraduate degree at 24. Bad for career?
- What are the best degrees to work in marketing?
- NUS singapore international admissions
- Uni chioces ?? Help asp
- confused between courses
- Applying to Politics and Economics in Gap Year
- Oxford Economics and Management
- Personal Statement for LSE
- Reapplication to Oxford
- Economics at either Oxford or Cambridge #university #oxford #cambridge
- How to focus your PS when you're applying to E & M?
- LSE economics courses vs Oxford
- Application prospects for MSc Financial Economics from Oxford
- Economics: Oxford or LSE
- Economics at Oxford: is there enough maths?
- Personal statement
- Marketing degree vs cim
- Oxford PPE
- Oxford or LSE
- Economics VS PPE
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
Got into Oxford despite missing a grade. I feel like I don't deserve to be thereLast reply 3 weeks ago
How much of a disadvantage will I be at at Oxford and LSE as a resit candidate?
