It’s been a year since I decided to do a master degree in Economics at LSE rather than at Cambridge. The decision might seem irrational to many people as Cambridge has a better reputation overall, and its tuition is around 5000 pounds cheaper. It was a tough decision, and I often asked myself whether I made the correct choice. Some reflections might provide the answer.
Location:
Living in London is a big plus in expanding my experience and cultural exposure. I can get easy (and mostly free) access to a wide range of museums and art galleries. Tate Modern and Shakespeare Globe are just around the corner, and there’re plenty of interesting exhibitions through the year (like this one). I just attended the London Philharmonic Orchestra in the re-opened Royal Festival Hall for 4 pounds and plan to go to another one featuring Mitsuko Uchida on 24th June. I’m invited to a free movie premiere next week about a documentary on Entrepreneurship.
London also offers a cornucopia of restaurant choices. The Worldpress recenly ranked seven UK restaurants in its world’s top 50. These restaurants are still too expensive for me, but I aim to sample them after I start working. To sum up, London’s a great place for cultural discovery and learning, especially if ones has enough money.
Teaching:
LSE and Cambridge have similar course structure. Both involve lectures and problem-set oriented classes. The quality of teaching mainly depends on individual professor, and I’m fortunate to have some very good professors this year.
Here’re my favourite this year:
- Danny Quah’s Macroeconomic lectures—his enthusiasm and energy bring life to the topics
- Peter Davis’ classes on Industrial Economics—the current Deputy Chairman of the Competition Commission; he integrates latest IO research with his experience.
- Vassilis Hajivassiliou’s Econometric lectures—everything’s explained in a clear, structured manner.
Course Content:
Microeconomics: I benefited least from this course. We covered standard theory and basic foundations, but I found the lectures boring with little focus on applications or recent research. Exam consisted mainly of problem solving focusing on tricky (and in my opinion trivial) details and has little relevance regarding economic understanding (although learning the basic theories are still useful in itself).
Macroeconomics: Covered standard theory (inter-temporal choices on each current account component, asset-pricing theory, real business cycle, monetary policy, growth and inequality, currency, etc.) and looked at some seminal papers. Perhaps due to time and mathematical constraints, we’re not able to look at more recent research and theory applications.
Econometrics: Good balance between theory and applied works, though I’d prefer a more in-depth treatment on time-series and panel data. Overall satisfactory.
Economics of Industry (my chosen option): The best and the toughest course. Good balance between theory, empirical research, and case study. Covered most IO topics; looked at the major papers in details and offered a good survey on latest research. We also have to write a term-paper for this course, which I found extremely valuable.
Student:
The average student quality is probably higher at Cambridge since it’s more selective in its admission. But the variance is likely to be greater at LSE due to its larger economics class (LSE’s MSc has around 150 students, Cambridge’s 1st year Mphil probably around 70). And I guess students at LSE have a more diverse background as many of them have previous work experiences in governmental organizations or business.
Other upsides:
- The IT and administrative systems are efficient.
- Lots of public lectures and events that are easily accessible. Some popular lectures I attended include those from Nobel laureates Robert Mundell, Robert Engle, and Eric Kandel (in Medicine), Oliver Hart (future laureate?). Tonight I’m going to one by Paul Krugman. Most of the lectures I attended weren’t that good, and the time would probably be better off spending on articles or podcast. But still I can’t resist seeing those famous people in action, and who knows I might come across a Black Swan (Oliver Hart’s lecture was well worth the time).
- The economic department’s considered one of the most prestigious departments within LSE so other students often look up to you (signalling & feel good effect). In Cambridge, you got a better overall signalling effect with outsiders but less prestige within the institution as the hard science subjects (math, physics, etc.) are generally considered to be more prestigious (and hence obtain more funding and benefits) compare to economics.
Some Downsides:
- LSE is a social science institute, which means I’ve less opportunity to meet people in areas like arts, literature, or philosophy,
- Resources are limited, and demand often exceeds supply. Two examples are the library and the career service.
Conclusion:
Reflecting on the past 10 months, I believe I gained a lot this year (though I might gain even more if I remain in Cambirdge). I’m content with my decision and would probably make the same choice given another chance.
Ryu's Blog 