Oxford vs Warwick Econ Postgrad

[bobs22]

My daughter has an offer from Warwick's MRes/PhD programme and an offer from Oxford's MPhil programme, both in Economics. The Warwick programme has funding, about £15,000/year with opportunities to earn more through teaching. The Oxford programme does not offer funding, and will likely cost £70-80k over 2 years (which the dad does not want to fund, and I have no means to). She's interested in environmental and behavioral econ, and intends to continue into academia after this. Am wondering if anyone has an opinion on which to choose?

How would she pay the £70,000 plus to Oxford then? As an academic she’s not going to be a high earner. Is she going to borrow it? That would make me evaluate whether it’s worth it if she’s going to teach. Warwick is offering teaching so that’s a foot on the rung of the ladder. Is that worth evaluating regarding her career?

I’m sure others have more knowledge but having a huge debt might not be a great start to her career.

Warwick!

DS had to choose between the Oxford Masters and LSE Econometrics.

No funding for either, though the choice was made easier because LSE was only 10 months, and he could live at home, though fees were significantly higher.

The Oxford course is very prestigious and competitive and she did very well to get a place. She also did very well to get funding for a Masters.

DS was already at LSE and knew the academics who would teach him and the courses he would want to take. Oxford, disappointingly offered neither an interview or open day so was an unknown. (I hope things have changed now. DS says European Universities are more aware of “recruiting” rather than simply offering places at this level.) DH did his undergraduate degree at Oxford and so we wanted DS to give the offer fair consideration. DH got DS to look through the course and the academics to identify what would interest him. I posted here.

There were lots of posters like spotcheck who just named a University without explanation. (None saying LSE!) and some like Tizerorfizz who clearly have a background in economic research but did not give any hint of what that background was.

Luckily a brilliant poster who turned out to have studied at both LSE and Oxford and whose DH had a PhD from LSE was kind enough to take questions via DM and left us much clearer about why LSE was probably the better option. DS is now taking a fully funded PhD at a top ten US department.

(Posting now so I don’t lose)

Funded at Warwick any day It's not as if it is the University of Nowhere. Plus money and experience from teaching useful. Is there definitely no money at all from Oxford. DDs BF has similar choice last year but was offered fee waiver and some teaching so cost to him would have been about £30k (3 year PhD) plus he has a daddy in finance who would have paid (grudgingly). He went for fully funded at Edinburgh. Also has got funding for visiting postgraduate thing in the US which is on par with Oxbridge.

Academia is brutally competitive. Economics has some advantages as economics is a popular UG subject, and economics lecturers are often better paid than their humanities peers. (I don’t know where Tizer gets her information from but starting salaries can be surprisingly high, especially in the US.) The trouble is getting the job. Here again economics has a relative advantage as there are plenty of others: central banks, consultancies, think tanks, financial institutions and Finance Ministries that employ research economists.

One disadvantage, especially if considering academia, is that the ‘job market’ is world wide, and in the early stages at least you need to be flexible geographically in order to get a start on the career ladder. And, in the US at least, academic jobs seem to be increasingly split between research track and teaching track. DS has so far managed to earn extra, both in the UK and US by acting as a research assistant, and other than a bit of TA work on the PhD programme, has done no teaching at all. (He says this might hamper him a bit if he wants to apply to a business school, but less so at a research university.)

I would also look at timing. PhD funding at this point means it is a smooth ride through. She should ask how Warwick PhDs did in the job market over the past few years. (Warwick is well regarded so they will have good destinations. However academia is so competitive.) DS had a funded PhD offer from LSE but was advised to go elsewhere, ideally the US, to broaden his experience. Oxford is two years. A US PhD after would probably be six (including a final job search year). A long haul.

I really hope someone comes along who knows first hand, rather than my second hand. In the meantime I hope my post helps.

Is she eligible for the Doctoral loan from SFE for the Oxford option?

I have not commented on lecturing salaries. My post was clearly about fees and debt.

That's 70-80k debt before you've even got to the PhD that your daughter will need for a career that is extremely competitive to enter, with slim chances of a permanent job and certainly not one in a location of your choosing. Madness! Warwick has a very well-regarded Economics department. I wouldn't be thinking twice about this, it's a no-brainer. I assume the funding at Warwick is for the full 2+4 of the programme and includes a fee waiver?

Hi all, thank you very much for all the replies. Yes I am inclined for her to choose Warwick instead as well, but dad is a funny one who wants her to choose Oxford for the prestige but yet is not willing to fund her.

@MarchingFrogs Not sure about that, will check with her!

@GCAcademic Yes, Warwick is the full 2+4 programme with fee waiver.

At PhD level, there is no particular added prestige in Oxford over Warwick, and certainly none that would justify £80k debt.

GCAcademic, is that economics specifically, or more generally.

I know DS spoke to a lot of grad students and academics when deciding, especially about where to take his PhD. One thing he noted was that LSE's economics faculty hire very few who do not have US experience. I don't know if that is the same with other research strong Universities.

The Warwick UG degree is very well regarded by UK employers. I honestly don't know what its international reputation is or how highly regarded its research programmes are. The Oxford Masters is widely regarded as the top in the UK, and possibly Europe. (LSE Econometrics and Mathematical Economics is a bit different, as it is very quantitative.)

DS was lucky in that he could live at home, did RA work in the preceding summer, and we found the fees for the 10 month LSE course. A couple of his friends were also Londoners but from quite disadvantaged backgrounds. I don't know how they did it: bursaries, loans, tutoring/RA/TA work? One then worked as a consultant and is only now applying for his PhD. Work experience seems to be generally seen as a good thing when applying for Econ PhDs, though it obviously elongates the process still further.

Economics does seem to be different in that there are so many alternative employers of research economists. Moving in and out of academia seems to be easier.

OP where did your DD take their first degree.

GCAcademic, is that economics specifically, or more generally.

More generally, I don't really know the field in Economics. In my field (humanities), I would actually be slightly wary of an Oxbridge PhD when hiring for an academic job (particularly when the undergraduate degree is also Oxbridge) as I don't think it prepares students very well for the realities of an academic job outside its own very privileged system. I have had some unhappy experiences of line managing academic staff from this background (I work in a RG university) who struggle with workload, teaching format, the fact that research is now about much more than publications and that academic staff in most universities do not have the status of an Oxbridge don.

Ah that sounds a bit like the teaching/research tracks that DS was talking about. Only a proportion of academic jobs allow much time for research. Those, inevitably, are very competitive.

This is a big decision, though a funded PhD straight from a BSc in a top ranked department is a fantastic achievement as is a place on the Oxford Masters. Neither is a bad decision and a lot will depend on the DD's interests and priorities.

I will stop adding my very second hand knowledge. @Phphion is much better placed to make a contribute. I hope she does not mind me tagging her.

@Needmoresleep DD's bachelor's is from a top Asian university. Thanks a lot for sharing even if it's second hand knowledge and thanks for tagging Phphion. DD is contacting current students to ask about the support for her specific interests too.

There were lots of posters like spotcheck who just named a University without explanation

I'll explain....

The point of a PhD ( anywhere) is to get a job and to secure your future. The funding, job experience and the step into the profession tips it for me

Another factor is, she definitely needs a PhD after the Oxford masters if she wants to get an academic job. So the funded Warwick option looks more attractive.

@spotcheck
Join the club who fall foul of the fount of all knowledge! It’s not a requirement to justify your views.

The DC of mine who did a Masters at Oxford and at Cambridge weren't interviewed, simply notified by email, but the one doing a PhD at Oxford was. I don't think interviewing for Masters is a thing.

The One who was offered a funded PhD at UCL was phoned but not interviewed come to think of it but was then invited in to say hello etc.

I know that because as usual she'd lost her charger and was uncontactable so they phoned me on the home phone and I had to explain that she has no charge more often than she does have charge.

One should be one - that looks weird!

Surely it's still relatively early to rule out funding for Oxford but if it's not forthcoming I would say no contest - go for Warwick.

Warwick PhD grad here (social sciences but not economics) if your DD is wanting to go on into academia I’d recommend looking at how active current PhD candidates are in the department - are they publishing, active at conferences, being given teaching opportunities in the department, being included in departmental research seminars , being mentioned/celebrated on the department news pages?
This is the kind of stuff that is pretty essential for laying the groundwork of an academic career, and individual departments/supervisors vary massively in how much they support this. What potential supervisors has she identified? Are they research active? My supervisor was great in a lot of ways, but not research active and I do feel it closed off opportunities for me to develop RA skills, have opportunities for co-authoring etc
I work in academia now, but there’s a lot of temporary RA and teaching work out there (current my pay is £17-£24ph 4 years out of my PhD - with 2 book contracts under my belt!) so that’s food for thought when considering taking on a big debt.

It’s going to be outing if I say much more, but it is worth mentioning that in my experience Economics at Warwick is active in supporting their undergrad researchers at least, which would seem to be a positive sign!

Thanks Spotcheck. When I started a similar thread several years ago about LSE/Oxford, I got posts (the late departed BubblesBuddy) that just said Oxford, as if it was obvious that Oxford was always superior.

I am not claiming anything other than DS having gone through a similar decision making process, which hardly makes me a fount (sic) of all knowledge. Inevitably on this board people come with a variety of backgrounds and experiences. That is one of the strengths, but if people don't share their reasoning, it can be difficult for an OP to weigh the various contributions.

Goodbye, yes Oxford don't interview for Masters, nor do they offer an open day or even the chance to say hello. It is a huge investment and difficult to evaluate without seeing the place and speaking to people. A big factor in DS' decision making was choosing the known against the unknown. We were keen that he gave Oxford proper consideration. DS got a US PhD offer again without interview, but he was then invited to an Open Day where the University arranged for him to stay with a student from his course, and to meet others including the one fellow Brit. I understand that British Universities are realising that to attract the best postgrad students they need to do more to explain why they are the place to go. .

And OP, I think being from overseas makes a difference. The Warwick economics department is very well regarde, in the UK, but it is probably a case of thinking of where she wants to end up, and to work backwards. I used to live in SE Asia, and Oxford had a huge reputation. Warwick was not in the same reputational league. Academics at her current University should be able to help her understand the relative leg ups to her future career that either opportunity might provide.

The Oxford Economics Masters is very very well regarded, and to get a place is a real achievement. Funding is even harder to achieve and so it is by no means a given that funding would come through. (Plus the catch 22, of having to accept so there is then less incentive for them to find the money.)

Given her desire to enter a really competitive field, most probably at a non UK University, I don't think it is no contest.

Factors include:

• relative international reputation
• course content and the strength of each department in the areas that interest her
• the time it would take to get through a doctorate.
• money. Getting a funded offer straight after first degree is very impressive, but if there is the money to pay for Oxford, with the aim then of aiming for a funded PhD in, say, a top ranked US University, then the decision is less obvious.
• location. Does she know either Oxford or Warwick?

Surely it has to be no contest if there's no funding forthcoming from any other source? Father doesn't want to fund, mother can't fund. I don't really see how the option is there in the absence of funding of any sort, however good the programme may be. I mean, how does that work? A few bits and bobs may come along such as teaching opportunities or being a Junior Dean or whatever or even working in a restaurant etc, but there is no way that that will touch fees plus living costs. As an international student my understanding is that certain guarantees about funding have to be given, so one can't just wing it.