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?

I tried. I listed factors that might contribute to any decision and caveated the money point with lots of ifs. But clearly not enough.

I assume we read OPs post differently
The father wants the daughter to take the Oxford offer but is not willing to pay. I read that as if he could pay if he were sufficiently pursuaded of the relative merits. Otherwise there was never a decision to be made.

That's right. I read it that the father wasn't going to budge.

Hi all, thanks again for the lively and informative conversations. Am glad to hear from PerpetualStudent that WW seems to support their economics students well! Will think through all the great points that have been raised with DD to make the decision.

For any curious souls or anyone who may benefit from this information in the future, DD attended Oxford's offer holders' event where the department told students to treat the offer as if there were no funding attached. The economics department is shifting their funding to focus more on the PhD students and hope to fully fund all PhD students.

I am in STEM so cannot comment directly on Economics. I do know that Warwick Economics is very highly rated worldwide. A W Masters will be taken seriously by any PhD programme in the world.

From what you’ve written, that is the goal. I agree with @TizerorFizz that any teaching experience will be a small point in your DD’s favour, also. So I would vote for Warwick.

Poetryandwine, the Warwick offer is for a funded PhD. Whereas the Oxford offer is for a Masters, which would presumably lead to her being a good candidate for funded PhD programmes in the UK and US.

Tizerorfizz may disagree but I would be surprised if any PhD economics programme, including Oxford, did not offer RA or TA experience. And though there was no formal offer of paid teaching work for Masters student on the course DS took at LSE, in practice there was plenty. I don't know about Oxford. (The course was full on and only 10 months so few actually had the time.) Oddly in the US some TA/RA work is usually part of the requirement for funding. In the UK it appears to be extra income, which bizarrely meant that DS's income during his PhD would have been higher had he stayed in the UK.

I am not fully convinced that when entering an international job market looking for a position with a research heavy institution, that Warwick will weigh as much as whatever PhD programme you might get onto if you achieved a strong Masters at Oxford. But it partly depends on who is available to supervise at Warwick. And a funded PhD at this point is a bird in the hand.

I am glad to hear that Oxford now offer open days. It was quite odd that the only communication was an offer, then a request to choose a college, followed by a questionnaire asking why he had not accepted the offer.

I am not surprised that Oxford are reducing funding for economics Masters, and indeed I thought it was always hard to obtain. For many specialist economist jobs in the City, a Masters is almost a requirement. Those jobs pay well and so it should not be hard to get a career development loan if you have an Oxford offer.

My apologies. I was highly sleep deprived.

What is your DD’s career aim? And what are the leaving destinations of W PhD’s? If her funding is linked to a project or she has been assigned a supervisor, concentrate particularly on placements in this area or for the supervisor’s students. How many eventually attained permanent academic jobs?

A W PhD in Economics is a stellar credential. In STEM however we find that the allocated 3.5 yrs of support (topped up to 4 by the university) is not usually enough to make students competitive for the best postdoctoral positions: European and American PhDs are longer.

But now EU citizens are out of the pipeline for the main postdoctoral route in U.K. academic science. It hardly makes Brexit a good thing but it is a small help. I don’t know whether your DD would be eligible. Of course there are always competitive PD positions worldwide and top U.K. PhDs do get them, but our shorter degree programmes are a disadvatantage. IMO academics recognise this and sometimes quality will trump quantity in a British applicant’s publication record.

In my own STEM field a pathetically small proportion of British students who wish to go into academia ever attain a permanent position, and I think a lot of this is about the short doctoral training period. The only point of Oxford IMO would be to position your DD to go abroad for her PhD.

If she does not want a career in academia, Warwick all the way. And depending on what she learns, possibly even then

Poetryandwine, again with my second hand knowledge I understand that US funding for a econ PhD is six years but that the UK or rather what DS would have got had he taken up his LSE offer was five years even with a Masters. The missing year is the job market year which DS’ US University are generously funding. The problem element is the Masters which Universities tend not to fund, partly because most will be aiming for high paid roles in the City, and which can be major revenue generators. The LSE ten month programme for home students is over £31,000. Imperial charges even more for its management courses.

And that the big difference between STEM and economics is that in STEM your PhD is often based around specific research funding and that with economics you choose your own, but will want a supervisor with an interest in your field. And that rather than one long thesis it is possible to write three shorter ones.

Jobs are still really hard to come by. Or at least ones that allow time for research. And the market is international. The advantage, as said upthread, is that there are plenty of alternative employers for research economists, and they often pay extremely well. It is common for those aiming for academia to have to take one or two post doc years working as a reasearch fellow on short term contracts.

And sort of my point. Jobs are so very competitive so every little helps. Oxford followed by a top US University, hopefully with a few prizes along the way, might give you a better chance. There again being supervised by someone top notch at Warwick would presumably be equally good. And to get funding without a Masters is very impressive.

I suspect PhD funding in economics is harder to get as it is funded by the government not by industry research and there is not much of it.. (There may be exceptions, and presumably Oxford is rich enough to fund some themselves.) DS applied for a few in his Masters year fully expecting to have to take a year out and put more energy into it. He got two offers , and it is only in retrospect he realises how lucky he was. There is strong and world wide competition.

OP,

I agree with much of what you say. But much Pure Science funding works the same way as what you are describing for Economics.

How long is the offer of guaranteed funding from W? If 5 years, my concerns are lessened. If 3.5, the uni will likely make it up to 4 but as we agree, against the international competition in 5 or 6 year programmes, this is tough.

In an American PhD programme the first two years are modules culminating in exams but this is not a Masters programme. Those who do not pass the exams at the doctoral level often pass them at the Masters level and receive this degree without writing a thesis. Those who pass at the doctoral level receive the degree almost without comment. (There are some Masters with thesis programmes but these are less common). The modules at RG equivalent universities are at a higher level than the vast majority of Year 4 and Masters modules in the U.K.

The systems are not really comparable. The British system requires more independence and that is good training. The shortened time frame as compared to both Europeans and Americans is my issue. One need only look at the permanent academic staff of any Russell Group STEM School, particularly the younger people, to see what I mean. Your DD could check out the permanent staff in Economics instead

Best wishes to your DD

PS LSE lists academic staff of all levels with their PhD institutions in an easy to read format. Only 18/71 have British PhDs.

At Warwick it is harder to figure out the same statistic but one can infer that it might be similar. At good but not outstanding RG unis the proportion of British PhDs is higher. Both Edinburgh and Manchester have retained several of their own students. This isn’t necessarily a sign of academic strength. LSE and W may have one or two of their own PhDs but (a) the proportion is much smaller and (b) at that level people are more hard nosed about not compromising their research reputation.
I don’t think I saw an example where the proportion of British PhDs was higher than about 50%, though I did not delve deeply.

Most staff do seem to have American PhDs, esp at LSE.

PS LSE lists academic staff of all levels with their PhD institutions in an easy to read format. Only 18/71 have British PhDs.

This is the sort of point I have been trying to make. The LSE department is strong and apparently getting stronger, but DS was advised that US experience was seen as valuable and that though the University he is now at ranks about the same as LSE, he was better off going there and broadening his experience. The LSE have apparently recently hired a couple of young British PhDs, but both took their PhDs in the US.

My guess is also that some of the European PhDs will also have spent some time at a US University post-Doctorate.

That said Warwick could be different. I don't know. They rejected DS for an UG degree and if you are doing well, progression to the LSE Masters from the BSc(Econ) is pretty linear so there was no need for him to really look at their post grad programmes.

Another oddity of economics is that there is a real demand across a wide range of Universities for people who can teach, particularly the quantitative stuff like econometrics. In contrast there is stiff competition for positions that allow good time for research. Hence American Universities talking about teaching track and research track positions.

Which is why, if OPs DD wants a research track academic position, the Warwick offer is not a complete no brainer.

I'm finding all this information very interesting, thanks to everyone for providing so much detail!

I did have one question, though – I was under the impression that US PhDs were longer because the students weren't at the same level upon starting them. Because of the US system of majors and minors and the requirement to study several subjects, they just hadn't done enough of their main subject to be able to start at the same level as someone who has studied solely (fr example) economics. So the longer period of study means that they have reached a similar standard as British PhDs upon completion of the qualification. Is that not the case @poetryandwine?

DD2 was put off applying to the US for PhDs as it appeared that for 2-3 years she would be working at a lower level than for her Masters (when she was doing original research) and because she has no interest in teaching under-grads.

Also, DD2 (STEM not economics) did her Masters at a top London school last year and it was a full 12 months, not 10. She didn't get a summer holiday so I'm surprised to hear that LSE's Masters are only 10 months. This was a world-leading course.

Hi, OP -

Back when A levels were more difficult and British students started from a higher base your statement was true. In clearing out my in laws’ house we found mock papers of DH from long ago that are now Year 2 material at most good RG universities, Year 1 at Oxbridge.

Part III (Y4) of the Cambridge Tripos in my subject is probably more difficult, though not necessarily more advanced topically, than the taught modules in the first two years of the very strong American doctoral programmes in my subject. I know that that taught MSc modules at most of the stronger RG universities in my subject do not come close to the Y2 doctoral modules in strong American programmes. And the best students in the US are also starting their research reading then, having passed their preliminary exams early.

Sorry, I have no insight about that 10 month Masters

@Needmoresleep, thank you for your description of postgraduate funding in economics. I apologise for not crediting you earlier. The postgraduate model in pure or theoretical science is also largely as you described.