Do differently ranked universities prepare you equally well for various work settings? Do the skills they give students equal in quality? Just curious. I know the university brand name though matters in employability.
Are PhDs from diff ranked universities offer the same quality of education?
-
Coursework is irrelevant and does not directly teach "how to do research", it is just a prerequisite. There is a huge advantage to working with the leaders of the field at the top universities, both directly because they set the research agenda and indirectly through reputational effects and recommendations.
-
The training/mentoring is typically hugely better at HRMs. When we fly people out from LRMs, we are usually shocked at their inability to answer basic questions. It’s like they have blinders on and won’t step one toe beyond the specifics of what they do/find in the JMP. HRM candidates have much better coaching on how to answer questions and discuss the big picture. Sure this is partly selection, but it’s mostly treatment effect. How do I know? Well, because I see how bad our own students were when they were first or second years.
-
I'm a LRM. A lot of our comp questions were the same as in many top departments. It's not about coursework. It's about what happens outside of coursework. At LRM you will be taking a lot more irrelevant classes after comps (usually 3 years of courseworks), your professors will be former HRMs who most likely will not be interesting in publishing with you. You will be too busy TAing, or even teaching your own classes so you won't have as much research exposure and experience. HRM stars are in the meantime publishing with their star advisors. Also your professors from high ranked institutions will grow bitter at their destiny of working at a low ranked institution and they will be very poor advisors. HRMs also make connections in school and then later on. Then this disadvantage just perpetuates.
-
Do differently ranked universities prepare you equally well for various work settings? Do the skills they give students equal in quality? Just curious. I know the university brand name though matters in employability.
I’m a second year PhD student in Harvard Economics, did my undergrad at Berkeley. For readers unfamiliar with the inside-baseball, Berkeley is ranked somewhere in the 3-6 range, while Harvard and MIT duke it out over the 1 and 2 slots.
I was always impressed by the grad students in the Berkeley econ department, but as a group they’re just not in the same league as my classmates here. The drop-off in input quality when you leave 02138/9 is pretty steep, and it must be even steeper when you look past the top 6-10. I mean this in the least arrogant way possible.
-
Wherever you are at or will be, the standard course sequence is Corporate finance theory & empirical, Asset pricing theory & empirical. In addition, you take microeconomics, graduate statistics, and several econometrics courses. All other courses like continuous AP, macrofinance, microstructure, household, insurance or risk management courses (very rare) are just cherries on top of the cake. The more important thing is your supervisor and your jmp. If you can work with still publishing well faculties in LRM, then you are fair.
-
Do differently ranked universities prepare you equally well for various work settings? Do the skills they give students equal in quality? Just curious. I know the university brand name though matters in employability.
I’m a second year PhD student in Harvard Economics, did my undergrad at Berkeley. For readers unfamiliar with the inside-baseball, Berkeley is ranked somewhere in the 3-6 range, while Harvard and MIT duke it out over the 1 and 2 slots.
I was always impressed by the grad students in the Berkeley econ department, but as a group they’re just not in the same league as my classmates here. The drop-off in input quality when you leave 02138/9 is pretty steep, and it must be even steeper when you look past the top 6-10. I mean this in the least arrogant way possible.You know that you just doxxed yourself, right?
-
if anyone cares he/she did but half the candidates on H website are asian and have no ug listed. berkeleybro to me has strong asian chance but still, could be anyone. maybe the girl from alameda? what’s the big deal?
Do differently ranked universities prepare you equally well for various work settings? Do the skills they give students equal in quality? Just curious. I know the university brand name though matters in employability.
I’m a second year PhD student in Harvard Economics, did my undergrad at Berkeley. For readers unfamiliar with the inside-baseball, Berkeley is ranked somewhere in the 3-6 range, while Harvard and MIT duke it out over the 1 and 2 slots.
I was always impressed by the grad students in the Berkeley econ department, but as a group they’re just not in the same league as my classmates here. The drop-off in input quality when you leave 02138/9 is pretty steep, and it must be even steeper when you look past the top 6-10. I mean this in the least arrogant way possible.You know that you just doxxed yourself, right?
-
I work at a PhD granting institution and did my PhD at a substantially higher ranked one. I think the biggest differences in training are the following (which is separate from the differences in student ability)
-At a lower ranked institution, you can "get away" with a lower quality of work. Our middling students would be a fair bit below the bar at a top-ranked institution. We give them advice about how they can improve their research, and if they seek it out and can handle it they can make major improvements. At a top school they would be under much more pressure from faculty and peers to make those improvements.
-We are not quite as good a faculty. That can make a difference to the very top end students. My advisors in grad school could look at very top quality research project and spot the best ways to improve it a lot faster than I can. It is harder to provide great training to students who have equaled or surpassed you. Not many grad students get to that point, at least not until very close to the end of their PhD, but they would reach it at a lower level with me than with my HRM advisors.
-
If by education you mean coursework, everywhere is the same sh!t. Research support, however, is wildly different from university to university.
The United Kingdom has the second most Noble Prize laureates in the field of economics, with nine men having been awarded the honor.
-
Do differently ranked universities prepare you equally well for various work settings? Do the skills they give students equal in quality? Just curious. I know the university brand name though matters in employability.
No one from a LRM has ever won a Nobel prize in Economics or Finance.
-
Do differently ranked universities prepare you equally well for various work settings? Do the skills they give students equal in quality? Just curious. I know the university brand name though matters in employability.
I’m a second year PhD student in Harvard Economics, did my undergrad at Berkeley. For readers unfamiliar with the inside-baseball, Berkeley is ranked somewhere in the 3-6 range, while Harvard and MIT duke it out over the 1 and 2 slots.
I was always impressed by the grad students in the Berkeley econ department, but as a group they’re just not in the same league as my classmates here. The drop-off in input quality when you leave 02138/9 is pretty steep, and it must be even steeper when you look past the top 6-10. I mean this in the least arrogant way possible.You know that you just doxxed yourself, right?
You know that it's just a famous EJMR copypasta that's several years old, right? Although the actual OP has indeed been doxxed and iirc, got a job at an LRM.