Close

Complete Captcha

• 1 year - 103 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 160 Goods vs 144 No Goods

1. Economist
   7993
   

   Compared to global peers, I disagree

   LSE places better than median placement of top 10 global schools

   UCL places better or at least the same as median top 20 school (go see the median placement of Cornell or Maryland over the last 5 years)

   Warwick and particularly Cambridge place better than median global top 30 schools.

   Oxford sucks a bit relative to peers, no discussion.

   QMUL is at best comparable to a top 60 school. And it places better.

   You can also compare with European peers. Not very different, if not outright better

   My agreement with 6839 is that no matter the institution's UK ranking, it's "median placement" is utterly abysmal

   Prove this

   1 year ago # QUOTE 4 Jab 4 No Jab !

2. Economist
   1312
   

   Compared to global peers, I disagree
   LSE places better than median placement of top 10 global schools
   UCL places better or at least the same as median top 20 school (go see the median placement of Cornell or Maryland over the last 5 years)
   Warwick and particularly Cambridge place better than median global top 30 schools.
   Oxford sucks a bit relative to peers, no discussion.
   QMUL is at best comparable to a top 60 school. And it places better.
   You can also compare with European peers. Not very different, if not outright better

   My agreement with 6839 is that no matter the institution's UK ranking, it's "median placement" is utterly abysmal

   Prove this
   

   Who is this joker?

   1 year ago # QUOTE 4 Jab 3 No Jab !

3. Economist
   ce85
   

   Joker? 20 years experience in US and Europe. Extended knowledge of placements. How about you?

   Do you really think LSE has worse placements than Northwestern over the last 5 years?

   So you really think UCL has worse placements than Cornell or Duke over the last 5 years?

   Do you really think Cambridge has worse placements than UCSD or BU over the last 5 years?

   If you do, you don't know the data

   1 year ago # QUOTE 4 Jab 5 No Jab !

4. Economist
   1312
   

   30 years of experience trolling on EJMR here. I specialize in overselling Oxbridge and UCL/LSE to prospective PhD candidates. but only poverty awaits.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 2 No Jab !

5. Economist
   ce85
   

   So you do data much, or just bullsh!t around here with no facts to back you up? Please dig up 5 years of placements for Northwestern, Cornell or BU and let's see the differences. If you don't want to talk about facts, I'm not interested, sorry

   30 years of experience trolling on EJMR here. I specialize in overselling Oxbridge and UCL/LSE to prospective PhD candidates. but only poverty awaits.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 2 No Jab !

6. Economist
   8c1f
   

   Nottingham placements and JMCs: https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/economics/people/job-market-candidates.aspx

   1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

7. Economist
   7236
   

   Looking at the Kent PhD 'stars' and their papers is extremely depressing.

   Perhaps academic prospects have always been dim.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 2 Jab 5 No Jab !

8. Economist
   23d8
   

   30 years of experience trolling on EJMR here. I specialize in overselling Oxbridge and UCL/LSE to prospective PhD candidates. but only poverty awaits.

   lol
   any phd doing something remotely relevant/useful/empirical from these places (UCL a bit less than the others) can find an industry job in london that pays more than 95% of the academic job market alternatives.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

9. Economist
   abd9
   

   To the no gooders, I'm happy to be corrected if you show data. If you don't, you can no good all you want. I'm sorry reality does not fit your priors

   Compared to global peers, I disagree
   LSE places better than median placement of top 10 global schools
   UCL places better or at least the same as median top 20 school (go see the median placement of Cornell or Maryland over the last 5 years)
   Warwick and particularly Cambridge place better than median global top 30 schools.
   Oxford sucks a bit relative to peers, no discussion.
   QMUL is at best comparable to a top 60 school. And it places better.
   You can also compare with European peers. Not very different, if not outright better

   My agreement with 6839 is that no matter the institution's UK ranking, it's "median placement" is utterly abysmal

   Prove this
   

   1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 2 No Jab !

10. Economist
    e021
    

    Looking at the Kent PhD 'stars' and their papers is extremely depressing.
    Perhaps academic prospects have always been dim.

    I disagree. For students not up to 6 years out, I think they have done well. JIMF, RED, MD, QJEF, etc are all okayish to good publications for students less than 4 years out from a low ranking department like Kent.

    Or What is depressing about people 3 years out who do not have top 5 papers? I challenge you to out yourself let’s see what you achieved 5 years after your PhD.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 2 No Jab !

11. Economist
    e021
    

    To the no gooders, I'm happy to be corrected if you show data. If you don't, you can no good all you want. I'm sorry reality does not fit your priors

    Compared to global peers, I disagree
    LSE places better than median placement of top 10 global schools
    UCL places better or at least the same as median top 20 school (go see the median placement of Cornell or Maryland over the last 5 years)
    Warwick and particularly Cambridge place better than median global top 30 schools.
    Oxford sucks a bit relative to peers, no discussion.
    QMUL is at best comparable to a top 60 school. And it places better.
    You can also compare with European peers. Not very different, if not outright better

    My agreement with 6839 is that no matter the institution's UK ranking, it's "median placement" is utterly abysmal

    Prove this
    

    It’s no news that LSE in recent times have done better than some top 10 in placing students. The evidence is readily available, no question about that..,But whether they will continue along this path, that I cannot guarantee.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 1 No Jab !

12. Economist
    fc7a
    

    worst 5 UK trolls on EJMR, reverse order:
    5. Warwick has decent placements, they're just unpublished.
    4. LSE is global top 15. Top 5 even.
    3. Oxford entry salaries are decent.
    2. UCL is similar to a US top 20.
    1. Kent ranks highly (on any dimension).

    1 year ago # QUOTE 4 Jab 3 No Jab !

13. Economist
    1ca8
    

    Nottingham placements and JMCs: https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/economics/people/job-market-candidates.aspx

    1 at IMF out of 5 is a lot better than I expected.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

14. Economist
    7057
    

    kent is actually surprising good. I guess the location helps.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 1 No Jab !

15. Economist
    7ecd
    

    the least grey and rainy s**t weather of the UK?

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

16. Economist
    7ecd
    

    with that logic, just don't go UK

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

17. Economist
    abd9
    

    Every decent person who joined recently seems to be leaving Oxford

    Klaus Adam
    Teodora Boneva
    Stephen Hansen
    Kevin O'Rourke
    Kalina Manova

    And others are all gone.

    Oxford falling apart

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 1 No Jab !

18. Economist
    e837
    

    Nottingham?

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

19. Economist
    da00
    

    Did you apply?

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

20. Economist
    6149
    

    worst 5 UK trolls on EJMR, reverse order:
    5. Warwick has decent placements, they're just unpublished.
    4. LSE is global top 15. Top 5 even.
    3. Oxford entry salaries are decent.
    2. UCL is similar to a US top 20.
    1. Kent ranks highly (on any dimension).

    LSE looks more like a top 3, by placements. GTFO

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

Reply »