Grad school and financing it

[Drogue]

Leading on from the debt thread, I've just come across a decision that I'm really not looking forward to making. Earlier I applied for a stupidly prestigious scholarship to spend a year studying in the US (the Fulbright), however I haven't managed to get it. I have however got 800 on the GRE quantitative and 6.0 on the analytical, which is a little way above average for the course I wanted to apply for - MA International and Development Economics at Yale. While obviously I can't be sure of getting a place, the course isn't terribly oversubscribed (because of the cost) and I've got a pretty good academic background.

Which leaves me in a dilemma: my parents have said they'll lend me the $45 000 it would cost to pay for the course and live there, but is it really worth that much? I'm not sure I'm so comfortable having that level of debt, even to my parents. Considering I could do a really good MSc in at Bristol or Nottingham (both great schools, but not really Yale) for ~$20 000 including living costs.

The other main question is whether anyone knows of any sources of funding for an international coming to do that sort of course? Yale state that it's not applicable for Yale funding, and other than the big scholarship - Fulbright, Knox, Kennedy and Rotary - I'm not aware of any major sources of funding that I could apply for. It doesn't have to be a full scholarship, just anything that might ease the burden.

Really staying in the UK is the sensible option, as the course would be more academic and perhaps more relevant, as well as having friend here. But the Yale course is just set up so well - it's an academic course that's designed for people to do policy, not academia, afterwards. Meaning as well as theory it teaches how to analyse the effects of public policy, and how the theory relates to the real world.

[Japher]

I can't help you with the funding portion, I have never qualified for a scholarship. However, I wonder if there are some sort of grants available, other than the fullbright. http://www.iie.org/

However, any education is only worth what you would get out of it. And, IMO, that is up to you. Is it worth it? No one but yourself can awnser that.

[Maniac]

Re: Grad school and financing it

Originally posted by Drogue
Meaning as well as theory it teaches how to analyse the effects of public policy, and how the theory relates to the real world.

And you expect American economists to be able to give a balanced view on policy decisions? It'll just be an ideological indoctrination on free trade, small state etc.

[Drogue]

These are US academics, most of them are creaming-left liberals (excluding Chicago, of course). But more importantly, it's not analysing the effects of policy in a subjective way, it's taking economic theory and using it.

As an undergrad example, I had a couple of weeks studying game theory, industrial organisation and oligopoly theory, and the next week was given an essay asking me to analyse the microsoft case using these theories to try to see what the effects of the different proposed measures would be, and argue what I think the outcome should be. In another week I had to explain the effects of economic tools for controling pollution (taxes and tradable permits) in comparison with command and control methods, explain why the UK didn't use them much and argue about whether and how we could use them more in the future.

Applied economics isn't about subjective policy decisions about what the goal should be, it's about using economic tools to say what the effects of a policy will be. Any economist can tell you that, ceteris paribus, cutting taxes will stimulate growth. The political side comes in arguing whether or not it's worth it, and is something an economist should stay away from.

Economics theory has come on a long way since the says of comparitive advantage being the be-all-and-end-all of trade policy. Krugman (Princeton) has argued for the use of capital controls on debt and the need for some pro-developing-country protectionism. Sachs (Columbia) argues regularly for developed countries doing more to help developing countries. Srinivasan (Yale) is one of the foremost proponants of pro-poor policies in India and South Asia.

It really isn't indoctrination at all.

[Zopperoni]

A European OT mod going to the US... you know that's not going to help Apolyton a lot, right?

[VetLegion]

Economics theory has come on a long way since the says of comparitive advantage being the be-all-and-end-all of trade policy.

Well, free trade is still canon for a reason.

BTW, what Easterly is saying makes more sense than what Sachs is saying.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Zopperoni
A European OT mod going to the US... you know that's not going to help Apolyton a lot, right?

True, although it's very, very unlikely. And even if it does happen, there's a good chance it'll be postponed for a year as I might be applying for AIESEC UK national president, which is a year-long sabbatical position.

[DaShi]

If you have an opportunity to go to Yale, I'd say take it. Money may be tight for awhile, but it will be worth it in the long run.

[DaShi]

If you have an opportunity to go to Yale, I'd say take it. Money may be tight for awhile, but it will be worth it in the long run.

[Kuciwalker]

Take it twice, even!

[Pekka]

If you want to aim high, take it. If you settle for an average job, it's not worth it and does not give you the benefits of 'Yale'.

So the question really is, are you going to use that Yale potential to the maximum or not? Given it has market value, if you only put money on it but do not plan on cashing it out, well.. it's not worth it. If you want to cash out, go for it.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Drogue
These are US academics, most of them are creaming-left liberals

Really? Where are they hiding on the internet?

Any economist can tell you that, ceteris paribus, cutting taxes will stimulate growth.

But the problem with all those nice theories is reality is rarely ceteris paribus.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Maniac
Really? Where are they hiding on the internet?

Too busy researching. But even so, political ideology rarely affects an economists work. It may affect what they decide to work on, but that's a different matter. Friedman was seriously right-wing when it came to implimenting policies, but his economics is pretty solid.

Originally posted by Maniac
But the problem with all those nice theories is reality is rarely ceteris paribus.

True, however what I meant there was a specific "if you cut taxes without cutting spending" then you raise growth. This has been shown statistically, as well as theoretically - it increases demand, pushing up prices and growth. The problem is it can cause problems for the future, due to debt and inflation.

[Az]

"if you cut taxes without cutting spending" then you raise growth.

duh.