Interview of the Month with Vojtěch Šikl

You are the first scholarship holder of the Prague Finance Institute which has enabled you to study a Master’s program Econometrics and Mathematical Economics (EME) at The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). Could you please elaborate on your experience at LSE in general and the courses which you took in particular?

I arrived in London in late August and am very pleased with both my overall experience at LSE and my decision to pursue the EME program. Although it’s quite challenging, it remains very interesting. The LSE campus and my student residence are conveniently located right by the Thames River in central London, which makes for a vibrant and engaging environment.

Our coursework covers the classic core fields of economics. Initially, we had a pre-sessional course in Microeconomics, Macroeconomics, and Econometrics to ensure everyone had a solid understanding of key concepts. During the term, we followed up with advanced versions of these same three core subjects. This term’s focus includes game and consumer theory (Micro); growth and wealth distribution models (Macro); nonparametric methods, GMM estimation, and general asymptotic theory (Econometrics). The material covered is equivalent to 1st year PhD program in Economics.

Beyond these core courses, we’re allowed one elective from a broad range of options from the departments of economics, finance, statistics, and mathematics. I chose Contracts and Organizations,  taught by Professors Gilat Levy and Philippe Aghion, which centers around information asymmetry among different agents. In my free time, I also audit Further Topics in Econometrics, a course that focuses on time series econometrics and less restrictive model setting. 

How would you compare your studies at the Charles University in Prague and LSE?

I thoroughly enjoyed my studies in Prague. Several great professors and fantastic classmates made my undergraduate experience memorable, so the bar was set high from the start. I also believe that IES prepared me well for the transition to EME, giving me a foundation comparable to students from Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, the University of Toronto, or NYU. Perhaps I had slightly stronger training in mathematics and weaker training in microeconomics and econometrics, but overall, the difference was not significant.

There are two main differences that stand out to me. The first is the mentality of students, particularly when it comes to graduate programs. In the UK, many students choose to enter the industry after completing their undergraduate degrees. Those who remain in academia are often determined to pursue a PhD or explore more technical or niche subfields. In the Czech Republic, however, students are generally expected to obtain a master’s degree, and during master’s studies, they tend to focus more on securing attractive job opportunities. This approach is understandable and, in many ways, practical. However, for someone like me, who believes academia has much to offer even after undergraduate studies, I feel I might have missed out on the collective motivation to excel academically if I had stayed in Prague. Having taken master’s-level core courses at IES during my final undergraduate year, I can say that, on average, the coursework at LSE is more demanding in terms of both the breadth of topics covered and the depth of material (one exception would be Advanced Macroeconomics, this course was of higher quality at IES compared to its counterpart during the autumn term at LSE).

Secondly, I think there is much more emphasis on independence. Every week, we have a lecture, after which a problem set is posted that we should solve, which goes beyond what was covered in the lecture, requiring us to learn a significant amount independently. This is the time when working in groups becomes essential.

Another advantage of studying at LSE is the opportunity to attend guest lectures across various departments. For example, I had the chance to attend a lecture by Prof. Chernozhukov, an econometrician from MIT, who presented his latest research on omitted variable bias in causal machine learning. Throughout the semester, there are numerous events to participate in, whether they are academic or industry-oriented, which are quite interesting.

On the other hand, I think the idea of the program is somehow comparable to the undergraduate program at IES, as both focus on thorough mathematical training. The cohort is also rather small (40 students). At the same time, I think my perception of the two universities is specific to the two respective programs. I believe the experience at the (for instance) department of finance would be much different and perhaps much more industry and less coursework-focused.

What do you like the most about LSE and the life in London?

I like that I am part of a very smart group of students who are interested in quantitative methods that are applied to economic problems. I feel like there is not that much of a change compared to my undergraduate experience at IES. Even though most of my classmates are applying for a PhD (which is in principle a zero-sum game), everyone in the cohort is very cooperative and willing to help. This makes the whole experience much more enjoyable.

One reason why LSE is one of the top universities is the quality of teaching. While, as in every university, there are very good and quite bad teachers, the teaching experience is, on average, better than at IES (but there are, of course, exceptions). I think there are mainly two reasons. One of them is that professors enjoy intensive technical support from the department. All our lectures are automatically recorded, so teachers have less administrative work and can properly focus on teaching. Secondly, all my professors (or lecturers) have studied or taught at the very best universities in the US (Harvard, Chicago, Princeton, Yale…). Although such credentials don’t automatically ensure a great teaching experience, they do encourage students to be more attentive during lectures. I must say that the majority of professors sincerely care about our understanding and provide considerable support even outside of the lectures. This kind of environment is highly motivating.

London is a very vibrant city, although frankly, it can get depressing, especially during winter. There are plenty of ways to unwind and avoid becoming overly consumed by academics. In this respect, we’ve had many departmental socials, be it darts competition, bowling or Christmas party, all of them were enjoyable. That said, the majority of our time is inevitably spent on the 4th floor of the LSE Library. I’m looking forward to exploring and enjoying the city more thoroughly once the summer break begins.

At the same time you have joined the research team of the Prague Finance Institute as the Research Analyst under the mentorship of the Chief Economist Andre Chelhot. Could you please elaborate on this cooperation?

I joined PFI to support the Macro research team. Although I’m more focused on econometrics and game theory—and financial markets aren’t exactly my primary interest—I recognize that it’s important for any economist to develop a broad understanding of how different parts of the economy interact. For example, noticing unusual changes in inventory balances can hint at upcoming shifts in GDP growth.

Currently, Andre and I are working on monthly country charts that examine several key indicators: we look at overall GDP, the financial health of households, employment expectations, and price developments. By comparing these expectations with actual outcomes, we can see where our forecasts align or diverge from reality. We also evaluate each country’s financial conditions and compare them across various regions to get a clearer view of potential risks and opportunities. So far, this collaboration has been enjoyable. Andre constantly provides insights about the current state of the economy while also being very mindful of my university workload.

Under Andre’s supervision you have been extensively using the Macrobond database. What do you like the most about this economic database and which research products does it help you produce?

I had never worked with Macrobond before collaborating with Andre, but I’ve found its comprehensive data-scraping and intuitive user interface to be very useful. I have little experience with other financial macro databases, but I enjoy working with Macrobond as it streamlines the research process: you can quickly pull data, compare different countries or time periods, and easily generate graphs or tables for your analysis. It is much more convenient than having to extract data from various official sources. It consolidates a wide array of economic data sources into one platform. This makes it much simpler to spot any newly released or updated figures. One of my two main responsibilities is to monitor recent data updates and identify notable trends or sudden changes (for example) in price levels or GDP growth. Additionally, I create monthly charts on European countries.

Regarding your future career, which professional path would you like to take after you have finished your studies at LSE?

It is hard not to be influenced by my classmates in EME. Approximately two-thirds of graduates proceed to do a PhD. While I am intrigued by this idea and I’ve been enjoying the coursework so far, it is a great commitment and at the same time, the competition for top US PhD placements (the US is honestly the best place to study an economics PhD) is quite fierce. Therefore, my short-term plan is to gain research experience during the second part of 2025. At the same time, the prospect to continue study at attractive academic institutions is highly conditional on my performance at the LSE.

The plan is, therefore, to graduate (hopefully in a graceful manner) from the program, obtain relevant research experience to strengthen my potential PhD application, and start working in either strategic consulting or trading in case the PhD applications do not turn out the way I desired.