Urch Forums - Blogs - enginecon

Admission and funding decisions

enginecon — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 17:05:41 GMT

In most cases the ADCOM simply does its best to rank the candidates.
Then the top N get admission letters, and of those the top n (n<=N) get admission + funding.

Ranking may also be used to further divide the funded applicants (top n1 get fellowship offers, next n2 get TA's, rest get only tuition waivers, etc).

Of course they know that only a fraction (estimated from experience) of offers in any category will be accepted. They consider that in determining the number of offers.

Some consideration *may* be given to fields, but since students are generally allowed to switch fields (SOP are non-binding), this will likely not be given much weight.

Above is the most common scenario... it may not apply to certain specific programs or funding sources... For example, there may be specific fellowships that can only be offered to candidates who satisfy certain specific criteria (geographical, gender, subfield, ethnic, etc), perhaps because a private donor provided the funding and specified so.

Field strength and program choice

enginecon — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 13:30:54 GMT

In principle, it is reasonable to consider program strength in specific fields and even subfields.

The main problems of doing so are two:
(1) the candidate may just have a "leaning" toward some field(s) -- not really a well-defined research idea --, and this may change as s/he becomes aware of new material during the 1st/2nd year of the PhD

(2) Even if the candidate has a strong field preference and some concrete ideas, s/he still need to *predict* the field strength about 3 years down the road, when s/he is likely going to start research work in earnest... such predictions are quite tricky, especially outside the top 20 and for not-so-large departments, because the departure or arrival of a single professor can have a significant impact in the "field ranking".

So, if you choose among programs based on field strength you may find that by the time you actually start your research work the field situation is quite different from what it was when you chose among programs (your interests, or the available faculty may have significantly changed since 3 years before).

economics PhD at a management school

enginecon — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 12:05:52 GMT

In PRACTICAL terms, getting into a top management PhD program, and into a top Econ program is minimally different. The student enrolled at the management PhD program can take courses offered by the econ department, attend the seminars, have members of the econ department in his committee, etc. (vice-versa for the econ Phd students).

The only practical difference are the required courses... Management PhD students normally do not have to take macroeconomics, BUT MAY do so. Econometrics/statistics may or may not be the same, but again, Management PhD students can take econometrics from the econ department under normal circumstances. However, the microeconomics-oriented courses are often exactly the same (management PHD students enroll concurrently with the econ students and attend the same lectures, in the same room, at the same time).

So, it would be a MISTAKE to sacrifice one or more years of your life just to apply say to MIT econ, where you could apply (and possibly be admitted) to MIT management for Fall 2011. You can say the same about Northwestern (MEDS vs econ)... At CMU (Tepper) there is a single program for both econ and business students, as far as I know.

It would also be a mistake to pay a lot of attention to the "label" of the program in the business school (business econ, managerial econ, financial econ, etc). In practical terms the name may only affect the required courses. You can almost certainly do the same high-quality economics-oriented research at any top business school. And almost certainly, your own research interests will adjust as you gain more knowledge of the field.

Importance of the GRE (especially for applicants from lesser-known schools)

enginecon — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 11:58:28 GMT

The GRE, it is the ONLY item in the typical applicant's profile that has an OBJECTIVE value. Everything else depends on where the applicant has done his work. An A earned at a lesser known school (LKS) will NOT be viewed as equivalent to an A from an Ivy school, even if the LKS is in the US (and it shouldn't). A LOR sent by a top researcher will not be viewed the same as one sent by an unknown faculty member of a LKS (nor should it). Research experience is great, but it depends on the place where it was earned, and/or the name of the supervisors.

Thus, the value of GPA's are school-dependent and there is no reliable information on the "average strength" of the school of funded apps in given program; LOR are writer-dependent and there is no reliable information on the "average LOR" for admitted/funded apps in given programs; SOP are important, but it is very difficult to predict how does your SOP compare to others, and there is no reliable information on the "average SOP" for admitted/funded applicants anywhere. So, that leaves the GRE, which means the same for all applicants, and on which there is reliable, easy to find information on scores of admitted/funded apps to many programs.

So, to ESTIMATE your admission odds at a given school, the GRE is critical, especially for people coming from LKS. What else could you possibly use?