TestMagic

no one knows · 2006 March 14th, 09:57 PM

I feel that it is unlikely that he would get in with 1 calculus class - even if that 1 class was real analysis. I mean if I were in the same position I am not sure I would even consider applying to MIT. I think it just goes to show that the admissions process is very hard to predict.

economistsdoitwithmodels · 2006 March 14th, 11:17 PM

I think it depends in his ec classes. Graduating summa cum laude requires almost a 4.0 which at Harvard is very hard to get. Now imagine one of his economic courses was graduate micro and he got an A in it. Does it really matter he only took calculus? Furthermore, there are a couple of math courses that only the top kids at Harvard take that teach metric topology, linear algebra, multivariable calculus, ode, and some analysis in one year. If you get an A in that class you don't really need to prove yourself any further. In addition to that, everyone who says the letters are important is absolutely right. Writing the best thesis at Harvard is also a huge deal and any hot shot professor would be happy to sponsor a kid like regardless of how many math courses he took.

econosaur · 2006 March 15th, 12:15 AM

If he had needed more math to get into MIT back then, maybe he would have taken more math. That's the problem with PE analysis.

no one knows · 2006 March 15th, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by econosaur

If he had needed more math to get into MIT back then, maybe he would have taken more math. That's the problem with PE analysis.

Econsaur wins this debate in my mind. Good call.

Ross123 · 2006 March 15th, 03:19 AM

Someone told me that his undegrad thesis was published, which may be this one :
"Using Repeat Challengers to Estimate the Effect of Campaign Spending on Election Outcomes in the U.S. House." Journal of Political Economy, 1994, 102(4), pp. 777-98.
If Levitt did someting publishable in undergrad, it was a good signal to the ad com that he is a good potential researcher, which is strictly better quant guys.

In addition, as far as I know, the ad com are more concerned about the research ability of the applicants rather than their math skills. As you know, it is common that many top 5 grads with excellent math skills cannot get a paper published in a top-tier journal.

crslr · 2006 March 15th, 04:13 AM

My vote is a definite no. But econosaur is right; Levitt would have had more math now. Anyway, he isn't one of the really big publishers. A lot of posts seem to cite faculty with a prominent public (as opposed to research) profile as key to a department. The people with the most pages in top 30 journals (according to the Kalaitzidakis et al. definition) in 1994-2003 were:

Phillips, Peter C B Yale U 1536
Heckman, James J U Chicago 1141
Acemoglu, Daron MIT 1099
Smith, Bruce D Texas 951
Tirole, Jean Toulouse 929
Neumark, David Michigan State U 862
Andrews, Donald W K Yale U 850
Pesaran, M Hashem U Cambridge 796
Gruber, Jonathan MIT 741
Samuelson, Larry Wisconsin 722
Laffont, Jean Jacques Toulouse 693
Rustichini, Aldo Boston U 652
Jackson, Matthew O Caltech 632
Besley, Timothy J LSE 630
Blundell, Richard W IFS 628
Rosenzweig, Mark R Harvard U 621
Keane, Michael P Yale U 610
Krueger, Alan B Princeton U 607
Bovenberg, A Lans Tilburg U 583
Svensson, Lars E O Princeton U 580
Wolpin, Kenneth I U Pennsylvania 579
Glaeser, Edward L Harvard U 573
Angrist, Joshua D MIT 551
Fudenberg, Drew Harvard U 545
Lee, Lung Fei Ohio State U 536
Canova, Fabio U Pompeu Fabra 531
Linton, Oliver B LSE 529
Turnovsky, Stephen J U Washington 522
Ray, Debraj NYU 513
Shleifer, Andrei Harvard U 512
Epstein, Larry G U Rochester 509
White, Halbert UCSD 508
Levine, David K UCLA 505

Emperor · 2006 March 15th, 04:23 AM

Yes, Levitt would get in. I know for a fact that there is a first year student at MIT now with no undergrad mathematics at all. These things happen. Dont believe all these bullies who claim you need advanced topology and twenty other math classes to get into and through grad school

.

crslr · 2006 March 15th, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emperor

Yes, Levitt would get in. I know for a fact that there is a first year student at MIT now with no undergrad mathematics at all. These things happen. Dont believe all these bullies who claim you need advanced topology and twenty other math classes to get into and through grad school

.

If you don't mind, I don't believe that. There must be something in his background you're not aware of or don't realize the significance of. It's not possible to graduate from a PhD program without any college math. Even at MIT.

goodcall · 2006 March 15th, 04:40 AM

Not taking math doesn't necessarily mean inability in math.

By the way, if you can prove you're a very very promising researcher and it is also supported by superstar professors, then I believe you can get in at any program. If you don't (just like most of us), then you should send signals to adcom about your abilities on grad level econ, proof type math, etc, etc, to say like "look, I can survive the first year, and then follow your guides to be an economist."

Bryster · 2006 March 15th, 04:42 AM

Ross

The article that you're referring to in JPE was published while Levitt was in grad school at MIT..

His undergraduate thesis at Harvard for which he won the award for best undergraduate thesis was on thoroughbred breeding.

Also, regarding Levitt's math background when he began at MIT,

'Levitt had taken exactly one math course as an undergraduate and had forgotten even that. During his first graduate class, he asked the student next to him about a formula on the board: Is there any difference between the derivative sign that's straight up-and-down and the curly one? "You are in so much trouble," he was told.'

All of this information is taken directly from Stephen Dubner's 2003 New York Times Magazine article on Levitt, which burgeoned into Freakonomics.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

2006 March 14th, 09:57 PM	#11 (permalink)
no one knows Within my grasp! Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 154	I feel that it is unlikely that he would get in with 1 calculus class - even if that 1 class was real analysis. I mean if I were in the same position I am not sure I would even consider applying to MIT. I think it just goes to show that the admissions process is very hard to predict.

2006 March 14th, 11:17 PM	#12 (permalink)
economistsdoitwithmodels Trying to make mom and pop proud Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 28	I think it depends in his ec classes. Graduating summa cum laude requires almost a 4.0 which at Harvard is very hard to get. Now imagine one of his economic courses was graduate micro and he got an A in it. Does it really matter he only took calculus? Furthermore, there are a couple of math courses that only the top kids at Harvard take that teach metric topology, linear algebra, multivariable calculus, ode, and some analysis in one year. If you get an A in that class you don't really need to prove yourself any further. In addition to that, everyone who says the letters are important is absolutely right. Writing the best thesis at Harvard is also a huge deal and any hot shot professor would be happy to sponsor a kid like regardless of how many math courses he took.

2006 March 15th, 12:15 AM	#13 (permalink)
econosaur Eager! Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 43	If he had needed more math to get into MIT back then, maybe he would have taken more math. That's the problem with PE analysis.

2006 March 15th, 03:19 AM	#15 (permalink)
Ross123 Within my grasp! Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 133	Someone told me that his undegrad thesis was published, which may be this one : "Using Repeat Challengers to Estimate the Effect of Campaign Spending on Election Outcomes in the U.S. House." Journal of Political Economy, 1994, 102(4), pp. 777-98. If Levitt did someting publishable in undergrad, it was a good signal to the ad com that he is a good potential researcher, which is strictly better quant guys. In addition, as far as I know, the ad com are more concerned about the research ability of the applicants rather than their math skills. As you know, it is common that many top 5 grads with excellent math skills cannot get a paper published in a top-tier journal.

2006 March 15th, 04:13 AM	#16 (permalink)
crslr Within my grasp! Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 167	My vote is a definite no. But econosaur is right; Levitt would have had more math now. Anyway, he isn't one of the really big publishers. A lot of posts seem to cite faculty with a prominent public (as opposed to research) profile as key to a department. The people with the most pages in top 30 journals (according to the Kalaitzidakis et al. definition) in 1994-2003 were: Phillips, Peter C B Yale U 1536 Heckman, James J U Chicago 1141 Acemoglu, Daron MIT 1099 Smith, Bruce D Texas 951 Tirole, Jean Toulouse 929 Neumark, David Michigan State U 862 Andrews, Donald W K Yale U 850 Pesaran, M Hashem U Cambridge 796 Gruber, Jonathan MIT 741 Samuelson, Larry Wisconsin 722 Laffont, Jean Jacques Toulouse 693 Rustichini, Aldo Boston U 652 Jackson, Matthew O Caltech 632 Besley, Timothy J LSE 630 Blundell, Richard W IFS 628 Rosenzweig, Mark R Harvard U 621 Keane, Michael P Yale U 610 Krueger, Alan B Princeton U 607 Bovenberg, A Lans Tilburg U 583 Svensson, Lars E O Princeton U 580 Wolpin, Kenneth I U Pennsylvania 579 Glaeser, Edward L Harvard U 573 Angrist, Joshua D MIT 551 Fudenberg, Drew Harvard U 545 Lee, Lung Fei Ohio State U 536 Canova, Fabio U Pompeu Fabra 531 Linton, Oliver B LSE 529 Turnovsky, Stephen J U Washington 522 Ray, Debraj NYU 513 Shleifer, Andrei Harvard U 512 Epstein, Larry G U Rochester 509 White, Halbert UCSD 508 Levine, David K UCLA 505

2006 March 15th, 04:23 AM	#17 (permalink)
Emperor I JUST got here. Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 6	Yes, Levitt would get in. I know for a fact that there is a first year student at MIT now with no undergrad mathematics at all. These things happen. Dont believe all these bullies who claim you need advanced topology and twenty other math classes to get into and through grad school .

2006 March 15th, 04:40 AM	#19 (permalink)
goodcall I JUST got here. Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 18	Not taking math doesn't necessarily mean inability in math. By the way, if you can prove you're a very very promising researcher and it is also supported by superstar professors, then I believe you can get in at any program. If you don't (just like most of us), then you should send signals to adcom about your abilities on grad level econ, proof type math, etc, etc, to say like "look, I can survive the first year, and then follow your guides to be an economist."

2006 March 15th, 04:42 AM	#20 (permalink)
Bryster Eager! Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 49	Ross The article that you're referring to in JPE was published while Levitt was in grad school at MIT.. His undergraduate thesis at Harvard for which he won the award for best undergraduate thesis was on thoroughbred breeding. Also, regarding Levitt's math background when he began at MIT, 'Levitt had taken exactly one math course as an undergraduate and had forgotten even that. During his first graduate class, he asked the student next to him about a formula on the board: Is there any difference between the derivative sign that's straight up-and-down and the curly one? "You are in so much trouble," he was told.' All of this information is taken directly from Stephen Dubner's 2003 New York Times Magazine article on Levitt, which burgeoned into Freakonomics.

TestMagic

Free GMAT, GRE, SAT Test, TOEFL practice tests