Graduate Macro vs Micro

[TruDog]

Grad micro is the way to go. The topics tend to be the same across schools, and the extra mathematical intuition gained is priceless.

[canecon]

Go for Micro I say. Professors I have spoken to have recommended Micro as the course to take if you could only choose one, for reasons outlined above. Perhaps if the schools you are applying to have a very well-defined idea of the content of the Macro course at your school, then they would be able to evaluate your performance, but if (more likely) this isn't the case then Micro it is!

(Personal Bias: As Canuck knows I myself am taking PhD Micro in my MA program - Hopefully some schools, somewhere, will look at the grades whenever they come in. Also if anyone has experience with submitting fall grades after deadlines have passed please share!!)

Partially Answered my question: http://www.urch.com/forums/phd-econo...-deadline.html (Do schools often ask for Fall term M.A marks, if they come out after the deadline?)

[asianeconomist]

Apart from the coursework, I do think Nalfien's advise regarding ensuring a LOR from the Nobel Laureate is really sound.

[Antonio]

Go for micro.
More rigourous treatment.
More standard/comparable program.
Nobel Laureate.

That's it.

[savingtheplanet]

micro micro micro.
much stronger signal.

[soloakewlstick]

[deleted]

[rizalecon]

I'm not sure if you guys are aware of how unorthodox this professor teaches Micro. In fact, he does not even follow MWG, and the problem sets are application oriented. I heard, for example, that the test are mostly essays and the homework requires you to build a ``microeconoimc'' model explaining various sociological problem (e.g., terrorism). I have no problem with this, and I think it's rather fun. I'm just afraid the grading might be a little too subjective and out of my control.

For those of you that have read The Making of an Economist, you'll know that it's just not one student that claim this!

The macro class is pretty ``well defined'' and structured.

Here is a list of the textbooks used for macro:

MT: Microeconomic Theory, Andreu Mas Collel, Michael Whinston, and
Jerry Green, Oxrord.
RMED: Recursive Methods in Economic Dynamics, by Stokey and Lucas
with Prescott. Harvard.
RMT: Recursive Macroeconomic Theory, by L. Ljungqvist and T. Sargent,
MIT press.
LM: Lectures on Macroeconomics, by O. Blanchard and S. Fischer. MIT
Press.
EG: Economic Growth by Barro and Sala-i-Martin, Mc Graw Hill.

[LouisBD]

Is sounds like you really want to hear someone say "Pick macro over micro."

That is a claim for which I am not informed enough. But,
*Micro is (normally) a better choice than macro (cfr. supra).
*Your teacher is apparently a nobel laureate. Do you really want to miss the opportunity to have him as a lecturer? And perhaps the opportunity for a lor from him (waauw).
I would be surprised if nobody in his class gets decent grades.

But if you really feel that taking micro is not the wisest choice then you should follow your instincts, but I don't think that many people on this forum can then be of any help.

PS: I have read the making of an economist ( a while ago) but I do not get your remark.

Louis

[rizalecon]

Originally Posted by LouisBD

Is sounds like you really want to hear someone say "Pick macro over micro."

That is a claim for which I am not informed enough. But,
*Micro is (normally) a better choice than macro (cfr. supra).
*Your teacher is apparently a nobel laureate. Do you really want to miss the opportunity to have him as a lecturer? And perhaps the opportunity for a lor from him (waauw).
I would be surprised if nobody in his class gets decent grades.

But if you really feel that taking micro is not the wisest choice then you should follow your instincts, but I don't think that many people on this forum can then be of any help.

PS: I have read the making of an economist ( a while ago) but I do not get your remark.

Louis

My interest is actually in Microtheory, but I'm just afraid that getting a good grade in this class seems to be out of my hands.


In the book, a lot of the first-year students interviewed from one school mentioned their dissatisfaction on how some courses are taught. I believe, they were referring to this particular professor. Btw, I do admire this professor, but the randomness in grading just freaks me out.

[Golden Rule]

Ok, have we all figured out what school the OP is at now? People should take a second to determine that when posting advice.

I don't know if getting an LOR out of this grad course is essential. You're at a school with a lot of well-known people that right can write credible letters. I don't think that should be a decisive factor.

I don't think the "do what interests you" advice (though I use it a lot) dominates in PhD core courses as an undergrad, since you'll usually see the same material again anyway, so admissions concerns can dominate.

Macro is probably the safer choice for admissions. The micro course at your school is well-known as being non-standard, and you're right that macro is the more rigorous of the two. On the other hand, you could also look at the micro course as a more unique opportunity (this is the extent to which "do what interests you" does apply), since you'll get the same macro if you go to any other freshwater school. So that's the tradeoff I see. Also, if you're writing an SOP and getting LORs that say your interests are in micro theory, then you go ahead and take the Macro core, that might seem a bit inconsistent.