Graduate Macro vs Micro

[rizalecon]

Hi,

I'm planning on applying to PhD programs this fall, and I am taking a graduate-level econ course. I'm just not sure which one to take. From what I've been reading, micro gives the best signal, and I am incline to take this. However, the micro class at my school is taught by someone (a nobel laureate) that emphasizes intuition and application to Micro, as opposed to the mathematical/technical aspects of it. I have no problem with this, and I do believe that having a sound economic intuition is important. However, I've been also told that the class is rather unstructured, and it's hard to know what to expect on exams/homeworks. I'm afraid the lack of structure may cause me to do poorly in this class. The macro class, on the other hand, follows the standard fresh-water curriculum.

Any thoughts?

[Nalfien]

Take it, work your butt off for the first month and a half (like imagine you have no other classes), impress him and get an awesome letter. Then sit back and wait for the top ten to call

[rizalecon]

Do you mean the micro class? It seems like both class will require a lot of hard work. I'm just afraid that my hard work on the micro class might not pay off. From what I've been told, I just have to rely on my intuition and hope that my answers are in line with the TA's solution. I just don't want to have to deal the professors' idiosyncrasies and randomness. The Macro, on the other hand, seems pretty structured. You can find copies of his notes online, and the class seems pretty rigorous.

[rizalecon]

Also, do you guys think taking Macro gives roughly the same signal as taking Micro? Or is there really a big difference?

[filroz]

What about doing the course which is more interesting to YOU, forgetting about some marginal and only hypothetical impact on the application?

[unitroot]

I think the signal value is the same. Do try to take the course in which you can get a better grade. Which course is more difficult depends entirely on who is teaching it. Also, first-year macroeconomics courses tend to be far less organized in general than the micro courses. There is probably not even a single good book for teaching first year macro courses these days (in contrast to a number of well-structured micro texts like MWG, Varian, or Jehle & Reny). There are several texts and papers for macroeconomics that contain good bits and pieces here and there, but how it all gets put together depends entirely on the instructor.

[tangsiuje]

Here, Stokey/Lucas and Sargent are used quite heavily for PhD macro. I suggest you find out what PhD macro at your school is like (e.g., if they're using a particular textbook, go and look it up in the library, etc.). Grad macro is usually very different from undergrad macro, and you'd probably be expected to have had some exposure to dynamic programming and the like. Unless the prof is excellent, you might end up loathing it. The macro-related part of our math camp here kind of made me want to go to Caltech for PhD...

[Harry Lime]

Take the micro. Personally I excel at unstructured classes. The more chances that my ignorance will be beclouded by a whirlwind of confusion, the better.

[buckykatt]

First semester Macro classes probably vary between schools more than Micro classes; so I'd guess that Micro is a more consistent signal, even though Macro could be a more difficult course at your school. Also, you might find it difficult to tackle Macro without Micro--or at least find that you have to do a lot of work on your own to get up to speed on some grad-level Micro in order to succeed in Macro.

As for what you've heard about the "unstructured" nature of the Micro course... Consider carefully the source of these comments. Are they coming from the smart, self-motivated students? Or the folks who expect the prof to spoon-feed them and are just scraping by? A large part of grad school is learning how to define and tackle problems for yourself. Some first-year students might not get that yet...

[Canuckonomist]

Keep in mind, too, that you'll be taking the course this fall, so some schools you will apply to will not ever see a mark from this course, unless they want to. Some schools ask for fall marks, some don't, and some won't accept them (or care about them) if you just send them anyway. So bear that in mind, that they may just see the title of the course on your transcript.

Also, filroz is expressing a popular sentiment that this stuff is marginal. No one truly knows what the adcoms will look for as far as idiosyncratic things go, no matter how much some posters will tell you different.

From Ph.D students I know, the belief is that the process is quite random, but there are a few things for sure: GREQ => Econ/Math GPA => Letters. They are often just looking for things to drop you from the list, not necessarily things to keep you on. So, from that, take what you will, but I'm sure micro or macro may not matter.

Which ever one you enjoy, take.