U. Washington v. Michigan State v. Davis ARE

[ilikefreefood]

I've still got a number of schools to hear from, but since almost all of the higher-ranking ones have sent out significant numbers of offers at this point, I think it's time to start debating the options on the table. My interests are in applied micro, especially development, natural resource economics, and public/urban economics topics.

Davis has a great reputation in the ARE world, and a group of people doing really interesting applied micro development research. There is significant access to UC Davis Econ resources, and the micro and metrics cores are shared between the two departments. However, their academic placements are almost entirely in lower-ranked ARE departments, mostly in the Western states.

Washington seems to have had a few really strong placements recently. They're strong in environmental economics, but I don't believe they have much if any micro development work.

Michigan State ranks the highest by far in EconPHD rankings, though its USNews ranking is about the same as UW. They don't list much placement history on their website. The schools ranks well in development, but a substantial amount of that is in their applied department. walt526 is probably gonna be there.

In general, Seattle > Davis > East Lansing. In particular, I have personal reasons to significantly prefer living in Seattle (friends and hobbies not lovers). However, I have substantial experience with both the upper Midwest and with lake effect snow.

I'm waitlisted for funding at MSU (doesn't sound like they've extended TA funding to anyone yet, I heard they've got financial issues), and I'm still waiting on transcripts to arrive at UW to hear officially whether I get funding there, but let's play in the hypothetical world where I'm funded everywhere. Thoughts?

[dsdoodle]

I've still got a number of schools to hear from, but since almost all of the higher-ranking ones have sent out significant numbers of offers at this point, I think it's time to start debating the options on the table. My interests are in applied micro, especially development, natural resource economics, and public/urban economics topics.

Davis has a great reputation in the ARE world, and a group of people doing really interesting applied micro development research. There is significant access to UC Davis Econ resources, and the micro and metrics cores are shared between the two departments. However, their academic placements are almost entirely in lower-ranked ARE departments, mostly in the Western states.

Washington seems to have had a few really strong placements recently. They're strong in environmental economics, but I don't believe they have much if any micro development work.

Michigan State ranks the highest by far in EconPHD rankings, though its USNews ranking is about the same as UW. They don't list much placement history on their website. The schools ranks well in development, but a substantial amount of that is in their applied department. walt526 is probably gonna be there.

In general, Seattle > Davis > East Lansing. In particular, I have personal reasons to significantly prefer living in Seattle (friends and hobbies not lovers). However, I have substantial experience with both the upper Midwest and with lake effect snow.

I'm waitlisted for funding at MSU (doesn't sound like they've extended TA funding to anyone yet, I heard they've got financial issues), and I'm still waiting on transcripts to arrive at UW to hear officially whether I get funding there, but let's play in the hypothetical world where I'm funded everywhere. Thoughts?

I think Claus Portner does development at UW.

[nat_resource]

Assuming a funded offer, I would choose UW. They have a strong history of producing good resource economists. Bob Deacon and Dean Leueck both went to UW.
Plus Seattle trumps Lansing any day of the week.

[ilikefreefood]

I think Claus Portner does development at UW.

That is true. His research interests sound interesting, although he isn't very widely published and the first crop of students he has chaired hasn't gone on the market yet. UW's strongest placements all appear to be in econometrics.

[untitled]

I think Claus Portner does development at UW.

I've already said quite a bit about UW, and was going to try to resist commenting too much when not directly asked, but I had set for myself an exception. I am interested in development, especially micro development. I think there are 2-3 people every year with that interest, and our placements in applied micro have been decent (most recently to Upsalla last year, and he was from Central Europe so it is a great fit for him), but not great. When I asked professor Khalil about placements last year, he mentioned applied micro placements at Kansas, Virginia Tech, Claremont McKenna, and the University of San Fancisco, as well as several who went to Mathematica, but who had academic offers as well. As I'm interested in development, I am very interested in attracting strong graduate students in the field while I am there, so I'd like to sell the school beyond what Professor Khalil told me about applied micro/development last year, as he is more a contract theory expert.

In the department itself, beside professor Portner and Professor Rose, Seik Kim and Shelly Lundberg do labor/family, and often write on development topics. However, much of our development activity is inter-departmental, or even outside the department. Our main development seminars are interdepartmental; the Center for the Study of Demographics and Ecology seminar brought in Ed Miguel from Berkeley a couple weeks ago, and the Center for Statistics in the Social Sciences seminar brings in applied micro and development people. The departmental development/labor brownbag is mostly graduate students and UW faculty, and was quite active in the fall, but not so much so this winter. Also, Global Health has some seminars (also here) that may be of interest for development economists. Our highly ranked sociology department is very quantitative (when Jeniffer Hill came as a CSSS lecture, it was mostly statisticians and sociologists, very few economists), which has attracted statisticians who are interesting, and may lead to some interdepartmental work (although I haven't heard of anything). Our statistics department is good, too -- I know a couple people took classes in Bayesian or model building from Adrian Raftery. Finally, most of the development economists on faculty here are in the Evan's School (here is a link to the Evan's school seminar). The West Coast Poverty Center focuses mostly on domestic development issues, but is interesting as well.

All of these groups occasionally have funding opportunities for upper year economics students, and I think economics students are increasingly taking advantage of them. The economics department doesn't seem to be thinking about hiring any new people in development, but from my talks with people in the Evan's School, they are definitely interested in working with people in economics, and the faculty there are young and growing. I know Joe Cook, who does water resource stuff, has worked with economics grad students on projects, I'm not sure if he has been a part of anyone's committee yet (he was hired only two or three years ago). But, if I were interested in development, I would look through the Evan's school faculty and try to talk to them. It might work better to let Simon know you are interested in talking to them or meeting with them when you visit, and he can set it up (I really enjoyed meeting with Portner when I came). The professors in the Evan's school have a lot of MPA students and can be slow to respond to emails, but have been very nice to me. I mentioned our sociology department; also, our international studies department is highly ranked (we seem to take the major seriously here, which is different from my undergrad), very large, and has a few faculty with economics phds.

Back to the department itself, professor Portner and Rose teach graduate microdevelopment courses and an applied micro course. Kim teaches an applied econometrics/panel data course, and those plus, I think, another econometrics course outside of our advanced time series courses make up the development field. We also have population and labor courses taught regularly. Our resource group is very strong (more than enough faculty and coursework, even before you count Evans school electives), as you mentioned. I think that professor Portner and Professor Hendrik (new-ish resource hire from Berkeley) are friends and maybe work together. So, while applied micro is not as strong as macro, time series, and resource (our strengths), a lot is going on, and Kim and Portner are both very young, so I am very excited about the department.

That said, at this time last year, I was wishing I had applied to Michigan State, sadly rejected from Davis Econ, and didn't hear from UW until around March 20. Knowing what I now know, I think that I have better opportunities at UW than I would have elsewhere, but I've been very lucky in meeting with people and developing some connections outside the department. I think that some of the development grad students in the department, especially those who are introverted, are a bit more discouraged by the lack of in-department opportunities which are easier to participate in as a student -- although it is hard to judge since as a first year I spend more time on coursework than thinking, not to mention doing research or participating in seminars. In order to write a glowing note on development here, I have to include as many things going on outside the department as inside, so that discouragement is understandable. Further, I was surprised about how many first years are unfunded here, although aggressive first years can find funding outside of normal channels and I think all second through fifth years are funded (although this might not always be so if someone fails quals). Lastly, I'm not sure, but I think we are quite weak in urban economics (although in Political Science, I think there are a couple people who do some interesting urban-spacial things, but that is stretching it).

[ilikefreefood]

Wow, thanks for a lot of helpful information untitled!

Urban economics is a tough thing to study almost anywhere, because there is rarely more than one faculty member working substantially on urban issues. The biggest exception is UI-Chicago, but I didn't apply there because I didn't their program was strong enough overall.

The population work at UW seems like it would flow well into development and urban issues though. Migration in developing countries is one of my interests, though I am more interested in studying it at a micro level. I'm willing to be pretty interdisciplinary, but I also want to ensure that I can get a decent job on my way out. UW had a placement to my alma mater a few years back, so I do have to give them credit for that. :-)

[untitled]

Wow, thanks for a lot of helpful information untitled!

You're welcome. One other note which entertains me, from the early 1990s to today, UW Seattle's ranking took a free fall, from 19th in 1988 to 26th in 1995 to 34th in 2009. I think the feeling is the drop ended in the early to mid 2000s, we fell further than we deserved to, and the decline is certainly over now. I don't know what to take from this, the rise and fall of departments is probably overrated, and most students here are probably unaware of our previous high ranking, but I think it is fun to consider, even if it probably isn't useful to use when making a decision. The department is certainly not a state priority, and the state budget is what it is, so we don't expect to climb in the rankings quickly, but we have another macro hire this year, and I know Professor Khalil honestly feels we should be able to attract students away from schools ranked ahead of us.

[walt526]

The offer that I received from the Economics Department of MSU yesterday contained a 5yr TA and fellowship package (basically what my first year funding will be and then what my funding would be if I were to choose not to do Education). And I believe that at least one post on GC (not me) indicated that a funded offer was made. So some funding has been extended. I have no idea what might be available for people who didn't receive funding offers in the first round.

I lived in Davis for three years (UC Davis is where I did my undergrad) and the past five years in Sacramento. It's definitely a very nice place to live, especially if you like biking. However, my impression is that the university is under tremendous financial stress right now, the fallout of which is disrupting both research and teaching. Unlike Berkeley, the school doesn't have a lot of external funding to mitigate the damage. There is a lot of in-fighting in a scramble to get whatever scraps remain... it's not a very happy situation and many faculty are grumbling about leaving. For example, the department where I did my major (not Economics) the politics are terrible: they ousted its chair, forced an associate professor into early retirement, etc. I'm not that familiar with ARE, but I'd be surprised if the same sorts of pressures aren't being experienced there as well. And as you have said, UCD ARE's placements aren't all that impressive.

In my opinion, the choice is essentially between UW and MSU. Both are great schools and seem pretty comparable in terms of various rankings (MSU does a little better on literature rankings, but because it's a much larger department). I'm not that interested in international development, but my impression is that MSU is probably stronger (at least in terms of literature, not sure about placements) and there is work being done by both AEC and EC. Also, just looking at who is involved in the Economics of Education, there are some faculty whose interests include development, so the Economics of Education might be something that you could apply for down the road if they're still recruiting (it's a very generous package).

But if the choice is funded at UW and unfunded at MSU, I'd be inclined to go with UW. The cost of attendance for an out-of-state graduate student is around $32k (the includes tuition as well as allowances for living expenses) and I wouldn't want to go into debt for that much.

[ilikefreefood]

Yeah, I won't go to MSU unfunded over UW funded. If, for example, I get into BU unfunded or UCSD unfunded, I will have to seriously consider it, but I would need at least a tuition remission for most of the other schools remaining on my list.

My impression of the situation at Davis is that it is not good at all for undergraduates, but that grad students are not being affected nearly as much. Fewer offers are being made but funding for existing students isn't likely to be impacted. I did not hear any discussion of faculty cuts. However, one issue is that larger undergraduate class sizes mean fewer opportunities for lecturer experience.

[walt526]

My impression is that the biggest impact on current grad students is that travel grants (which were never that great to begin with) have been a causality of the budget problems. Less money for travel is also affecting faculty as well. Placements will suffer if grad students are presenting less and overall research productivity will eventually decline if faculty are presenting less (which induces the more capable faculty to look for other opportunities). It's a vicious circle, as lower productivity means less external funding, higher faculty attrition, etc. Several people familiar with UCD have advised me that it probably wouldn't be a good time to be a grad student there (both before and after I got the rejection notification).

MSU's revenues are far less reliant on state appropriations than UC's (they experienced their major defunding some time ago), so the impact of MI's state budget problems isn't as severe. The department has already secured several channels of major external funding (Professor Wooldridge's grant from the US Department of Education was part of that effort) and restructured things. Even if money is as tight, everyone has already adapted to the tighter belts so morale is pretty good from what I hire. Most importantly, the senior faculty is committed to the institution: for example, U Michigan made a run at two prominent MSU faculty a few years ago (Professors Papke and Wooldridge), who both declined and since then Papke became the new DGS and Wooldridge brought in the big education grant. And then a year later MSU was able to hire away Professor Solon from U MI. For me, as a prospective graduate student, the actions of senior faculty that show commitment to the institution is a very important indicator of which direction the program is headed.