is 3.44 gpa unforgivable?

[frankramsey]

Hi,

 

I'm a graduating senior at top 10 univ and I'm planning to apply to phd programs for 2011 fall.

I had many regrettable moments during first two years of my undergrad (my gpa shows that) and due to personal circumstances I left school to work after my sophomore year. Now I am determined to do what I really want to do, and I would greatly appreciate if you guys can advise me on, well, anything.

 

GPA: 3.37 as of now. Hoping to end with 3.45.

 

Major: Economics (GPA: 3.7~3.8)/ Minors: Computer Engineering and Philosophy

 

Coursework:

- Math: Calculus sequence (B), Linear Algebra (A), Optimization (A), Analysis I (P/F), Algebra 1 (taking now; probably A), Knot theory (taking it now; probably A-/A)

 

- Econ: Int Micro/Macro (A-/A), Econometrics(B+), Adv Micro (A), International Monetary Theory(A), Environmental Economics (B), History of Chinese Econ (taking it now). Audited: History of Modern Economics

 

- Etc: Probability and Statistics (B+), Analysis of Algorithms (B+), Computer Science theory (A), Discrete Mathematics (A), Decision Theory (B), Logic (A), many programming classes and philosophy classes

 

Work experience:

- about 2 yrs of teaching SAT's

- summer internships in investment banking and foreign affairs

- numerous part-time jobs (mostly in the area of teaching and translations)

 

I'm planning to do post-bac after graduation and hoping to take the following courses:

- Summer: Analysis II, ODE, Game theory

- Fall:

1-yr Phd course in Microecon

1-yr Phd course in Macroecon

Adv Econometrics

Algebra 2

Measure Theory

 

Recommendation:

- two from econ and one from philosophy. not superb but very good.

- I have three extra rec's(all very good) from my employers/internship supervisors. Should I submit them?

 

Someone suggested me to apply to 1-yr masters in statistics (at Columbia) instead of doing a post-bac.. would a master's be more helpful than doing a post-bac and take more tailored set of classes?

 

I haven't taken GRE (will probably take this summer). I got 176 in LSAT if that helps.

 

Should I also take a look at business phd's since my coursework is better (or I was told) suited for business (decision and risk, etc.)?

 

Any feedback/advice is wholeheartedly appreciated.

[walt526]

I really don't think that aggregate GPA is all that important relative to other factors. Your grades in Math look solid.

 

I would strongly discourage you from sending a LOR from a philosophy professor. Regardless of what he/she says, adcoms are looking for someone who can vouch that you can survive the first year and/or show promise as a researcher. I would suggest getting one from a professor of a proof-intensive course that you have taken.

 

I don't really think that a MS Statistics or post-bac is necessary or an optimal use of your time. Rather than taking more courses, I'd suggest doing RA for a year or two (and hopefully get a stronger LOR from an academic economist).

[AREStudentHopeful]

I'm also thinking that you may want to specify what your goals are here. Judging from your comment that you may be better suited for a business degree (MBA?), I'm not sure that you are looking in the right places. An econ PhD is generally good for those who wish to do research in economics, those who may wish to do quantitative work for the government, something along those lines. If your interest lie in investment banking and the like, I'm not sure an econ PhD is the right place to be looking.

 

That being said, if you still wish to do a PhD, I would focus on getting a few upper level courses with A's under your belt (not necessarily as many as you mentioned) and like Walt said, do some RA work. You really should have at least 2 of your LoR writers be academic economists and RAing for them is the best way to show your ability so that they can write you a letter. You could also consider RAing at the Fed or something along those lines where you could take courses (and have them paid for) and still get good RA work in with researchers. Admittedly they're not technically academic economists (well, most of them aren't), but they're involved in research and their recommendations historically seem to be well-counted (as best we can tell from the imperfect info on this forum).

[Norsker]

My profile(listed in the stickied threads) might be a decent indicator for you, but I'd consider it a lower bound(without knowing much about your LoRs, research, etc)-your undergrad is higher ranked, and your performance in 'key courses' is better.

[stillhopeful]

I barely scraped above a 3.0 and apparently had little problem getting funded offers. Didnt exactly break into the top 10 but Im extremely happy with where Im going (as soon as I decide). I had a double math/econ major, but again, prob about a 3.0 in each. Edited April 2, 2010 by stillhopeful
MATH/econ

[corolla09]

You have a decent profile and is a quite a bit stronger than mine (you can look up my old profile on roll call, and I had several offers). But most likely if you would be shut out of any top-20 school. That being said I think you definitely have a shot at top-50 programs. It also looks like you are planning too continue beefing up your profile. You have enough math to be successful, and I agree with walt526 that an LOR from a philosophy (humanities) professor won't do much to strengthen your profile, adcoms want to see how good of a potential economics researcher you are.

 

As for econ vs business I thin you really need to have some set of specified research goals. I personally think an econ phd is a little more versatile as in there are a lot of economist who do asset pricing and some who do insurance etc.

[ctown2009]

I went to an Ivy undergrad and gave up a bunch of the outside options (banking, top law schools etc.) that you seem to have available. In my experience, most people who apply from top-ranked US schools are the ones who coast through the hardest math and quantitative classes and end up getting into top PhD programs--because the rest decide that the alternatives are better than an econ PhD. For me, and maybe for you, I wasn't as strong in the toughest courses and looking back, I sort of regret giving up all those outside options that typically only undergrads from elite schools get in favor of the incredibly difficult econ PhD. I'm sure a ton of your classmates will be getting top banking/consulting offers, top law school admits and med school admits, so if you go down this path you may have to be prepared to live with a so-so PhD offer like BU which won't garner a lot of respect from Ivy Leaguers.

 

More substantively, I had a couple of question marks on my transcript but had a lot of quality research experience and good recs from economists, and I struggled to get into a top 20 program. Everyone here loves to talk about quality LOR's but I think that unless they're truly stellar, you need almost straight-A's in the tough classes to get into a Top 15. And btw you'll get an 800 GRE if you have a 176 LSAT.

[behavingmyself]

I went to a top school for undergrad as well, with grades significantly worse than yours, and have gotten good offers. You probably aren't going to get into a top 5 school, but, assuming the rest of your application is strong, your GPA isn't going to prevent you from getting in somewhere in the top 20. And getting in somewhere in the top 20 will give you a perfectly challenging curriculum, surround you with plenty of interesting people doing exciting research, and give you the chance to get any job you could have gotten out of Harvard or MIT if you perform at a high enough level.

[Guest _nanashi]

Should I also take a look at business phd's since my coursework is better (or I was told) suited for business (decision and risk, etc.)?

 

If your interest in this you should look into PhD's business, and the category you should be looking in is most likely finance. Especially if you want to do empirical studies (regression) in this areas, then your job prospects will be actually better and you'll get paid better for doing a PhD in this field.

 

If your interested in theoretical work in this area, you probably need to look at programs who are strong in Microeconomic Theory, that have connections to Business schools.

[wobuffet]

- two from econ and one from philosophy. not superb but very good.

- I have three extra rec's(all very good) from my employers/internship supervisors. Should I submit them?

I would be shocked if any school actually accepted – let alone actually read – six letters of recommendation. Even if they'll take them, there is little reason to send them; letters from people who are not familiar with the rigor, material, etc. of economics PhD programs simply cannot carry much if any weight. In fact, sending them might hurt you (e.g., they may signal that you, as the applicant, don't know what you're getting into).

 

In any case, you should clarify what your career/academic goals are. What do you see yourself doing with an economics PhD?

[walt526]

Definitely do not send 6 LORs under ANY circumstances. 4 should really be the upper-bound. And I agree with the previous poster that employers are useless and just distract from relevant information. Moreover, sending irrelevant information risks the adcom interpreting that as a signal that you do not fully understand what you're getting yourself into.

 

As for applying to business schools... if there are PhD Business programs that interest you, then certainly apply. But don't apply to PhD Business School X because you think that your chances are better than getting into School Y's PhD Econ program totally irrespective of whether or not it's a good fit (when in doubt, send additional applications).

 

One major thing that I have learned over the past year having gone through the admissions process is that "goodness of fit" (to borrow the term) is at least as important as relative ranking. And it's a two way street: some schools are simply better fits personality-wise than others. I'm really grateful for asquare, Jeeves, and Wind Up Bird (among others) who really drove home that point to me over the past year. "Ranking" is important, but it's not the only factor. In fact, it's at least as important to find a place that has the right balance of nuture/support and pushing you to your limits for YOU.

[shadowprice]

I graduated with an almost identical gpa (all though worse math grades) and judging by your classes, maybe from the same university. I got one solid top 20 admit and a few waitlists close by (as well as a bunch of safeties). I will be posting my profile after I make my decision, but in short: no, you are by no means shut out of the top 20.

[TomRod]

Be not concerned.

[frankramsey]

thank you for your advice. The thing is, I'm an international student and my undergrad VISA will expire after my graduation. The only way for me to remain in the States (and I want to until the end of this year so that I can finish up my applications here) is doing post-bac or getting a full-time job, and I didn't think it was possible for me to work full-time and do the apps/take GREs/take an extra math class. Also many entry-level RA positions require previous research experiences which I completely lack... so it seems to me that my only option is staying in school and taking the hardest possible classes.

[Pedxs]

and give you the chance to get any job you could have gotten out of Harvard or MIT if you perform at a high enough level.

 

To be honest, there is almost never any student from a top 20 school that end up teaching at a top 5. I think that you are giving the OP false hope.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Pedxs

[tm_member]

To the OP, there is no valid reason to stay in the US unless it is personal. Go get a RA job at home, competition will not be as tough and you can impress PhD supervisors...

[Gecko]

and give you the chance to get any job you could have gotten out of Harvard or MIT if you perform at a high enough level.

 

To be honest, there is almost never any student from a top 20 school that end up teaching at a top 5. I think that you are giving the OP false hope.

 

Michigan placed someone into Princeton :)

[Pedxs]

Michigan placed someone into Princeton :)

 

Yes, but how often does that happen.

 

My point is that the value added from a top 5 grad school is much higher compared to that of a top 20 grad good. The same brilliant work, done at a top 5 school would allow one to go much further.

[asquare]

Yes, but how often does that happen.

 

My point is that the value added from a top 5 grad school is much higher compared to that of a top 20 grad good. The same brilliant work, done at a top 5 school would allow one to go much further.

 

Well, in the past four years, Michigan has placed one student each at Princeton, Berkeley, Yale (then switched to Berkeley), and Harvard. So I don't think your claim claim that it "almost never" happens is accurate. That said, average placements are higher from top-5 schools than from lower-ranked schools.

 

As for your argument, I think it's contradictory. If the value added by a top-5 school is higher, then the same brilliant work won't be done at a top-20 school as a top-5 school. If it were, outcomes would be comparable.

[discreetcharm]

Yes, but how often does that happen.

 

My point is that the value added from a top 5 grad school is much higher compared to that of a top 20 grad good. The same brilliant work, done at a top 5 school would allow one to go much further.

 

i agree, but recognize that some top 20 specialize in areas that can match the departments in top 6.

 

i think your point is good for schools outside the top 20, (ie 30-40 departments in the top 20). these students have severe disadvantages to get an academic job

[Fantiki]

To be honest, there is almost never any student from a top 20 school that end up teaching at a top 5. I think that you are giving the OP false hope.

 

It seems that there is some misunderstanding regarding very top placements in this forum as I frequently see phrases like "when you are in at Harvard, you have made it through the toughest challenge", "my dream is to be the weakest student in MIT" etc. The reality is that in order to expect a top 5 placement from Harvard or MIT you should be among top 2-3 students there, while prospects of students in something like the weakest quartile are less than bright. I personally doubt if there is any difference in terms of academic placements between the weakest students from Harvard and say Michigan.

 

The most important factor which will determine your placement is quality of your research. If it is at very top you will get into Harvard from PSU, if not, your MIT brand is next to nothing for Top 5 departments. In my understanding, it is not so that controling for the quality of the JMP a student from MIT will get into Harvard and a student from Michigan to CSU Stanislaus, the situation is more like a student from MIT will make it into UCD and a student from Michigan to UCI (which is exactly the difference which makes it worthwhile attending a very top school).

 

Of course, I am not a leading expert in hiring junior faculty at Top 5 places, but as an indirect support for this hypothesis, it can be seen that every year a large proportion of the AP places at Top 5 departments are filled by people coming from Top 20 schools. In fact, it seems that every year there is a market star (and usually several of these) coming from a Top 20, but not a Top 5 school. For the last couple of years I think that among many others, for instance, Donaldson, Nekipelov, Ossa, Gorodnichenko, Norets can be mentioned. If you count a couple more years back, you can find that there are many prominent researchers such as Melitz, Tsyvinski, Fryer etc, who do not hold a degree from a Top 5 institution.

[ong]

This is something I've always kind of wondered, how exactly do you judge your undergraduate university if it is considered average overall, but has very varying department rankings? For example, suppose that your school has only a very average economics department (lets say near the upper bound in the top 50) but has a good math department (23 or 24 out of the top 25). How well can you expect to place with a a double major in economics and mathematics with a GPA ranging from 3.3-3.5 holding everything else constant (LORs, GREs, research, etc.)? Will admissions just see that it is a very mediocre school overall and think less of the application, or will they factor the high ranking math department into their decision? I would like to think that they would only consider individual department rankings (especially the math department) rather than the overall reputation of the school, but I have no facts to back up this logic.

[Pedxs]

As a counter example, see where the faculty of MIT graduated from

 

MIT Department of Economics : Faculty and Staff : Faculty and Staff

 

I agree that there are instances where students from top 20 end up placing in top 5. What I am saying is that the chances are much smaller.

 

I won't argue with you regarding the weakest quartile, but I don't think anyone really thinks ""my dream is to be the weakest student in MIT". We all want become at least the average student, irregardless of institution. And if you look at the average student, I think that the placement from a top 5 school is much different from that of the top 20 schools.

 

It is safe to say that at least the top half of MIT student this year placed into top 20 schools. Can you make the same claim for any top 20 school?

[dreck]

This is something I've always kind of wondered, how exactly do you judge your undergraduate university if it is considered average overall, but has very varying department rankings? For example, suppose that your school has only a very average economics department (lets say near the upper bound in the top 50) but has a good math department (23 or 24 out of the top 25). How well can you expect to place with a a double major in economics and mathematics with a GPA ranging from 3.3-3.5 holding everything else constant (LORs, GREs, research, etc.)? Will admissions just see that it is a very mediocre school overall and think less of the application, or will they factor the high ranking math department into their decision? I would like to think that they would only consider individual department rankings (especially the math department) rather than the overall reputation of the school, but I have no facts to back up this logic.

 

My impression:

The ranking of your UG department matters far less than the specific faculty you work with (who write your letters), but the two are related. You can't swing a cat without hitting a Nobel-prize-winner at Chicago, so you're more likely to get one of them to write you a letter. The fact that you come from Chicago, then, matters a lot less than the fact that you've got Gary Becker on your side. On the other hand, if you're coming from East-Northeastern Podunk State*, but happen to get involved with RA work with someone well-respected, the quality of your school matters less (provided you've got a great math background).

*I'm allowed to rag on state schools, I come from one.

 

I suspect that the math department being rated well matters even less; undergraduate math varies little between good schools, and the quality of graduate research in Math at your UG school doesn't really show up on adcoms radars at all. What matters is the signal you send by doing well. Maybe if you have some Math superstar write you a letter, it'll show up.

[Pedxs]

Well, in the past four years, Michigan has placed one student each at Princeton, Berkeley, Yale (then switched to Berkeley), and Harvard. So I don't think your claim claim that it "almost never" happens is accurate. That said, average placements are higher from top-5 schools than from lower-ranked schools.

 

As for your argument, I think it's contradictory. If the value added by a top-5 school is higher, then the same brilliant work won't be done at a top-20 school as a top-5 school. If it were, outcomes would be comparable.

 

Sorry for not being clear. What I am trying to say is that at the top 5, there are other factors that will compliment the brilliant work, allowing the student to place at the best possible place. For example, faculty connections matters. Another factor is the signaling power of the degree. Michigan certain has great placement, but would you really say that this is typical of a top 20 school? Actually, I do not really agree with your classification of Michigan as a top 20 school in the first place.