looking for advice on my 2-3 year plan to grad school - recent college grad

[novushomo]

I graduated college this spring and will be spending the next year traveling and pursuing some personal projects (research assistant pay over a couple years adds up!). In the near future, 2-3 years from now, I'd like to have a strong enough profile to have a shot at some top 5 programs. I've talked to a couple professors, but would really appreciate more insight/ opinions. Here is a little background:

PROFILE:

Type of Undergrad: decent school (USnews top 50), no grad econ program

Undergrad GPA: 3.9x, top 10%

Math Courses: calc 1-3, low level stats course (all As except for calc 3 which I foolishly signed up for pass/ fail, so I only have a "P")

Econ Courses: standard undergrad stuff, about 10 classes all together (all As)

Letters of Recommendation: should be strong, all from top 5 ph.ds 3-6 years out of grad school

Research Experience: 2 years, 3 summers as research assistant for several faculty

Teaching Experience: teaching assistant for undergrad econometrics

 

I'm taking differential equations this summer and would plan on having at least linear algebra and real analysis (or something proof based) by the time I apply.

 

1. Is there anything else I could do besides more math to help improve my profile (and what is the rate of diminishing marginal return to profile strength for math courses past linear algebra and real analysis)?

 

2. I'd love to do a year or two long full-time research assistant position after I return from traveling. How competitive are these positions and would it be significant for admissions?

 

Thanks for the thoughts, I realize this is pretty abstract -- I just want to hear other ideas!

[heraclitus_junior]

Slightlyconfused made the rather sage observation that for admission to top departments people tend to either have good grades on lots of really hard courses or stellar research experience. I think if your research experience has resulted in solid work, and you do end up acing real analysis and linear algebra, then you stand a good chance.

 

Maybe think a bit about your LOR writers too. If possible, you might want to go for a range of letter writers. Recent grads from top schools are good, but you might try including an established professorial letter writer who's got a solid research track record. I also know people have been known to include mathematicians as one of their letter writers.

[Guest _nanashi]

You have Cal I-III

 

your math in order of importance is .

Critical:

1. Linear Algebra

2. Probability

3. Real Analysis a.k.a Advanced Calculus

4. Differential Calculus

 

Icing:

5. Stochastic Processes

6. General Topology

7. Measure Theory

8. Non-Linear Programming/Optimization/ Optimal Control

 

I think you'd be solid somewhere.

[Gecko]

I'd switch 2 and 3.

[UGAorBUST]

From what I've read on the profiles, your stuff looks good, just follow what the previous posters have iterated. Get a 800 on the GRE quant, some solid recs, and a good SOP and I don't see why not. In fact, there's quite a few posters I've seen on here who have gotten into top 5 schools without your stats. Not a large minority of course, but enough to mention and give you some confidence. Because thats what we all need! Just my contribution, good luck.

[anonymous123]

I differ with some of the previous posters. As presently constituted and without further details, I would not be very optimistic regarding your chance at the top 5 unless you obtain outstanding recommendations - from faculty who regularly publish in top journals and have a track record of sending students to the top 5. "Solid" recommendations will not be sufficient. Of course, I'm assuming that you do well in linear algebra, real analysis, etc and you do well on the GRE.

 

In my experience, applicants who were admitted to top 5 programs had outstanding recommendations (under the definition I mentioned) in addition to other outstanding credentials. But still, many of the most outstanding candidates I know were also rejected from top 5 programs. More objectively, there are many NSF winners with similar math course work to yours who are not admitted to top 5 programs.

 

My recommendation would be to pursue research opportunities over the next couple years. Talk to your professors and see if they know of any options. The best possible research positions are full-time RA positions at universities. These are incredibly competitive positions to obtain and you have the option to work closely with faculty at an elite institution. The letters you receive from a research-based interaction tend to have more weight than recommendations you obtain from a professor who had primarily interacted with you in the classroom.

 

That said, assuming all goes well with your coursework, I do think you have a decent chance at obtaining admission(s) to a top 15 department(s). Depending on your goals and interests, there are many options here which may be very attractive for you.

Edited June 26, 2010 by anonymous123
more comments.

[Guest _nanashi]

In my previous post I meant to write Differential Equations for 4.

 

Gecko, I think 1-3 are equally important. Your likely under prepared for the top programs with out all of them. For more middle of the road program 2 is valuable as signal 1 and 3 are valuable for coursework.

[Gecko]

^_^ Fair enough, but analysis forms the basis for writing rigorous proofs which can then be applied to probability theory.

[Guest _nanashi]

I differ with some of the previous posters. As presently constituted and without further details, I would not be very optimistic regarding your chance at the top 5 unless you obtain outstanding recommendations - from faculty who regularly publish in top journals and have a track record of sending students to the top 5. "Solid" recommendations will not be sufficient. Of course, I'm assuming that you do well in linear algebra, real analysis, etc and you do well on the GRE.

 

In my experience, applicants who were admitted to top 5 programs had outstanding recommendations (under the definition I mentioned) in addition to other outstanding credentials. But still, many of the most outstanding candidates I know were also rejected from top 5 programs. More objectively, there are many NSF winners with similar math course work to yours who are not admitted to top 5 programs.

 

My recommendation would be to pursue research opportunities over the next couple years. Talk to your professors and see if they know of any options. The best possible research positions are full-time RA positions at universities. These are incredibly competitive positions to obtain and you have the option to work closely with faculty at an elite institution. The letters you receive from a research-based interaction tend to have more weight than recommendations you obtain from a professor who had primarily interacted with you in the classroom.

 

That said, assuming all goes well with your coursework, I do think you have a decent chance at obtaining admission(s) to a top 15 department(s). Depending on your goals and interests, there are many options here which may be very attractive for you.

 

I do agree with this. I went to a top 40 University on a global scale with a top 30 department and my observation is the only people with top 5 admits had recommendations from professors that were well known in the field. We had quite a few people (of the very small amount trying) make top 20 or top 30 schools provided they had decent backgrounds like yours.

 

However, I think it will largely depend on the school your at where your boundary is. If your at somewhere like William and Mary or Darth Mouth many of the professors have strong research credentials and I think with good letters from the right people you have a small shot at the top 5 and probably can get a top 20 admit.

 

places like Case Western, Georgia Tech, Tulane then its much harder to say about your odds.

 

I do agree if you can get equally good letters from more senior professors (associate or full) your probably better off. Of course if the letters are neutral

 

your worse off.

 

analysis forms the basis for writing rigorous proofs which can then be applied to probability theory.

If he needs that he may as well take measure theory and stochastic processes.

[Gecko]

Measure theory without knowledge of analysis would be overkill, as the person is likely to be uncomfortable with the formal way of proving things.

[Guest _nanashi]

My understanding is Analysis was a prerequisite to measure theory at most math departments.