Getting over a low UGPA

[mv0027]

So I've finally decided that I'm 100% sure I want to pursue a PhD in Economics (like to research international trade and international macro). However, I have a very low UPG (3.2) from a really crappy state school (university of north texas). Most of that is from first two years but I don't think ad-coms will care and I have very little math. Not sure if my strengths are enough to make up for it. Would love some thoughts/back.

PROFILE:
Type of Undergrad: International Business/Economics @ crappy state school
Undergrad GPA: 3.2
Type of Grad: current working towards an masters in IR at UCSD (which is actually a top IR program), which is focused on international econ
Grad GPA: 3.57 (really high in my program, I got "deans fellow" which is the only academic award the school gives out)
GRE: haven't taken, confident I'll get Q780+
Math Courses: 1 year of graduate level stats (taught be leading econometricians), got As in all of them. Will be TAing for the one of the courses next year. I plan to do a year of calculus this year, but those will not be done before my applications are submitted.
Econ Courses: tons (grad and undergrad) - mostly As, maybe one or two B+s
Letters of Recommendation: 3 UCSD economics profs. They dont know me to well but our program really stands behind their grads
Research Experience: None really. The last section of the advance stat sequence was based entirely around a research project. I did an econometric analysis of US FTZs (foreign trade zones) effect on county unemployment rates. I plan to submit this is as my writing sample, this is probably my biggest strength.
Teaching Experience: Will be TAing QM II (advance stats) in Winter 2011
Research Interests: trade and macro
SOP: It will be good
Other: I know it doesn't count but I have some interesting (but not relevant) work experience. Spent two years as a International trade consultant with EY (leading consulting firm) and, currently, interning at the US Treasury Department's Office of International Affairs (which really leads the USG for international economic policy).

Knowing that I'm not a strong applicate, I plan to apply mainly to second-tier programs, with a few hopes at some better programs. Here is my list, in order of preference:

UCSD
UC Davis
UC Irvine
UBC
UC Santa Barbara
U Colorado
U Oregon
U Santa Cruz

Pretty confident I'll get into one of the last two, but any thoughts on the rest????

Thanks in advance.

[_nanashi]

To be completely honest, I'm not sure you have a chance at any of those schools and I'm actually familiar with all of their programs. I attended one of those dept as an undergrad. The top 3 departments you have zero chance, along with likely UCSC. The first three are top 30 schools, and UCSC is an outlier. Its ranked lowly, because the program is narrow. It is however, one of the top departments in the narrow area it works on, and places like any other good program. Most of the admitted candidates in those schools, will have high GPA, lots of advanced math course work, and some will have advanced economics coursework, glowing letters, and good GRE.

UCSB, UC Irvine, Colorado are good second tier programs and their applicants are going to generall be fairly good though they may take some chances on weaker candidates.

U oregon, you may have a chance but I wouldn't say its 100% chance. The program gets attention because it has a good macro curriculum under Evans. Even if I was admitted there, I would have mixed feeling about attending if your interests are trade.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______-

I think the best course of action for you really is to take an extra year at UCSD and wait another cycle. They are a top department, doing well in the right courses there could get you into a very good department, thats only provided that you have the right foundation, and have impressed professors to get glowing letters. I think a lack of math background, and weak undergraduate is going to other wise kill your chance at any top 50 department.

I'd try to formulate plan which included completing the following courses

Math 31 AH (Honours Linear Algebra)
Math 31 BH ( Honours Multivariable Calculus)
Math 20 D Differential Equations
Math 109 Mathematical Reasoning (Intro to Analysis)
Msyh 181A Mathematical Statistics


If you aren't allowed to take that take math 20C, 20D (Differential Equations ,20F (linearl Agebra)
__________________________________________________ _______________________________----
Econ courses completing the Econ 100 A/B/c or AH/BH (Micro)
120AH/BH/CH (Econometrics)
110AH/BH (Macro)

If you take all of that and get mostly A's will probably bring your application to the level where you'll be competitive for UCSB, UC Boulder , UC Irviine, and possible UCSC. You might have an outside shot at UBC, UCD Davis, UCI. It depends on the timing of courses on the Math, it should be doable in one year. If your 100% on the PhD, it will be well worth it. Keep in mind that most students going into PhD programs have much more math, good grades, are smart intellegent and hardworking. Despite all of this many of them struggle, and PhD completion rates for Econ PhDs are relativel low. Even if you do manage to get into a PhD, would you want to go in really this underprepared?

[petecheese]

Why would UCD, UCSD, And UBC be referred to as second tier schools. What exactly is the definition of a second tier school in that case:S. Because those are some really heavy and intense programs.

[mv0027]

Would love to take another year and just do math courses but it just isn't in the financial cards. i figured taking a year of cal then 2-3 target courses next summer would prepare me enough to suffer through the first two-years of a program, while continuing to audit courses here and there.

Would narrowing the list to just UCSB, Coloroda, and UCSC help? my grad program has some serious academic big hitters. with only three schools I might be able to get letters from the dean and some other big names (they would be pretty personalized to) since they do know me. Also, grads from my program have gone on to places like MIT, Harvard, etc. I'm hoping there is an X factor you might not be considering.

Nonetheless, thanks for the feedback! I plan to touch base with my favorite prof as soon as I get back to SD to get his thougths.

[icebear]

Why would UCD, UCSD, And UBC be referred to as second tier schools. What exactly is the definition of a second tier school in that case:S. Because those are some really heavy and intense programs.

I think in this case he's referring to 1st tier as capable of placing anywhere, 2nd tier unlikely to place in 1st tier, etc. At least by that definition it seems like a reasonable statement... those are all certainly good schools.

[_nanashi]

2nd tier in my above post is talking about 2nd tier within the top tier (top 50 programs). Top 30 schools have a chance of placing anywhere on the job market though most of the time they don't place up. UCSD, UBC, UCD are in the top 30 category. Colarado, UCSC UCSB are in the top 60 category, they do pretty well on the job market, but its highly unlikely they can place a graduate into a top 30 school. Oregon is outside the top 60, but has something that distinguishes them, so they do relatively well on the job market.

Also, grads from my program have gone on to places like MIT, Harvard, etc. I'm hoping there is an X factor you might not be considering.

My question what was their GPA? and the rest of their profile? Going to a top school is not a guarantee of getting into a top PhD program. Especially in economics, which is extremely competitive. I have weaker undergrad grades, from a reputed school with a reputed econ depaartment, I made a decision not to apply for PhD last year. I decided to come home for a year and take PhD classes at a local University that is ranked around 90 to 100 (in the U.S.). I have class mates from the best Econ M.A.'s in the U.S., or class mates with B.As from top 5 school. The point is its difficult to get into an Econ PhD program if you lack minimal credentials, which it seems like you do.


Almost all of the schools are going to expect a math background from their applicants, especially American applicants. Most of your competition will 8 or 9 math courses, some will have substantially more. Most programs are also going to look at a transcript and only count economics courses they think are mathematical. Courses with the words Advanced, or Econometrics. Most of the competition will also have good letters, solid GRE scores, and great grades.


Your letter of recommendations can do something to compensate. However, I know that your professors go to the same conferences as most of the other departments you've listed. Are they going to be willing to say to people they have professional relationships, that your as good as other applicants, and that your lack of minimal qualifications won't be an issue? I've seen peole get into top programs with less of a math background, generally they have something else distinguish them. Like Good letters, a great thesis, and several 100s at a school that class averages hover in the mid 60s to lower 70s, and that top 10% of the class usually is sitting in an 80-90 range. Hence why I'm skeptical.

I don't want to come across as overly harsh. I think you should see what your professors honestly say, but make sure they know what your undergrad grades look like, what math you don't have. They may know better, I'm only making an educated guess based on where class mates have gone, and what I've seen. I think you might be able to get into some of the schools on your list, but I think you have to find away to take extra courses to get minimum qualifications. It doesn't have to be at UCSD. You sound your texas resident Would that be feasible? Could you financially afford to take courses at Texas Austin, or Texas A&M. They both have econ departments with decent PhD programs. Taking some advanced undergraduate stuff there would count for something, or even sitting in a PhD course once you have the math.

Would love to take another year and just do math courses but it just isn't in the financial cards.

If finances are the issue. What about Texas? Austin has a top 20 program, is a pretty well regarded schools?

.

i figured taking a year of cal then 2-3 target courses next summer

What could you take in the summer?
Would you be finished with Multivariable Calculus? and could you take Linear Algebra, Probability, and some of the Econ 100 sequence. I would do that and try to apply the next cycle, after those courses on the transcript. I'd probably include UBC's M.A. program on that list. They are cheap (5000$ a year, all international students pay something similar to domestic tuition).

[beginner2012]

Math Courses: 1 year of graduate level stats (taught be leading econometricians), got As in all of them. Will be TAing for the one of the courses next year. I plan to do a year of calculus this year, but those will not be done before my applications are submitted.
Econ Courses: tons (grad and undergrad) - mostly As, maybe one or two B+s.

I know very little about what the adcoms think, but your profile looks pretty interesting to me. You have 3.2 gpa and went to a crappy state college but did well on grad econ and grad stats at UCSD. My guess is that if you can get A+ on graduate analysis, get some research experience (or write some master thesis) and impress the professors, you would have a chance even for top30 programmes. Your grad level performance and strong letters should be able to remove the 3.2gpa effect. I think the adcoms only care about relevant and higher level courses.

[mv0027]

Thanks all. Nanashi, no worries, you aren't too harsh Most the stuff you are saying I am aware of but don't want to accept. I need someone to help keep me realistic. I do think I have an interesting background, but the reality is that all these programs have 100s of other applicants with high GPAs and there is little logic to choosing me over them. I'm going to touch base with my profs are UCSD when I get back. They are faculty at my school (IR/personal statement) and the econ department so I'm sure they will give it to me straight. Also, I've started exploring some pol sci literature on trade. I'm considering going for a pol sci PhD (which is not my preference but may be a more realistic route for me). Those programs are less competitive (or my profile fits better) and I could still focus on some other trade stuff I like (negotiations, trade wars, social impacts, etc.). This probably isn't the place for insight on pol sci programs but if you have any let me know Thanks for all your help!

[beginner2012]

My pleasure. Hmm, there s no harm in trying, why not apply for 2 - 3 top programmes (provided you add grad analysis and research experience)? I think you would have a chance~ Dont give up so early... Many A/A+ on grad econ, A/A+ on grad stats and grad real analysis, along with really strong letters would eliminate a lot a lot of people (You have to start doing research however).

[_nanashi]

I know very little about what the adcoms think, but your profile looks pretty interesting to me. You have 3.2 gpa and went to a crappy state college but did well on grad econ and grad stats at UCSD.

It does not to me because I'm actually familiar with the program. IR/personal statement is a public policy program, and their economics courses are not PhD courses which is what you seem to be thinking. At best its like advanced Undergraduate material, and it may be even lower level than that. The programs courses are not taught through the economics department, but the public policy school.
I talked to recruiters for that program in my fourth year, they have a lot of great Asia/pacific scholars and they told me they'd probably waive all the econ and statistics requirements because of my background, which isn't that stellar, a single undergrad course on regression using linear algebra, and probability course, plus 18 hours of upper level econ (no advanced courses).

A general note to you. Is be sure to be aware that econ courses in public policy schools, and MBAs can look like Econ 101 on steroids. Its more intense, but its still econ 101. Occasionally they look like Intermediate Micro on steroids, usually at top programs. Adcoms will know this, most of them teach such programs for cash cows. This how they will evaluate such courses. Furthermore graduate GPA's are generally inflated, especially for professional programs like this professors giving a massive amount of C's can lead to them getting into trouble with the schools administrations. As a result 3.50 would be considered low at most places. I'm familiar with UC having a lot of grade deflation at the undergraduate level, so I would not be suprised if a 3.50 at UC equates to 3.75 at other schools, but it will still be treated as a 3.50.

My guess is that if you can get A+ on graduate analysis

I would strongly not suggest trying to take Graduate Analysis, but my hope is the math department won't even entertain a discussion. A student who hasn't had calculus should not be in a graduate level math course period, unless they have independently taught them selves math at a very high level.