Will I have a chance at top schools?

[lessthanjake]

Okay well, I suppose this thread amounts to asking what my chances are to get into top econ PhD programs. However, I am not just making this thread out of nervousness. I am a junior in undergrad and I need to figure out what direction I want to go: econ PhD, political science PhD, or law school. Getting an Economics PhD and becoming a professor is probably my first choice in terms of what career I want overall. However, for reasons that will become clear, I am not sure if I will have a chance at top Economics PhD programs. If I won't have a chance at top Economics programs, then I'd rather go for a political science PhD or law school. In that case, the classes I take from now on will be different, as might the professors I ask to do research with etc etc.

 

So the point is that my current assessment of what my chances will be to get into top economics PhD programs will determine a lot of what I do in the next couple years of undergrad.

 

Anyways, here's some relevant info that will help assess my chances. Bear in mind that I HAVE read through a lot of threads, including stickied ones on this forum. I just feel like I haven't found the answers to many of my exact questions:

 

Undergrad: Brown University

GPA: 3.94 (obviously since I'm a junior, this can change for better or worse, but let's just assume it stays the same)

Economics Concentrator with a 4.0 in Economics classes

 

I obviously haven't taken the GRE yet, but based on how I've done on practice tests, let's say I get the following:

Verbal: 700

Quantitative: 800

Analytic Writing: 5.5

 

So far, I haven't taken ANY math classes. Up until recently I had wanted to go to law school, which left no real reason to take a ton of math classes. However, now that my plans have changed and I found out that a lot of math is necessary for economics PhD programs, I've decided to do some math. I've got credit for Calc I and II from getting a 5 on the AP Calc BC exam in high school, so next semester I am going to take multivariable calculus as well as linear algebra. I plan to take a class called Analysis: Function of One Variable senior year as well. Combined with two econometrics classes, is this enough math to give myself a chance at top programs? If not, I could also add Probability, Mathematical Statistics, and Differential Equations to my senior year. Do I need to do that to have a good shot? Would that even leave me with a good shot? I've read a bunch of stuff on this forum about how much math is needed, but I haven't really found how much I really need to have a good shot at top programs. Obviously, I might not do well at these math classes if I took them, but let's just assume I get As.

 

I have taken the following economics classes, and gotten As in all of them: Principles of Economics, Intermediate Micro, Intermediate Macro, International Trade, and Public Economics. I am currently taking Financial Institutions and Current Global Macroeconomic Challenges, and expect to get As on both of them given how the semester is going so far. I am definitely taking Intro to Econometrics next semester. Beyond that, I tentatively intend to take Bargaining Theory and Applications and Econometrics I.

 

I am planning on doing research with a professor this coming summer. I am going to try to do this research with our most influential economics professor (who I have also taken a class from). I will hopefully get a good recommendation from him as a consequence. I also am going to write a senior thesis, which hopefully will be good. Is that enough research?

 

As for letters of recommendation, I figure I will end up getting letters from the professor I do research with this summer (who is a very important economist) as well as my senior thesis adviser. I am interested in growth theory and will probably try to do my thesis under a pretty influential professor who specializes in that and got his PhD at Harvard. So hopefully those will be two good recs from professors who both know me well AND are quite influential. Other than that, I will probably have a third rec from a professor who I excelled in two classes with who got his PhD from UCLA.

 

PROBLEMS:

First off, I wonder about whether I'll even be able to take enough math to make myself competitive at top programs.

 

Secondly, I have read that taking grad level economics classes and doing well looks very good. I would certainly do this except that I don't really have much room for it. I can't take virtually any grad level class without having taken some math yet, so that precludes me from taking any next semester. I might be able to manage those classes my senior year (even then idk), but if I am trying to take 4 math classes, write a thesis (which takes up a class slot a semester), and take Econometrics I and Bargaining Theory, then I don't actually have room in my schedule for grad level classes my senior year. Will this severely weaken my application?

 

 

Anyways, I would be applying to the following schools: Harvard, MIT, Chicago, Princeton, Stanford UC: Berkeley, Yale, etc.

 

1. Can I get into these schools with just multivariable, linear algebra, and analysis?

2. If not, can I get in if I add on probability, differential equations, and mathematical statistics?

3. Am I killing my chances by not having taken grad level econ classes?

4. Would I be killing my chances if I only took 2 semesters of econometrics?

5. Could I get in with only 1 semester of econometrics or is that impossible? (I ask this not because I'm afraid of econometrics but because there are lots of non-econ classes I'd like to take as an undergrad that I thought I'd have room to take before I realized I needed all this math and stuff. So I want to know if I can still take those classes, get into a PhD program and learn something like Econometrics I while I'm in grad school).

6. Is it enough research to have done research with a professor for a summer and also write a thesis? If not, should I plan to do research with a professor for a semester or two senior year beyond doing my thesis?

7. Is having one rec from a professor who doesn't know me much beyond me doing very well in his/her classes and maybe being half-memorable due to answering questions a fair bit in lecture okay?

 

Thanks in advance for any responses!

[TA89]

First off, Less Than Jake is awesome.

 

With those classes and your GPA, you could possibly get something in the T20 coming from a school like Brown. Would you consider taking some math over the coming summer (concurrently with research)? Maybe take analysis in the summer and then take Grad Micro/Probability in the fall or something?

[lessthanjake]

First off, Less Than Jake is awesome.

 

With those classes and your GPA, you could possibly get something in the T20 coming from a school like Brown. Would you consider taking some math over the coming summer (concurrently with research)? Maybe take analysis in the summer and then take Grad Micro/Probability in the fall or something?

 

I'd rather not take classes over the summer, especially since the research I'd be doing would be a 35-40 hour a week job. I would if I had to but the biggest problem is that, if last summer is any indication, Analysis probably won't be offered at Brown over the summer.

 

Also, when you say "you could possibly get something in the T20 coming from a school like Brown" does that mean that I could only possibly get something in the 10-20 range or does it mean that I would also stand a chance at the top 5 or 10 programs?

[whatdoido]

I'm sure that if you do very well in those courses, you will definitely have a shot. However, its going to be really difficult to get all the math necessary to apply in only two semesters, if you plan to apply in your senior year. Also, adcoms can obviously tell between someone who has been consistently trained in mathematics, and someone who crammed it in at the end. However, coming from Brown will definitely help you out, seeing how its math department is one of the best. I think your shot at top schools would be significantly higher with Probability, Differential Equations, and Mathematical Statistics. Having said that, the fact that you have an LOR from an important economist will give you an enormous boost if he thinks you're excellent. If you can fit all of that math in by the fall and do well in it, I think you'll have a decent shot at the top 20. If not, I would recommend taking the next year to build up your math profile, and apply in the next cycle.

 

And...

 

"Also, when you say "you could possibly get something in the T20 coming from a school like Brown" does that mean that I could only possibly get something in the 10-20 range or does it mean that I would also stand a chance at the top 5 or 10 programs?" :

 

For anyone with a standard good profile, the 5ish-20 range is usually a decent shot. However, unless you have a publication in a top journal, taken the entire first year grad series or have an unbelievable recommendation from an unbelievable economist, the top 5ish is a crapshoot.

[lessthanjake]

I'm sure that if you do very well in those courses, you will definitely have a shot. However, its going to be really difficult to get all the math necessary to apply in only two semesters, if you plan to apply in your senior year.

Yeah, I've decided that if I am going to do a PhD program, I need to apply after my senior year. I also just realized that that would actually give me a chance to be involved in more research the summer after my senior year which could help me more, and get me a better third rec probably.

 

Also, adcoms can obviously tell between someone who has been consistently trained in mathematics, and someone who crammed it in at the end. However, coming from Brown will definitely help you out, seeing how its math department is one of the best.

Yeah, I will have fairly obviously crammed it in at the end. However, I feel like I can account for this in my statement of purpose somewhat. The reason I have to cram it in is because I only recently decided I wanted to go this route, and so in explaining why I want an economics PhD, I will talk about having discovered a love of academia during college. Wouldn't this give a fairly solid justification for why I crammed it in at the end, and even make it so that the cramming shows how serious I have become about economics?

 

I think your shot at top schools would be significantly higher with Probability, Differential Equations, and Mathematical Statistics. Having said that, the fact that you have an LOR from an important economist will give you an enormous boost if he thinks you're excellent. If you can fit all of that math in by the fall and do well in it, I think you'll have a decent shot at the top 20. If not, I would recommend taking the next year to build up your math profile, and apply in the next cycle.

I mentioned this earlier in this post but, but I agree and had already decided I would need to apply after my senior year. Beyond not having taken all the math yet, I will also not have written a thesis by that point, meaning less research and 1 less good LOR. So I figure my chances of getting in if I apply senior year are virtually zero.

 

For anyone with a standard good profile, the 5ish-20 range is usually a decent shot. However, unless you have a publication in a top journal, taken the entire first year grad series or have an unbelievable recommendation from an unbelievable economist, the top 5ish is a crapshoot.

I have two questions about this:

 

1. How in the world does someone get a publication in a top journal as an undergrad? I was under the impression that journals really just accept PhDs' work. How common is it for someone applying to a PhD program to have already been published??

2. You say the top 5 is essentially a crapshoot. What do you mean by that? Does that mean that unless you have the glorious things you mentioned, you have zero chance, or just that the chances for each school are really low (like 5-10%)? It makes a difference to me because for instance, I'm okay with having a 10% chance at each top 5 school, as that translates to a 41% chance of getting into at least ONE of them.

[Econ2011]

"It makes a difference to me because for instance, I'm okay with having a 10% chance at each top 5 school, as that translates to a 41% chance of getting into at least ONE of them."

 

Would you care explaining the 41% chance? If I go by your logic, apply to 20 schools, chance almost translates to absolute certainty? : )

 

 

As for publishing papers, I think most journals require you to have a PhD or some credibility, hence making it almost impossible for undergraduates to get into top journals. The best way is to work with your professors and get your name in the paper. Having said that, there are a lot of people who get into a PhD program after a decent time off in the research world. So, they could have good publications. On another note, even undergraduate journals can have an acceptance rate of 30%. So, publication is not as easy as it sounds, especially at good journals.

[lessthanjake]

"It makes a difference to me because for instance, I'm okay with having a 10% chance at each top 5 school, as that translates to a 41% chance of getting into at least ONE of them."

 

Would you care explaining the 41% chance? If I go by your logic, apply to 20 schools, chance almost translates to absolute certainty? : )

 

1-(0.9^5)

 

I obviously haven't taken a class in probability but I think that makes sense. Assuming that its a "crapshoot" so its totally random and there's just a flat 10% chance at all of them (ie. no correlation between getting into one and having a higher chance at the others), then there should be a 0.9^5 chance of getting into none of them, and thus 1-(0.9^5) chance of getting into at least one. That expression equals 0.41, hence the 41% number.

 

And yeahh I mean if I had a 10% chance of getting into all the top 20 schools, then getting into one of them would be a pretty great shot, but the actual admission process doesnt really work with a flat 10% chance with no correlation. I would assume that it's more common for there to be a lot of people who will get into virtually all the top 20 and also a lot of people who will stand a virtually zero chance of getting into any.

 

I assume I fall somewhere in between that. If that's the case, though, what I am really wondering is what the chances of getting into any given program is because that really changes things. Having a 5% chance of getting into each of the top 5 programs is far different from having a 15% chance, for instance. The responses so far have been great, but what they have said is that I have a "decent shot" at top 6-20 schools, and that top 5 schools are a crapshoot. I am wondering what "decent shot" means, as that could easily mean like a 10% chance or a 50% chance (or anything in between of course), but those are way different. Similarly, "crapshoot" could mean virtually zero percent chance or it could mean 15% or so. Again, there's a significant difference. So while I am very very grateful for the responses so far, I guess I am looking for something a bit more specific.

[taurenchieftain]

come on..do not mislead people. Its rare even among those gotten accepted into top programs to publish in decent journals. This is especially true with american applicants, because most of them come straight out of undergrad.

 

At my school, which sends a few kids to the top 5/10 every year, no one has published a paper since I got here as a freshman. The one guy who did I think many years back has become a legend. Also just take a look at the 2010 profiles, several have gotten into the top 5, and how many of them have papers published in decent journals?

[dinosaurus]

1. Take the six maths classes, and the 2 econometrics.

2. Write a great thesis.

3. Do some great RA work.

 

Ask your letter writer where to apply. I think you should apply to the top 10-15, but check with him/her. And let's not delude ourselves, 41% chances of getting into the top 5 is clearly an overestimate. You definitely have a great potential and high motivation, so i'm sure you will do very well, but don't forget all applications to the top 10 are loteries. Just keep working hard, and you'll end up in a great place :)

 

The application process is very random, sometimes unfair; accept it, and do all you can to put all chances on your side. Don't spend too much time thinking about school names or odds; focus on your senior year. That's the best way to succeed.

[lessthanjake]

1. Take the six maths classes, and the 2 econometrics.

 

Yeah that seems to be the consensus. I'm slightly apprehensive about taking all the math classes just because I am a bit worried about my GPA. I haven't taken math classes in college (beyond econ classes with some simple partial derivatives, and that doesn't count) so I am just not certain that I can do well at them. Back in high school, math worked just fine for me (I got 5s on the AP Calc BC and AP Physics exams without studying for them) but I am just worried that I'll hit some sort of math ceiling where the stuff doesn't make sense anymore or just not beat the curve. In that case, if I get a B in Real Analysis, for instance, I would be shut out of good econ programs, and my back up plans (law school) would be troublesome too because my GPA will have gone down (and GPA + LSAT are all that matters for law school admissions so relatively small GPA changes are a big deal). So all the math is sort of a risk that will shut me out of all my options if it fails.

 

Ask your letter writer where to apply. I think you should apply to the top 10-15, but check with him/her. And let's not delude ourselves, 41% chances of getting into the top 5 is clearly an overestimate. You definitely have a great potential and high motivation, so i'm sure you will do very well, but don't forget all applications to the top 10 are loteries. Just keep working hard, and you'll end up in a great place

 

Asking a professor definitely sounds like a good idea. And yeahh, I know that 41% is an overestimate. It was just an example of how there's a big difference between "crapshoot" meaning I have zero chance at any of the top 5 or meaning that I have even just a 10% chance at each.

 

The application process is very random, sometimes unfair; accept it, and do all you can to put all chances on your side. Don't spend too much time thinking about school names or odds; focus on your senior year. That's the best way to succeed.

 

I know that you're right. It's just slightly complicated for me. I had always figured I would go to law school, and I really have it set up so that I will get into a top law school. Based on my GPA and what I've been getting on practice LSATs, I will stand a very high chance of getting into Harvard Law School. I've decided I would enjoy that less than going into academia, but if I "do all I can to put all the chances on my side" for economics phd programs and screw up in my math classes, I'll have screwed up my chances for a top PhD program AND made my GPA low enough that the very top tier law schools might become out of reach when they wouldnt have been without it. It's a bit of a dilemma for me, because I would feel really lame if that ended up happening.

[whatdoido]

come on..do not mislead people. Its rare even among those gotten accepted into top programs to publish in decent journals. This is especially true with american applicants, because most of them come straight out of undergrad.

 

At my school, which sends a few kids to the top 5/10 every year, no one has published a paper since I got here as a freshman. The one guy who did I think many years back has become a legend. Also just take a look at the 2010 profiles, several have gotten into the top 5, and how many of them have papers published in decent journals?

 

Relax dude. I said that its a crapshoot unless you have some kind of outstanding quality. I realize that publication in a top journal sometimes never happens, but I'm sure there's some undergraduate student every couple years who RAs for a top economist and gets his name on the paper somehow. Anyways, its not like other people don't have a chance. Obviously if you have lots of difficult math, high grades, great recommendations, and grad economics courses, you have a nice chance at the top 5. I'm saying that unless you have something that really sets you apart, its impossible to say what your chances are for any of the top 5 schools.

 

And to lessthanjake, your probability calculation is fine, but, once again, there is really no way to quantify the chance you have at top 5 schools. There are so many factors involved that all you can do is be the best you can in undergraduate and hope that someone on the admissions committee likes your name.

[TA89]

I was pretty shaky when I first started math in college (I took AP Calc AB but decided to restart in college). I have to say that I have found Calc II to be much harder than Calc 3 and Linear Algebra. I doubt you'll hit a math ceiling with either of those. Analysis is obviously tough, but you seem to be good at math (much better than I was in HS at least) so you should be able to power through it. Also, a B in RA will hardly lower your chances at law school. I know it's all GPA+LSAT but a B instead of an A in ONE class is going to have minimal impact on your GPA. Additionally, the LSAT matters more anyways.

[lessthanjake]

I was pretty shaky when I first started math in college (I took AP Calc AB but decided to restart in college). I have to say that I have found Calc II to be much harder than Calc 3 and Linear Algebra. I doubt you'll hit a math ceiling with either of those. Analysis is obviously tough, but you seem to be good at math (much better than I was in HS at least) so you should be able to power through it. Also, a B in RA will hardly lower your chances at law school. I know it's all GPA+LSAT but a B instead of an A in ONE class is going to have minimal impact on your GPA. Additionally, the LSAT matters more anyways.

 

Yeah I suppose you're right. I've also thought about applying to law school during my senior year for various reasons. One benefit of that is that Multivariable and Linear Algebra will be the only math classes I'll have taken when applying, and as you said, those aren't supposed to be that bad (and I'm really not that worried about them). I could then defer admission if I got into a great law school (and the top law schools have very liberal deferment policies so that wouldn't be a problem) and wait and see if all the math could get me into a great PhD program after my senior year. If they did, I would certainly go for the PhD program instead, but the risk would be lessened because a B in Real Analysis, for instance, would have no effect on my law school admission.

 

The only problem with that is I'm not sure if you can defer and then eventually turn down the law school admission offer. I know you sign something saying you won't apply to other law schools, but a PhD program isn't law school. I suppose it's unethical, so I guess it's a bad idea, but that really would solve my issues significantly

[Hammer456]

What about a JD-PhD program? I know a lot of schools force you to submit two separate applications to the respective programs and have both accepted, but maybe there are some programs where your strong pre-law background could work to your advantage in helping you also get in to an economics program?

[lessthanjake]

What about a JD-PhD program? I know a lot of schools force you to submit two separate applications to the respective programs and have both accepted, but maybe there are some programs where your strong pre-law background could work to your advantage in helping you also get in to an economics program?

 

Hmm I wonder if that's true. I have always just assumed that a JD-PhD program would be awesome but, in requiring one to be accepted into both schools, would mostly just be a semi-impossible goal (at least if I were shooting for a joint program at a top school).

[asquare]

I know that you're right. It's just slightly complicated for me. I had always figured I would go to law school, and I really have it set up so that I will get into a top law school. Based on my GPA and what I've been getting on practice LSATs, I will stand a very high chance of getting into Harvard Law School. I've decided I would enjoy that less than going into academia, but if I "do all I can to put all the chances on my side" for economics phd programs and screw up in my math classes, I'll have screwed up my chances for a top PhD program AND made my GPA low enough that the very top tier law schools might become out of reach when they wouldnt have been without it. It's a bit of a dilemma for me, because I would feel really lame if that ended up happening.

I think it's worth taking a step back and thinking about what you really want to do when you graduate. A PhD in economics and law school are very different programs, and lead to very different career paths. For someone who really wants to be an economist, and who is passionate about doing research about economics, the logical back up plan for not getting in to a top-10 economics program is attending a top-20 economics program, not going to law school. And for someone who really wants to be a lawyer (or to have a policy career that would benefit from legal training), the back up for Harvard Law School a lower ranked law school. IMO, your focus on prestige rather than type of program is misplaced.

[lessthanjake]

I think it's worth taking a step back and thinking about what you really want to do when you graduate. A PhD in economics and law school are very different programs, and lead to very different career paths. For someone who really wants to be an economist, and who is passionate about doing research about economics, the logical back up plan for not getting in to a top-10 economics program is attending a top-20 economics program, not going to law school. And for someone who really wants to be a lawyer (or to have a policy career that would benefit from legal training), the back up for Harvard Law School a lower ranked law school. IMO, your focus on prestige rather than type of program is misplaced.

 

It's not really a focus on prestige. I would genuinely enjoy both. It has been my assumption for the last 5 or so years that I want to go to law school, and that is certainly something I would enjoy. However, college has increasingly made me realize how much I love academia as well. Thus, it has occurred to me recently that maybe I want to go the PhD route instead.

 

So the issue is that I would greatly enjoy both routes, despite how different they are. It would be great if I knew which one I want more, but I truly don't (although currently I'm leaning towards wanting the PhD option more). Therefore, logically I should determine which route I take based on which option I will be able to have the greatest success in. And if I can get into Harvard Law School and/or UCLA Economics, I think I should probably choose to aim for Harvard Law School. That's obviously not a knock on UCLA for economics, as its a top school and I'm certainly not assuming ill get into Harvard Law. The point is simply that in lieu of knowing which career I'll actually like more, I think I should probably base a fair bit of my decision based on the probability of success I will have in each field. And if I can get into a very top law school and can't get into a very top economics program, then my probability of success in law is greater than my probability of success in economics.

[Guest buzios]

So the issue is that I would greatly enjoy both routes, despite how different they are. It would be great if I knew which one I want more, but I truly don't (although currently I'm leaning towards wanting the PhD option more). Therefore, logically I should determine which route I take based on which option I will be able to have the greatest success in. And if I can get into Harvard Law School and/or UCLA Economics, I think I should probably choose to aim for Harvard Law School. That's obviously not a knock on UCLA for economics, as its a top school and I'm certainly not assuming ill get into Harvard Law. The point is simply that in lieu of knowing which career I'll actually like more, I think I should probably base a fair bit of my decision based on the probability of success I will have in each field. And if I can get into a very top law school and can't get into a very top economics program, then my probability of success in law is greater than my probability of success in economics.

 

I'd probably disagree with this for two reasons:

 

1) Getting into harvard law school doesn't mean you're going to be an awesome lawyer. It just means you killed the LSAT an didn't screw up your undergrad (I don't really know much about getting into law school, but you get my point)

Same goes for getting into a PHD program

 

2) Getting UCLA for econ (assuming it's bad, which is something I'm still trying to get my head around) shouldn't deter you from economics. It doesn't mean you will end up doing pointless research, or that you are destined to have less success.

 

I think you're letting expected success (based on pretty flimsy predictors) determine your career. If I were you, I'd take some time off like asquare suggests and figure out what I wanted to do.

 

Going into one because you didn't succeed at the other (on your first attempt) is a really, really, short-sighted course of action.

[asquare]

So the issue is that I would greatly enjoy both routes, despite how different they are. It would be great if I knew which one I want more, but I truly don't (although currently I'm leaning towards wanting the PhD option more). Therefore, logically I should determine which route I take based on which option I will be able to have the greatest success in. And if I can get into Harvard Law School and/or UCLA Economics, I think I should probably choose to aim for Harvard Law School. That's obviously not a knock on UCLA for economics, as its a top school and I'm certainly not assuming ill get into Harvard Law. The point is simply that in lieu of knowing which career I'll actually like more, I think I should probably base a fair bit of my decision based on the probability of success I will have in each field. And if I can get into a very top law school and can't get into a very top economics program, then my probability of success in law is greater than my probability of success in economics.

There are a lot of unfounded assumptions in that reasoning. Ranking of graduate program matters in both law and economics, but it's one of many factors that determines "success." More importantly, "success" in law is going to look quite different than "success" in economics. Simply comparing the rankings of the programs you could attend in either field really doesn't tell you much about what your career would look like after graduation. If "success" is publishing papers about economics, for example, then you'll do a lot better coming out of UCLA econ than Harvard law. If "success" is arguing a case in front of the Supreme Court, then you'll have a better chance coming out of UCLA law than Harvard Econ. And if "success" is measured by your salary, well, then, ditch both options, get an MBA, and go into finance.

[dinosaurus]

A friend of mine went to Cornell Economics instead of HLS, because he was truly passionate about it. I think he is very happy with his choice, but it took him a while to find out (I believe he deferred his admission offer to Harvard for two years, spending them on a one-year RA and a MSc in econ, before eventually turning it down).

 

Agonizing over options is a pain, i agree, but the last thing you want to do is to end up in the wrong program.

[lessthanjake]

1) Getting into harvard law school doesn't mean you're going to be an awesome lawyer. It just means you killed the LSAT an didn't screw up your undergrad (I don't really know much about getting into law school, but you get my point)

Same goes for getting into a PHD program

 

Yeah but getting into Harvard Law School GREATLY affects what your first job will be coming out of law school. A typical Harvard Law School grad can very easily get a good job at a top law firm and, with some skills and a lot of hard work, become a partner in that firm fairly quickly (10 years or so). From what I've read, this becomes rapidly untrue as you go down the line of law schools; even at schools in the 5-10 range you generally won't be able to find that level of success unless you were one of the top students. So Harvard Law School essentially puts you on the success track.

 

2) Getting UCLA for econ (assuming it's bad, which is something I'm still trying to get my head around) shouldn't deter you from economics. It doesn't mean you will end up doing pointless research, or that you are destined to have less success.

 

I absolutely did not say UCLA was bad. I specifically said it was a top program. I used it as an example because it's in the 10-20 range that people seemed to be saying I have a decent shot at. In any case, I know it doesn't mean I'll be doing pointless research. And I think success in the PhD world is less dependent on graduate institution than in the law school world. However, there still is something to be said for going to a top grad school. Look at the faculty in economics at MIT, for instance. The tally goes like this: 11 Harvard PhDs, 11 MIT, 5 Stanford, 3 Princeton, 2 Yale, 2 UPenn, 1 Chicago. These are all top 10 schools. The only faculty in the 10-20 range is 1 professor from Minnesota and Duke, as well as 2 professors each from Oxford and LSE (which have to be counted as top 10-equivalents in my mind). It's fairly clear from this that the faculty positions at top schools are pretty much reserved for those who have PhDs from top 10 (and mostly top 5) programs.

 

Now obviously success as a professor isn't really entirely based on where you teach, but is a lot based on what you research. But certainly I would measure some success in the field as being based on where you teach. Professors at MIT are teaching and influencing the brightest undergrad and grad students there are and working with the best peers. This will certainly make their research more influential, which in the end is probably the measure of success as a professor (not to say that life is all about 'success' but it is what we are talking about here).

 

Going into one because you didn't succeed at the other (on your first attempt) is a really, really, short-sighted course of action.

 

I certainly agree with that and it's something that I have to weigh. The problem is that not succeeding at one on my first attempt requires waiting an entire year to try again, with no guarantee of success the second time. Putting your career on hold for a year is not something to be taken lightly.

 

There are a lot of unfounded assumptions in that reasoning. Ranking of graduate program matters in both law and economics, but it's one of many factors that determines "success." More importantly, "success" in law is going to look quite different than "success" in economics. Simply comparing the rankings of the programs you could attend in either field really doesn't tell you much about what your career would look like after graduation. If "success" is publishing papers about economics, for example, then you'll do a lot better coming out of UCLA econ than Harvard law. If "success" is arguing a case in front of the Supreme Court, then you'll have a better chance coming out of UCLA law than Harvard Econ. And if "success" is measured by your salary, well, then, ditch both options, get an MBA, and go into finance.

 

I'm not measuring success in either field in the same way, obviously. But it IS important to me to be successful in my career, however success in that career is defined. Success is not everything to me at all, of course, but it is fairly important.

 

A friend of mine went to Cornell Economics instead of HLS, because he was truly passionate about it. I think he is very happy with his choice, but it took him a while to find out (I believe he deferred his admission offer to Harvard for two years, spending them on a one-year RA and a MSc in econ, before eventually turning it down).

 

Agonizing over options is a pain, i agree, but the last thing you want to do is to end up in the wrong program.

 

Thank you for this. Your response raises a question that I alluded to earlier. You said a friend deferred admission to Harvard Law for two years, and eventually turned the offer down. I was thinking of applying to law school during my senior year and then deferring admission until I found out from PhD programs after my senior year. What I was worried about is whether deferring admission and then eventually turning it down is totally taboo and looked down upon? I don't want to do something that is widely seen as unethical of course, but it sounds like you know someone who did this and it was fine. Is that true? Do you know if that's a normal/acceptable thing to try to do?

[Guest buzios]

Yeah but getting into Harvard Law School GREATLY affects what your first job will be coming out of law school. A typical Harvard Law School grad can very easily get a good job at a top law firm and, with some skills and a lot of hard work, become a partner in that firm fairly quickly (10 years or so). From what I've read, this becomes rapidly untrue as you go down the line of law schools; even at schools in the 5-10 range you generally won't be able to find that level of success unless you were one of the top students. So Harvard Law School essentially puts you on the success track.

 

Again, not necessarily. A close friend of mine just graduated from a law school "down the line" and got an extremely good job. While a number of her friends who went to top 5/10 schools didn't do as well. She was far from the top student in her cohort.

 

But I'm not about to argue that going to harvard doesn't give you a better shot at a job.

 

Point is, she didn't not go into law because she didn't get into Harvard. She stuck it out, because it was something she was passionate about. And in the end, she was more successful (significantly) than a majority of those who graduated from HLS in her year. A lot of them didn't even get jobs straight out of school, if i recall (although that's also because of the job market at the time).

 

I absolutely did not say UCLA was bad. I specifically said it was a top program. I used it as an example because it's in the 10-20 range that people seemed to be saying I have a decent shot at. In any case, I know it doesn't mean I'll be doing pointless research. And I think success in the PhD world is less dependent on graduate institution than in the law school world. However, there still is something to be said for going to a top grad school. Look at the faculty in economics at MIT, for instance. The tally goes like this: 11 Harvard PhDs, 11 MIT, 5 Stanford, 3 Princeton, 2 Yale, 2 UPenn, 1 Chicago. These are all top 10 schools. The only faculty in the 10-20 range is 1 professor from Minnesota and Duke, as well as 2 professors each from Oxford and LSE (which have to be counted as top 10-equivalents in my mind). It's fairly clear from this that the faculty positions at top schools are pretty much reserved for those who have PhDs from top 10 (and mostly top 5) programs.

 

No you're missing my point. I probably didn't state it as clearly. Not getting into a top 10 because you've only taken math up till linear algebra should not be what deters you from economics. Getting into UCLA (just to continue the ,albeit flawed, example) with a weak profile (based not on ability, but circumstance) is not something that should make you want to go into law.

 

I think that's where being short-sighted comes into play. Saying that I don't want to get a PHD in economics, for no other reason than that I decided i wanted to go into economics late and as a result wasn't as competitive as I wanted to be (in 1 cycle), is quite foolish.

 

TM is packed full of people who have devoted years and many failed cycles towards achieving what they're passionate about.

 

Also, for the record, 1 year in the grand scheme of things is REALLY nothing. You're going to be spending at least 5 years in your PHD program. 1 year spent trying to get yourself on the right track is a small price to pay. As i mentioned above, people sacrifice a lot more.

[lessthanjake]

No you're missing my point. I probably didn't state it as clearly. Not getting into a top 10 because you've only taken math up till linear algebra should not be what deters you from economics. Getting into UCLA (just to continue the ,albeit flawed, example) with a weak profile (based not on ability, but circumstance) is not something that should make you want to go into law.

 

I think that's where being short-sighted comes into play. Saying that I don't want to get a PHD in economics, for no other reason than that I decided i wanted to go into economics late and as a result wasn't as competitive as I wanted to be (in 1 cycle), is quite foolish.

 

TM is packed full of people who have devoted years and many failed cycles towards achieving what they're passionate about.

 

Also, for the record, 1 year in the grand scheme of things is REALLY nothing. You're going to be spending at least 5 years in your PHD program. 1 year spent trying to get yourself on the right track is a small price to pay. As i mentioned above, people sacrifice a lot more.

 

How would I even help my chances with an extra year though? I can't spend an extra year at Brown, as a year at Brown costs 52,000 dollars in tuition/room and board. Similarly, I'm sure masters programs cost a similar amount (though I admit to being rather clueless on economics masters programs). I don't see how I can get the ton of math that is necessary without incurring huge costs that would arguably not be worth it. What are your thoughts on this? Am I wrong?

[TA89]

Though I haven't looked at them in depth, the Canadian masters programs seem to be very reasonable (Toronto/UBC/Queens). That would be a solid way to strengthen your profile.

[whatdoido]

Some Canadian Master's Programs fully fund their students, as far as I've heard.

 

And Lessthanjake, although I'm not in graduate school or probably any more knowledgeable than you, from what I've read on these boards, the level of your graduate program in economics pretty much forces a glass ceiling above your head. I've read that unless your a genius who blossomed in graduate school, most economists don't teach at a higher ranked school than they attended. Someone can verify this or not, but if it is true, then I think your graduate school ranking would matter as much or more as if you went to law school.