Advice 2011: Tips for low-ranked undergrads, "soft" majors, and internationals

[Elliephant]

This thread is a joint project by a group of 2011 cycle applicants and reflects our heterogeneous experiences. Admissions are noisy; take what we say with a grain of salt.

 

Preamble: I did an undergrad in business (no minor in econ or math) at a low-ranked Canadian school that hasn't sent anyone to (any!) econ PhD in anyone's living memory. Unlike many international applicants, I do not have a master's. I didn't make the top 5, but got offers from Kellogg (Northwestern), Penn, Michigan, and Wharton (Penn).

 

My advice is for:

1. Applicants from unknown or low-ranked undergrad schools (see also Jeeves' advice, most of which I wholeheartedly agree with);
   
2. Applicants with "soft" (non-quantitative) undergrad majors, i.e. most majors other than econ, math, physics, CS and engineering;
   
3. International applicants who don't hold a master's degree.
   

 

All of the following assumes that, for whatever reason, you are unable to transfer to a better-known school. Here goes, in no particular order:

 

1. It is not absolutely imperative that you do a math/econ major or minor. In fact, not doing a formal math/econ minor can actually work to your advantage. If you can stomach it, try to skip some intermediate courses and head straight to upper-year courses. It saves you lots of time and will allow you to impress the profs teaching the advanced classes if you do well. If your LORs emphasise this part of your background, it might also convince adcoms that you're capable of catching up on material on your own. I did this for honours micro, macro, and metrics, and was able to get what must have been a very good letter from my micro prof.
   
2. Take your math as early as possible. This will give you more fluency in the language when you start doing serious theory courses and allow you to have final grades on your transcript at the time of application. If you're not sure you want to go to grad school for econ, take the math early anyway. It's a good selling point on the job market regardless of your college major, so it can't hurt.
   
3. Arrange to do some serious coursework at a recognised department (for internationals, this might require going abroad). Having good grades from a respected institution will make the grades from your lesser-known home school more credible to adcoms. If you do well, it will also allow you to get letters from faculty who have sent students to the top X in the past, so they'll be able to make more relevant comparisons. I did an exchange term at a top Chinese school that sends a couple of students to the top 10 every year, and I think that counted for a lot. Note: LSE's summer school is, in my opinion, not a good substitute for this. You don't get the same level of interaction with or investment from faculty, and I've heard that the programme is less selective than one might assume (though this is mostly hearsay).
   
4. When you ask profs from your home school for letters, tell them what important elements you think should be mentioned in the LORs. If they do not often write letters for students applying to top econ departments, they may simply not know what makes a strong letter. Admissions are replete with stories of profs who were very enthusiastic about their students, but wrote bad letters because the content they included was uninformative. This site provides some good advice. Of course, this should all be done tactfully and respectfully. And if you can't put your trust in a letter-writer to do the best (s)he can for you, then you should consider asking someone else to write your letter.
   
5. Get some research under your belt. This does not mean trying to get published; rather, it means doing something that will allow you to develop and showcase your research skills. Your job is to convince yourself, your profs, and the adcoms that you like research and show promise in it. This often takes the form of doing a senior/honours thesis, but depending on your school or major, that option may not be available. In that case, try to do a shorter independent study course with a professor who can guide you through the process. If you can do #3 above, try to do some research at your exchange institution with a faculty member who can be a valuable advisor and letter-writer.
   
6. If you're not from the US and don't have a master's, you're not doomed. The usual advice about taking graduate courses during your undergrad, if they are available, still applies. However, even if that doesn't work out, don't consider yourself shut out from good schools. I had zero graduate econ courses when I applied, though I did audit a couple. I think it is generally a good idea for internationals (and some Americans) to do an MA, but the point is that it's not strictly necessary.
   
7. Go to department seminars and attend conferences, and read papers in your field of interest. It's unbelievable how far this goes toward developing your economic intuition and reasoning, and teaching you to ask interesting research questions. That will help you when you start doing #5 above, or even when you're casually talking to faculty who might later write you recommendation letters.
   
8. Do well in all your courses. People often say that no one cares about your nineteenth-century Russian literature course, but I disagree. For applicants who come from lesser-known schools, demonstrating that you are bright and hard-working in a wide spectrum of subjects is an important testament to your overall ability. I've had at least one top 10 adcom tell me that they look for "raw ability" and fit, so demonstrating that you're just plain smart is a good idea. I had high grades in real analysis, sure, but I think my strong performance in my Chinese language and marketing classes also helped.
   
9. Apply to programmes/schools that have a history of accepting people with backgrounds similar to yours. This takes a lot of research, but can be worth it. One of the top admits I had was at a school that routinely admits students from my exchange institution, so when the adcom looked at my record, they could probably make better sense of it than adcoms who don't see students from that institution as frequently. Also, if you have some sort of comparative advantage in a certain subfield, leverage it. For example, if you're a star computer programmer, consider applying to the econ PhD at Michigan's School of Information. If you have institutional knowledge in education, Columbia offers a PhD in the economics of education. If your comparative advantage is great people skills, apply to places that conduct serious interviews so that you can have a chance to shine in the admissions process. Also, of course, apply widely. There's enough noise in admissions that you won't want to take any chances.
   

 

Your job is to prove to adcoms that you have great potential, and that you are likely to perform up to that potential. Candidates from lower-ranked or lesser-known institutions are risky, and departments are not risk-neutral. Of course, you can't prove what isn't there: you need to actually be bright and hard-working for any of this to work. Finally, don't get discouraged if your first admissions cycle doesn't turn out great. Many people who get shut out in the first cycle turn out to be excellent economists (educated at excellent schools) down the road.

 

Finally, remember: This is just one applicant's opinion. Your best source of advice is usually your profs and faculty at other schools who are willing to invest their time in you. The economics profession is full of open, helpful people; take advantage of that!

Edited March 22, 2011 by Elliephant
typos

[Econ2011]

Do well in all your courses.

 

Good advice.

 

I am not sure if they would care about other courses but lower grades in math courses are devastating. All those professors who replied back to my email for advice suggested that a couple of bad grades in maths were the deciding factors for my rejections despite higher grades in some of the higher level math courses. They did not talk about any other courses with me.

 

I would add one: do well in all the math courses-no exceptions! I would rather take fewer classes and do well than take many and mess around.

[vidamilonga]

Good advice.

 

I am not sure if they would care about other courses but lower grades in math courses are devastating. All those professors who replied back to my email for advice suggested that a couple of bad grades in maths were the deciding factors for my rejections despite higher grades in some of the higher level math courses. They did not talk about any other courses with me.

 

I would add one: do well in all the math courses-no exceptions! I would rather take fewer classes and do well than take many and mess around.

 

I actually had the opposite experience; I got a B in calc 3, but I still got some pretty awesome acceptances, much better than my ex ante expectations.

 

Of course if you still have the option you should try to do the best you can in the lower level math classes, but if it's too late, there is no need to freak out -- a B will not kill you, even at Harvard :)

[kt253]

[*]It is not absolutely imperative that you do a math/econ major or minor. In fact, not doing a formal math/econ minor can actually work to your advantage. If you can stomach it, try to skip some intermediate courses and head straight to upper-year courses. It saves you lots of time and will allow you to impress the profs teaching the advanced classes if you do well. If your LORs emphasise this part of your background, it might also convince adcoms that you're capable of catching up on material on your own. I did this for honours micro, macro, and metrics, and was able to get what must have been a very good letter from my micro prof.

 

I agree with this part, without doubt. I am graduating with a dual degrees (both B.A.s, in economics and philosophy). One of my LOR specifically made a point of it to draw attention to the fact that despite taking all the classes I needed for those two majors, I was still able to take up through Diff Eqs and Linear Algebra and do very well in them. He also pointed out the usefulness of the symbolic logic course that I had to take for philosophy, since it was very proof-based. As an aside, the philosophy major also helped me a lot with writing and reading/digesting complicated texts, something I've found incredibly invaluable thus far. To be honest, I'd be really hesitant to call it a "soft major" since it can be extremely difficult and require a high level of thinking, communicating, reasoning, etc in order to do well. I talked to a friend from high school who is doing neuroscience at JHU, and upon finding out that I majored in philosophy, he asked me how I ever got through reading Kant's Critique of Pure Reason with any level of understanding. It's certainly not an easy task, and it is not for everybody, but the econ professors I've interacted with seem to appreciate this background of mine a lot.

 

As for the other aspects of my application process, I can also speak to those coming from low-ranked or unknown schools. My school's econ phd program is ranked about 100 in one ranking, and unranked many places - it is a large state school, though, so not unheard of, although it is known as a top party school. One of the professors I met on a recent visit talked to me about this issue, and said that the problem with schools such as this is the variance of the student body. Thus, I'm sure you'll be viewed as a riskier admit. However, I think I was able to overcome this by participating in campus organizations and taking leadership positions in them, attending scholarly events outside of school (seminars, conferences, etc), doing research assistance, department seminars, graduate student reading groups, tutoring, and so on - you get the idea. You'll need to build your resume and signal that you aren't just someone who wants the piece of paper that is a Bachelor's degree, and that you're really serious about your education and interested in economics.

 

My grades and GRE scores certainly helped in this respect as well (grades probably more than anything else - I got one B in my 5 years of undergrad, and it was in a random, meaningless elective), and although my GRE scores weren't the greatest, they were high enough to avoid automatic rejections (I think/hope). My profile is available through the link in my signature if you'd like to get the full picture of my undergraduate experience, or you can ask me more about this through PMs.

 

To add some other tips, I'd like to stress taking as much relevant math as possible. UVA told me flat out that I had the minimum amount of math that the department was looking for, and the fact that I was currently in two of the classes making up this minimum threshold didn't help. I obviously didn't crack the top ten - one, because I didn't apply to any top-ten programs (with the exception of maybe UMD), but I am thinking that I'm also rejected from UCSD and CMU, and I think that this is in large part due to a lack of math. This may also have to do with the pedigree of my undergraduate institution, but I think this matters slightly less than the math issue. One fellow student in the econ program that I'm in right now is a year younger than me, and he has taken quite a bit of math thus far (and has superb grades). He has also reached out to top faculty to help them with research assistance if needed, one being at Harvard, who has already offered to write him a LOR after the work that he's done for the professor. This is a great way to battle the pedigree problem. I think this fellow student will fare very well in his upcoming application cycle. If he doesn't crack the top ten, I don't think anyone from our school for many years to come will be able to either (unless our school somehow shoots up in the rankings) - in which case, I'd have no idea what to tell those coming from lower-ranked or less well-known programs.

 

Looking back on all of this, I would have done a few things differently. I would have not discounted myself so much, and applied to a couple more top 10 schools, and a few more 10-30 schools, and less safeties. One thing I've definitely learned is that decisions are very unpredictable. I was accepted at MSU and Vanderbilt with wonderful offers, and rejected by IU. This may have been an issue with fit, but nonetheless, I'd consider both MSU and Vandy higher-ranked than IU, so you can't go strictly by the rankings when gauging where you'll be accepted. How you'd fit into the department in question seems to be a big part of the equation.

 

I'm not sure if I've gotten out all of my thoughts on this matter, and I'll probably have more to come. If this is the case, I'll add them to this thread. In the meantime, feel free to ask questions if you have them!

[topologist]

This thread is a joint project by a group of 2011 cycle applicants and reflects our heterogeneous experiences. Admissions are noisy; take what we say with a grain of salt.

 

Preamble: I did an undergrad in business (no minor in econ or math) at a low-ranked Canadian school that hasn't sent anyone to (any!) econ PhD in anyone's living memory. Unlike many international applicants, I do not have a master's. I didn't make the top 5, but got offers from Kellogg (Northwestern), Penn, Michigan, and Wharton (Penn).

 

My advice is for:

 

1. Applicants from unknown or low-ranked undergrad schools (see also Jeeves' advice, most of which I wholeheartedly agree with);
   
2. Applicants with "soft" (non-quantitative) undergrad majors, i.e. most majors other than econ, math, physics, CS and engineering;
   
3. International applicants who don't hold a master's degree.
   

 

 

All of the following assumes that, for whatever reason, you are unable to transfer to a better-known school. Here goes, in no particular order:

 

 

1. It is not absolutely imperative that you do a math/econ major or minor. In fact, not doing a formal math/econ minor can actually work to your advantage. If you can stomach it, try to skip some intermediate courses and head straight to upper-year courses. It saves you lots of time and will allow you to impress the profs teaching the advanced classes if you do well. If your LORs emphasise this part of your background, it might also convince adcoms that you're capable of catching up on material on your own. I did this for honours micro, macro, and metrics, and was able to get what must have been a very good letter from my micro prof.
   
2. Take your math as early as possible. This will give you more fluency in the language when you start doing serious theory courses and allow you to have final grades on your transcript at the time of application. If you're not sure you want to go to grad school for econ, take the math early anyway. It's a good selling point on the job market regardless of your college major, so it can't hurt.
   
3. Arrange to do some serious coursework at a recognised department (for internationals, this might require going abroad). Having good grades from a respected institution will make the grades from your lesser-known home school more credible to adcoms. If you do well, it will also allow you to get letters from faculty who have sent students to the top X in the past, so they'll be able to make more relevant comparisons. I did an exchange term at a top Chinese school that sends a couple of students to the top 10 every year, and I think that counted for a lot. Note: LSE's summer school is, in my opinion, not a good substitute for this. You don't get the same level of interaction with or investment from faculty, and I've heard that the programme is less selective than one might assume (though this is mostly hearsay).
   
4. When you ask profs from your home school for letters, tell them what important elements you think should be mentioned in the LORs. If they do not often write letters for students applying to top econ departments, they may simply not know what makes a strong letter. Admissions are replete with stories of profs who were very enthusiastic about their students, but wrote bad letters because the content they included was uninformative. This site provides some good advice. Of course, this should all be done tactfully and respectfully. And if you can't put your trust in a letter-writer to do the best (s)he can for you, then you should consider asking someone else to write your letter.
   
5. Get some research under your belt. This does not mean trying to get published; rather, it means doing something that will allow you to develop and showcase your research skills. Your job is to convince yourself, your profs, and the adcoms that you like research and show promise in it. This often takes the form of doing a senior/honours thesis, but depending on your school or major, that option may not be available. In that case, try to do a shorter independent study course with a professor who can guide you through the process. If you can do #3 above, try to do some research at your exchange institution with a faculty member who can be a valuable advisor and letter-writer.
   
6. If you're not from the US and don't have a master's, you're not doomed. The usual advice about taking graduate courses during your undergrad, if they are available, still applies. However, even if that doesn't work out, don't consider yourself shut out from good schools. I had zero graduate econ courses when I applied, though I did audit a couple. I think it is generally a good idea for internationals (and some Americans) to do an MA, but the point is that it's not strictly necessary.
   
7. Go to department seminars and attend conferences, and read papers in your field of interest. It's unbelievable how far this goes toward developing your economic intuition and reasoning, and teaching you to ask interesting research questions. That will help you when you start doing #5 above, or even when you're casually talking to faculty who might later write you recommendation letters.
   
8. Do well in all your courses. People often say that no one cares about your nineteenth-century Russian literature course, but I disagree. For applicants who come from lesser-known schools, demonstrating that you are bright and hard-working in a wide spectrum of subjects is an important testament to your overall ability. I've had at least one top 10 adcom tell me that they look for "raw ability" and fit, so demonstrating that you're just plain smart is a good idea. I had high grades in real analysis, sure, but I think my strong performance in my Chinese language and marketing classes also helped.
   
9. Apply to programmes/schools that have a history of accepting people with backgrounds similar to yours. This takes a lot of research, but can be worth it. One of the top admits I had was at a school that routinely admits students from my exchange institution, so when the adcom looked at my record, they could probably make better sense of it than adcoms who don't see students from that institution as frequently. Also, if you have some sort of comparative advantage in a certain subfield, leverage it. For example, if you're a star computer programmer, consider applying to the econ PhD at Michigan's School of Information. If you have institutional knowledge in education, Columbia offers a PhD in the economics of education. If your comparative advantage is great people skills, apply to places that conduct serious interviews so that you can have a chance to shine in the admissions process. Also, of course, apply widely. There's enough noise in admissions that you won't want to take any chances.
   

 

 

Your job is to prove to adcoms that you have great potential, and that you are likely to perform up to that potential. Candidates from lower-ranked or lesser-known institutions are risky, and departments are not risk-neutral. Of course, you can't prove what isn't there: you need to actually be bright and hard-working for any of this to work. Finally, don't get discouraged if your first admissions cycle doesn't turn out great. Many people who get shut out in the first cycle turn out to be excellent economists (educated at excellent schools) down the road.

 

Finally, remember: This is just one applicant's opinion. Your best source of advice is usually your profs and faculty at other schools who are willing to invest their time in you. The economics profession is full of open, helpful people; take advantage of that!

 

I believe you are a fellow applicant but your insightful thoughts make me wonder how long you have been researching about graduate studies in economics!

 

I, personally agree with all of these. I am not from a very famous school (famous for math but not for economics), I had no letter writer who is an economist, have no masters, most of all, I received a 3-year UG degree, but I managed to get into a school in top-5, my dream school (without funding though), I was really surprised (and so were my professors), because I am the 1st student in the history of my institution to go to graduate economics school.

 

Thanks for taking your time and writing this!

[thesparky]

Regarding coming from a high ranked Canadian undergrad and trying to break into the top X, here is my take. I will do my best Nanashi impression.

 

If your school has the option, do an honours degree. Especially if you come from a top school and take the appropriate honours courses, it effectively substitutes for a Master’s degree. In fact, it seems that you get further with a top honours degree than if you came from a lower ranked undergrad but got a Master’s at the same top program. This stems from the facts that the honours courses are more rigorous (and are perceived as such) and resemble grad coursework more than the standard courses as well as that the degree enables you to write a thesis and get that letter. Alternatively, if there is any other degree that really impresses the profs in your department (which could be a joint degree), that might work.

 

It should be noted that Canadian economics degrees involve more economics courses (and so less space for math) than US degrees. Canadian honours degrees require about 20 economics courses, while comparably ranked US school honours degrees require a little more than half that. While you certainly should take math and start early (caveat: Canadian schools themselves don’t care about your math!), it is not all that bad because…

 

You don’t need real analysis. The people I’m aware of who got into top 5 programs straight out of undergrad barely had a proofs course. What matters more is having excellent grades across the board plus the following…

 

You do need letters from extremely well-known people or at least those who are reputed for sending people to top schools if not entirely for their research prowess. Usually there are two ways to do this: 1. RA for such a professor or 2. write a thesis supervised by said professor. Do both if possible, although you can absolutely get by with just one, and you don’t need any research experience beyond that (unless you want to gain actually meaningful skills).

 

Choose your references wisely. When looking for people to obtain references from, get a sense for their style. If you have a well-known professor who thinks he’s being truthful but doesn’t have that sort of letter-writing reputation, it could torpedo you. (Not from personal experience!)

 

Seconding Elliephant’s: “Apply to programmes/schools that have a history of accepting people with backgrounds similar to yours.” Background includes the school you went to and the country you’re from. There seems to be something of a resistance on the part of most American schools towards taking Canadian students. Some departments are not so resistant; specifically, from my experience and what I’ve heard, Northwestern, Wisconsin-Madison, and Minnesota seem to be such places, as is de facto any school with a reputation for taking chances on applicants like Chicago.

[econchef]

I hope to offer some advice for those Canadian students from small schools thinking about pursuing a master's degree before trying for admission at a top-10 econ program. I made of few comments regarding things I would have done differently in the Profiles and Results 2011 thread. So, I will try to offer more general advice here.

 

GREs: get 800 or very close to it on Quant. Studying makes a difference here. It's more an effort in speed and mindfulness than raw ability. I really don't think verbal matters if you get above 500 I wouldn't think on it any longer. For AWA, try for 5.0 but again I don't think many schools sort on AWA scores (this may all change with the new GRE). Although I don't think these test results matter for much more than screening; write them early and try again if your quant score is too low.

 

Reference letters, IMO, are the most important element of the application process. The largest hurdle to climb coming from a small school is not having access to well-known referees. I would disagree with thesparky here and say the principle advantage of a top Canadian school is not their honours program coursework but in fact the access you get to well-known professors for four years. At the top Canadian econ program I attended for my MA, I found that the course work (in their honours program) was not as rigorous as the honours program at the small liberal arts university I attended. When you're in classes of 4 or 5 people the professor has much more freedom to teach harder material because it's easier to coach a small group of students through graduate level work. A master's program can bridge some of this gap for applicants by giving you access to well-known profs and also improving your coursework signals. However, one of the disadvantages of a master's program is that after 3-4 months it's hard to have stand-out reference letters so be prepared to wait a cycle out while you solidify referees from your MA program unless you are sure that you can get a quality letter from one of your profs after the first semester.

 

Finding referees: Choose your field courses in your MA based on the topics you're interested in but also be sure that some of the profs from your field courses would make good referees. Field courses tend to be smaller so they offer a real opportunity to stand out from the crowd. Same goes, for your MA essay (if your program has one); if you can find a professor who can supervise your research that would also make a good referee then this will really help you come application time. I thought I would second the notion that you should choose references that have sent people to top programs in the past. Ask the phd students in the program about this or talk to the professors themselves if you feel comfortable. A history of sending students to top schools makes a professor a top-notch referee (provided those students did well).

 

Don't underestimate (misunderestimate in bushspeak) the randomness of admissions. This is why it's important to cast a wide application net (at least 10-15 schools). I was rejected from most schools in the top 10-5 range and received waitlists from those that didn't reject me and then got 3 top 5ish admission offers (two with full funding). After all it's human beings reading the applications so things like the weather and their mood can unfortunately play into decisions (there is a good study on the effect of the weather on medical school admissions at McMaster in Canada).

 

Real analysis: I'm another data point showing that you don't need real analysis to get into a top-5 school but if you started taking math early there's no reason not to.

 

Talk to your referees: they will normally be honest with you about where you should apply and where you will stand a chance to get an admission offer. Also find out where students have gotten in from your school in the past. As both ellie and thesparky mentioned, this really matters. One of my top offers came from a school where a number of graduates from my MA program have gone.

 

However, as Ellie has so eloquently detailed, a master's is not necessary. If you are convinced that you want to do an Econ PhD, then apply in your last year of undergrad but also apply to top MA programs. That way if things work out, you're already in but if not then you have a great fallback option to attend a top MA program.

 

Best of luck and enjoy the ride. School is awesome; economics equally so. Again, the above is just one applicant's opinion; gather as much data as possible.

[kipfilet]

First of all, I planned on writing a more detailed text, but I believe that many of the general stuff I was going to mention has already been covered by Ellie and econchef. Essentially, all non-nationality-background specific advice (concerning GRE, LORs, etc.) they put forward should be promptly taken. I try to focus more on aspects that are specific to applicants with my background. Some background info: I come from a rather unknown school which is the top school of economics/business in a small Western European country. The school is known within European academic circles, but not outside of them. To make things worse, it is much more focused on business and finance than properly on economics.

 

This is supposed to be a collection of advice that I have received by talking to several past applicants not only from my school, but also from schools which are in a similar position to mine regarding US Econ PhD's. Anyway, here it goes:

 

 

1. Masters Degree - Unless you come from LSE/Oxbridge or you have LORs from some Nobel prize winner, it is absolutely essential to get a Masters degree first. There are two advantages in doing this: first, most European post-Bologna undergraduate degrees are 3-year degrees. Many US universities require 4 years of higher education as a hard criterion. Second, there is a blooming market in Europe for research-oriented masters (MPhil/MRes). Most decent schools of economics will offer one. These are usually 2-year degrees where the first year is common with that school's terminal MA's (and consist of advanced undergraduate/basic graduate courses) and the second year is pretty similar to the 1st year of a US PhD. This, obviously, gives you access to courses such as graduate micro, macro and real analysis which can greatly boost your profile. Besides, not only are European masters much more abundant than US ones, they also tend to be cheaper and with better opportunities of funding. Several schools, such as BGSE, LSE and Bocconi have research masters which are excellently geared towards exporting students to US PhD's.
   
2. Math Courses - One of the problems of European undergraduate degrees is their lack of flexibility and of basis of comparison to US ones. Even though European undergraduate degrees tend to be, on average, more demanding than US ones, this is not very well understood by the adcoms. There are several disadvantages on this, namely regarding what is going to appear in your transcript. From experience, my undergraduate transcript only included three math courses: Calculus I, Calculus II and Linear Algebra. Most US applicants have transcripts displaying tons of math courses. However, these ones I took were pretty advanced courses compared to courses that bear the same name at American universities. I had no way to get around this, as I was only allowed to take courses in the school of economics. There are not many ways to get around this apparent lack of mathematical training: I tried to compensate for that in my SOP, thoroughfully explaining the material that was covered in order for the adcoms to get an idea of what I had learned. Another good way to turn this around is by referring to (1) and by going for a Masters which will give you access to further, and more advanced, math courses.
   
3. Letters of Recommendation - Faculty background is quite heterogeneous at European universities, as academic inbreeding is a much wider phenomena than at US ones. This is particularly true at smaller schools. Unless they are very well known researchers or there are any other special reasons, you should get to try LORs from economists who were trained in the US, caeteris paribus. Put yourself in the position of an adcom: when the recommender says you are a perfect fit for the programme, you'll more likely to believe that if the person who wrote the letter went through the same system. Obviously, there are other factors, endogenous to this, that you should consider, such as faculty networks, etc. But this is pretty much covered in the advice that was given above. Good researchers tend to be well-connected, go for them.
   
4. External Funding - This may work to your advantage. Several European countries offer government-sponsored fellowships to students who go for doctoral studies abroad. If you manage to secure one of such awards before applying, you may be considered over applicants of the same rank as yours, simply because you pose a lower financial risk to the university you apply to. This may be crucial at a later stage, for example if you end up in a waitlist, and may determine whether you enter the programme or not. Even if such possibility does not exist in your country, your government may nevertheless have Fulbright agreements. In spite of all the disadvantages being a Fulbrighter entails (such as having to return to your home country post-PhD), at least it frees you from the funding concern and may be well-seen by some adcoms (as a signal of quality, given that the Fulbright selection process is quite competitive in some countries). Last, but not least, it saves you a great deal of money in the application procedure (which is extremely costly for internationals).
   
5. Historical Placement - This is probably the aspect I downplayed the most during my anxious months as an applicant: you should carefully analyse where did your school send students to in the past. This matters much more than you think: if your school is good, it is likely that the students it sent to those top universities are good as well and left a good impression of their past training in the faculty. This will certainly be considered when they decide whether to admit you or not. If your school has sent a lot of people to certain universities in recent years, there is an increased probability you will end up being admitted there. I strongly believe this played to my advantage with certain schools, and my recommenders told me of this. There are several factors that may also interfere (both negatively and positively) with this: has some of your school's faculty been a visiting professor at university x recently? Historically, are there any connections between your school and university y? These factors appear to be irrelevant, but the fact is that I have come to realise strong persistence of admissions from certain schools.
   
6. Try to write something - If your BA allows you to write a thesis, do it. This will be invariably true for Master degrees, so I won't even mention it. But try to get something written before you apply. I am not saying that you should have publications, but it is definetly a plus if you show some evidence of past individual research. Some universities explicitly ask for writing samples during the application (Chicago, Oxford); sending your own research paper would be an excellent way to impress them. RA'ing can also eventually grow to co-authoring (this happened to me).
   
7. Ask your recommenders - This has already been stressed enough above, but your recommenders can give you an idea of where you are likely to get in (and fit). Some may overestimate you, others may underestimate you, but chances is that they have already recommended people in the past, know where they got in and where they did not, and can realistically form expectations regarding yourself (if they do not, then they may not be the best people to write you a LOR anyway). Give them all possible chances to refuse to write you a LOR. If they pass the test, you minimise the anxiety of the LOR being lukewarm or not as good as you would expect. LORs are, after all, the most important component of anyone's application, but this effect is felt more strongly if you come from an unknown school in a small country. You really need someone to vouch for you, and to do it very well. Your recommenders will, after all, be the best people to tell you whether or not you need a masters, where should you take it, what is the school's placement record, and why is it like that.
   

[dreck]

Elliephant suggested that I add some things about coming from an low-ranked undergrad, but I really can't think of too much to add. Numbers 2,4,5,7,8 and 9 in the OP pretty much sum up what I would say.

 

1. (related to 5) One thing that I did wrong, which has been addressed in recent threads, was worry too much about getting published. Coming from an unknown school, your best bet for research experience is a strong thesis, or trying getting a summer job as an RA with a well-known professor. Getting a great advisor for your undergrad thesis is also extremely helpful, and I would recommend trying to find that advisor sooner rather than later (i.e. start during your sophomore or junior year).

 

2. (related to 9) Don't be misled by the importance placed on "well-known" letter-writers. Most low-ranked programs with a PhD program (in the US) do have at least one or two economists who can help you out as a credible writer. At departments without PhD programs (I'm not talking about LACs, here), you may have to find another way to get noticed by potential letter-writers (RA work, work experience with the Fed, etc).

[hzzhangyu]

Advice for Chinese undergrad applicants, only applies to top 10-ish (or top 15-ish) programs:

 

1. Go to the US as an exchange student in you junior year, take graduate courses there, do well, go to office hours and get strong LoRs. If your department does not offer good exchange programs, check if your university has one for general majors. Alternative to this is to attend a MA program first.

 

2. Definitely do Mathematical Analysis and/or Real Analysis, get good grades. Strong applicants from China have all done that, don't put yourself a leg behind.

 

3. Don't spend time trying to publish in local journals, not even the top ones. Those time are better spent getting strong LoRs.

 

4. Audit seminars/conferences if the research happening at your university is similar to that in the US. Good way to familarize your self with the fields and possible way to get okay letters.

 

5. No research output wouldn't kill you (you do need a sense of research ideas).

[Pinkee]

I am writing from a perspective of a Chinese applicant, but hopefully other international applicants shall get something useful out of this post, especially those in the Asian region. As Ellie and other people have written a lot already, I shall add some random thoughts that I think are most important.

 

1. Letters matter most.

Try to get the "best" letters you can. There are several ways to get in touch and build relationships with professors in top 20 universities in the States. If your home college has an exchange program, that shall be the ideal scenario. Get yourself in one such program, get decent marks in courses, and work diligently as RA or something, to ensure a good letter. Otherwise, your college might invite scholars now and then to give lectures. In that case, keep up your courage and be active, talk to professors and ask questions, as they are usually very approachable. You can also talk to them about your research if you have some.

Also to consult previous applicants from your home college about who are on the admission committee of your targeted schools - especially those schools that have a history of accepting people from your college, and approach those people if you happen to get a chance. Do remember that some adcom members are not willing to discuss application with prospective students, then do not - you may talk about research only to impress him or her. But a lot of them are very open about discussing application, then, simply try your best!

In the end, you might face the tradeoff between getting a letter from a very famous economist, but you are not sure of the content, and getting a stellar letter from a professor not so well-known. The tradeoff, I suppose, has to be analyzed one by one. Get suggestions from different people, and make your own decisions.

 

2. Take useful maths, and get good marks.

I would suggest taking advanced courses such as functional analysis, measure theory, ODE, topology, etc. Good marks from those courses are highly valued in some programs when they are reading international students' profiles. The maths and the basic way of thinking behind it shall also benefit you during advanced economics courses.

 

3. Research is always a plus.

Try to do some research, even short papers on cute ideas. Be confident about your ideas, market them as a smart salesperson and don't be shy. You shall encounter sweet surprises now and then when someone else values your efforts, even very famous ones.

 

4. Ask your recommenders for advice, and trust them, but as a whole.

When you are facing problems, ask your recommenders for advice in time. Sometimes they may have ways to help you that you could never imagine. Trust them and follow what they say, but as they are different people and may have conflicting concerns, make your own judgments and listen to them as a whole group of people.

 

5. Try to avoid applying to exactly the same list of programs as your fellow students.

Doing so will hurt you in the first place, as long as you are not that confident of being top one in your home college. Schools accept students based on regions, and never take, say, 4-5 applicants from the same school at a time. Your recommenders from your home college usually will try to diverse the programs between students, but since you always have better information than them, you can negotiate between yourself as much as you can. I know it's hard, but do have a try.

 

6. Placement is key when making your final choice.

Especially if you are aiming for an academic career. Read the historical placement of your choice schools, carefully, for at least five years. Market trend might influence the records now and then, but you can always get a sense of where the program is placing candidates.

 

7. Often read forums such as TM and Job Rumors.

These are great places to get useful information, though I guess you are already aware of this if you are reading this sentence now. There are always people online willing to volunteer great advice. You've never met, but they care more about you sometimes even than your recommenders. How lovely!

[Zeno]

4... Trust them and follow what they say, but as they are different people and may have conflicting concerns, make your own judgments and listen to them as a whole group of people.

 

...

 

7. Often read forums such as TM and Job Rumors.

 

The first of these points is very good. I couldn't agree more. Remember, even very intelligent people can be misinformed or have silly opinions. The faculty advising you during your undergraduate studies are wisest as a group.

 

I'm going to (hypocritically) express some skepticism on the latter point. The forum is a community full of people who faced or are facing the same stresses; that makes it valuable. However, any information you get here is still coming from a stranger on the interwebs, and you should keep that in mind.

[rthunder27]

I'll agree with Zeno on his skepticism over point 7, especially with regards to econ job rumors. That site just leaves me depressed and concerned that I'm entering a field of misogynistic jerks (I know it's mostly not the case). I'd advise people to stay far, far away from that site.

 

I would recommend TM (obviously, otherwise I wouldn't be posting so much), but I think it's important to warn new users of some of the problems here: namely group-think/adherence to CW (in the form of just repeating advice you've seen posted already), as well as over-optimism when evaluating profiles (although this is mainly true of people that that are also applicants in the same cycle, and is worst in October-December).

[thewhiterabbit]

That site just leaves me depressed and concerned that I'm entering a field of misogynistic jerks (I know it's mostly not the case).

 

This. And racist, too.

[tortuous]

Thanks!