Jump to content
Urch Forums

Current Undergraduate Profile Evaluation: Advice for Grad School


mmoya

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone,

I would GREATLY appreciate any advice or suggestions

I am a current undergraduate at the University of Florida (United States). Our graduate program has recently cut funding and we are no longer accepting graduate students(therefore, our overall ranking in economics will fall dramatically).

 

They are pushing me to graduate by August 2014. I am a current senior, but I plan to do post bac in order to further build my credentials. That being said,my current profile is

 

PROFILE:

Type of Undergrad: B.A. In Economics, Large Public University currently ranked 48tth in Econ

Undergrad GPA: 3.2/3.3

Type of Grad: N/A

Grad GPA: N/A

GRE: will be taking this Fall 2014

Math Courses: Calc 1 (B); Calc 2 (B-); Fundamentals of Mathematics (intro to proofs class) (B); Linear Algebra (N/A)(currently taking this semester); Multivariate Calculus ©; Intro to Real Analysis 1 (N/A)(planning to take Fall 2014); College Algebra (B), Precalc (A) Trig (A)

Econ Courses (undergrad-level): Beginning Micro / Macro class (A); Statistics for Economics (A); International Macro (A); Intermediate Macro (B+); Intermediate Micro (B+); International Econ (B+); Economic Empirical course (B+)

Other Courses: Statistics for Economics (A)

Letters of Recommendation:

1.) Economics Honors Coordinator at my university who supervised my research paper. He is a well renowned professor who obtained his PhD from the University of Chicago

2.) I should be taking taking the Grad Micro Theory course at my school and hopefully acquire a LoR from the professor who is also the Grad Coordinator of our school. He obtained his PhD from Yale

3.) After completing Linear, I plan to ask my professor for a LoR. He completed his PhD from Darmouth

Research Experience: Currently doing research with the Economics the Bureau of Economics at my University and I recently completed an Honors Empirical Economics Research course where I gained experience working with STATA and writing my first paper.

Research Interests: Development, International trade, Monetary Economics

SOP: (I'm applying this upcoming fall)

Concerns: My GPA is weak. I am trying to compensate for this gap and I feel as though I have been growing at an exponential rate. I am currently attending one of the best university's in my state which has been a major accomplishment given my background. As far as discipline, I definitely have the potential to attend a top 30 PhD, but my current GPA does not reflect academic competence. Given my plan (post bac, acquiring more research and doing a masters first) be enough to compensate for my academic flaws?

Other: I am graduating this summer 2014. This summer I plan to take intro to prob and Diff. Eq. I also plan to do post bac and complete Micro Theory and Adv Calc I this fall. I will be completing my GRE and applying for grad school (masters first, then PhD afterwards) this Fall 2014.

Applying to: depending on what I get on my GRE and more research to decide.

 

 

I do not know whether it is appropriate to mention my background in my SOP. I was a transfer student who has been working my way up. During my senior year of high school I was working around 40hrs and came from a difficult household. I was admitted into community college with poor SAT scores 440 quant and 440reading. I was one of the top students from my community college, yet It has not been easy for me, however, now I am 22 yrs old and seem to be doing well in Linear.

 

I am currently taking Linear Algebra which has been going well so far (but I think I may end up with a B/B+) and plan to take Intro to Prob and Diff. Eq this summer.

 

I decided to apply for graduate school this upcoming Fall instead of the previous Fall due to my lack in credentials. As a post bac I plan to take Adv Calc I (Adv Calc I and II is our equivalent to Real Analysis) and the Graduate Micro Theory at my school during Fall of 2014 and I also plan to take my GRE's around that time(I have already started prepping for the GRE)

 

My plan is to:

-Complete linear this semester, and complete Intro to prob and Diff. Eq this summer 2014

-Take Adv Calc I and the Graduate Level Micro Theory as a post bac during Fall 2014

-Complete GRE's Fall

-Gain more research experience

-Apply to a Masters in: Economics, Math, or Statistics during Fall 2014

-Finally, apply to a PhD program

 

 

Instead of applying directly into a PhD program, I think it would be wise to apply for a Masters first and then apply to a PhD program. Basically, I want to dig myself out of this hole. Aside of post bac, I'm trying to get my hands dirty with research and I just started working with an Economics Bureau at my university and plan to engage in more research opportunities

 

I figured, if I can get accepted into UBC's or BGSE masters in economics I should complete a masters in hopes of landing into a top 30 PhD program (in the US) afterwards. Aside of applying to masters in econ, I was also thinking about applying to masters in statistics or math as a back up.

 

Therefore, my question is, given that I do post bac to stack up on more math (and given that perform well on these classes), if I obtain a decent score on my GRE, gain more research experience and do a masters in either Economics(abroad/not in the US), math or statistics, should that compensate for my weak grades/GPA during undergraduate and land me in a top 30 PhD program(in the US)? Do I even stand a chance of being admitted into UBC, GSE, or a math or stats masters?

Edited by mmoya
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have no experience with nor knowledge about Masters programs. So, I will defer that to another who is more competent than I in that matter.

 

I hate to say it.. but your grades are really a deal breaker. The only math classes you seem to have excelled in are trig and college algebra (very basic math). You need to focus on getting nothing but A's in all your math classes from here on out. Top-30 PhD programs are still very difficult to get into, and you still need to be an excellent student. For the most part, the students in Top-30 programs are just as smart as those that go to Top-20 or even Top-10 schools, but just didn't have the opportunity to do what was necessary to get the better admit.

 

My advice to you is to just focus on nothing but getting the best grades possible. You can always get research experience, letters, etc. later. What is important now are math grades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree.

 

The absolute biggest problem with your profile is your math grades. I'm honestly not sure if there is anything that you can do at this point to get into a top-30. Past applicants with really poor undergraduate performance have managed to get into top-50 programs after performing well in a masters program, but you would likely need to take more math and do better in it during the MA program as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what is turning into my boilerplate math lecture:

 

I'm very concerned about your math grades as well (as concerned as I can be about a stranger, anyway). Your grades in elementary calculus (Calculus 1+2 and Multivariable Calculus) indicate that you will have a great deal of difficulty with the mathematical side of graduate economics coursework -- to the point that you'll be spending so much time trying to figure out the mathematics that you won't have the time or energy left over to really understand what it has to do with economics. Throw in that B in "Fundamentals of Mathematics" and I can assure you that graduate level economics coursework will be a living hell for you. I went to an MA that had only Business Calculus as a prerequisite, but only those of us who were fluent in Calc 1-3 + LA + DE + some introduction to convergence and continuity proofs were able to finish the first semester -- we started in July and lost over 60% of our entering cohort by winter break. In fact, so many people quit that the department had trouble funding the program afterward and had to lump all the field specializations into a catch-all "seminar in economics".

 

Don't let this happen to you. Before you go futzing around with a masters program (a program worth attending would not likely admit you anyway), I strongly suggest that you spend a summer at community college and improve your elementary calculus skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow me to qualify my last comments -- I'm not saying that you can't eventually make it to a respected economics doctoral program. I'm also not saying that you shouldn't bother with a masters program. I am saying that you have more important things to focus on first. Yes, improving your elementary math skills will take some time and require you to put off all the other intermediate steps you listed, but I think you should compare that cost to the even greater cost of entering a masters program without adequate preparation in hopes of improving your chances of reaching even loftier goals.

 

I can sense that you're feeling a little impatient and want to get on with developing your research career without having to take a step backward, but the next 12 months are going to pass regardless of what you do with them -- it's up to you to maximize the present value of all years after that, though -- and developing fluency in elementary mathematics is the most common prescription you're going to find around here.

 

EDIT: I posted this because I thought the previous message was a little harsh. I didn't think that I was being overly optimistic with this post, but it looks like some people believe I offered too much false hope. I understand if they think that -- I'm really not qualified to give people positive advice, especially as regards to "respected doctoral programs" (that term is relative), so I do hope future readers take this with a grain of salt.

Edited by moneyandcredit
Qualifying the qualification
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow me to qualify my last comments -- I'm not saying that you can't eventually make it to a respected economics doctoral program. I'm also not saying that you shouldn't bother with a masters program. I am saying that you have more important things to focus on first. Yes, improving your elementary math skills will take some time and require you to put off all the other intermediate steps you listed, but I think you should compare that cost to the even greater cost of entering a masters program without adequate preparation in hopes of improving your chances of reaching even loftier goals.

 

I can sense that you're feeling a little impatient and want to get on with developing your research career without having to take a step backward, but the next 12 months are going to pass regardless of what you do with them -- it's up to you to maximize the present value of all years after that, though -- and developing fluency in elementary mathematics is the most common prescription you're going to find around here.

 

That's a nice sentiment, but let's be real here. You can never make it into a respected economics doctoral program, and on the off chance that you do, you will never make it out. I'm not trying to be mean; it's just a fact that straight Bs and Cs after precalculus and trigonometry are a certain recipe for disaster, both in admissions and in coursework. If anyone says otherwise, they are completely delusional. Seriously, sugar-coating this with lies and false encouragement is cruel, disrespectful, and a great disservice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow me to qualify my last comments -- I'm not saying that you can't eventually make it to a respected economics doctoral program. I'm also not saying that you shouldn't bother with a masters program. I am saying that you have more important things to focus on first. Yes, improving your elementary math skills will take some time and require you to put off all the other intermediate steps you listed, but I think you should compare that cost to the even greater cost of entering a masters program without adequate preparation in hopes of improving your chances of reaching even loftier goals.

 

I can sense that you're feeling a little impatient and want to get on with developing your research career without having to take a step backward, but the next 12 months are going to pass regardless of what you do with them -- it's up to you to maximize the present value of all years after that, though -- and developing fluency in elementary mathematics is the most common prescription you're going to find around here.

 

I disagree entirely. You don't stand a chance, either in admissions or coursework. Frankly, this kind of false encouragement is dishonest and cruel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can sense that you're feeling a little impatient and want to get on with developing your research career without having to take a step backward, but the next 12 months are going to pass regardless of what you do with them -- it's up to you to maximize the present value of all years after that, though -- and developing fluency in elementary mathematics is the most common prescription you're going to find around here.

 

I think that's a crucial point. You can almost never gain from rushing into a PhD, but you can usually benefit from a year or two of extra preparation. Unfortunately you are almost starting from scratch here. The advice the others have given here on the need to build up your math skills is good. At the same time you have to think about whether a PhD is the right path for you (and you don't have to decide that right away: by all means continue to work at the Economics Bureau and find out how much you enjoy research). I would actually suggest planning to work for a little while after graduation: you wouldn't believe the number of people I know who were convinced they wanted to do a PhD before changing their minds completely after working for a few months.

 

Another thing: now is probably not the time to worry about whether you can get into top 30 programs. A lot of people begin the process thinking they will only be happy with a top 30 admission, but as they learn more about the kind of programs on offer, some realize that they would be happy at top-50/top-70 programs. So don't be fixated on top 30. It's more important at this stage to build up your skills and learn about the options you have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a nice sentiment, but let's be real here. You can never make it into a respected economics doctoral program, and on the off chance that you do, you will never make it out. I'm not trying to be mean; it's just a fact that straight Bs and Cs after precalculus and trigonometry are a certain recipe for disaster, both in admissions and in coursework. If anyone says otherwise, they are completely delusional. Seriously, sugar-coating this with lies and false encouragement is cruel, disrespectful, and a great disservice.

 

Ugh, you again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what is turning into my boilerplate math lecture:

 

I'm very concerned about your math grades as well (as concerned as I can be about a stranger, anyway). Your grades in elementary calculus (Calculus 1+2 and Multivariable Calculus) indicate that you will have a great deal of difficulty with the mathematical side of graduate economics coursework -- to the point that you'll be spending so much time trying to figure out the mathematics that you won't have the time or energy left over to really understand what it has to do with economics. Throw in that B in "Fundamentals of Mathematics" and I can assure you that graduate level economics coursework will be a living hell for you. I went to an MA that had only Business Calculus as a prerequisite, but only those of us who were fluent in Calc 1-3 + LA + DE + some introduction to convergence and continuity proofs were able to finish the first semester -- we started in July and lost over 60% of our entering cohort by winter break. In fact, so many people quit that the department had trouble funding the program afterward and had to lump all the field specializations into a catch-all "seminar in economics".

 

Don't let this happen to you. Before you go futzing around with a masters program (a program worth attending would not likely admit you anyway), I strongly suggest that you spend a summer at community college and improve your elementary calculus skills.

 

 

Wow, that sounds pretty awful for a program to have over 60% attrition after 1 semester. In that case, I really think the program should either change its admission standards to require more math (or whatever it is that the students who left the program lacked), or perhaps provide an alternative track that offers additional math instruction or courses that start out more slowly in the 1st semester to help those with a weaker background catch up. It seems really unfair to admit so many students who don't have much chance to succeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would help us advise you if you could elaborate more on: "As far as discipline, I definitely have the potential to attend a top 30 PhD, but my current GPA does not reflect academic competence." I see you mention that you worked a lot in high school, but your college performance at your current university also although not terrible, isn't really at the level that you'd expect for a top PhD. Were there circumstantial issues that affected your performance in college that you have resolved that will no longer affect you going forward? When you get to the more advanced math courses, you will be competing against students who had higher grades in the foundational courses. If you haven't really mastered the basics by excelling in foundational courses (even if the reasons for not mastering them were not your fault), you'll be at a disadvantage.

 

"I do not know whether it is appropriate to mention my background in my SOP." It can't hurt and isn't inappropriate, but in order to be convincing, you'd need to get higher grades going forward. An "explanation" can sometimes get partial forgiveness for a weak semester or grades that were not great at the beginning if you've done better in subsequent more difficult classes. It it is a bit concerning that your calc grades have a downward trend (rather than someone who did poorly in calc 1 due to a lack of preparation but then took more advanced classes and did better).

 

I would also recommend that you look at the GRE now and take a diagnostic test. Consider your score on the diagnostic, look over the questions that you got wrong, and honestly assess your potential to get a high score after a reasonable amount of study. If your GRE score on the diagnostic is pretty good, that is a good sign, but if it is very low, you might want to seriously think about the probability of improving. (Note: I certainly understand some applicants are very intelligent but not the best at test-taking but most programs do put a lot of weight on test scores, especially for applicants with some questionable grades, so telling you not to worry about this would be ingenuine.)

 

Also I think you might underestimate how difficult the top 30 is. A lot of top 30 students have good grades and have taken a decent amount of math but lacked some sort of catch factor (such as having attended a top undergrad, access to well-regarded recommenders, experience at a Fed, or various other things that could make one stand out relative to another applicant with similar test scores and grades). It isn't easy to get into a top 30 and students in top 30s certainly aren't bad.

 

Anyway I do not want to be harsh and I hope this is helpful advice!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, that sounds pretty awful for a program to have over 60% attrition after 1 semester. In that case, I really think the program should either change its admission standards to require more math (or whatever it is that the students who left the program lacked), or perhaps provide an alternative track that offers additional math instruction or courses that start out more slowly in the 1st semester to help those with a weaker background catch up. It seems really unfair to admit so many students who don't have much chance to succeed.

You are absolutely not the first person to suggest that =D. I do remember the applications material stating that Business Calculus was the *minimum* requirement, which is true in the sense that you can figure out the rest as you go if you're bright and motivated enough. I'd check to see if the absolute requirements have changed, but all the links on the Graduate Program's page lead to 404 errors.

 

Also, is 60% attrition really that bad? I know nothing about attrition rates overall, but the doctoral programs I applied to typically list fewer than 10 placements per year with some listing fewer than 5. Do most programs really only take in 5-10 students, or would it be right to infer a similarly high attrition rate here as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just talked with one of my former classmates, and she reminded me that the 60% attrition estimate I stated was too high. Some of the people whom I thought had quit had simply failed Math Econ or Micro Theory, so they ended up taking an extra year. So the actual attrition rate is less than I stated, but the 2-year completion rate is in fact closer to the 40% figure I implied.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are absolutely not the first person to suggest that =D. I do remember the applications material stating that Business Calculus was the *minimum* requirement, which is true in the sense that you can figure out the rest as you go if you're bright and motivated enough. I'd check to see if the absolute requirements have changed, but all the links on the Graduate Program's page lead to 404 errors.

 

Also, is 60% attrition really that bad? I know nothing about attrition rates overall, but the doctoral programs I applied to typically list fewer than 10 placements per year with some listing fewer than 5. Do most programs really only take in 5-10 students, or would it be right to infer a similarly high attrition rate here as well?

 

I would interpret a "minimum" requirement as meaning that you have a *reasonable* chance of succeeding if you meet it (meaning you might have to work a bit harder than others to catch up, but that if you do work hard, your chance to succeed is reasonable). If no one meeting only the minimum is doing well, I would think that the minimum is too low.

 

60% is really high attrition for an MA program. Even for a PhD program it would be high. In general most MA programs that I'm familiar w/don't have much attrition. I think that is more of an issue w/PhD programs (although in the PhD program, usually people who fail out are able to leave with an MA rather than leaving with nothing). I think the reason for lower attrition in MA programs are that the standards for MAs are usually lower than for PhDs (since those who aren't cut out to move on to a PhD can always do something in industry that isn't as theoretical), and because people often pay tuition for an MA and not a PhD (and thus are less likely to be willing to pay/take out loans for something with a high failout rate).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just talked with one of my former classmates, and she reminded me that the 60% attrition estimate I stated was too high. Some of the people whom I thought had quit had simply failed Math Econ or Micro Theory, so they ended up taking an extra year. So the actual attrition rate is less than I stated, but the 2-year completion rate is in fact closer to the 40% figure I implied.

 

hm That sounds more reasonable although the program should perhaps make clear the possibility of the program taking 3 years for those who enter without as much math so that potential students will have their expectations in line. (Especially if this is a program that is charging tuition in which case the costs of an extra year are more than just the time costs.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a nice sentiment, but let's be real here. You can never make it into a respected economics doctoral program, and on the off chance that you do, you will never make it out. I'm not trying to be mean; it's just a fact that straight Bs and Cs after precalculus and trigonometry are a certain recipe for disaster, both in admissions and in coursework. If anyone says otherwise, they are completely delusional. Seriously, sugar-coating this with lies and false encouragement is cruel, disrespectful, and a great disservice.

 

I disagree. The best math grades I got in my undergrad are Bs plus some C+ about 10+ years ago. I retook Calculus III and LA in summer 2012, and DE, Multivariable Calculus, PhD Micro I, Macro I and grad Prob and Stat I all five classes in fall 2012, and got all A and A+. You can as long as you work hard and know you are good at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are absolutely not the first person to suggest that =D. I do remember the applications material stating that Business Calculus was the *minimum* requirement, which is true in the sense that you can figure out the rest as you go if you're bright and motivated enough. I'd check to see if the absolute requirements have changed, but all the links on the Graduate Program's page lead to 404 errors.

 

Also, is 60% attrition really that bad? I know nothing about attrition rates overall, but the doctoral programs I applied to typically list fewer than 10 placements per year with some listing fewer than 5. Do most programs really only take in 5-10 students, or would it be right to infer a similarly high attrition rate here as well?

 

60% attrition does seem quite high. At Oregon, the overall attrition rate is somewhere around 30-50% depending on the year (but most of the attrition is voluntary rather than failing out), and I gather that that's a bit on the higher end even for our ranking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. The best math grades I got in my undergrad are Bs plus some C+ about 10+ years ago. I retook Calculus III and LA in summer 2012, and DE, Multivariable Calculus, PhD Micro I, Macro I and grad Prob and Stat I all five classes in fall 2012, and got all A and A+. You can as long as you work hard and know you are good at it.

 

This!!!!

 

That jayalthouse person has six posts, all negative, no constructive criticism, just telling people to give up without reason.

OP as you can see from other posts here, people have overcome this, top 30 is still a reach, but the advice you have received is a starting point. You are taking real analysis right now, a good grade in that and all your advanced math classes is a start.

Edited by sulebrahim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your advice moneyandcredit, food4thought, Catrina and NBZ. Moneyandcredit, I did not know I could retake math courses, that would be great for calc III.

 

I still need to take Differential Equations, Intro to probability, Linear Algebra(I'm taking it this semester) and Real Analysis. If I'm successful in these classes, wouldn't that hold more weight than say calc I or calc II?

 

thank you moneyandcredit for letting me know about retaking classes, I did not know this was possible

 

I can also take more math courses such as complex variables or stack on Stat Theory

If I retake Calc III and I manage to obtain an A in Linear Algebra, Real Analysis, intro to prob and differential equations is a Masters program in UBC, BGSE, or University of Toronto out of my league?

 

Nonetheless, NBZ, you're completely right, I'm definitely considering other alternatives. It is just disappointing, I look up to people like Esther Duflo, Joseph Stigilitz, etc, and to realize I'm not up to par with them is...idk.

 

I am considering working at the world bank as an alternative. Though my math credentials are current weak for a PhD in economics, I'm trying to come up with alternative routes that I can still work with something pertaining to economics and developing countries.

 

I would appreciate further feedback/suggestions. I greatly appreciate everyone's advice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You generally can retake classes, but sometimes schools will only let you do it if you get below a certain grade. You should certainly be able to take calc III again, and possibly calc II. You will have to see if you can retake classes with B grades.

 

However, I get the sense that you may be making the same mistake that I did on an even larger scale. Like you, I started off with a very weak math background (I started in precalc). In order to try to get as much math as possible, I took way too many courses in too short a period of time, and ended up getting a bunch of Bs due to trying to do too much at once. For example, I once tried to cram both statistics and calc III into a single short summer term, and ended up with Bs in both of them when I could have easily gotten As in both if I hadn't done that. I would have been much better off taking it slower, taking fewer classes, and getting As in all of them.

 

What you really need to do is spend another two years or more in undergrad, and take things slowly. During that time, take calc II again if you can, calc III, diffeq, real analysis I, probability, and statistics. Take absolutely no more than two of those at a time (and only one in the summer), and be sure to get As in all of them.

 

Admissions committees sometimes weight the last two years more heavily, so this could help you a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^+1.

 

Admissions committees sometimes weight the last two years more heavily, so this could help you a lot.

 

Not trying to be an ***, but this is the first time I have actually seen this mentioned on the forum. Outside of what is posted on university websites, is there any reason to believe this is true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^+1.

 

 

 

Not trying to be an ***, but this is the first time I have actually seen this mentioned on the forum. Outside of what is posted on university websites, is there any reason to believe this is true?

 

I had a couple of applications that provided the option of calculating the GPA for the last two years. Also, for the schools that explicitly say that they do so, I assume that they aren't lying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GPA over the last two years seems like a subpar and situational metric. Speaking from my own profile, I took Real Analysis, using Baby Rudin, in my first semester of undergrad, due to advanced standing from high school. My last two years feature a study abroad experience and me taking required general courses outside of my majors. I would have to guess major GPA is more important, with an emphasis on traditionally more difficult coursework.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...