PhD in Economics 2015 profile evaluation

[falselogic5]

Hello everyone,

 

I would like to apply for PhD in economics for fall 2015, but my profile is a bit non standard. I spent 2 years at a small unknown public school and just transferred to a top 30 private research uni with a top 10 econ PhD program. I'm a junior now but with summer classes I will be a senior in the fall.

 

My stats: GPA n\a just transferred, previous GPA: 3.914 (4.0 in math, 3.9 in econ)

GRES: haven't taken

Econ courses: intro to micro and macro, econometrics, fin econometrics, labor economics, intermediate macro, currently taking advanced macro and a graduate seminar in international economics (both at the new uni); registered for a PhD level macro course in fall

Math courses: at the previous school: calc 1 and 2, graph theory, math analysis (w), currently taking calc 3 and computer simulation at the new school, registered for prob and Lin algebra in summer, analysis 1 in fall

Research experience: previous school: summer research grant with an unknown mentor, currently 2 applications pending with one very well published prof and one with less known; registered for an honors research course in economics in the fall

 

My main concern is that I won't have analysis course completed when I apply in the fall, or won't have many credits to show from my new school.

 

Please tell me if I have any chance at all this year!

[Catrina]

Can you wait a year to apply? That will allow you to get to know your new professors so that you can get stronger letters. Taking real analysis in the fall isn't a problem because you can submit your fall grades after you apply.

[PhDPlease]

I think that it would be helpful to get some of your recommendations from your current school (since it has a great econ dept). You'd probably want to ask your recommenders to write the letters in September or October to give them sufficient time to write the letters, which might not give you a lot of time to get to know professors in your current school. I think it is not impossible (depending on what level you are targetting) but that taking a year off to work as an RA and applying next year (when you'll have more of a track record at your new school) is also something to consider. I think your 2 choices are to apply to either highly-ranked reach programs and apply to jobs as a fallback option (and then reapply to PhD programs), or to apply to a wider range of PhD programs including safeties if you don't want to risk taking a year off.

[falselogic5]

@PhDPlease what do you mean by "taking a year off"? Does it mean that I could stay at my school as an RA, but not take as many classes?

As of right now, what do you think my reach schools would be if I apply in the fall?

Of course, my top choice would be to ultimately attend top 5.

When do you know your admission decisions after you apply to PhD programs?

[falselogic5]

Also at my school, we have accelerated bachelors/master's program that basically allows you to complete masters within one year. I was thinking if I could take this route and spend one year doing master's while reapplying to PhD programs?

Any feedback will help!

[Catrina]

Also at my school, we have accelerated bachelors/master's program that basically allows you to complete masters within one year. I was thinking if I could take this route and spend one year doing master's while reapplying to PhD programs?

Any feedback will help!

 

I think that you should definitely not graduate this year if you are aiming for a top-5. To get into a top-5, you need really strong letters, and you simply can't get those in that short a period of time.

 

What I would recommend is that you just stay in undergrad an extra year, double major in math, and take graduate micro next year as an undergraduate (if you can). That sounds like a much better option than doing the masters, and it is probably cheaper too.

[falselogic5]

Thanks, @Catrina! The accelerated ma/ba offers an automatic scholarship, if a student is accepted from undergrad. And I am already double majoring with math, so even with that I will be graduating in May 15. If I don't take summer classes, I will be graduating in Fall 15, which doesn't seem better for me.

 

Also do you think I should take graduate micro phd-level, or graduate micro-ma?

 

Thanks again.

[Catrina]

In your case, you should definitely take PhD-level. If you can take PhD-level courses in the combined BA/MA, that may be your best option.

 

However, if you can, I would recommend taking MA micro this year followed by PhD micro next year. I took MA micro at a school without a PhD program, followed by PhD micro at a top-25, and I found that the MA micro helped make the PhD micro a little easier.

[falselogic5]

Thanks Catrina! How was phd micro? Was it very mathematical?

[Catrina]

That depends on what you consider very mathematical. You have to be comfortable with proofs.

 

I would say that undergraduate real analysis is sufficient preparation

[falselogic5]

What about masters level macroeconomics?

[Catrina]

I'll leave the question regarding masters macro for someone else, because, while my masters micro course was quite good, my masters macro course was too policy-oriented to be useful.

[falselogic5]

Thanks so much!

[yankeefan]

I'll leave the question regarding masters macro for someone else, because, while my masters micro course was quite good, my masters macro course was too policy-oriented to be useful.

 

Even at the MA-level Micro tends to be a lot more homogeneous than Macro. Nicholson & Synder seems to the MA equivalent of MWG, in the sense that it is widely used everywhere. The MA Macro at my school is centered around the construction of scaled-down DSGE models dubbed "DGE", due to the fact that we suppress the stochastic element of the economy by assuming agents have perfect foresight. We also assume discrete time, which enables to get analytical solutions to the model instead of numerically solving them in MATLAB. Quite honestly, it feels like everything I was taught in intermediate macro was a blatant lie. I'm sure most other MA programs would have their Macro class more policy oriented; our professor comes and tell us every week that this class is meant to prepare students for a PhD, though I'm sure 90% of the class has no interest in doing a PhD. And at the rate that things are going, I might soon end up in that 90% because I don't understand s***.

Edited April 6, 2014 by yankeefan

[PhDPlease]

Even at the MA-level Micro tends to be a lot more homogeneous than Macro. Nicholson & Synder seems to the MA equivalent of MWG, in the sense that it is widely used everywhere. The MA Macro at my school is centered around the construction of scaled-down DSGE models dubbed "DGE", due to the fact that we suppress the stochastic element of the economy by assuming agents have perfect foresight. We also assume discrete time, which enables to get analytical solutions to the model instead of numerically solving them in MATLAB. Quite honestly, it feels like everything I was thought in intermediate macro was a blatant lie. I'm sure most other MA programs would have their Macro class more policy oriented; our professor comes and tell us every week that this class is meant to prepare students for a PhD, though I'm sure 90% of the class has no interest in doing a PhD. And at the rate that things are going, I might soon end up in that 90% because I don't understand s***.

 

Do you think this would give you an advantage (even if not as large of an advantage as micro) in the PhD relative to someone who only took undergrad-level classes?

[Catrina]

Even at the MA-level Micro tends to be a lot more homogeneous than Macro. Nicholson & Synder seems to the MA equivalent of MWG, in the sense that it is widely used everywhere. The MA Macro at my school is centered around the construction of scaled-down DSGE models dubbed "DGE", due to the fact that we suppress the stochastic element of the economy by assuming agents have perfect foresight. We also assume discrete time, which enables to get analytical solutions to the model instead of numerically solving them in MATLAB. Quite honestly, it feels like everything I was thought in intermediate macro was a blatant lie. I'm sure most other MA programs would have their Macro class more policy oriented; our professor comes and tell us every week that this class is meant to prepare students for a PhD, though I'm sure 90% of the class has no interest in doing a PhD. And at the rate that things are going, I might soon end up in that 90% because I don't understand s***.

 

I wish my macro class was like that. It sure beats writing about CBO budget projections. Maybe I should have transferred to Yankeefan's school or something.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Catrina

[yankeefan]

Do you think this would give you an advantage (even if not as large of an advantage as micro) in the PhD relative to someone who only took undergrad-level classes?

 

I actually think the best preparation for PhD Macro is probably a good microeconomics course at level of Nicholson & Synder. Everything we do in my MA Macro relies on microfoundations. Its a very different beast from the diagram drawing you do in intermediate macro. Its very unlikely that your school does MA macro in this manner, but you can always check with the instructor to see what the content of the course is.

[to2012]

Yeah we used Nicholson and Snyder at my MA, too.

[setsanto]

I actually think the best preparation for PhD Macro is probably a good microeconomics course at level of Nicholson & Synder. Everything we do in my MA Macro relies on microfoundations. Its a very different beast from the diagram drawing you do in intermediate macro. Its very unlikely that your school does MA macro in this manner, but you can always check with the instructor to see what the content of the course is.

 

Am I reading this right? Most American schools just have diagram drawing in intermediate macro? That seems weird.

[Econhead]

Am I reading this right? Most American schools just have diagram drawing in intermediate macro? That seems weird.

 

Yankee is being somewhat feceious in the sense that many American intermediate courses are starkly different from MA/Phd courses in that they focus highly on drawing diagrams to understand/model theory rather than using math to explain the theory.

[setsanto]

Yankee is being somewhat feceious in the sense that many American intermediate courses are starkly different from MA/Phd courses in that they focus highly on drawing diagrams to understand/model theory rather than using math to explain the theory.

 

So you wouldn't be expected to solve any models in undergrad? Not even like a two-period consumption smoothing model or something?

[Econhead]

So you wouldn't be expected to solve any models in undergrad? Not even like a two-period consumption smoothing model or something?

 

i came from a completely unranked program and only like 130 as a university (no grad Econ of any kind either). In that program, you are correct. We didn't even use calc in anything we really did. We focused more on intuition, I suppose.

 

I cannot speak for how T50-70 (or better) institutions teach their intermediate. However, I am at a T70 now and they have both "intermediate" as a 3000 level course and a 4000 course cross referenced as a grad course (that Ag Econ master students take but econ do not) that is called "advanced intermediate." I suspect, although I do not know, that the intermediate here is somewhat similar to my experience except that it uses calc and asks students to complete problems using such knowledge. I cannot speak to programs at other institutions.

[falselogic5]

Thanks for the insight. In my undergrad intermed macro all we do is solve household, firm, etc. problems (2-period or infinite horizon). It is all basically calculus, and we barely have any graphs (only for visualization purposes I guess), so that's why I am not sure if I would be ready for phd macro level course.

[yankeefan]

Am I reading this right? Most American schools just have diagram drawing in intermediate macro? That seems weird.

 

Thanks for the insight. In my undergrad intermed macro all we do is solve household, firm, etc. problems (2-period or infinite horizon). It is all basically calculus, and we barely have any graphs (only for visualization purposes I guess), so that's why I am not sure if I would be ready for phd macro level course.

 

When I took intermediate macro it was taught using Mankiw's book, and judging by its popularity, I assume the majority of undergrad intermediate macro classes in the US are taught the same way. In my intermediate macro class we never once mentioned the household or firm's problem - all we did was draw diagrams and show which curve shifted in what direction in response to some policy or exogenous shock. What you're doing seems a lot closer to modern macro, in the sense that we focus on the optimizing behavior of household and firms and build stuff from the ground up. The whole diagram drawing curve shifting non-sense comes from Keynesian economists attempts at predicting the response of economic agents to policy changes based on correlations in highly aggregated macroeconomic data. Econ majors at the higher ranked schools generally get a better feel of what real economics is, even as undergrads, since their classes tend to be more rigorous. You're already at a very good school, so I suggest you talk to professors in your department about your concerns. They will know more about what you need to be well prepared than most of us on this forum.

[milkman2500]

When I took intermediate macro it was taught using Mankiw's book, and judging by its popularity, I assume the majority of undergrad intermediate macro classes in the US are taught the same way. In my intermediate macro class we never once mentioned the household or firm's problem - all we did was draw diagrams and show which curve shifted in what direction in response to some policy or exogenous shock. What you're doing seems a lot closer to modern macro, in the sense that we focus on the optimizing behavior of household and firms and build stuff from the ground up. The whole diagram drawing curve shifting non-sense comes from Keynesian economists attempts at predicting the response of economic agents to policy changes based on correlations in highly aggregated macroeconomic data. Econ majors at the higher ranked schools generally get a better feel of what real economics is, even as undergrads, since their classes tend to be more rigorous. You're already at a very good school, so I suggest you talk to professors in your department about your concerns. They will know more about what you need to be well prepared than most of us on this forum.

 

In my Canadian economics undergrad (not top 4), this was how my intermediate macro class was structured. The focus was on the graphs (i.e. IS-LM) following shocks and how the variables that make up the aggregates were impacted. In my 4th year Advanced Macro, we used some calculus (i.e. legrange multipliers) to solve/prove some models mathematically. Calculus was used much more in intermediate and advanced microeconomics to solve/prove problems.