Profile evaluation + advice?

[fdshgfjj]

Hi all, confused European here after some advice about the mysterious world of US econ PHD applictions.

 

EDIT: have put profile in the format eveyone here uses

 

PROFILE:

Type of Undergrad: UK BA (Oxford, PPE weighted about 70% econ)

Undergrad GPA: Good first class (so 4.0 I guess)

Type of Grad: Oxford Mphil econ with good scholarship

Grad GPA: Came close 2nd in my year in first year exams (so I guess like a 4.0, idk)

GRE: 169Q/168V/6.0A

Math Courses: Mphil has one big compulsory maths course that covers a range of stuff

Econ Courses (grad-level): micro, macro, metrics, advanced micro 1&2, advanced metrics 1&2, Theory based empirical analysis

Econ Courses (undergrad-level): intro micro, intro macro, micro, macro, metrics, advanced metrics, micro theory

Other Courses: Various politics and philosophy courses in undergrad

Letters of Recommendation: thesis supervisor (top 5% on rpec), professor I'm RAing for, undegrad econ professor who I know very well

Research Experience: worked in a research institute last summer (name on two papers), RAing in my department this summer

Teaching Experience: none at all

Research Interests: Micro theory, metrics, empirical micro, political economy.

SOP: not yet written

Concerns: should I retake the GRE to try and get quant up to 170?

Other:

Applying to: US top 5? Top 10? Top 20? Top 30? Not sure what I should be aiming for...

 

 

Basically, what I want to know is: do I have a shot at a top 10 programme? And if I don't then should I apply to US top 20 or stay where I am (I have already secured good funding for the Oxford PHD if i want it)? Also should I retake the GRE and see if I can get up to 170 Q?

 

Any comments very much appreciated.

Edited July 13, 2014 by fdshgfjj

[Castial]

First class isn't equal to a 4.0, it's significantly harder to have a 4.0 at a rigorous university than to have an overall average of xx percent

 

For example, in 2011, 15% of all british undergrads graduated with a first class according to HESA ( British statistics agency ).

 

I highly doubt even 5% of North American undergrads have a 4.0

 

 

Other then that, could you post the actual topics your math courses covered? Quite hard for people to judge you without it.

[fdshgfjj]

Ah right, OK, I have no idea what the GPA equivalent would be then. In the words of the course website the maths course covers:

 

The Mathematics for Economics course covers:

 

 

• Sets and Sequences
  
• Functions of One or More Variables
  
• Equations and Matrices
  
• Comparative Statics
  
• Probability and Distributions
  
• Ordinary Differential Equations (ODEs)
  
• Difference Equations
  

Mathematical Methods (Static Optimisation) covers:

 

 

• Optimisation of Functions of Several Variables
  
• Optimisation: Concavity and Convexity
  
• Envelope Theorems
  

Mathematical Methods (Dynamic Optimisation) covers:

 

 

• Optimal Control Theory
  
• Dynamic Programming (discrete time)
  
• Dynamic Programming (continuous time)
  

[pch]

Do not bother with retaking the GRE. It won't change anything. Your score is already very good.

[econphd14]

Ah right, OK, I have no idea what the GPA equivalent would be then. In the words of the course website the maths course covers:

 

The Mathematics for Economics course covers:

 

 

• Sets and Sequences
  
• Functions of One or More Variables
  
• Equations and Matrices
  
• Comparative Statics
  
• Probability and Distributions
  
• Ordinary Differential Equations (ODEs)
  
• Difference Equations
  

Mathematical Methods (Static Optimisation) covers:

 

 

• Optimisation of Functions of Several Variables
  
• Optimisation: Concavity and Convexity
  
• Envelope Theorems
  

Mathematical Methods (Dynamic Optimisation) covers:

 

 

• Optimal Control Theory
  
• Dynamic Programming (discrete time)
  
• Dynamic Programming (continuous time)
  

 

Seems like you may be missing a minor amount of linear algebra and possibly a proofs course, depending on how these topics were taught. Otherwise, your profile is top quality.

[fdshgfjj]

Thanks for the responses. But what does that mean? Top 10 or top 20 or top 30 or what? This whole system is totally alien to me and quite intimidating. And where do UK schools like LSE and Oxford fit in with all this?

[tm_member]

This is likely a top10 profile. That's a good thing because that set of interests needs a top10 PhD. You should be definitely looking into Northwestern's MECS/MEDS program (strong in political economy, micro theory). Also, Caltech might be a good idea for you.

 

However, everyone should apply broadly. There are wonderful programs that suit particular interests that are outside the top 10. You have to put in the legwork and check them all out systematically. Browse the websites, contact students at the program and ask them how strong they are in your area of interest.

[tm_member]

First class isn't equal to a 4.0, it's significantly harder to have a 4.0 at a rigorous university than to have an overall average of xx percent

 

For example, in 2011, 15% of all british undergrads graduated with a first class according to HESA ( British statistics agency ).

 

I highly doubt even 5% of North American undergrads have a 4.0

 

 

Other then that, could you post the actual topics your math courses covered? Quite hard for people to judge you without it.

 

This is a misleading post. First, the OP's grades could be a 4.0 or within epsilon of it. You don't know the distribution of his grades. If they are all A's individually then it is a 4.0.

 

Second, the quirks of the system mean that some who get a low first class honors would get a 4.0 in the US system but others with a higher first class honors degree would actually not receive a 4.0.

 

This is because the US system gives a 4.0 to those who score an A in all of their classes. In that system if you are doing well in one class, you should substitute your time to make sure you get an A in other classes.

 

The British and Irish system awards a first class to those who have an average of an A, which allows individuals to focus on the classes they enjoy most and then use those superior grades to counteract against weaker grades. This system allows more people to reach the top as it does not penalize specialization.

 

The systems reward different skills and do not preserve within cohort rank so comparing them is extraordinarily difficult. In the British system, an individual can score a 71% average with all A's (suppose they scored exactly 71% in every class), which would translate to a a 4.0 in the US system (70% is an A in Britain and Ireland, a grade of 85+ is virtually unheard of).

 

Alternatively, they could have a better, say 75% average across their degree with an equal balance of 85% (A's) and 65% (B+) grades. This would leave them without a 4.0 on the US scale yet, they are on average a better student.

 

Do you see the problem? In the US system, a specific ability to manage your effort so as to score an A in every class gets you a 4.0 whereas a student who is stronger in particular, perhaps vital, areas does not get a 4.0. Now, I'm not saying that every first class > 4.0, but that you should realize that it is extremely nuanced and that the different institutional arrangements drive both behavior differences and outcome differences. It is not clear how a student with a first class honors degree would fare in the US system as their behavior would have to alter to maximize GPA rather than the average. The OP in this post could very well be 4.0 or better.

[ZYX]

fdshgfjj,

 

Out of interest what research institute in the UK do you work/intern at?

 

In terms of what to aim for, the following link is to a person who appears to have a similar profile to you, and he's doing a PhD at Penn, so maybe worth contacting.

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/rossa-o-keeffe-o-donovan/46/968/b12

[Castial]

This is a misleading post. First, the OP's grades could be a 4.0 or within epsilon of it. You don't know the distribution of his grades. If they are all A's individually then it is a 4.0.

 

Second, the quirks of the system mean that some who get a low first class honors would get a 4.0 in the US system but others with a higher first class honors degree would actually not receive a 4.0.

 

This is because the US system gives a 4.0 to those who score an A in all of their classes. In that system if you are doing well in one class, you should substitute your time to make sure you get an A in other classes.

 

The British and Irish system awards a first class to those who have an average of an A, which allows individuals to focus on the classes they enjoy most and then use those superior grades to counteract against weaker grades. This system allows more people to reach the top as it does not penalize specialization.

 

The systems reward different skills and do not preserve within cohort rank so comparing them is extraordinarily difficult. In the British system, an individual can score a 71% average with all A's (suppose they scored exactly 71% in every class), which would translate to a a 4.0 in the US system (70% is an A in Britain and Ireland, a grade of 85+ is virtually unheard of).

 

Alternatively, they could have a better, say 75% average across their degree with an equal balance of 85% (A's) and 65% (B+) grades. This would leave them without a 4.0 on the US scale yet, they are on average a better student.

 

Do you see the problem? In the US system, a specific ability to manage your effort so as to score an A in every class gets you a 4.0 whereas a student who is stronger in particular, perhaps vital, areas does not get a 4.0. Now, I'm not saying that every first class > 4.0, but that you should realize that it is extremely nuanced and that the different institutional arrangements drive both behavior differences and outcome differences. It is not clear how a student with a first class honors degree would fare in the US system as their behavior would have to alter to maximize GPA rather than the average. The OP in this post could very well be 4.0 or better.

 

I see your point. My opinion was based on my personal experience as an exchange student in the UK. There are also other differences between the UK/US system.

 

A British undergrad is typically 3 years and the first year at most places has no weight on your overall degree average ( essentially a free get used to university year type of thing ). The second has some weight but typically lower then the third. So you can essentially be below average for nearly 2/3 of your time at university and still end with the highest degree.

 

Interestingly, there's a lot of debate in the UK right now to convert to a GPA system for this very reason. The current system was established 200 years ago when there were very few undergraduates and so comparing students wasn't much of a problem or concern back then.

 

Here's one of the articles.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/higher/should-british-universities-grade-students-using-an-americanstyle-system-8983739.html

 

My opinion in general was that you get more kicks at the can to end up on top in the british system. Having a horrible year or several bad terms doesn't' kill you like it does in the US.

 

Still, I'd say 15% receiving the highest grade really does make comparing it to a 4.0 questionable at best.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Castial

[tm_member]

I see your point. My opinion was based on my personal experience as an exchange student in the UK. There are also other differences between the UK/US system.

 

A British undergrad is typically 3 years and the first year at most places has no weight on your overall degree average ( essentially a free get used to university year type of thing ). The second has some weight but typically lower then the third. So you can essentially be below average for nearly 2/3 of your time at university and still end with the highest degree.

 

Interestingly, there's a lot of debate in the UK right now to convert to a GPA system for this very reason. The current system was established 200 years ago when there were very few undergraduates and so comparing students wasn't much of a problem or concern back then.

 

Here's one of the articles.

 

Should British universities grade students using an American-style system? - Higher - Education - The Independent

 

My opinion in general was that you get more kicks at the can to end up on top in the british system. Having a horrible year or several bad terms doesn't' kill you like it does in the US.

 

Still, I'd say 15% receiving the highest grade really does make comparing it to a 4.0 questionable at best.

 

I am from the Irish system (BS and MS there) so I am very much aware of the dilemmas the system faces.

 

However, as I said, a student with a first class honors has to be treated as close to or equal to a 4.0 to err on the side of caution. It is impossible to know what a candidate who was faced with different incentives and goals would choose to do.

 

I had a first class honors but it converted to a 3.75 when you look at each grade individually (weirdly, my grades in year one were the best of the three). However, I absolutely could have scored a 4.0 if I had wanted to, I chose to focus on certain classes and let others slip by the wayside (classes on Taxation and International Finance, blah) because the system didn't reward getting A's in all classes, just an average of an A.

 

The system allows more kicks at the can, as you say, but there is no way to separate those with a first-class honors who would score a 3.95+ in the US from those who wouldn't so it's perhaps best to treat them all as potential 4.0 people and sort them on other measures.

[econphd14]

I am from the Irish system (BS and MS there) so I am very much aware of the dilemmas the system faces.

 

However, as I said, a student with a first class honors has to be treated as close to or equal to a 4.0 to err on the side of caution. It is impossible to know what a candidate who was faced with different incentives and goals would choose to do.

 

I had a first class honors but it converted to a 3.75 when you look at each grade individually (weirdly, my grades in year one were the best of the three). However, I absolutely could have scored a 4.0 if I had wanted to, I chose to focus on certain classes and let others slip by the wayside (classes on Taxation and International Finance, blah) because the system didn't reward getting A's in all classes, just an average of an A.

 

The system allows more kicks at the can, as you say, but there is no way to separate those with a first-class honors who would score a 3.95+ in the US from those who wouldn't so it's perhaps best to treat them all as potential 4.0 people and sort them on other measures.

 

At the end of the day, US schools will probably convert the grades to a gpa, erring on overstatement to compensate for the aforementioned dilemma and differences in course structure.

[fdshgfjj]

I guess I shouldn't have said anything about GPA in retrospect. I suppose there just isn't really any clear meaningful way to convert UK grades into a GPA because the UK system rewards specialisation rather than consistency, something that is perhaps reflective of the UK education system in general. Hopefully my references will interptret the UK grades into something US admissions tutors will understand. Thanks for all the comments.

[ZYX]

Seems like you may be missing a minor amount of linear algebra and possibly a proofs course, depending on how these topics were taught. Otherwise, your profile is top quality.

 

In terms of trying to get more maths under the belt, how would the following summer school be viewed? I would presume it will be well looked at as it's at a good university and it covers an important area when applying to graduate school.

 

Real Analysis - Mathematics & Statistics courses - Methods Summer Programme - Summer schools - Study - Home