Jump to content
Urch Forums

Profile evaluation


cms4343

Recommended Posts

PROFILE:

Type of Undergrad: Top 5 US school (both overall and in economics), studied Applied Math and Economics (summa cum laude)

Undergrad GPA: 3.93

Type of Grad: N/A

Grad GPA: N/A

GRE: Taking in October - from practice tests 168-170Q / 165-167V

Math Courses: Multivariable Calculus (A), Linear Algebra (A), Real Analysis (A), Abstract Algebra (A), Probability Theory (A)

Econ Courses (grad-level): None

Econ Courses (undergrad-level): Introductory Econ (A), Intermediate Micro - Math Intensive (A-), Intermediate Macro - Math Intensive (A-), Econometrics (A), Psychology and Economics (A), Market Design (A), Capital Markets (A), Quantitative Finance (A), Statistical Methods for Causal Evaluation (A), Education and the Economy

Other Courses: Computer Science

Letters of Recommendation: Three professors from school, all top 5% on RePEc. One was thesis advisor. Also asking for an additional letter from my probability theory professor, who I was a TA for and knows how passionate I am about teaching.

Research Experience: RA at UChicago summer after sophomore year, senior thesis (received Highest Honors), currently have a working paper that I am trying to get published.

Teaching Experience: TA for calc, linear algebra, probability theory.

Research Interests: Empirical micro and micro theory (especially the economics of education and inequality)

SOP: Not yet written

Concerns: I have no idea how many schools to apply to, or what would be considered a "safety"

Other: I currently work at a hedge fund (graduated undergrad in 2013) - not sure if this helps/hurts/is irrelevant

Applying to: MIT, Harvard (Econ and Bus Ec), Stanford (Econ and GSB), Chicago, Yale, Berkeley, Northwestern...where else? Is this enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, your profile is pretty great. Coming from Harvard, your professors and letter writers should definitely have some good advice on where they have placed previous students and where you rank versus them. Put your trust in your professors and you will do more than fine this application season.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although your profile seems very strong, not having any grad courses could set you back. I would throw in some safeties you find nice and extend the uni's you apply to: UCSD, Princeton, UCL, LSE, Oxford, Columbia, NYU. But as Patho says, trust your advisors as they know best.

 

OP is from a top5 school with perfect GPA, great RA, and TA experience. You cannot hold not having grad classes against him/her.

 

 

As far as OP's original question goes trust, just as Patho said - trust your professors. I believe you are one of the rare cases on the board where you have access to the world's leading experts and their opinion outweighs ours by a huge amount. Just a small side note - if your professors are senior and have not dealt with applications in recent years, you might want to lower the range of schools they tell you. For example, if you have a professor who graduated 20 years ago and has not sat on an adcom ever and he tells you to apply to schools in the top15, then you should throw in some top20-25 safeties. This is just because the admissions game has been getting harder and harder.

 

 

 

EDIT: To address your other question, usually people apply to 10-15 schools. You could apply to more if you are more risk averse and have the funds of course, the non-monetary cost of another application is not that high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with econphd2015's more cautious strategy. In general, unless you have had full-time research experience and/or a large number of grad courses, I would not recommend a top 7 or bust strategy. A 3.9 GPA in math/econ undergrad courses from a top private university is a great but not unusual background for economics PhD admissions. Decent research experience on top of that will likely get you an offer, but that's something neither us nor (crucially) yourself can confidently evaluate. And advice from LOR writer is not always clear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with econphd2015's more cautious strategy. In general, unless you have had full-time research experience and/or a large number of grad courses, I would not recommend a top 7 or bust strategy. A 3.9 GPA in math/econ undergrad courses from a top private university is a great but not unusual background for economics PhD admissions. Decent research experience on top of that will likely get you an offer, but that's something neither us nor (crucially) yourself can confidently evaluate. And advice from LOR writer is not always clear.

 

I'm somewhere between Chateu and the others. While I agree with Chateu that you should diversify and not be quite so narrow (T7 or bust is risky), the wildcard is your LoRs.

 

The cost of applying is relatively small, all things considered, and the MC of applying to additional programs is relatively small. So, even if your LoR writers can make phonecalls on your behalf, it's still best to diversify given that there will still be a number of individuals that have your profile +grad courses and/or RA experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP is from a top5 school with perfect GPA, great RA, and TA experience. You cannot hold not having grad classes against him/her.

 

 

As far as OP's original question goes trust, just as Patho said - trust your professors. I believe you are one of the rare cases on the board where you have access to the world's leading experts and their opinion outweighs ours by a huge amount. Just a small side note - if your professors are senior and have not dealt with applications in recent years, you might want to lower the range of schools they tell you. For example, if you have a professor who graduated 20 years ago and has not sat on an adcom ever and he tells you to apply to schools in the top15, then you should throw in some top20-25 safeties. This is just because the admissions game has been getting harder and harder.

 

 

 

EDIT: To address your other question, usually people apply to 10-15 schools. You could apply to more if you are more risk averse and have the funds of course, the non-monetary cost of another application is not that high.

 

Well, many people are told that bunch of math and grad micro/macro/metrics with at least an A- are the key to a top 20-30 (let alone top 5), only to find that now the adcoms' taste have changed that an A+ in intermediate micro> an A- in grad micro. If they know earlier, they might decide to give up earlier, which is better for everyone.

 

And we are repeatedly told that 'you can't do anything important without courses in advanced theory, or at least have equivalent knowledge', yet there are people who have a solid research experience despite their insufficient knowledge, though I think it really is 'everyone says to the public that this is insufficient knowledge in order to mislead future applicants'.

 

OP: I have nothing personal towards you and I But a person like you should really listen to your rec letter writers ONLY instead of posting here. What you do is typically called BSO, though I admire your achievement and wish (and I think) that you'll be accepted in one of the best schools you apply for.

 

Not serious: I want to re-apply to be an undergraduate.

Seriously: I will make politics and behavior of economists as my second field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think he's showing off by posting this profile, or that he doesn't necessarily need the advice of people on TM, then you have no clue about econ admissions, period.

 

econphd2015's initial post is right despite the mob no goods. Once you take away the filler courses there's something like a 3.9 GPA in only 7 relevant undergrad math/econ courses. With the kind of absurd grade inflation there at least two dozen econ students come out of Harvard weakly better than that each year, and not all of them (in fact most of them don't) get into top 7 programs. This is by no means a profile that can guarantee top 7 admissions, or even top 15 admissions, without knowing how the letters are going to play out (and that's basically going to hinge on one letter, it seems). Go back in the profile and results thread a few years and you'll see someone with almost the exact same profile on paper getting shut out of the top 7. He's also worked at a hedge fund for over a year and thus presumably has no direct means of communication with his former advisor (face-to-face). That makes gauging the quality of the letter and the confidence of the faculty that much more difficult.

 

He should apply to more safeties, period. The only people who can afford a top 7 only strategy are those who are currently working as full-time research assistants with star professors (and there are quite a few of those).

Edited by chateauheart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea how many schools to apply to, or what would be considered a "safety"

 

Have you tried talking to those three professors from your school that are all top 5% in RePEc? And yes, I am serious. There are some nuances in your profile that send red flags.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you tried talking to those three professors from your school that are all top 5% in RePEc? And yes, I am serious. There are some nuances in your profile that send red flags.

 

Really? Which red flags? A (comparative) lack of math courses aside, everything checks out to me. Not everyone has the chance to take grad school classes, so I don't think that will count against the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, many people are told that bunch of math and grad micro/macro/metrics with at least an A- are the key to a top 20-30 (let alone top 5), only to find that now the adcoms' taste have changed that an A+ in intermediate micro> an A- in grad micro. If they know earlier, they might decide to give up earlier, which is better for everyone.

 

That would depend a lot on what your undergrad institution is like. If you are from a not so well known place or a school that is ranked relatively low, then yes there is benefit to taking those classes since there is no guarantee there is a lot of rigor in the undergrad classes you have taken, nor how they were graded. Also, (and I may sound harsh here), but professors tend to give very high grades in grad classes. The fact is that they want students to stay in their program and they know this means the students must keep their funding and they know this means they must have at least X.XXGPA, so they inflate the grades. I have taken (and I know from a conversations with friends from other schools) classes where A was the median grade. So in this case it is no wonder that an A- in grad micro will be seen as a negative sign - it means you were in the lower half of the class.

 

 

Also, I am pretty sure I have read on a lot of websites what is the percentage of people who matriculate in the given program after obtaining an MA, and I am sure I have never seen a number close to a 100%.

 

And we are repeatedly told that 'you can't do anything important without courses in advanced theory, or at least have equivalent knowledge', yet there are people who have a solid research experience despite their insufficient knowledge, though I think it really is 'everyone says to the public that this is insufficient knowledge in order to mislead future applicants'.

 

Maybe you have misunderstood a bit here. You CAN NOT do good INDEPENDENT work without knowing the advanced theory and the cutting edge research literature in the field, it is just impossible. You CAN have great research experience, however, and this is something that people who were RAs at some places get. Correct me if I am wrong, but an RA get a lot of exposure to research and great experience without having to know much besides the intuition and the technical parts of the small part of the research project s/he is working on.

 

Also, I do not think that anyone here is trying to mislead future applicants. Certainly not people who are already attending programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Which red flags? A (comparative) lack of math courses aside, everything checks out to me. Not everyone has the chance to take grad school classes, so I don't think that will count against the OP.

 

Take a careful look at the OP's profile, and you'll notice that the OP emphasizes certain points that most advisers would probably not tell to emphasize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would depend a lot on what your undergrad institution is like. If you are from a not so well known place or a school that is ranked relatively low, then yes there is benefit to taking those classes since there is no guarantee there is a lot of rigor in the undergrad classes you have taken, nor how they were graded. Also, (and I may sound harsh here), but professors tend to give very high grades in grad classes. The fact is that they want students to stay in their program and they know this means the students must keep their funding and they know this means they must have at least X.XXGPA, so they inflate the grades. I have taken (and I know from a conversations with friends from other schools) classes where A was the median grade. So in this case it is no wonder that an A- in grad micro will be seen as a negative sign - it means you were in the lower half of the class.

 

 

Also, I am pretty sure I have read on a lot of websites what is the percentage of people who matriculate in the given program after obtaining an MA, and I am sure I have never seen a number close to a 100%.

 

 

 

Maybe you have misunderstood a bit here. You CAN NOT do good INDEPENDENT work without knowing the advanced theory and the cutting edge research literature in the field, it is just impossible. You CAN have great research experience, however, and this is something that people who were RAs at some places get. Correct me if I am wrong, but an RA get a lot of exposure to research and great experience without having to know much besides the intuition and the technical parts of the small part of the research project s/he is working on.

 

Also, I do not think that anyone here is trying to mislead future applicants. Certainly not people who are already attending programs.

 

Well, I don't actually think that any individual is purposefully misleading anyone. I am just saying that the whole picture provided is a little...misleading in some sense that it seems acing the graduate course/math is the best way to make up with 'relatively' weak undergrad profile.

 

So there is nothing a master degree can do. After all, what we can do is to get an A, which just means 'better than the median'.

 

Anyway, why I never met such a course? :victorious:

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...