Profile Evaluation 2015

[Phdbound]

Type of Undergrad: Math/Economics Double Major Top 10 Liberal Arts College

Undergrad GPA: 3.9 (3.97 in Econ, 4.0 in math)

Type of Grad: N/A

Grad GPA: N/A

GRE: 170

Math Courses: Calc 3 (A), Linear Algebra (A), Intro to Proofs (A), Number Theory (A), Real Analysis I(A), Real Analysis II (A), Abstract Algebra I (A), Differential Equations (A), Probability (A), Statistics (A)

Econ Courses (grad-level): N/A

Econ Courses (undergrad-level): Intro Econ (A), Intermediate Macro (A), Econ Stats (A), Intermediate Micro (A-), Econometrics (A), Computational Economics (A), Economic History (A), Development Economics (A), Economic Thought (A), Honors Thesis (A)

Other Courses:

Letters of Recommendation: One from advisor (published but fairly new to teaching) will say I'm one of his best students. Top 15 grad school

One from Development professor who has authored several textbooks but hasn't been active in research lately. Top 15 grad school

One from Real Analysis professor. Good but not exceptional. PhD Stanford

Research Experience: Honors Thesis on urban poverty, Summer internship at Fed

Teaching Experience: Tutoring in math and econ

Research Interests: Economic Development, Economic History, Poverty

SOP: Pretty good but not anything too special

Concerns: Lack of published research, bias against liberal arts schools, need finding to attend

Other: I'd like to add an international school to apply to

Applying to: MIT, Harvard, Yale, Chicago, Princeton, Stanford, Berkeley, CalTech, UNC, UVA, UTexas, Duke

[Molan]

I guess your chance of getting into top 7 is pretty small because they look for exceptional profiles but yours is standard. Also, why choose Caltech given your interests?

[behavingmyself]

I would be quite surprised if you couldn't get in somewhere in the top 20, and I'm not sure I'd describe your chance of getting into a top 7 school as small. Unless you have some particular preference for some of the lower-ranked schools on your list (Texas, UNC, UVa -- do you really hate cold weather or something?) you might consider substituting in more schools in the 8-20 rankings range. I agree that Caltech seems an odd choice if those are your research interests.

[publicaffairsny]

I think you stand as good a shot as any at getting into a top program but this is one of those times when I'd like to see people move beyond grades and into the intangibles. What makes you special?

 

It seems silly that someone from a top school with perfect grades would be bounded by things beyond their control like being from a lac rather than r1 or top 10 school rather than top 5.

[Econhead]

I think you stand as good a shot as any at getting into a top program but this is one of those times when I'd like to see people move beyond grades and into the intangibles. What makes you special?

 

It seems silly that someone from a top school with perfect grades would be bounded by things beyond their control like being from a lac rather than r1 or top 10 school rather than top 5.

 

This is an incorrect conjecture. I feel like this should be called the "You're special fallacy." Just because you're at the top doesn't make you special to everyone, and just because you might have something 'special' about your profile doesn't mean that you can aim for the stars. As Startz has pointed out, only approx. 3% of applicants get admitted each year. All programs take the applicants that appear the best that are most likely to attend. Being most likely to attend is a function of who is most likely to be accepted where, which is a function (of course) of their profile, including their GPA and where they attended their undergrad, among (obviously) other factors. The reason I italicized undergrad above is that there are plenty of applicants just like OP but from better institutions. This makes their profile comparatively more competitive.

 

The argument is then usually made: OK, so suppose they had a letter from a 'super famous' economist (or some other profile improvement, holding institution constant). This makes them more competitive, but it doesn't make them a shoe-in. Think about how many 'famous' economists are out there, and how many of them are at Top 10 or even Top 20 institutions. They are writing LoRs for students also. Again, there will always be plenty of other applicants that have the same profile, yet a competitively more rigorous undergrad institution. It doesn't have to be undergrad, I just think that's the easiest to point out. Improve the profile in any way and there are still plenty of applicants that are more qualified. Being more special makes you more competitive at the margin - it does not​ summarily move you to the top.

[startz]

As Startz has pointed out, only approx. 3% of applicants get admitted each year.

Just on this narrow point, one needs to be careful about interpreting the data. Maybe admissions are 3 percent of applications, but it may be that the average applicant sends in 20 application. It may also be that some applicants get 20 acceptances and others get none.

 

I don't think anyone knows what fraction of applicants get at least one acceptance.

[NBZ]

I would be quite surprised if you couldn't get in somewhere in the top 20, and I'm not sure I'd describe your chance of getting into a top 7 school as small. Unless you have some particular preference for some of the lower-ranked schools on your list (Texas, UNC, UVa -- do you really hate cold weather or something?) you might consider substituting in more schools in the 8-20 rankings range. I agree that Caltech seems an odd choice if those are your research interests.

 

I agree, with your profile you should apply to the top 7 as you're planning, but keep plenty of buffer in the 8-20 range. Given your interests in development, there should be plenty of schools in that range worth looking into - Michigan, Columbia, Brown, UCSD for instance. Something else to keep in mind - straying too far out of the top 20 in search of a safety carries its own kind of risk (i.e. when schools believe you'll not accept their offer and so make the offer to someone less qualified).

[publicaffairsny]

This is an incorrect conjecture. I feel like this should be called the "You're special fallacy." Just because you're at the top doesn't make you special to everyone, and just because you might have something 'special' about your profile doesn't mean that you can aim for the stars. As Startz has pointed out, only approx. 3% of applicants get admitted each year. All programs take the applicants that appear the best that are most likely to attend. Being most likely to attend is a function of who is most likely to be accepted where, which is a function (of course) of their profile, including their GPA and where they attended their undergrad, among (obviously) other factors. The reason I italicized undergrad above is that there are plenty of applicants just like OP but from better institutions. This makes their profile comparatively more competitive.

 

The argument is then usually made: OK, so suppose they had a letter from a 'super famous' economist (or some other profile improvement, holding institution constant). This makes them more competitive, but it doesn't make them a shoe-in. Think about how many 'famous' economists are out there, and how many of them are at Top 10 or even Top 20 institutions. They are writing LoRs for students also. Again, there will always be plenty of other applicants that have the same profile, yet a competitively more rigorous undergrad institution. It doesn't have to be undergrad, I just think that's the easiest to point out. Improve the profile in any way and there are still plenty of applicants that are more qualified. Being more special makes you more competitive at the margin - it does not​ summarily move you to the top.

 

That's very depressing.

[chateauheart]

That's very depressing.

 

Only if you think people just have to be at the very top schools to be satisfied for some reason. There's no reason to think like that, at all; in fact most people before they enter grad school don't have a strong idea about what it's like and what training or value they'll get from the school, so they logically shouldn't have a pre-determined or desired "range" of schools that they want to be in at all. The top 10 or even top 20 programs are indeed not that different in terms of how well they can prepare you. Higher competitiveness in economics and a smaller number of seats than most people imagine just means you get sorted ordinally based on their undergrad records; that doesn't mean as much cardinally (as, say, what university you got into as an undergrad) because of just how small the cohort is at each program. It also doesn't mean much in terms of predicting how well you'll do in the job market, which again makes sense because if you have smaller number of people at each rank, there's going to be less of a mean difference between #1 program students and #5 program students, and a relatively much larger proportion of the variance is going to come from fundamental unobservables. Another point to note is that the even smaller number of faculty positions at the next stage means that plenty of faculty that are likely way smarter than you will be there to advise you in those "lower" ranked schools as well. That's kind of the nicer flip side of the coin in terms of the competitiveness in academia. It really doesn't mean much practically beyond a decently smart Ivy UG not being able to tell his family he's going to grad school at an Ivy school too.

 

People shouldn't worry so much about rankings and admissions, generally (unless they're at the margin at the bottom and might have trouble getting in any funded doctoral program - then they should carefully evaluate their choices). Most people, if they're set on grad school in economics, should focus on maximizing the things that make you a good future economist, and know that after that wherever you end up as a doctoral student shouldn't be too far off from your potential and you'll be hanging around with many faculty and peers that are just as capable and interesting.

[Econhead]

Only if you think people just have to be at the very top schools to be satisfied for some reason. There's no reason to think like that, at all...

 

...People shouldn't worry so much about rankings and admissions, generally (unless they're at the margin at the bottom and might have trouble getting in any funded doctoral program - then they should carefully evaluate their choices). Most people, if they're set on grad school in economics, should focus on maximizing the things that make you a good future economist, and know that after that wherever you end up as a doctoral student shouldn't be too far off from your potential and you'll be hanging around with many faculty and peers that are just as capable and interesting.

 

This is a valid point that I don't think gets mentioned enough compared to all the sweating that goes on. It's unlikely that you'll be unhappy wherever you are accepted, pending that interests fit. People often think that they are too competitive for a particular rank, but that also is often (almost always) not true. If you're a star, you'll be noticed and flourish regardless. The only difference, as is pointed out several times each cycle, is that there are often some advantages to being 'The Star' at a lower ranked school vs. being the 50th percentile at a higher ranked school.

 

Not to feed the humanomics, but there's a lot to gain (in terms of interpreting your own feelings) from other social science research. People often overestimate how they will feel in the future, even when the event separating the present from the future is an organ transplant. We're just not that great at predicting how happy we will be, especially when we may not be feeling particularly satiated right now. The bottom line is that you will probably be quite happy being admitted to a program at a lower rank than what you think would make you happy, you'll flourish, and your colleagues will be just as competent.

[Phdbound]

I know Caltech is a kind of strange choice for me but I'm really interested in the whole interdisciplinary aspect of their program.

Also, I know it's not entirely reasonable but I'd rather not go to school in the Midwest. I'm considering dropping Chicago because of that.

I would be interested in adding some international schools to my list. However, funding would be a big concern. Does anyone know how funding works at Oxbridge, LSE, etc?

[Blanket]

I know Caltech is a kind of strange choice for me but I'm really interested in the whole interdisciplinary aspect of their program.

Also, I know it's not entirely reasonable but I'd rather not go to school in the Midwest. I'm considering dropping Chicago because of that.

I would be interested in adding some international schools to my list. However, funding would be a big concern. Does anyone know how funding works at Oxbridge, LSE, etc?

 

Unless your aversion to the Midwest is climate based, keep Chicago. It feels like a major world city and is connected to the rest of the world via two major airports and the country via a ton of railroad tracks. Also, people from the Midwest kick ***.

[ColonelForbin]

I know Caltech is a kind of strange choice for me but I'm really interested in the whole interdisciplinary aspect of their program.

 

What is the origin of this interest? From the outside looking in, it does look like an interesting program. Do you think that you could find something different at Caltech that you'd like to make your life's work than you could at other places? or are you just interested in the fact that your peers may have very divergent research interests? perhaps it is just alluring that they do this multidisciplinary approach under the guise of a social science Ph.D. It just doesn't seem to fit your current research interests. If it is only the allure that is guiding this decision, then you may want to reevaluate sending the application to Caltech and send it to another school that is ​very good and fits your interests.