Pls evaluate profile for Econ PhD: Indian B.Tech+top MBA, 3.5 yr work ex

[BengaliKitty]

Kindly evaluate my profile: I want to join a good Econ PhD program, preferably in Europe, in the academic year 2016-17.

 

· MBA (2011) from IIM Ahmedabad (India's top-ranked business school; FT MBA school rank 26 in the world for 2015)

· M.Sc.(2011) in International Management, Bocconi University (Double Degree).

· Thesis: "The role of advertisement-based sites in the growth of online advertising in India"

· Bocconi GPA: 98/110

· IIMA GPA: 2.99/4 (While I was probably only in the top 70-100 in my ~300 strong batch, the MBA program of IIMA is one of most difficult in the world to get into, with admission rates around 0.1%. Each year this program is attended by ~300 of the best students in entire India, across disciplines. And this place uses relative grading. That means no one in the history of IIMA ever earned US-like GPA's such as 3.8+/4 etc. The max. GPA's would range around 3.4...3.5)

· Working in the industry for the last 3.5 years (would be 4.5 years by the time I join a PhD program). For the last 1+ years I've been working in a Big 4 firm, in financial risk management advisory services. This role involves a significant amount of quantitative modelling in areas such as risk quantification (VaR, CFaR etc.), price forecasting using various models such as Vector Auto Regression etc.

· B.Tech. in Electronics and Telecommunication in 2009 from one of top 20 engineering schools in India (Jadavpur University, Kolkata, for those who know)

· Ranked 4/45000 in my state in West Bengal JEE in 2005. (Again, for those who understand what that is).

 

 

The schools I'm targeting so far:

• 
  
  • University of Warwick, UK
    
  • University of Nottingham, UK
    
  • Paris School of Economics, France
    
  • Toulouse school of economics, France
    
  • Université catholique de Louvain, France
    
  • Università Bocconi, Italy
    
  • Tilburg University, Netherlands
    
  • Maastricht University, Netherlands
    
  • Erasmus University of Rotterdam, Netherlands (Tinbergen Institute)
    
  • Stockholm School of Economics, Sweden
    
  • University of Zurich, Switzerland
    
  • National University of Singapore, Singapore
    

   

  [*]Given my profile, is it realistic to apply to these programs?

  [*]Given my profile, are there any other suitable Economics PhD programs in Europe (or Asia) which I should apply to?

  [*]Academic recommendations: Since I would be applying to Economics programs, I'd need recommendation letters from Economics professors in IIMA and/or Bocconi. Given my absence from academia for the last 3.5 years, it's difficult for me to get really strong recommendations from such professors. I plan to try and assist one of my Economics professors in IIMA or Bocconi on some small project over the next one year and request them for a recommendation on the basis of that. Given I work full-time as a consultant, this association (if at all possible) will have to be part-time and remote. There is no other credit whatsoever that I'm seeking out of such an association apart from research experience, enhancement of domain knowledge and support of my guide. Is this strategy at all realistic?

  [*]Thanks a million everyone for your very valuable inputs.

[fakeo]

I don't think you're competitive for an econ PhD at any of the schools you mentioned. Based on your profile, I'm guessing you never took advanced economic coursework. Given that we're talking about Europe (mostly), you would need to have a masters under your belt, and most schools will require a research masters in economics. So I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be able to go to a PhD directly, you'd have to do an MRes first.

 

Getting into an MRes itself will be hard for you, though I'm fairly certain you could get into the MRes program of some of the schools you mentioned. The problem is that getting in is just step 1, staying in and succeeding is a whole different story. Again, your profile doesn't indicate that you're ready for grad-level econ coursework. So you'd probably struggle in a research masters. (It could be that I'm wrong, if for instance you've been doing a lot of self-study, etc.)

 

For these reasons, maybe you could try to look at a business PhD instead. Your credentials (MBA, Master in Management) and work experience are generally looked upon more favorably in business programs.

[PhDPlease]

I agree with the above^. Unless MBA's in India are very different from those in the US, your MBA isn't considered equivalent to a degree in economics. A number of students in PhD's in fields like Management have MBA's, however. Is there a reason you're confident that an econ phd is right for your (rather than a management/business phd) given that your prior coursework seems to be more in management than in economics?

[YaSvoboden]

What is your goal with a PhD? I am in a business phd and the above posts are correct, you would make a fairly good applicant. Work experience isn't hugely valued, but it does carry weight. But your academics are in line with what a lot of places are looking for too.

 

If you want to go into academia, then a business phd may be something to consider. It looks like you would be good in Finance, management, strategy, maybe accounting. It is just important that you have an idea of what research means in these fields and that you want to do it.

 

Also, business phds use the gmat, which I some you ate familiar with and did well on.

[BengaliKitty]

Thank you for your reply.

My goal with a PhD is to get into academia. In fact I'm switching careers after one of Asia's most highly regarded (and one of the world's most competitive) MBA's purely because I want to be in academic research and not in a corporate/public sector job.

 

In order to get into a top IIM, you had to get a minimum of 99.8+ percentile in an exam called the CAT (Common Admission Test), with sectional cutoffs of 98.8+ percentile for each of the three sections QA, VA and DI. The test is taken by roughly 160,000- 280,000+ applicants each year. Just to give you a perspective of the difficulty level of the exam - no one asks or publishes one's actual score in the CAT. It's only the percentile which gets published and used for admissions, because no one ever gets full marks or even close to full marks on any of the sections of this test, including the test toppers, i.e. people who score a 100 percentile (unlike the GRE or GMAT where full marks in QA and VA sections is very common). I got a 99.85 percentile in this test in 2008.

As per this source: Average GMAT Scores At Top 50 U.S. Schools | Poets and Quants, the average GMAT score required for getting into the Harvard Business School – which I believe is a reasonable estimate of a “good” GMAT score – has been 720-730/800 in recent years.

As per this source: What Your GMAT Percentile Ranking Means, that puts you in roughly the 94-95 percentile of test takers.

To give you a perspective - in the CAT, if you get a 95 percentile – or even a 97 percentile – in total or in any of the sections, you can safely forget applying to any halfway decent Indian B-school that year and start preparing for next year. Unless you believe Indian students are generally stupider than the international population, the percentile requirements of the two tests should be comparable, even though the no. of test takers per year would be much higher for the GMAT than for the CAT.

So to answer your question, yeah I do know of the GMAT or GRE requirement of European/American PhD/MBA programs, which I see as, sadly, nothing more than a mechanism of helping generate sales for ETS (for GRE), given the really low levels of difficulty of these tests.

Also in most business school PhD programs (I checked INSEAD and LBS. As I mentioned – I would prefer to be in Europe and not in the US) you can supply scores of the GMAT or the GRE (which is even easier – no one I know has ever scored less than a 100% on the GRE QA section. Many of the same people took the CAT more than once!).

Also let me clarify – this is not to say Indian b-schools are “better” than their US/European counterparts, because standardized test scores are far from being the sole criteria for gaining admission into either category of schools. (Besides, when it comes to B-school rankings, factors such as research output and diversity play a much bigger role than stringency of admission criteria.) However, they’re insanely more competitive to get into, maybe because of the higher populations in our part of the world (China has a SAT equivalent called the Gaokao, which is again one of the most competitive exams in the world, but sadly, not usable in the international academic arena, probably because of being lesser known than its American counterparts).

[BengaliKitty]

Thank you for your reply.

My goal with a PhD is to get into academia. In fact I'm switching careers after one of Asia's most highly regarded (and one of the world's most competitive) MBA's purely because I want to be in academic research and not in a corporate/public sector job.

 

In order to get into a top IIM, you had to get a minimum of 99.8+ percentile in an exam called the CAT (Common Admission Test), with sectional cutoffs of 98.8+ percentile for each of the three sections QA, VA and DI. The test is taken by roughly 160,000- 280,000+ applicants each year. Just to give you a perspective of the difficulty level of the exam - no one asks or publishes one's actual score in the CAT. It's only the percentile which gets published and used for admissions, because no one ever gets full marks or even close to full marks on any of the sections of this test, including the test toppers, i.e. people who score a 100 percentile (unlike the GRE or GMAT where full marks in QA and VA sections is very common). I got a 99.85 percentile in this test in 2008.

As per this source: Average GMAT Scores At Top 50 U.S. Schools | Poets and Quants, the average GMAT score required for getting into the Harvard Business School – which I believe is a reasonable estimate of a “good” GMAT score – has been 720-730/800 in recent years.

As per this source: What Your GMAT Percentile Ranking Means, that puts you in roughly the 94-95 percentile of test takers.

To give you a perspective - in the CAT, if you get a 95 percentile – or even a 97 percentile – in total or in any of the sections, you can safely forget applying to any halfway decent Indian B-school that year and start preparing for next year. Unless you believe Indian students are generally stupider than the international population, the percentile requirements of the two tests should be comparable, even though the no. of test takers per year would be much higher for the GMAT than for the CAT.

So to answer your question, yeah I do know of the GMAT or GRE requirement of European/American PhD/MBA programs, which I see as, sadly, nothing more than a mechanism of helping generate sales for ETS (for GRE), given the really low levels of difficulty of these tests.

Also in most business school PhD programs (I checked INSEAD and LBS. As I mentioned – I would prefer to be in Europe and not in the US) you can supply scores of the GMAT or the GRE (which is even easier – no one I know has ever scored less than a 100% on the GRE QA section. Many of the same people took the CAT more than once!).

Also let me clarify – this is not to say Indian b-schools are “better” than their US/European counterparts, because standardized test scores are far from being the sole criteria for gaining admission into either category of schools. (Besides, when it comes to B-school rankings, factors such as research output and diversity play a much bigger role than stringency of admission criteria.) However, they’re insanely more competitive to get into, maybe because of the higher populations in our part of the world (China has a SAT equivalent called the Gaokao, which is again one of the most competitive exams in the world, but sadly, not usable in the international academic arena, probably because of being lesser known than its American counterparts).

[Econhead]

Brevity is a beautiful thing.

 

All joking aside, it's no secret that many internationals score higher on GRE type tests (Quant) than Americans. The education system for math begins earlier, and there are more years of fundamental algebra/geometry included in these education systems than American education. (Incase OP doubts this, consider that I attended the number 1 high school in my state, where several went to Harvard, and the top 30ish students (20%) all attended schools from T1-T20 with full rides. Despite this, only 1 geometry class was offered, nothing geometry like was done in prior to high school (grades 7-12), it wasn't emphasized except in calc AP courses, and the average student only took Pre-Algebra, and Algebra 1 and 2. As I understand it, this is far fewer (across the entire pre-college curriculum) than in such places as India.). My point in saying this is that staying that many people get perfect quant scores but fail to "pass" this test the first time is irrelevant, because the quant score is (obviously) not a good measure of ability in India. If it were, perhaps such other tests wouldn't exist.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Econhead

[fakeo]

Standardized tests do not count much in the admissions process. Doing well on the GRE/GMAT is more like a basic requirement, kinda like having decent English skills.

 

@PhDPlease raises a good point though. I don't know much about Indian business education either. Could you perhaps briefly list what econ, math and stat/metrics courses you took over the course of your studies?

 

Also, what are your research interests? If you're interested in something that you can research in a business PhD, then it'd probably be easier for you to go for a business PhD.

[chateauheart]

re: BengaliKitty

Nobody really cares about your standardized test performance once you go beyond high school. A PhD program is like a part-time job, and right now you don't have the prerequisite experience for the job; in fact it looks like you don't actually have enough technical skills to complete an advanced undergrad econ course. Apply for a master's in statistics or economics in Europe first, where your raw talent will be taken into account and you'll then get a chance to learn everything you need for a PhD. Then you may be able to do a shortened PhD in UK (they usually take master's students and assume they already have the necessary training).

 

Business PhDs are a good option for your interests (judging that from your thesis), but unless you want to go to the really soft fields, you'll still have to take micro theory and econometric theory, which requires advanced pure math training. I don't think you realize that your prior training is in a completely different field from economics, and switching directly to a PhD in another discipline is basically impossible. Even more so from an essentially non-academic discipline. You're right that US b-schools are not that selective, but US MBAs also very rarely get into econ PhD programs. Most people who get into econ PhD programs in the US are pure math + econ majors with economics research experience. I think there's been only 2 or 3 well-known cases of MBAs going on to PhDs in econ without other credentials in the entire United States, and those are from decades ago.

 

I don't know much about Indian business education either. Could you perhaps briefly list what econ, math and stat/metrics courses you took over the course of your studies?

 

Management degrees are management degrees everywhere. I'm guessing 1/4 will be quant/analytics courses but everything else is basically things like leadership, strategy and business accounting. It's only in economics where foreign programs tend to be a lot more technical than US programs, basically because US undergrad programs are directed at future MBAs/JDs/MPPs.

Edited February 27, 2015 by chateauheart

[YaSvoboden]

So a business phd will likely be easier for you to get into, and they also tend to place better into academia. The important question is whether your research interests align there. Your thesis sounds like marketing. We have a business phd forum on this site that would be worth visiting if that sounds interesting.

 

Also, I don't know much about European business phds. They may not be better at these things, but the US ones are.

[BengaliKitty]

Thanks everyone for your inputs. I really didn't expect so many people to take out the time to help me. Thanks so much for that. I have the following strengths in my profile. Any suggestions how I can use them to strengthen my application?

 

1. Having studied electronics and telecommunication for 4 years at undergrad level, I have quite solid math and stat background. I don't think the math part should be difficult.

2. I have some research experience at undergrad level (in electronics, of course) involving sensor networks. One of my 4 co-authored papers is in IEEEXplore (meaning it's relatively significant!:))

3. My interest in Econometrics has actually grown over the last 1-1.5 years over the course of my work, which has involved a lot of quantitative modeling (mainly around time series).

 

Pls help.

[ThunderHorse]

Hi BengaliKitty

 

 

I'm from India. I am an engineer from a non IIT top 10 school, and also have a master's in economics, with the goal of pursuing a business PhD.

 

 

Here's what I think about your situation:

 

 

- AdComs in Business PhD programs definitely know about IIMABC MBAs, since these grads have excelled in and have a track record in business academia (all disciplines)

- I understand that getting into IIMA and getting a good GPA at top Indian universities is REALLY hard - one feels like it is an achievement of a lifetime. But keep in mind that it feels like that big an achievement just because it is very competitive (especially for engineers), and please also consider the possibility of the process being noisy. A 99.9 percentile on the CAT does not translate into a similar percentile on the GMAT (I have seen a lot of anecdotal evidence). I do agree on the GRE/GMAT being a necessary evil, though. I graduated with a 7ish/10 from my school, and the mean GPA in my batch was 6/10. However, don't expect international universities to look favorably upon those kind of numbers (I was told by a lowly ranked university that anything below 3.7/4 was a deal breaker for them). There is some information asymmetry, but there is not much we can do about it. Some people with great GPAs from so called mediocre universities get admits to good programs. So, for your own good, I think you need to stop thinking that just because you went to an IIT/IIM, you are entitled to something (it just results in misery - lots of it).

- I know that IIMC offers rigorous economics coursework as electives (this is probably not the case with most US MBAs, except maybe Booth, which has a reputation for being rigorous. I've heard that Booth MBA students can take PhD level classes, and that their advanced MBA level courses are quite rigorous). I'm not so sure about the other IIMs. So if you've taken some intermediate/advanced micro/macro/econometrics at IIMA, it would be a plus.

- The Micro/Econometrics sequence you have to take in Econ/Business PhDs requires abstract math knowledge, whereas our engineering curriculum is more focused on applied math.

 

You might want to add the Barcelona Graduate School of Economics to your list. They offer 1 year Master programs in both Finance and Economics, and I know graduates from there who have placed into top Economics and Finance PhD programs, both in Europe and the USA.

 

 

If you're interested in a Finance PhD, you might want to consider joining the Center for Analytical Finance at the Indian School of Business, or joining as an RA to an ISB professor in your area of interest. They love IIT/IIM graduates (to the point of ignoring arguably better qualified non IIM grads) Their track record of PhD placements is impeccable.

 

Here is their track record :

Researcher's Training | CAF | Indian School of Business (ISB)

 

 

I see a few bengali names in there, so I suspect you might find some Presidency, ISI or Jadavpur grads among these.

[chateauheart]

1. Having studied electronics and telecommunication for 4 years at undergrad level, I have quite solid math and stat background. I don't think the math part should be difficult. .

 

When you get into a PhD in economics, you'll realize the coursework doesn't have a math "part", it consists solely of advanced math, followed by the application of those mathematical tools. Again, you need to get a master's in economics first, to obtain the required signaling and prerequisite math training.

[fakeo]

You have to understand European PhD's generally have little coursework (and no core sequence), because they assume (require) that you took a research masters before. You didn't, so I don't see you getting admitted into a respectable PhD program. That being said, if your math background really is strong-ish, and you have some micro/macro/metrics on your transcript, then you probably have a shot at a research masters program. In many schools this is a 1-year commitment and it's not so hard to transfer afterwards to the PhD program provided that you're good.

 

It's also important to note that if you get into a research masters, you have to do very well. And this will require doing decently in MWG-level micro and stuff like that. You can't just slide through an econ masters on your metrics knowledge.

[BengaliKitty]

When you get into a PhD in economics, you'll realize the coursework doesn't have a math "part", it consists solely of advanced math, followed by the application of those mathematical tools. Again, you need to get a master's in economics first, to obtain the required signaling and prerequisite math training.

 

I agree with your point on the signalling of the masters in Eco. But I really hope you don't believe that an engg. undergrad program is less math-intensive than an Eco undergrad program. Anywhere in the world.

In case this is news - Engineering forms a part of STEM. Eco forms a part of Social Sciences. Probably that says something? Also, Engineering and other STEM grads routinely do masters and PhD's in Eco. No one ever heard of the reverse happening (BA in Eco doing a PhD in computer science). Probably that says something too?

[BengaliKitty]

Thank you so much for your very insightful answer, ThunderHorse.

Yeah I know. It's unfortunate that outside India you don't earn the premium that your IIT/IIM degree carries (esp. IIM, IIT being a better-known brand name worldwide). And you get penalize for lower GPA's. My GPA is 2.99/4 in IIMA, where I was exactly a median student. All my Eco course grades are also exactly median of the batch grades.

So far as PhD vs M.Res is concerned - well I'm considering an M.Res. too. At any rate, my aim is to finish M.Res + PhD in 5 years max, which I figure isn't impossible in Europe (might be so in the US). However if I do invest time in an M.Res, I wouldn't want to then do an average PhD. In that case I would want to target the LSEs and Oxfords and Cambridges of the world for my PhD. (As you rightly pointed out in the link you shared - my friend and senior from IIMA, Subhendu Bhowal, did just that after his RA-ship in ISB. As you've seen, Subhendu is now in the MIT, doing his Fin PhD. I'm constantly in touch with him too. :) But again, for him, going to the US was not a constraint. I'd prefer not to go to the US, so for me, I figure, LSE, Oxford and Cambridge are the upper bound. Pls correct me if I'm wrong.)

 

With that background, do you have any suggestion on what are the M. Res. programs I should target for getting a PhD entry into the above top-rated programs? Given my unfortunate GPAs, any suggestions on what should be my strategy to gain entry into these M. Res. programs?

Particularly, do you have any suggestions on how I can leverage the following strengths in my (M.Res.) application?

 

1. Having studied electronics and telecommunication for 4 years at undergrad level, I have quite solid math and stat background. I don't think the math part should be difficult. (Got A/A+ in all math and stat related courses in undergrad. This can be demonstrated through transcripts. However, the course names on the transcripts would be Electronics related. E.g. "Signal theory and Noise" is purely a stat course on time-series. "Control theory" is a course on state variables and state equations. Can this be demonstrated in my application? I mean you understand how frustrating it is if Eco adcoms start asking if I learnt enough statistics in my Engg. undergrad compared to a BA in Economics. :D But as you very rightly said - no point complaining. So I was wondering if you could give any suggestions.)

2. I have very good research experience at undergrad level compared to most Indian undergrads.I have co-authored 4 papers (on optimization of sensor networks), under the guidance of one of my undergrad profs, one of which is in IEEEXplore

3. My interest in Econometrics has actually grown over the last 1-1.5 years over the course of my job as a financial risk consultant, which has involved a lot of quantitative modeling (mainly around time series, such as VAR, VECM, cointegration and stuff like that.) Now that, added to my MBA, makes my profile a better fit for a Fin PhD. But my interest really lies in Eco and not in Finance and markets. I figured if I'm taking the hit of such big sunk opportunity costs anyway (changing from a well-paying corporate job in big 4 to academia), then I shouldn't again "force" myself into a subject area which I don't really enjoy.

 

Any thoughts?

Thanks a lot again.

 

P.S.: Just for your better understanding let me put it this way. If I could turn back the clock I wouldn't have done an MBA at all. I'd have gone to the US for an MS+PhD after my Electronics undergrad. Because over time I've realized my true aptitude and fitment lies in research and academia. I went to IIMA out of... well, peer pressure, you can say.

Edited March 1, 2015 by BengaliKitty

[ThunderHorse]

I agree with your point on the signalling of the masters in Eco. But I really hope you don't believe that an engg. undergrad program is less math-intensive than an Eco undergrad program. Anywhere in the world.

In case this is news - Engineering forms a part of STEM. Eco forms a part of Social Sciences. Probably that says something? Also, Engineering and other STEM grads routinely do masters and PhD's in Eco. No one ever heard of the reverse happening (BA in Eco doing a PhD in computer science). Probably that says something too?

Since I have studied both Economics and Engineering, I have perspective on what either side thinks of the other. Engineers & Science types think that Social Sciences are 'soft', which is incorrect, especially in today's age where Economics is almost indistinguishable from Mathematics work (I won't get into whether or not that is a good thing. Let's just say that I'm in the Deirdre McCloskey camp. For more on that - http://www.deirdremccloskey.com/docs/jsm.pdf ). Also, just FYI, Herbert Simon, the founder of AI (among many other things), had a PhD in Political Science. He was also active complexity theory and other highly technical areas. I know of Computer Science researchers collaborating with Accounting researchers too.

 

I think Econ undergrad programs in Europe might be close to Engineering undergrad programs in terms of mathematical rigor. You should also be aware that in the US, Econ UGs who want to pursue PhDs take advanced math and PhD level Econ coursework. So your assertion that econ undergrad programs are less math intensive than engineering undergrad programs might not be entirely true. Ofcourse, in India, your plan vanilla BA Economics Honours programs are not very mathematically rigorous, so it is inappropriate to use that as a benchmark.

[BengaliKitty]

You have to understand European PhD's generally have little coursework (and no core sequence), because they assume (require) that you took a research masters before. You didn't, so I don't see you getting admitted into a respectable PhD program. That being said, if your math background really is strong-ish, and you have some micro/macro/metrics on your transcript, then you probably have a shot at a research masters program. In many schools this is a 1-year commitment and it's not so hard to transfer afterwards to the PhD program provided that you're good.

 

It's also important to note that if you get into a research masters, you have to do very well. And this will require doing decently in MWG-level micro and stuff like that. You can't just slide through an econ masters on your metrics knowledge.

 

Thank you for your suggestions Fakeo.

I do have macro and micro on my transcripts. No metrics but I've taken these 3 courses (6 ECTS each) in Bocconi which were focused solely on Econometric and financial modeling. Can I leverage the experience in my application somehow (by providing official course outlines etc.)?

 

1. Advanced derivatives - 27/30

2. Asset management - 27/30

3. Fixed Income (Advanced methods) - This one's unfortunate, 18/30

 

Also I have a few other general queries which are included in my answer to ThunderHorse. Would be great if you could also offer your perspectives on those. Thanks again.

[BengaliKitty]

Since I have studied both Economics and Engineering, I have perspective on what either side thinks of the other. Engineers & Science types think that Social Sciences are 'soft', which is incorrect, especially in today's age where Economics is almost indistinguishable from Mathematics work (I won't get into whether or not that is a good thing. Let's just say that I'm in the Deirdre McCloskey camp. For more on that - http://www.deirdremccloskey.com/docs/jsm.pdf ). Also, just FYI, Herbert Simon, the founder of AI (among many other things), had a PhD in Political Science. He was also active complexity theory and other highly technical areas. I know of Computer Science researchers collaborating with Accounting researchers too.

 

I think Econ undergrad programs in Europe might be close to Engineering undergrad programs in terms of mathematical rigor. You should also be aware that in the US, Econ UGs who want to pursue PhDs take advanced math and PhD level Econ coursework. So your assertion that econ undergrad programs are less math intensive than engineering undergrad programs might not be entirely true. Ofcourse, in India, your plan vanilla BA Economics Honours programs are not very mathematically rigorous, so it is inappropriate to use that as a benchmark.

 

You're right. And even they get credit as "having Eco background" when it comes to admission to M.Res/PhD programs in US/UK :( (Indians aren't that active in continental European academia, for obvious linguistic reasons. I'm open to it as I've already done my M.Sc. in Bocconi and found it a very enjoyable experience learning the new language and culture... But I digress. :) )

[ThunderHorse]

I would say that amongst Indian graduates, IIT or IIM earns a huge premium over similar ranked institutions (say, XLRI or BITS, both are arguably better than a few IIMs and IITs, respectively). It is true that IIT is better known than IIM overall, but if you're in Business academia, then IIM is well known. In Economics, ISI and DSE are well represented, and perhaps will get you further than IIM.

 

 

As posters above have commented, the traditional US PhD looks different in Europe - the coursework phase is called a Research Master (MPhil or MRes), which usually lasts 1 to 2 years, after which you jump into the disseration phase, the 3 year PhD. So, I would rule out getting admitted straight away into a PhD.

 

 

Research is tricky business - don't put deadlines like 5 years max for MRes and PhD (refer to the point i made in my previous post about inflicting misery upon yourself). SOmetimes students take 6 years to finish their PhDs.

 

 

Also, quite a few european universities expect you to move into their own PhD programs after MRes. I know for sure that Tilburg actively discourages its Research Master students from attending other universities for PhD studies. In their contract, they say that if you choose to attend another university for PhD, you have to return whatever scholarship you have received over the 1 or 2 years of the Research Master. I have limited knowledge of other european programs, but one school I know of which sends students to top places is Barcelona Graduate School of Economics. Its REPEC rank is 13 globally. I am not sure what rankings PhD students use to make decisions. Also, while LSE, Cambridge and Oxford are popular universities, I suspect UCL is better than all 3 at economics research. So all that glitters might not be gold.

 

 

This probably means that UCL, BGSE could be great places to get research oriented master's. However, I heard recently that BGSE takes only 2 students into their MRes program, and these usually are the top two from their own Master's programs in Economics/Finance. I don't know if you'll have to repeat the coursework if you choose to attend another more prestigious university for your PhD.

 

 

My comments on your strengths:

1) I think Eco adcoms know about and like Engineering undergrads (I don't know how they will perceive Jadavpur, though). I think most people are discounting you here because you have an MBA, which is traditionally thought of as a professional lightweight degree abroad. I think IIMs are much more rigorous, though. Whether this is recognized by the adcom or not is what we could call 'luck'. :P

2) Research experience at undergrad level could be leveraged into portraying yourself as a potential researcher who wants to pursue an academic career. You have to come across as wanting to pursue an academic career (even if your intentions are not that).

3) I doubt if your Big 4 experience will hold any weight in Econ or Finance academia. Sorry to burst your bubble and dent your hopes, but most econometrics academics would take a dim view of industry, unless you did high frequency time series work at places like Renaissance Technologies, Two Sigma, or DE Shaw (not the kind of work they do in their India office).

 

 

You could say that I'm just like you (cultures at top engineering colleges are similar), except that I realized during my undergrad that I did not want to get an MBA (or study further at ANY 'good' Indian university) for multiple reasons. I had seen the massive grade deflation at my college and realized that an MBA at top B Schools would entail more of that. Also, I don't think I'm very smart in the 'Indian' sense (had enough of the draconian entrance exam crap), so even if I got into IIM ABC or XLRI by some miracle, the chances of placing in the top 20% of my batch were minimal, which would screw up my profile even further. While I did enjoy Economics & Finance, I was skeptical about studying HR, OB, Marketing, etc. Add to that the mindless cut-throat competition for anything worthwhile in India (jobs, schools, grades). Also, the corporate culture in India is pathetic (I worked for a bit at a bulge bracket investment bank, I hated it), so, really, there was no point in getting an MBA to do similar work at even 4X the pay post MBA. And even if one's goal is solely to increase their salaries, I'm not sure if an MBA is worth it these days. I know of several friends from undergrad who did KPO/Analytics type work in McKinsey/MuSigma and are now moving into strategy consulting roles at Accenture/McKinsey, without MBAs. Or getting 20+lpa jobs in the analytics industry, without MBA, with just 3 years of work experience.

 

 

Going to IIMA out of peer pressure... I'm sure if you said that in public, you'd be lynched for 'wasting a seat'. haha. First world problems, as they say...

 

 

Good luck.

[Where To Go]

My GPA is 2.99/4 in IIMA, where I was exactly a median student. All my Eco course grades are also exactly median of the batch grades.

Reading this, I was wondering: Why are median grades supposed to show that you are particularly good? I understand that you have a further disadvantage by the grades looking even lower than median grades in the U.S. But if you are aiming relatively high (PhD at top places in Europe), I fear they might be interested in the better half / quarter of the students. After all, one would expect that it gets more and not less competitive at the PhD level, right? And then they might not want to take a median student (expecting him to be below average at the PhD level). Or should they have reason to believe that a median student from your institution would be above average in an econonomics PhD?

[chateauheart]

That's just a really poor attitude.

[ThunderHorse]

Or should they have reason to believe that a median student from your institution would be above average in an econonomics PhD?

This doesn't fit into context, but here's some anecdotal evidence.

 

A student with a 4/4 GPA at Queen's University Canada in Econ & Math came to my institute (which is in a league similar to OP's institute) on exchange. Guess his score? 4.7/10. The passing grade was 4.5/10. He said to me, "How on earth do you manage to survive years of this kind of impossible academic rigour?"

 

I'm not saying a difficult system is better - I loathe the system, infact, as it tends to create 'studybots'.

 

Select 300 students from 200,000 from all over a country. Let's assume OP ranked 150th. He's still better than somebody who ranked 1 at a university which gets students ranked 1000 and beyond (which could easily be said of top Economics schools in India. Arguably, the brightest choose OP's MBAs school over a Master's in Quant Econ at Indian Statistical Institute, which is India's top place to do Economics). Disputes regarding the effectiveness of the admission system aside, it is almost unfathomable to a westerner as to how difficult it to get admitted to these schools, leave alone be a median student there.

[Where To Go]

That's just a really poor attitude.

Sorry if I came across the wrong way. My intention was to ask the last question in my previous post and give explanation as to why I asked it. After writing, the order / impontance seems reversed, I agree. ThunderHorse gave the clarification I was hoping for.

it is almost unfathomable to a westerner as to how difficult it to get admitted to these schools, leave alone be a median student there.

Thank you for this. :)

[BengaliKitty]

Thanks again for the really informative replies.

 

You have to come across as wanting to pursue an academic career (even if your intentions are not that).

 

I really, genuinely want exactly that. After two years of (suboptimal) b-school and 3.5 years of corporate work I have no energy to pursue financially determined career goals anymore. :dejected: Which brings me to another question:

 

I have quite "stellar" academics (at least by western standards) before b-school. 92% in 12th, rank 4/50,000 + in state joint entrance (WBJEE), 9+/10 GPA in department in undergrad, top 3 in department in undergrad. Now as I told you, my MBA was a "mistake". I did it because that's what the "best" were supposed to do (utterly stupid I know). This factor drove me to a sort of aimlessness once I was in IIMA. I knew exactly what I wanted in 11-12th (good WBJEE rank; didn't take IITJEE because didn't want to be away from home so early in my life). I knew exactly what I wanted when I was in college (IIMABC). I knew nothing about what I wanted once I was in IIMA. Just to give you a perspective - I didn't know what Goldman Sachs or McKinsey was till the summer internship interview season approached in IIMA 1st year (yeah, that kind of aimless. :D)

This led to poor grades and eventually average (non-day zero) jobs.

Now my question to you is - should I show my hand in my M.Res./PhD SOP? Genuinely, my grades in IIMA aren't a true reflection of my academic capabilities. I have my pre-IIMA academic history to support that claim. Should I mention the real reason (aimlessness, sub-optimal (read "wrong) career decision etc.) in my explanation of poor grades in my SOP? Or "not well thought out career decisions" can do more damage?