Late to the party

[zhangvict]

How do I look, for the incoming cycle 2016?

 

Type of Undergrad: BS Mathematics, top US research school.

Undergrad GPA: ~3.9

GRE: N/A, will take this summer

Math Courses: Calculus w/ proofs I-III, Real Analysis I-III, Abstract Algebra I-II, Mathematical Logic I-II, Point Set Topology, Probability Theory, Mathematical Statistics. (B- in calc I, A- in algebra II and probability, everything else A's).

Econ Courses: Intermediate Mirco I-II (A's), Intermediate Macro I-II (A-'s)

Planning to take: Complex analysis, Abstract Algebra III, Econometrics, Grad micro (probably), and some more math, possibly grad classes.

Other Courses: some physics, a bunch of philosophy.

Letters of Recommendation: No Idea yet, but see below

Research Experience: Will be a RA for a couple of theorists this summer, may get a letters from them. Some data entry work during the school year, a bunch math intensive summer experiences, more math this summer too.

Teaching Experience: TA for freshman math (Calc I-III etc), other random math stuff.

Research Interests: Theory; I don't know.

 

 

Concerns: As you see, I am a little late to the party and most of my application will be crafted during the coming 5 months or so. Chances and advice?

[arrm]

You're in a good place, but it all depends on your letters. If you have great letters I think you'd get a couple top-10 admits. Mediocre or average letters would probably put you somewhere in the top 20-30. The fact that you don't already have a good idea of where any of your letters are coming from is a concern. That's probably what you want to focus on, either by working hard as an RA and/or excelling in classes and building relationships with professors.

 

If you don't end up getting good enough letters to get into top-10 schools, I also think that taking a couple years to work as an RA would almost certainly push you into that tier. I think you would get into a solid program with "just okay" letters though, so whether waiting is worth it or not is up to you.

[thagzone]

You're in a good place, but it all depends on your letters. If you have great letters I think you'd get a couple top-10 admits. Mediocre or average letters would probably put you somewhere in the top 20-30. The fact that you don't already have a good idea of where any of your letters are coming from is a concern. That's probably what you want to focus on, either by working hard as an RA and/or excelling in classes and building relationships with professors.

 

If you don't end up getting good enough letters to get into top-10 schools, I also think that taking a couple years to work as an RA would almost certainly push you into that tier. I think you would get into a solid program with "just okay" letters though, so whether waiting is worth it or not is up to you.

 

I think this is pretty spot on. You've got the math, enough economics courses, and I'm guessing the GRE won't be a problem for you. It's all about the letters now. A strong technical writing sample would be the cherry on top if you get the letters locked up.

[Where To Go]

A strong technical writing sample would be the cherry on top if you get the letters locked up.

I don't think this will help that much. If I remember correctly, of the better / top universities only Chicago and Wisconsin actually ask for one. Chicago

I think it's fairly unlikely that applicants have some writing sample that is "impressive;" any work that is interesting should be mentioned in the statement of purpose, and the option to also read about that work in detail might not add much from the admissions committee's perspective.

[zhangvict]

What do "great letters" look like? Should they be from Econ professors rather than math? And I'm guessing top 5 is a crap-shoot regardless?

[arrm]

What do "great letters" look like? Should they be from Econ professors rather than math? And I'm guessing top 5 is a crap-shoot regardless?

 

Yea, getting into one of the very top schools is very difficult, and there's no reason to count on it when applying to more schools is relatively cheap. If you're the type of person who is definitely going to get multiple top-5 offers, you probably know it.

 

Great letters are letters from reputable, known researchers (i.e. actively publishing in good econ journals) who can speak credibly and in specific detail about your research potential in economics. Bonus points if your recommender has connections in top departments, is a well-known and highly respected economist, or regularly writes recommendations for students who go on to top departments and can favorably compare you to them.

 

I don't think one letter from a mathematician is a bad thing, mathematical skill and rigor is an important part of a lot of economics research, but two is a bit borderline and three would definitely be detrimental.

Edited March 30, 2015 by arrm

[Econhead]

Yea, getting into one of the very top schools is very difficult, and there's no reason to count on it when applying to more schools is relatively cheap. If you're the type of person who is definitely going to get multiple top-5 offers, you probably know it.

 

Great letters are letters from reputable, known researchers (i.e. actively publishing in good econ journals) who can speak credibly and in specific detail about your research potential in economics. Bonus points if your recommender has connections in top department, is a well-known and highly respected economist, or regularly writes recommendations for students who go on to top departments and can favorably compare you to them.

 

I don't think one letter from a mathematician is a bad thing, mathematical skill and rigor is an important part of a lot of economics research, but two is a bit borderline and three would definitely be detrimental.

 

To add to this...

 

Users often asks what makes a good letter/letter writer. Think about this from a game theory perspective, and consider what it means for an action to be considered a credible threat. That's the a me logic here. A credible letter is one that indicates you will succeed-based on your coursework, your intuition, drive, and research capabilities. What makes it credible? The professors reputation-both with regard to whom they have written letters for before (and how you compare to them), and their publication quality/quantity. A factor of this is how well your letter writer knows the people on the committee, or how well they respect your letter writers research. (These are usually the same thing-you only know that they respect your research because they tell you, which at some point started a relationship.)

 

A letter from a math phd is only credible if they read it. Beyond that, it is more difficult to characterize. But, generally speaking, you wouldn't want more than 1, and in fact you might be better off with them being a 4th.