Advice with regard to Masters in Econ

[cosmonaut]

Hello all, hoping that you'll be willing to offer some advice on my current situation. I know the value (or lack thereof) of the masters in econ has been discussed somewhat, but I haven't been able to answer my questions just by browsing the forums, so here I am.

 

I'm interested in heterodox economics, political economy, and research on debt and financial crises, so I'm not a 100% typical economics student. This past application cycle, I applied to top PhD in poli sci programs (from which I was categorically rejected) and masters in econ programs. My undergrad economics advisor was terrible, so I didn't know that a masters in econ is an iffy proposition until I found this forum yesterday.

 

For me, the appeal of the masters would be to: A. shore up my math background (expounded upon below), B. help me decide if a PhD in economics is something I really want to do, and C. help me get better recommendations (I'm a bit worried that my rejections from poli sci programs were because of less-than-stellar recommendations).

 

I'm not particularly interested in going into banking or consulting or whatever; if I don't do a PhD, I'd probably end up working for government/NGO/think tank or just doing something else entirely. Here's my profile from undergrad:

 

 

• Top 15 university
  
• 3.88 GPA, summa cum laude
  
• Latin American Studies & Economics double major (which is why my math is lacking)
  
• A's in all my econ classes. No econometrics :(
  
• B+ in Calc III and a B in Intro to Stats
  
• GRE: verbal 165 (95%), quant 168 (95%), writing 5.0 (93%)
  
• Political economy thesis, knowledge of stats programming, post-grad research experience at healthcare data analytics firm
  

 

Currently, I'm sitting on acceptances to the following MA in econ programs: NYU, BU, UT Austin, New School.

 

I've also been accepted to UChicago's CIR international relations program, which would provide me with the flexibility to take 1 or 2 math/econometrics classes. Waiting to hear back from Cambridge's Advanced Diploma program.

 

So, do you guys think it's worth it for me to attend one of these MA programs? If so, which one would be best? Or, would I be better off taking a couple math classes as a non-degree student or online and then applying to PhD in econ programs next year? If you think that's the better option, which classes should I try to get under my belt?

 

One thing to consider is, since I'm into heterodox stuff, I'd probably be looking at UMass-Amherst and the like, if the math reqs are different there. Maybe even political economy programs. Though of course, if I could get into a Top 10 econ program, I'd have a tough time passing that up.

 

Sorry for the long post. Thanks for your time & thoughts!

[INTJ Economist]

Obviously the New School is the only heterodox program in your list. Did they offer you a tuition waiver of some kind? Last I checked, tuition is quite expensive at the New School and they are stingy on funding for the econ masters program. I see a few 50% tuition waivers posted on gradcafe for the masters program, but nothing beyond that. You have to factor in cost of living also. Have you looked into UMKC? They have a masters program (heterodox). The cost per credit is half that of the New School and the cost of living in Kansas City is significantly cheaper than that of NYC. There's also no admissions deadline for the UMKC masters so you could still apply right now to start in the fall. They may offer you a tuition waiver of some kind but it's by no means guaranteed. As for U-Mass Amherst, according to their website they want you to have taken linear algebra for admission to the PhD program.

[Econhead]

Obviously the New School is the only heterodox program in your list. Did they offer you a tuition waiver of some kind? Last I checked, tuition is quite expensive at the New School and they are stingy on funding for the econ masters program. I see a few 50% tuition waivers posted on gradcafe for the masters program, but nothing beyond that. You have to factor in cost of living also. Have you looked into UMKC? They have a masters program (heterodox). The cost per credit is half that of the New School and the cost of living in Kansas City is significantly cheaper than that of NYC. There's also no admissions deadline for the UMKC masters so you could still apply right now to start in the fall. They may offer you a tuition waiver of some kind but it's by no means guaranteed. As for U-Mass Amherst, according to their website they want you to have taken linear algebra for admission to the PhD program.

 

If you change your mind and want to be a professor, you will want to avoid this post and the heterodox masters. Also, if you're wanting to actually improve your profile and give yourself the opportunity to decide on whether you want a PhD, Boston University is probably the best. They are widely regarded as a PhD prep masters. (I know nothing about NYU masters, but I suspect it is industry directed-someone else can verify.)

 

if you decide that you want to do a phd and be a heterodox, your best bet is to get into the best phd program you can, get tenure, then do it. Or perhaps just get hired by a school that does heterodox-wouldn't necessarily have to wait for tenure.

[cosmonaut]

If you change your mind and want to be a professor, you will want to avoid this post and the heterodox masters. Also, if you're wanting to actually improve your profile and give yourself the opportunity to decide on whether you want a PhD, Boston University is probably the best. They are widely regarded as a PhD prep masters. (I know nothing about NYU masters, but I suspect it is industry directed-someone else can verify.)

 

if you decide that you want to do a phd and be a heterodox, your best bet is to get into the best phd program you can, get tenure, then do it. Or perhaps just get hired by a school that does heterodox-wouldn't necessarily have to wait for tenure.

 

Thanks for the advice. So for application to a PhD program, I'd probably need at least linear algebra & real analysis. Any other classes that you would recommend taking before applying?

 

I am starting to think I might be better off just taking a couple classes as a part-time student, rather than shelling out for a full MA when I don't really need more background in economics, only math.

[sulebrahim]

You went to a top econ school and got good grades so your case is unique, in the sense that you probably don't need a Masters to gain admission, as long as you take linear algebra, probability/stats, (maybe differential equations), and a proof class you instantly become competitive.

 

But if getting decent recommendation writers is a concern that that's where I see a masters (or a research job) coming into play, so if you can find a way to take classes as a nontraditional student and still get great letters, that would be a good option

 

As for heterodox, what are you interests in heterodox? You mention political economy, this is a field where a lot of work in the area is being done in orthodox departments.

[chateauheart]

OP was rejected by poli-sci programs, which is a pretty difficult thing for a student with those grades. It's clear his "political economy" interest doesn't include the type of work that's being done in poli-sci departments anymore, never mind mainstream econ departments.

[yankeefan]

OP was rejected by poli-sci programs, which is a pretty difficult thing for a student with those grades. It's clear his "political economy" interest doesn't include the type of work that's being done in poli-sci departments anymore, never mind mainstream econ departments.

 

Idk chateau, OP got a B+ in Calc III. For Poli Sci admissions that's almost the equivalent of a B+ in Real Analysis: it'd send anybody to the auto-reject pile.

 

Jokes aside I agree with chateau. If you were rejected from Poli Sci programs it means you probably didn't come across as being capable of doing political economy research, likely due to your lack of understanding of what academic research entails: its very different from the Steve Keen or whatever you've read up until now. Unless you have cash to splurge, delay the MA for now and take a math class as a non-degree student. Spend that time getting acquainted with academic research (published in peer-reviewed journals) in political economy, and try not to limit yourself to purely heterodox perspectives. You can try poli sci programs again if you think they match your interests or just apply solely to heterodox departments, which have substantially less stringent math requirements (and less career opportunities!).

[cosmonaut]

You went to a top econ school and got good grades so your case is unique, in the sense that you probably don't need a Masters to gain admission, as long as you take linear algebra, probability/stats, (maybe differential equations), and a proof class you instantly become competitive.

 

But if getting decent recommendation writers is a concern that that's where I see a masters (or a research job) coming into play, so if you can find a way to take classes as a nontraditional student and still get great letters, that would be a good option

 

As for heterodox, what are you interests in heterodox? You mention political economy, this is a field where a lot of work in the area is being done in orthodox departments.

 

Thanks for the helpful response. As an undergraduate, I was more interested in political economy in the traditional sense--how the economy affects politician and voting behavior, and how the economy is affected by political behavior, crime/violence, etc. Lately, I've become more interested in institutional & Marxian economics, though I did not make these inclinations known in my poli sci PhD applications :) I'm not yet 100% committed to these topics--still exploring--but I understand that if I want to pursue them, a place like Amherst is probably best. I also get that I could do political economy as I first defined it at pretty much any department (at least that's what I think).

 

Idk chateau, OP got a B+ in Calc III. For Poli Sci admissions that's almost the equivalent of a B+ in Real Analysis: it'd send anybody to the auto-reject pile.

 

Jokes aside I agree with chateau. If you were rejected from Poli Sci programs it means you probably didn't come across as being capable of doing political economy research, likely due to your lack of understanding of what academic research entails: its very different from the Steve Keen or whatever you've read up until now. Unless you have cash to splurge, delay the MA for now and take a math class as a non-degree student. Spend that time getting acquainted with academic research (published in peer-reviewed journals) in political economy, and try not to limit yourself to purely heterodox perspectives. You can try poli sci programs again if you think they match your interests or just apply solely to heterodox departments, which have substantially less stringent math requirements (and less career opportunities!).

 

I don't know who Steve Keen is, lol. I'm not sure exactly why I got rejected from poli sci programs, as my advisors have expressed surprise as well. Probably because I applied to top ranked depts (Berkeley, Stanford, Columbia, MIT, UChicago), only took one hard poli sci course in undergrad (though my thesis was a quantitative political economy paper), and I may not have had stellar recommendations. I have a lot of exposure to academic research though, so not sure where you got that idea--I guess it's the current perception of anyone interested in heterodox stuff, which doesn't seem to be hot around these parts.

[yankeefan]

I don't know who Steve Keen is, lol. I'm not sure exactly why I got rejected from poli sci programs, as my advisors have expressed surprise as well. Probably because I applied to top ranked depts (Berkeley, Stanford, Columbia, MIT, UChicago), only took one hard poli sci course in undergrad (though my thesis was a quantitative political economy paper), and I may not have had stellar recommendations. I have a lot of exposure to academic research though, so not sure where you got that idea--I guess it's the current perception of anyone interested in heterodox stuff, which doesn't seem to be hot around these parts.

 

I may have jumped the gun a bit. The thing is that you got rejected from Poli Sci programs, and that sends a pretty strong message about your profile, something chateauheart was hinting at. The top Poli Sci programs often view an economics major as the ideal preparation (kinda like how econ departments view a math major as the ideal preparation) for their program, so for you - a summa cum laude economics major from a T15 school - to get rejected means something went really wrong on the SOP/Writing sample or even the LOR. Even if you weren't overt about your heterodox interests your SOP probably didn't demonstrate enough of an understanding of current political economy research, which is why I suggested you read a bit more. Or maybe you do have well defined interests that aren't a match for Poli Sci departments. If that's the case, then you likely won't find a match in an econ dept. Again, reading more and understanding where your interests fit in the grand of scheme of things is important here so you don't end up with another shut out or even worse, accepted and enrolled in a program that is a poor fit for you.

[chateauheart]

Not to mention those GRE scores are stellar across the board, and poli sci programs actually weigh them pretty highly. I hate to say it but either your writing sample and statement came off badly and/or your LOR writers just didn't push you very hard. Chicago/MIT/Berkeley poli-sci should be easier to get into than, say, a typical top #50 econ phd program. You should spend a little effort figuring out what went wrong. I don't think taking math classes online is going to add any value to your applications, so you should probably enroll in one of the master's.

 

There are a lot of people doing institutional work these days, both econ and poli-sci - just not necessarily of the orientation that you're looking at, I think. I don't want to push my ideologies too much here, but as somebody who (along with yankeefan I think) have some heterodox sympathies, I nonetheless highly recommend that you go to a mainstream program in econ or poli-sci and try to put your faith in modern academic work.

[cosmonaut]

Not to mention those GRE scores are stellar across the board, and poli sci programs actually weigh them pretty highly. I hate to say it but either your writing sample and statement came off badly and/or your LOR writers just didn't push you very hard. Chicago/MIT/Berkeley poli-sci should be easier to get into than, say, a typical top #50 econ phd program. You should spend a little effort figuring out what went wrong. I don't think taking math classes online is going to add any value to your applications, so you should probably enroll in one of the master's.

 

There are a lot of people doing institutional work these days, both econ and poli-sci - just not necessarily of the orientation that you're looking at, I think. I don't want to push my ideologies too much here, but as somebody who (along with yankeefan I think) have some heterodox sympathies, I nonetheless highly recommend that you go to a mainstream program in econ or poli-sci and try to put your faith in modern academic work.

 

Thanks for the advice. Is it common to just straight-up call an admissions department? Thinking I might give that a shot tomorrow. Although, I think you guys are somewhat underestimating the difficulty of getting into those top poli sci programs--for example, at Stanford, "admitted students typically have GRE scores of 166+ verbal, 163+ quantitative, and a score of 5.5 in the Analytical section. Admitted students typically have a GPA of at least 3.8 in their previous studies." ...so there's a chance it was just randomness, too.

 

I don't think my views would be too crazy at a poli-sci program. At an econ program, maybe: I'm a skeptic of rational choice theory, I don't like the IMF, and I do like Piketty (in spirit, at least; I'm aware of some of the shortcomings). I also like markets, though, and I'm open to intellectual growth. I think scanning this board has shown me that I could do well in a mainstream econ department with a few Keynesians that I could work with, even if it just means hiding my more radical tendencies until I have a job :)