Zebliss Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Fourth year physics undergrad considering going for an econ Phd, and I have a few questions about the relevancy of courses I might take- I've been reading online that real analysis is a course economics programs pay special attention to; if one did well in it(A), is complex analysis of comparable worth? I don't have room for real analysis at this point, and I want to know how much it will hurt me come admissions season. Also, I'm trying to decide between two classes: advanced mathematics for statistics and group theory - If I've already taken a stats class and done well(A+) (engineering stats, so probably not as mathematical as it should be, though), is it beneficial to diversify my mathematics and take group theory? Or would admissions rather see a more solid background in statistics. Thanks in advance for the help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chateauheart Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Complex analysis is an okay signal of mathematical ability but the topic is not relevant to most of economics. Real analysis is much more frequently used in economics, and highly crucial if you're aiming for top 20 econ programs. You should also have enough undergrad economics courses. Group theory is also not useful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebliss Posted August 20, 2015 Author Share Posted August 20, 2015 Thanks for the prompt reply. Just for some clarification, I'd like to ask a few more questions. Real analysis is not an option at this point if I'd like to graduate on time, and I have no intent to pay for another semester of classes. Will top schools really decline me for not having real analysis if I've gotten A's in calc I-IV, ODEs, PDE's, linalg I&II, complex analysis, and scores of physics classes using that math and beyond? Most things I've read suggest that real analysis is used to gauge the mathematical capacity of students, and that any math you need is re-taught in early graduate classes. Have I been reading the wrong sources? And the point about economics courses is well taken. I'm taking the highest level economics course I'm allowed to this coming semester, but I only have room for the one. That's likely to be a rough spot on my application, but c'est la vie. Thanks again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zubrus Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 What chateuheart is saying is correct. However, there are exceptions. I got into multiple top 10/20 schools with ODE as my highest class. However, this is likely due to my research experience along with good grades in advanced graduate classes. Not having many econ courses is probably more than "rough spot". Its going to be a big detriment because adcoms are not going to be convinced that you know what econ is about without taking enough courses. Many people that have physics backgrounds do a master's in econ first. Also, I'm going to assume that your letters are not all coming from reputable economists-- which is going to hurt you more than having not enough econ classes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chateauheart Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 ^Agreed, at this point, the lack of econ courses and LOR writers seems to be the biggest barrier for entry into T30 programs. The math is a significant, not decisive factor. Real analysis is "purer" math than what you've taken or seen, and that pure math is used heavily in both microeconomics and macroeconomics. If you've taken topology then it'd be a different issue, but right now you are lacking in training in pure mathematics that T30 econ PhD programs recommend incoming American undergraduate students to have. Beyond basic mathematical and economics competency, there are three things that PhD programs look for in ascending importance: pure math, grad-level econ courses, and economics research experience. Currently you lack all three of them. Having a physics background really doesn't cover up for much of that; much of your competition will have a stronger quantitative background and a greater exposure to economics research. Re: "re-taught in early graduate classes". Only in math camp usually, and math camp is usually a week or two of quick overview. You'll not have time to learn real analysis in that period. If you do end up in a top program anyway, you'll still have to catch up with real analysis by yourself before school starts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebliss Posted August 21, 2015 Author Share Posted August 21, 2015 Alright. Thanks for the reality check, I suppose. Few more questions then: In physics its often considered a bad sign if you go into a masters program before a Phd; it suggests that you just couldn't get into a Phd, for instance. Is it the same with economics? The way you're all speaking suggests I might be more suited to a masters, and I'd like to be aware of the consequences. Also, you say lacking in training in pure mathematics that T30 econ PhD programs recommend incoming American undergraduate students to have I assume the same would hold true for Canadian undergraduate students? I can't imagine it would be any different, but I'd like to be as informed as possible. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
startz Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 It is true that well prepared American students typically don't do masters, but 1 students who don't have the necessary background do 2 this is one area where Canadians are sometimes different. While many Canadians go right to a phd, getting a masters first is not uncommon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chateauheart Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 In physics its often considered a bad sign if you go into a masters program before a Phd; it suggests that you just couldn't get into a Phd, for instance. Is it the same with economics? The way you're all speaking suggests I might be more suited to a masters, and I'd like to be aware of the consequences. At this point, you really wouldn't have another choice. You're pretty much starting from scratch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zubrus Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 That's untrue about Canadian students. Most do a master's first. OP if you are from Canada, doing a MA in econ first goes 2x for you. Apply to UBC/Toronto/Queens and be their top student. You can place well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
behavingmyself Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Real analysis isn't strictly speaking a requirement for admission (except perhaps at the very top few schools), if that's your question. It's important, though, and you'll have to learn much of the material at some point anyhow. Make sure you've also at least taken econometrics and intermediate courses in micro and macro. Note that coursework in statistics will generally not substitute for econometrics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
behavingmyself Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 A masters will not be taken as a bad signal, especially given your change of field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.