Boston College or Rice University?

[asdfg]

Got offer from these two and having trouble deciding. I am sure that my interest is not theory. I want to deal with applied micro or macro but I cannot decide which one. Being in Boston may have some positive externalities such as attending seminars at Harvard, MIT, and BU. Rice is also increasing due to its outstanding new faculty member. Also, Boston gives $20,800 and Rice gives $25,000. Please give me feedback

[Linz]

Did you look at the placement yet? Rice is rising but personally I would go to a place that is stable and has got a solid reputation. 25k would go a long way in Texas compared to 21k in Boston. I'm under the impression that the applied micro group at BC is strong? There is also a difference in rankings according to USNews, so I would go with the higher ranked.

Catrina is at Rice, maybe you can ask her.

[Catrina]

Hi asdfg,

 

Firstly, if you have any specific questions about Rice that you want to ask me, either by PM or on the thread, I will be happy to answer them.

 

As I have said here in the past, the main thing that matters in terms of placement records is those of the faculty you would be potentially interested in working with, which for the new faculty is considerably better than Rice's past placement, which occurred before the changes took place, and for several of the new faculty members, is better than the placement record of BC. Basically, if a faculty member had the ability to place students well at his or her previous institution, there is no reason why he or she cannot do so elsewhere, provided that the student has the requisite ability and puts in the effort, which is presumably will be the case for those students admitted to other strong programs.

 

Another thing that I will say about Rice is that they really support their graduate students. There are summer (paid) RA and TA opportunities available to even first and second year students, which is very unusual. The faculty are approachable and are willing to meet with students to discuss research, and there are regular happy hours and coffee hours where faculty and students can socialize.

 

Also, Linz is right that $25,000 goes a long way in Houston. Housing is quite cheap here. I'm currently renting a decent studio, with a swimming pool right outside my front door, for $650 per month. My cohort gets considerably less than the amount that you would be getting--they raised the stipends starting with this year's first year cohort--and we are all managing just fine with what we have.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Catrina

[samtheham]

I've said this elsewhere on this board, but I'd always be careful with the "rising department" trope. These things take time, and the changes might not fully materialize before you go on the job market. Building a quality PhD program is a lot more than just hiring good people, it's got a lot to do with immeasurable things like advising culture -- which doesn't change overnight. Although the above post seems to indicate that Rice is willing to do what's necessary to improve their PhD program.

 

At this point in time, BC dominates Rice in terms of placement. A decent rule of thumb when comparing departments is to see if one places at the other, since people tend to largely place downward in rank. And in 2016, BC placed someone at Rice. This might change in the future, but you'd be taking a gamble on that.

 

As always, talk to your advisors/letter writers and see what they think. Weigh their advice like 95%, and ours like 5%. Good luck.

[Zubrus]

Take Boston College.

[hkke]

I've said this elsewhere on this board, but I'd always be careful with the "rising department" trope. These things take time, and the changes might not fully materialize before you go on the job market. Building a quality PhD program is a lot more than just hiring good people, it's got a lot to do with immeasurable things like advising culture -- which doesn't change overnight. Although the above post seems to indicate that Rice is willing to do what's necessary to improve their PhD program.

 

Let me chime in as the DGS at Rice Economics. Indeed hiring is not enough and immeasurable things are hugely important. To give examples of things we changed in the last two years:

 

1) Aggressive and targeted recruiting (our applications went up by more than 60%).

2) New and rigorous curriculum.

3) Introduced third year paper requirement, presentation requirements, etc.

4) 25% more funding per year + one additional year of guaranteed funding (5 years instead of 4) which can and will make an enormous difference in the quality of the job market packages in and of itself by giving students extra time.

5) Workshops by myself and Ken Wolpin (entirely voluntary on our part and held Saturdays at 9am!) to help third year students to towards writing their third year papers even though neither of us are not their advisors.

6) Other reading groups/workshops (e.g. one by Jeremy Fox and Xun Tang this year on estimation of matching games). With 4 more hirings this year (bringing the total of hirings in the last 2 years to 10), there will be many more reading groups/workshops starting next year.

7) Founding and funding a Graduate Economic Association to increase informal interactions between the faculty and students (and among the students) through happy hours, coffee hours, Trivia nights, etc.

8) A major concentration in Finance which will allow our students to obtain a PhD in Economics with a concentration in Finance.

 

 

At this point in time, BC dominates Rice in terms of placement. A decent rule of thumb when comparing departments is to see if one places at the other, since people tend to largely place downward in rank. And in 2016, BC placed someone at Rice. This might change in the future, but you'd be taking a gamble on that.

 

Keep in mind that rankings are noisy and tend to be backward looking. For example, the US News & World Report rankings are done every 3 years by sending surveys to department chairs, and 10 other randomly chosen department chairs' assessment determines the ranking of a given school. This is why rankings hardly move and some schools are perceived to be ranked much higher than their US News & World Report ranking (e.g. Penn State). To have a better indication of where our rankings are, it is more helpful to know what fully offers were turned down by students who accepted our fully funded offers in the past two years: UT Austin, Boston University, Penn State, Rochester, WUSTL, Ohio State, Vanderbilt, etc.

 

Let me also mention that as the placement director, I started getting calls from the recruiting chairs of top schools (e.g. University of Chicago, UPenn) as soon as I arrived at Rice inquiring whether there were any students they should look at. And of course, once we have students we can confidently recommend to those schools, we will be proactive ourselves and not wait for others to call us. Our own placement records indicate that they will take us seriously when we do that.

 

 

As always, talk to your advisors/letter writers and see what they think. Weigh their advice like 95%, and ours like 5%. Good luck.

 

I remember seeing an urch post about a month ago quoting a distinguished Wisconsin Madison professor (whose name was not given) about what's happening at Rice. I wish I could find it now. One should also pay attention to knowledgable and independent third parties.

 

Anyhow, good luck in your decision asdfg. The fact that we admitted you means that we would love to see you in our program. Nonetheless, we want our students to be happy with their choices and I hope you make the best decision for yourself. Since you have interests in applied micro, let me end by recommending the following piece:

 

Who Needs Harvard? - The Atlantic

 

and the article it is talking about:

 

Estimating the Payoff to Attending a More Selective College: An Application of Selection on Observables and Unobservables

 

Best,

HE

Edited April 14, 2016 by hkke
clarification

[samtheham]

Haha seems like I've been put in my place.

 

But to be fair, my last point about how to weigh advice was based on the assumption that only relatively uninformed undergrads and grad students post here.

[hkke]

Haha seems like I've been put in my place.

 

But to be fair, my last point about how to weigh advice was based on the assumption that only relatively uninformed undergrads and grad students post here.

 

No no, that wasn't my intention samtheham. You raised valid concerns, and I wanted to make sure they are addressed. I realize it takes time to get the information out, and also not everyone in this forum yet know what "selection bias" or "Lucas critique" mean leave alone think through their implications for the important decision asdfg is making.

 

Best,

HE

[Penarol]

Haha seems like I've been put in my place.

 

But to be fair, my last point about how to weigh advice was based on the assumption that only relatively uninformed undergrads and grad students post here.

 

Hey, I agree with you, and even though the DGS does make good points and clarifies many things (thanks Rice DGS, we need more posts like this!), the truth is that at this very point in time, BC dominates Rice.

It may be than in 5 years Rice is doing better than BC, but that's not assured, and it's not an easy thing to do also. So, choosing Rice over BC now is a bet, there's no other way to look at it, IMHO.

Still both programs are great, and provided you put in the effort, you'll do well in the job market regardless which one you choose.

[hkke]

You are welcome Penarol, I am glad it was a helpful post.

 

It is a classic risk-return trade-off. Twice in my educational life I took calculated risks (I am among the second cohort graduating from my undergraduate institution, and I am the first student of one of main advisors -- the one who is primarily responsible for my placement), and in both cases it paid off well. In this case, I am confident that the risks are far lower than it seems to PhD applicants who do not fully understand how placement works, but it is a personal choice in the end.

 

Best,

HE

[Penarol]

I am confident that the risks are far lower than it seems to PhD applicants who do not fully understand how placement works, but it is a personal choice in the end.

 

 

Yes, I totally agree, we don't know how placements work, so that's why I find your previous post valuable, and why I think this forum needs more posts like that. In here we have a situation of "the blind leading the blind" sometimes, especially when giving advice on things that take place after the application process.

[hkke]

Yes, I totally agree, we don't know how placements work, so that's why I find your previous post valuable, and why I think this forum needs more posts like that. In here we have a situation of "the blind leading the blind" sometimes, especially when giving advice on things that take place after the application process.

 

I and our department chair held a web conference back in December and announced it here at urch. We tried to answer as many questions as we can before the application process. We will hold one again at the beginning of next admission season and I would be happy to emphasize that the students are not restricted to ask questions about Rice economics PhD program alone, but are welcome to ask general questions about PhD in economics in general.

 

Best,

HE

[Econ2011]

I think it is very encouraging that hkke decided to join urch forum to help students make better decisions and to provide more information on where Rice is heading. However, I am surprised that hkke considers this to be a "classic risk-return trade off." In this instance, there is an alternative that is likely not inferior even with all the upside potential to Rice.

 

One thing I will say though is that classmates will have a substantial influence in the learning experience. I am going to defer to hkke and others here to make a judgment as to which program attracts a better pool of candidates.

[hkke]

I think it is very encouraging that hkke decided to join urch forum to help students make better decisions and to provide more information on where Rice is heading. However, I am surprised that hkke considers this to be a "classic risk-return trade off." In this instance, there is an alternative that is likely not inferior even with all the upside potential to Rice.

 

One thing I will say though is that classmates will have a substantial influence in the learning experience. I am going to defer to hkke and others here to make a judgment as to which program attracts a better pool of candidates.

 

Hi Econ2011,

 

If you look at the placement record of the faculty at Rice, you will see the list consistently includes places like Yale, Minnesota, NYU, Stanford, Caltech, Carnegie Mellon etc. (Unfortunately some of my colleagues are too modest to put those in their c.v.'s but I am working on creating a web page with that information, with the names of the students.)

 

And so conditional on my information set, I would say the chances are very high that we will have a better placement record than BC in 4-5 years. But to someone who does not know what we are doing at Rice and how placement works, it is a risky bet. This is what I meant by a classic risk-return trade-off. Hope it makes sense.

 

Best,

HE

Edited April 14, 2016 by hkke
Fixed grammar

[yar1608]

Hi , I am joining Rice this fall. I am currently doing my master's in economics at UW Madison. My research interests are applied micro in general , labor to be a bit specific. I was advised by all my Professors at UW to choose Rice. ( My other admits were Vanderbilt , Georgetown, UC Irvine. I was waitlisted at BC, but i withdrew my name). As Prof.Eraslan said , the current rankings are outdated and do not capture this big change at Rice University. The same goes with the placements. The current job market students weren't advised by the faculty we would be working with. My professors told me that PhD placements mainly depend on your advisor and their recommendation. Currently at Rice you have a chance to be advised by some great economists.

 

From my experience on the visit day , Rice University wants to really grow and become one of the top places especially for applied micro. They are really looking to invest heavily in their students and aim for top academic placements and we as students have an opportunity to be part of this change.

 

Let me know if you have any specific questions , I would be happy to answer.

[anothereconguy]

FWIW, even as someone who is not joining Rice (I will be joining Michigan), I would highly recommend Rice esp if you are interested in applied micro or IO. I agree with other people on here that Rice is a slightly risky program, but as Prof. Eraslan pointed out, the risk is not as great as it seems. It is also a very positive signal to have someone (actually multiple people if you count Catrina) on Urch trying to answer queries and doubts that prospective students might have. The recent faculty members who have joined really are quite awesome (personally I am in awe of FC's and KW's work), and I know that the current faculty have spent time emailing and talking to prospective students. Again, this is a major signal of commitment to the program, since of course these are extremely busy people.

If I had a competing offer in the 20-30 range (as it turns out I got luckier than that - but say I had competing offers from Michigan State, BC, UT Austin, etc.), I think the case for Rice is very very strong, and I would have chosen Rice without a doubt. It would be ideal if your interests happen to coincide with any one of the recent faculty hires. I can say from personal experience that the faculty at Madison (where I am) were very positive about the program at Rice, so I suppose that is also a signal that the word is getting out about Rice's program. If you are >50% sure about applied micro, there wouldn't be any doubt in my mind as to the choice I would suggest to you.

HOWEVER, it also depends on how sure you are about Macro - if indeed that is what you need to do, perhaps BC might be a slightly better option, just because the focus at Rice does not seem to be macro (an outsider's POV). I have no clue either way about applied macro, to be completely honest.

I agree with others on here that the US News rankings are a little useless as far as Rice is concerned. If people are turning down UT Austin for the department, then as student quality goes up (faculty quality has obviously gone up), you would expect the "real" ranking to rise rapidly.

Keep in mind also that Rice University in general has a lot of money, so you will probably be able to indulge yourself a bit every now and then, esp. if RA opportunities open up :)

[marketmo11]

Full disclosure: I am waitlisted at Boston College, so I would obviously not advice you to take their offer, just for my own selfish reasons. So definitely don't put much weight on what I am saying now.

 

But my point is that I would really take the difference in funding between BC and Rice into account, which seems very high, especially if adjusted for the cost of living. You will have a much more comfortable life with 25k in Houston than you could have with 21k in Boston, and I do think that this can also influence your performance and eventual outcome to some extent. Others may correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that assistantship funding is still subject to taxes, so that you would end up with a few thousand less in both places in net terms.

 

The consensus view here is that funding differences should matter very little, if at all, simply because they are so small compared to your lifetime income. However, especially if you were an international student like me, I think insufficient funding can be a great cause of concern, because it seems quite difficult for a foreign student to get loans in the US and borrow against your future income. And 21k pre taxes in Boston is, in my view, very close to being insufficient.

 

Once again, don't take this as serious advice, as I am waitlisted at BC and obviously biased! There are many pros about BC and perhaps also cons about Rice which others mentioned here. But even I would struggle to decide between BC (if admitted) and another offer which is much lower ranked than Rice, simply because of those financial considerations. If you are international and/or somewhat financially constrained, you may want to take them into account.

[chateauheart]

I agree that the difference in stipend is non-trivial. OP seems to have considered this factor, but there have been other posters who seem to advocate ignoring an up to 50% difference in the stipend amount. I think this is incorrect advice.

 

I'll also add that (as someone from the area), unless your interests are very heavily represented by the other Boston area econ departments as well, you shouldn't weigh "positive network externalities from Boston" as a significant factor.

[darkhorse03]

I agree that the difference in stipend is non-trivial. OP seems to have considered this factor, but there have been other posters who seem to advocate ignoring an up to 50% difference in the stipend amount. I think this is incorrect advice.

 

I'll also add that (as someone from the area), unless your interests are very heavily represented by the other Boston area econ departments as well, you shouldn't weigh "positive network externalities from Boston" as a significant factor.

 

chateuheart, do you agree that the adviser matters more for placements than the institution? When an adviser moves, does he/she maintain the potential to successfully place students?

[superduper]

Last night I wrote a lengthy post answering a lot of question people raised, only to have my browser crash and lose everything I meant to post. By now it seems that a lot of the other posters already said what I was going to say, but I still have some things I want to point out.

 

From visiting Rice and speaking with professors, it was very clear to me that their commitment to making the program great is real. The department head, who was recently appointed Dean of social sciences, was given carte blanche (and virtually a blank check) to make things happen at Rice, and that's what he's doing.

 

With regards to the "rising department trope", I really don't think you can get Kenneth Wolpin and all of the other great economists that recently joined the department to move from their top tenured jobs just by saying that you want to move up the US News ranks. There must be significant structural changes and a deep commitment from the school to really make those professors drop everything (step out of the HRM bubble, if I may), and move to a new department. And just as they are all convinced that the changes at Rice are real and will result in great outcomes soon, so am I (and everyone who visited last week).

 

With regards to the stipend, I can say that after living for two years in a very expensive area (DC/Baltimore) with a very low graduate stipend, every dollar makes a difference. Also, it's not just about having a better lifestyle, eating out, etc, but mainly having the peace of mind and knowing that the money you get will be enough. This allows you to focus solely on your studies and do well. This is particularly true in the first two years.

 

Finally, since each incoming class is small compared to other departments, the level of attention students get from professors is really high. This can make a huge difference during the dissertation phase and in preparing a great job market paper.

 

Hope this helps!