Sponsored Ad:
See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: Only got a B in Grad Micro Theory 1

  1. #21
    Eager!
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    65
    Rep Power
    1


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Only got a B in Grad Micro Theory 1

    Sponsored Ad:
    Thank you for for response. Based on what I know, the first case is probably true in my program. I understand that Mirco II will be hard, but in order to compensate my grade in Micro I, I have to get a better grade in Micro II to show that B certainly doesn't demonstrate my ability. I will work harder, just as hard as other first-year grads. Hopefully I will get good results.
    Quote Originally Posted by chateauheart View Post
    Getting a B at some programs is less concerning than others. I've encountered a program that conditioned financial aid on first-year grades (like OP mentioned for his), and the 1st year grad students worked 80-100 hours per week on review and problem sets.

    I've also encountered a program where all the 1st year grad students were told not to spend more than 50% of their time on 1st year courses and were doing research with the rest of it.

    At least one of your letter writers from the econ department, assuming they're competent, will mention something to put into context the extent of the difficulty/workload of your grad classes.

    I agree that getting a better grade in Micro II would look better in any case, but this may be hard and not worthwhile.

  2. #22
    Trying to make mom and pop proud
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    22
    Rep Power
    2


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Only got a B in Grad Micro Theory 1

    delete
    Last edited by economie; 01-11-2017 at 11:23 PM. Reason: Please delete,

  3. #23
    Muzzled.
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2
    Rep Power
    0


    4 out of 7 members found this post helpful. Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Only got a B in Grad Micro Theory 1

    Quote Originally Posted by Zubrus View Post
    It certainly discounts your profile, there's no question about that. Undergraduate grades in economics don't signal too much.

    My main concern would not be about where you end up but if you can actually handle the material.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaysa View Post
    Unfortunately there is not much that you can do. Here is the real problem. You never have the time or resources that you need in graduate school, so your grade probably reflects your classroom ability. The good news is that you survived. A lot of people can't even say that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaysa View Post
    It is going to hurt you. You barely survived one graduate course. What is going to happen when you face 4 of them? It is an unfair assessment but that is life.
    Please, Jayd, whoever you are, don't ever listen to the bolded. We hear this much, much too often and this myth has to be put to rest. Some people seemingly like to think that they are part of a small select group of exceptional people and that when people face issues, they simply "aren't smart enough to handle it" (read "not as smart as them"), while reality is much more nuanced. Believe it or not guys, mathematics, graduate economics, etc... can be learned, by a lot more people than we may think. But it requires experience, time, and an important background. Mathematic ideas (and the same can be said for economics) are mostly simple, yet they are far from common experience and are the result of centuries of worldwide work (=> you need to learn about what have been done before handling modern math. Even if you're smart. The greatest genius of all time wouldn't understand anything about it without the necessary prerequisite.). People who aren't familiar with the underlying ideas needed to understand the whole thing refer to this as "complicated". Believe me when I say that something that looks impossible to you today can become trivial after some time, when you understand some new underlying things about it. Most of the time, when some people can not handle academic material, it's because there's a prerequisite that has not been learned correctly, and they didn't take the time to actually learn/fix it. But it can be done. You don't have to be a genius to get through grad econ classes. It's easy when you have the background for it.

    If you want my advise, try to understand genuinely why it didn't work. Find what was lacking. Fix it. And then you'll be fine. Believe me, it works. Don't listen to stubborn people who will simply tell you crap like "you're not good enough for it". It's too simple to be out of reach for most people. Experience and time matters. Some people will fail because they have skipped steps and did not learn what was needed. Some people will fail because they don't have the time for various reasons (health, addictions, family problems, financial problems, doing something else than going to school at the same time, etc etc), some people will fail because of pressure (and yes, in most case, dealing with pressure can be improved), and many other reasons. The most important thing is to identify the problem, and take the necessary actions to fix it. As far as research goes, it is not always true that people with the highest grades in theoretical classes will have the best ideas and will write the better papers. While there is a correlation, it's not that significant.

    Sadly, you might not get another chance to prove yourself after being rejected to grad school. It you have the chance to take Micro II to redeem yourself, jump on it, unless you really think you won't have the time to do it. Later it might be too late.

  4. #24
    Eager!
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    65
    Rep Power
    1


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Only got a B in Grad Micro Theory 1

    Thanks for the response! I appreciate it. I will take Micro II to compensate the B i got in Micro I and redeem myself in Micro II. I wouldn't question about my mental ability and smartness neither. And you are true in that people with the best ideas/papers not necessarily have the best grades. The sad part is that this B will definitely hurts my application process. I have talked about it to one of my recommenders. Also I have talked to Micro II professor. He recommends to think about this seriously because I need to get a SUPERIOR grade in Micro II. Otherwise even a A- or a B+ will hurt my application for top 20. My last semester of college will be a little bit harder, but I will take the challenge.
    Quote Originally Posted by Anonacc View Post
    Please, Jayd, whoever you are, don't ever listen to the bolded. We hear this much, much too often and this myth has to be put to rest. Some people seemingly like to think that they are part of a small select group of exceptional people and that when people face issues, they simply "aren't smart enough to handle it" (read "not as smart as them"), while reality is much more nuanced. Believe it or not guys, mathematics, graduate economics, etc... can be learned, by a lot more people than we may think. But it requires experience, time, and an important background. Mathematic ideas (and the same can be said for economics) are mostly simple, yet they are far from common experience and are the result of centuries of worldwide work (=> you need to learn about what have been done before handling modern math. Even if you're smart. The greatest genius of all time wouldn't understand anything about it without the necessary prerequisite.). People who aren't familiar with the underlying ideas needed to understand the whole thing refer to this as "complicated". Believe me when I say that something that looks impossible to you today can become trivial after some time, when you understand some new underlying things about it. Most of the time, when some people can not handle academic material, it's because there's a prerequisite that has not been learned correctly, and they didn't take the time to actually learn/fix it. But it can be done. You don't have to be a genius to get through grad econ classes. It's easy when you have the background for it.

    If you want my advise, try to understand genuinely why it didn't work. Find what was lacking. Fix it. And then you'll be fine. Believe me, it works. Don't listen to stubborn people who will simply tell you crap like "you're not good enough for it". It's too simple to be out of reach for most people. Experience and time matters. Some people will fail because they have skipped steps and did not learn what was needed. Some people will fail because they don't have the time for various reasons (health, addictions, family problems, financial problems, doing something else than going to school at the same time, etc etc), some people will fail because of pressure (and yes, in most case, dealing with pressure can be improved), and many other reasons. The most important thing is to identify the problem, and take the necessary actions to fix it. As far as research goes, it is not always true that people with the highest grades in theoretical classes will have the best ideas and will write the better papers. While there is a correlation, it's not that significant.

    Sadly, you might not get another chance to prove yourself after being rejected to grad school. It you have the chance to take Micro II to redeem yourself, jump on it, unless you really think you won't have the time to do it. Later it might be too late.

  5. #25
    TestMagic Guru Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,647
    Rep Power
    20


    2 out of 3 members found this post helpful. Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Only got a B in Grad Micro Theory 1

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonacc View Post
    Please, Jayd, whoever you are, don't ever listen to the bolded. We hear this much, much too often and this myth has to be put to rest. Some people seemingly like to think that they are part of a small select group of exceptional people and that when people face issues, they simply "aren't smart enough to handle it" (read "not as smart as them"), while reality is much more nuanced. Believe it or not guys, mathematics, graduate economics, etc... can be learned, by a lot more people than we may think. But it requires experience, time, and an important background. Mathematic ideas (and the same can be said for economics) are mostly simple, yet they are far from common experience and are the result of centuries of worldwide work (=> you need to learn about what have been done before handling modern math. Even if you're smart. The greatest genius of all time wouldn't understand anything about it without the necessary prerequisite.). People who aren't familiar with the underlying ideas needed to understand the whole thing refer to this as "complicated". Believe me when I say that something that looks impossible to you today can become trivial after some time, when you understand some new underlying things about it. Most of the time, when some people can not handle academic material, it's because there's a prerequisite that has not been learned correctly, and they didn't take the time to actually learn/fix it. But it can be done. You don't have to be a genius to get through grad econ classes. It's easy when you have the background for it.

    If you want my advise, try to understand genuinely why it didn't work. Find what was lacking. Fix it. And then you'll be fine. Believe me, it works. Don't listen to stubborn people who will simply tell you crap like "you're not good enough for it". It's too simple to be out of reach for most people. Experience and time matters. Some people will fail because they have skipped steps and did not learn what was needed. Some people will fail because they don't have the time for various reasons (health, addictions, family problems, financial problems, doing something else than going to school at the same time, etc etc), some people will fail because of pressure (and yes, in most case, dealing with pressure can be improved), and many other reasons. The most important thing is to identify the problem, and take the necessary actions to fix it. As far as research goes, it is not always true that people with the highest grades in theoretical classes will have the best ideas and will write the better papers. While there is a correlation, it's not that significant.

    Sadly, you might not get another chance to prove yourself after being rejected to grad school. It you have the chance to take Micro II to redeem yourself, jump on it, unless you really think you won't have the time to do it. Later it might be too late.
    In many ways, you are not wrong, but you're straw-manning the point made by the posters you quote. Of course many issues are fixable with the right prep, practice, and appropriate remediation. However, that doesn't mean the student won't struggle when they face multiple graduate classes. That is, there is some X, where X is the number of issues the student needs to resolve in order to succeed in graduate school, where it is simply not going to be possible to do well, regardless of aptitude or ability.

    Each of the statements made by the posters you quoted is compatible with the underlying reason for the comment being A) "you're not smart enough for this" and B) "you're probably super smart but the physical constraints of time are real and relevant".

  6. #26
    An Urch Guru Pundit Swami Sage
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,635
    Rep Power
    12


    2 out of 4 members found this post helpful. Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Only got a B in Grad Micro Theory 1

    As OP very well realizes himself, taking Micro II is equally as likely to harm his future prospects.

    My advice is just risk aversion. [B in Micro I + an otherwise stellar application] is often still good enough to get into top 20, particularly after a year of research experience. I don't see a reason to take on what seems to be a 50-50 gamble in this endeavor - especially when first-year micro theory courses doesn't seem to be his comparative advantage anyway. There are a lot of meaningful things/signaling you can be doing with that time.

    Every grad student is going to take that course again at some point, and there's diminishing marginal returns, purely from a knowledge-building perspective.

    I'll especially note that, as you don't have PhD Macro I / Math Stats, you are in fact at a bigger disadvantage now if you want to take Micro II, compared to your situation in Micro I. A substantial portion of Micro II relies on dynamic programming and some advanced knowledge of statistics/probability, rather than the content of Micro I. If you aren't familiar with setting up Bellman's and the like, you're not going to get a better grade in Micro II.

    The anonymous new account above never mentioned a single aspect of the content of PhD Micro II, so I'm just going to put it out here: the most probable hypothesis about this poster, from my years of seeing similar crap on this forum, is that he's an undergrad with no clue what Micro II contains, nor what the right choice is for OP. Instead, he made that long bitter rant as a channel to vent his own insecurities.

    Kaysa and Zubrus are both experienced members of this forum, and two of the few people who truly understand PhD econ admissions that are still around. They don't need a lecturing from anon acc.
    Last edited by chateauheart; 01-13-2017 at 01:21 AM.

  7. #27
    TestMagic Guru Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,647
    Rep Power
    20


    1 out of 2 members found this post helpful. Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Only got a B in Grad Micro Theory 1

    Quote Originally Posted by chateauheart View Post
    As OP very well realizes himself, taking Micro II is equally as likely to harm his future prospects.

    My advice is just risk aversion. [B in Micro I + an otherwise stellar application] is often still good enough to get into top 20, particularly after a year of research experience. I don't see a reason to take on what seems to be a 50-50 gamble in this endeavor - especially when first-year micro theory courses doesn't seem to be his comparative advantage anyway. There are a lot of meaningful things/signaling you can be doing with that time.

    Every grad student is going to take that course again at some point, and there's diminishing marginal returns, purely from a knowledge-building perspective.

    I'll especially note that, as you don't have PhD Macro I / Math Stats, you are in fact at a bigger disadvantage now if you want to take Micro II, compared to your situation in Micro I. A substantial portion of Micro II relies on dynamic programming and some advanced knowledge of statistics/probability, rather than the content of Micro I. If you aren't familiar with setting up Bellman's and the like, you're not going to get a better grade in Micro II.

    The anonymous new account above never mentioned a single aspect of the content of PhD Micro II, so I'm just going to put it out here: the most probable hypothesis about this poster, from my years of seeing similar crap on this forum, is that he's an undergrad with no clue what Micro II contains, nor what the right choice is for OP. Instead, he made that long bitter rant as a channel to vent his own insecurities.

    Kaysa and Zubrus are both experienced members of this forum, and two of the few people who truly understand PhD econ admissions that are still around. They don't need a lecturing from anon acc.
    Agreed. Also, anonacc, pick one account and delete the rest or all will be closed as per forum rules. See help and forum feedback on how to do this - http://www.urch.com/forums/feedback/...s-account.html.

  8. #28
    Eager!
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    65
    Rep Power
    1


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Only got a B in Grad Micro Theory 1

    Thanks for the insight about Micro II. I will ask former first-year phd students and professor of Micro II about the materials in Micro II. I don't really worry about Math Stat too much because I am also majoring in math. I have taken Probability Theory and Math Stat under math department. The real issue is the Macro I. If Micro II relies heavily on the materials in Macro I, then you are right that Micro II might be too risky.

    I think the problem of getting a good grade is not the content in Phd class. The materials taught in Micro I are not insanely difficult and I don't think it's harder than my advanced math classes, but the grades are graded based on the cohort. I spent about the same time on Micro I just as other undergrad classes I was taking, however I got a B because grades are evaluated based on the overall cohort. I think in order to get a good grade in Micro II, I will have to spent more time compare to other Phd students, assuming we have the same mental ability. The issue here is that there are several Phd students have taken those classes in other programs and then decided to come to our program. I don't feel confident about outscoring those Phd students because I don't think I will spent more time compare to them. To them retaking those Phd classes mean they will get eazy As.
    Quote Originally Posted by chateauheart View Post
    As OP very well realizes himself, taking Micro II is equally as likely to harm his future prospects.

    My advice is just risk aversion. [B in Micro I + an otherwise stellar application] is often still good enough to get into top 20, particularly after a year of research experience. I don't see a reason to take on what seems to be a 50-50 gamble in this endeavor - especially when first-year micro theory courses doesn't seem to be his comparative advantage anyway. There are a lot of meaningful things/signaling you can be doing with that time.

    Every grad student is going to take that course again at some point, and there's diminishing marginal returns, purely from a knowledge-building perspective.

    I'll especially note that, as you don't have PhD Macro I / Math Stats, you are in fact at a bigger disadvantage now if you want to take Micro II, compared to your situation in Micro I. A substantial portion of Micro II relies on dynamic programming and some advanced knowledge of statistics/probability, rather than the content of Micro I. If you aren't familiar with setting up Bellman's and the like, you're not going to get a better grade in Micro II.

    The anonymous new account above never mentioned a single aspect of the content of PhD Micro II, so I'm just going to put it out here: the most probable hypothesis about this poster, from my years of seeing similar crap on this forum, is that he's an undergrad with no clue what Micro II contains, nor what the right choice is for OP. Instead, he made that long bitter rant as a channel to vent his own insecurities.

    Kaysa and Zubrus are both experienced members of this forum, and two of the few people who truly understand PhD econ admissions that are still around. They don't need a lecturing from anon acc.

  9. #29
    An Urch Guru Pundit Swami Sage
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,635
    Rep Power
    12


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Only got a B in Grad Micro Theory 1

    ^This is not a unique issue. Many European students will have encountered more than half of these materials in their master's courses; some European/Asian students will even have seen them in advanced undergrad courses. Every American undergrad is disadvantaged.

    In my alma mater, I'd say about 10 students per year are in the intersection of undergraduates who got an A in the honors real analysis sequence, and students who got an A in the most difficult undergrad micro theory course. About 5 of them try to take grad micro I every year, and afaik, 2 students over a period of five years (/25) got an A, 4 students in total received B or better, and the rest had worse grades or withdrew. Only 1 student continued on to grad micro II.

    Taking grad micro is rarely feasible for American undergrads, unless you're at one of the top UGs where PhD econ programs are known for having a relatively easy first-year curriculum (MIT, Harvard, Chicago, Berkeley). It's also why it's a very strong signal if you do well, and applicants directly graduating from #30-#60 programs almost always need grad econ courses to jump straight to top 10-15 PhD programs. But 99% of students from your starting position didn't have a chance to begin with. This endeavor is as difficult as getting a position at Goldman Sachs while coming from a school they don't recruit at. Getting a B in micro I doesn't hurt you on that front - it's not worse than 99% of your fellow undergrads. Spending too much time on micro II, then getting an average/below-average grade, would probably hurt you. You can try to make your application excel in other aspects with all that time, such as working on a good senior thesis, and getting serious research assistance experience.

  10. #30
    Muzzled.
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2
    Rep Power
    0


    1 out of 2 members found this post helpful. Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Only got a B in Grad Micro Theory 1

    Quote Originally Posted by tm_member View Post
    In many ways, you are not wrong, but you're straw-manning the point made by the posters you quote. Of course many issues are fixable with the right prep, practice, and appropriate remediation. However, that doesn't mean the student won't struggle when they face multiple graduate classes. That is, there is some X, where X is the number of issues the student needs to resolve in order to succeed in graduate school, where it is simply not going to be possible to do well, regardless of aptitude or ability.

    Each of the statements made by the posters you quoted is compatible with the underlying reason for the comment being A) "you're not smart enough for this" and B) "you're probably super smart but the physical constraints of time are real and relevant".
    which is why I said that the student should focus on identifying the problems and fixing them, then retry (if the possibility exists) instead of giving up the goal of doing a Ph.D because one failure "means that you can't handle it", which is BS. I will MP you about the other concern (accounts)

    Quote Originally Posted by chateauheart View Post
    The anonymous new account above never mentioned a single aspect of the content of PhD Micro II, so I'm just going to put it out here: the most probable hypothesis about this poster, from my years of seeing similar crap on this forum, is that he's an undergrad with no clue what Micro II contains, nor what the right choice is for OP. Instead, he made that long bitter rant as a channel to vent his own insecurities.

    Kaysa and Zubrus are both experienced members of this forum, and two of the few people who truly understand PhD econ admissions that are still around. They don't need a lecturing from anon acc.
    Not sure if I should laugh at this or answer. No one really knows what the right choice for OP is, one can only advice given some hypothesis. I made the hypothesis that the student has sufficient math knowledge for Micro II. From my experience, I would say that doing Micro before Macro makes more sense than Macro before Micro, not sure I understand your reasoning. Most macro sections use general equilibrium results (Arrow Debreu, Sequential Markets, Recursive CE, etc) which are taught in micro (however, no one thinks you have to study it as rigorously as in micro to use it for macro. In fact, it is often taught in macro before in micro). Also, the structure often differs from one school to another. Micro, in my opinion, can be done independently from macro, and I do know some people who did micro only before getting into a Ph.D. For Bellman equations, it's simple for someone who has a good math background. As I said, something that can be complicated for one might not be for someone else with a diff background. Usually, if OP was permitted of doing micro, it's because he either did a math camp, or the dept considered he had a sufficient preparation for it. I already told him under what premises I recommend taking micro II : that he/she may not get the opportunity otherwise. I don't know if it's the case.

    I don't doubt that the two posters who said this are experienced in economics. I know some well-reputed profs that think like that, too. It's a pretty common idea in academia. And a lot of academicians have self-esteem issues, and do what they are doing to make up for it. It's actually pretty sad. I'm not saying this is your, or the two posters' cases. But does their experience make them De Facto right? Obviously not. Please accept that there is divergent opinions about virtually everything in academia. That some people other than insecure undergrads have opinions.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-26-2014, 11:21 PM
  2. Micro Theory needed to understand IO theory?
    By trickster in forum PhD in Economics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-08-2014, 06:31 AM
  3. Grad Micro or Grad Macro @Berkeley
    By bledlakechurch in forum PhD in Economics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-10-2013, 02:46 AM
  4. Grad Measure Theory or Grad Optimization?
    By maschke1 in forum PhD in Economics
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 06-12-2012, 04:39 PM
  5. What takes more time--Grad Micro or Grad Macro?
    By Walras in forum PhD in Economics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-11-2011, 03:47 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •