Jump to content
Urch Forums

Only got a B in Grad Micro Theory 1


Jayd

Recommended Posts

I'm applying to 2017 Fall Phd right now, but I am worried about my average grade in Grad Micro Theory.

 

Reasons why I only got a B: Didn't work hard enough, Challenging materials, Phd students work so hard compare to undergrads(For prelim and financial reason)

 

What should I do now? This B mocks at me every time I am sending my transcript to top econ programs. :(

 

Also I am thinking should I take Grad Micro Theory 2 next semester? I'm really worried that I might get a B again. If that's the case, then I am so out of luck.

 

Any suggestions on the severity of this B and Micro Theory 2?

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My main concern would not be about where you end up but if you can actually handle the material.

 

I was always a little bit curious about this notion, although I have no idea what the answer may be. Why does getting a B in Grad Micro necessarily raise red flags about whether one could handle the material? In many schools (including mine), the average grade in Grad Micro is a B. So if an undergrad was able to pull off an average grade among PhD students with limited resources, couldn't this potentially signal that with sufficient resources the same student would get some grade higher than the average B, if he/she were to attend a program of a similar tier?

 

i.e. if you got an average grade (B) in Grad Micro in a top 20 school as an undergrad with a disadvantage, wouldn't this possibly show that you can get a grade above average in a similar top 20 school as a PhD student with all resources available (such as study groups)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was always a little bit curious about this notion, although I have no idea what the answer may be. Why does getting a B in Grad Micro necessarily raise red flags about whether one could handle the material? In many schools (including mine), the average grade in Grad Micro is a B. So if an undergrad was able to pull off an average grade among PhD students with limited resources, couldn't this potentially signal that with sufficient resources the same student would get some grade higher than the average B, if he/she were to attend a program of a similar tier?

 

i.e. if you got an average grade (B) in Grad Micro in a top 20 school as an undergrad with a disadvantage, wouldn't this possibly show that you can get a grade above average in a similar top 20 school as a PhD student with all resources available (such as study groups)?

 

They know some students they admit will turn out to be average but they don't want to admit a student they expect to be average. The average student, even at a top 20 program, doesn't get a good academic job and likely will never publish in decent journals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They know some students they admit will turn out to be average but they don't want to admit a student they expect to be average. The average student, even at a top 20 program, doesn't get a good academic job and likely will never publish in decent journals.

 

Ah, I see. So would I be right in thinking that the concern isn’t necessarily about whether one could “handle” the material, but rather it being a signal about whether he/she has good research ability beyond just “handling” the material?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my professors recommend to get at least a A- n Micro Theory 1. Phd students indeed work harder for the class because they need high gpa and financial aid. Also they only have 3 classes per semester(Micro, Macro, Stat), where as I got 5 classes this semester, 3 of them are math.

I was always a little bit curious about this notion, although I have no idea what the answer may be. Why does getting a B in Grad Micro necessarily raise red flags about whether one could handle the material? In many schools (including mine), the average grade in Grad Micro is a B. So if an undergrad was able to pull off an average grade among PhD students with limited resources, couldn't this potentially signal that with sufficient resources the same student would get some grade higher than the average B, if he/she were to attend a program of a similar tier?

 

i.e. if you got an average grade (B) in Grad Micro in a top 20 school as an undergrad with a disadvantage, wouldn't this possibly show that you can get a grade above average in a similar top 20 school as a PhD student with all resources available (such as study groups)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my school B is an average grade(I asked the professor and my classmates), which I assume some people get better grades(B+,A-, A) and some people get lower grades( B-,C+). I think at least half of the class got B in the class.
In most schools a B is the minimum passing grade in a PhD course. It signals passing, but it also signals a not-good performance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I can definitely handle the materials if I have enough time and resources. There is no question about that. The main concerns would be resources(like a Phd study group) and time difference(I have 5 classes, 3 of them are math. And at the same time working on the undergrad honor thesis.) The main reason I got lower grade is the time spent on materials. I know people who got A read books, lecture notes, and pdfs multiple times. What's more, in order to do well in Micro, I will have to read some papers in Micro. This is what my other classmates did. They actually studied 10+ micro papers. In the test we got questions from the papers which I only skimmed through.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my school B is an average grade(I asked the professor and my classmates), which I assume some people get better grades(B+,A-, A) and some people get lower grades( B-,C+). I think at least half of the class got B in the class.
That may be, but as you've said one of your professors recommended getting at least an A-. If your applications are already in, there isn't any point in fretting about this. If they are not, you may want one of your letter writers to state that a B is an average grade. You should probably not take another grad micro course until you are in a position to excel at it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the suggestion. I will not take Micro 2 next semester.
That may be, but as you've said one of your professors recommended getting at least an A-. If your applications are already in, there isn't any point in fretting about this. If they are not, you may want one of your letter writers to state that a B is an average grade. You should probably not take another grad micro course until you are in a position to excel at it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So will this B be slightly/strongly negative or neutral to my admission?
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it'll discount heavily if you're applying to schools of similar or higher tier. Schools at a lower tier would still consider you as a serious candidate, depending on how well you've done in other parts of your application. Or at least, this appears to be the opinion of professors I've talked to at my institution, and some anecdotal evidence from our school seems to support this notion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, I see. So would I be right in thinking that the concern isn’t necessarily about whether one could “handle” the material, but rather it being a signal about whether he/she has good research ability beyond just “handling” the material?

 

Pretty much. Being towards the bottom end of any PhD cohort, regardless of the school's rank, does not bode well for a research career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say I will take Grad Micro 2. What if I will get an A in Grad Micro 2. Will this help me in the future application?
I think it'll discount heavily if you're applying to schools of similar or higher tier. Schools at a lower tier would still consider you as a serious candidate, depending on how well you've done in other parts of your application. Or at least, this appears to be the opinion of professors I've talked to at my institution, and some anecdotal evidence from our school seems to support this notion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, getting an A in Grad Micro 2 will help you. (Getting another B will obviously hurt you.) Getting a high enough A that you can ask the instructor for a letter of recommendation will help even more.

 

There is also another side to this. If you take Grad Micro 2 and only do so-so, then (depending on what you think your grad school interests might be) you might rethink whether you want to go on to the econ PhD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply. I will think about Grad Micro 2 serious and try my best!

Yes, getting an A in Grad Micro 2 will help you. (Getting another B will obviously hurt you.) Getting a high enough A that you can ask the instructor for a letter of recommendation will help even more.

 

There is also another side to this. If you take Grad Micro 2 and only do so-so, then (depending on what you think your grad school interests might be) you might rethink whether you want to go on to the econ PhD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

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.

 

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...