TestMagic

OneMoreEcon · 09-16-2006, 08:51 AM

Not surprisingly, I agree with asquare again.

Also, John (if this is really you... I'm hesistant to believe you'd spend time here, still), nothing that's been said should come as a surprise to you.

Finally, I don't think UC has been dominating the Nobel the way it used to; however, there are some interesting articles online explaining potential reasons why UC may have been awarded so many prizes for a period of time.

By the way, I'm looking forward to one of the articles in the newest issue of Econometrica. Can you guess which?

Finally, is it just me, or does it seem like the majority of UC grads either end up (i) at UC or (ii) not taking academic placements. seems a bit odd to me, especially in comparison to a school like MIT.

emjl342 · 09-16-2006, 03:04 PM

OneMoreEcon: I just want to quickly assure you that it is actually John List, the U of C professor who writes under the name jlist. I'm a grad student at Chicago and was talking to him yesterday about this thread.

Ethan

PCG · 09-17-2006, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emjl342

OneMoreEcon: I just want to quickly assure you that it is actually John List, the U of C professor who writes under the name jlist. I'm a grad student at Chicago and was talking to him yesterday about this thread.

Ethan

Oh...OK. That totally reassures us.

economicus · 09-17-2006, 09:24 PM

I heard that the simple fact that one need financial aid jeopardizes her/his chances of being accepted. And the last year application make this quite clear. So, I would say that for international students the main concern is financial aid.

lyos · 09-18-2006, 12:04 AM

I'm not familiar with UC's econ dept but I can give the impressions that my advisor's gave me. Being in a policy program I'm more interested in applied micro. My advisors told me to give a shot at Harvard and MIT but not UC mentioning its lack of faculty memebers in applied econ. Also, another mentioned that UC seemed somewhat to the "right".

crslr · 09-18-2006, 07:53 AM

Hi John,

most of what's been said is understandably about the immediate applicant concerns. But I think from the department's point of view, there are also problems with the admit-double-what-you-can-supervise approach. Sifting people out on the basis of comps and qualifiers has a legitimate role in ensuring that PhDs have the basic technical foundation. But beyond a threshold, we all know that better mathematician ~= better economist. Other factors determine job market and career success, and they're not examinable.

Maybe it's a myth, but the wisdom among grad students seems to be that, above a certain "teched-up" cut-off, more math prowess correlates inversely with quality as a researcher. If you commit to kicking half the class out after two years, ranking them by a mostly irrelevant or adverse criterion, you're left with a weird sample. Not your best, but many "safe" people with a history of excelling at problem-solving and limited imagination for problem-posing. I wouldn't be surprised if such people tended to go to industry after graduating, or ended up as econ-weary mathematical / financial economists.

Of course you get some brilliant Chicago grads, and the professors are highly interesting economists, being in fact selected for research stardom. The program also fills a niche, extremely well. But I suspect it aspires to do more than that - and then it just doesn't make sense to filter your incoming group in this way. Btw, I've a lot of respect for your inviting all the criticism here. Hopefully you can cure us of some biases. Best,

Christian (econphd.net)

jahizbarlas · 10-06-2006, 12:53 AM

Professor List,

As an applicant this yr, I have been talking to professor so I think I can answer your question.

Most of the other people have talked about the cut-throat competition, the high drop-out rate at the end of first yr, and the 'no-aid' factor in previous posts. These are all things I have heard from my professors who are well connected at Chicago Economics.

I talked to Fernando Alvarez last yr, and he was very nice and after talking to him, I did feel like some things are blown out of proportion when it comes to perceptions about Chicago economics.

One thing that I have heard not mentioned in the other posts is that Chicago gives all the attention to its top candidates, and the lower candidates arent given attention from the department. Would you like to maybe discuss that on this forum?

Either way, as one of my professors told me, 'Its Chicago! How can you not apply there?', I can tell you that I look forward to applying there.

Thank you for your attention in helping us apply.

Cassin · 10-07-2006, 04:09 PM

Chicago was my 'dream school' for years (I want to do theory). I love professors, I love their research. I don't put much weight on prelims - I'll certainly pass them. On the other hand, "Superstar" factor in faculty advice where top 1/3 of students gets 90% of attention is a mixed-blessing as it can equally help or hurt me. Instead, my concerns are more pragmatic: uncertain job-market placement and uncertain financial aid.

I looked at over 200 CVs at top 10 departments and it seems Chicago is under-represented, compared to MIT/Yale/Princeton/Harvard. My advisor said that every year, top students from Chicago get the best jobs but others - not so much. I am not a fan of Harvard but it seems even their weaker students get something (I am not *that* risk-averse, though

. I cannot know how favourably I will compare to a diverse international pool of students at UC.

Since I have to support my wife who is also considering graduate studies, financial aid is a necessary condition for me. A likely scenario is me getting into Yale, which nearly guarantees aid, and Chicago which could give me nothing. In this case, I could end up in New Haven. On the other hand, I'd pick Chicago with aid over anything else

subject to current information set.

I could see UC's jungle, survival of the fittest, in the first year to be advantagenous for students who are confident in their own ability (me). Even then, it only seems to benefit students who don't get into other top5 departments with a smaller applicant pool. I can see students thinking, "Why should I roll the dice and stress needlessly in a large semi-screened applicant pool at UC if I could go to the 'second round' right away at a rigorously-screened smaller pool of admits?"

chauchau · 10-07-2006, 07:56 PM

In my case, i once took a prof who graduated from U Chicago, and although his math skills were probably excellent, his english was terrible, and although he had published work on health economics, his knowledge about real world health issues seemed minimal. His class consisted of rote-memorizing how to solve problems and proofs and then regurgitating them on exams. I assumed that must have been how he was "trained" at Chicago.

Even so, If Chicago was the only top 20 school I had a shot at, I'd seriously consider it b/c of the faculty and reputation.

TheBoss001 · 10-24-2006, 08:13 PM

Just discovered this forum, I'm Finnish.

The Chicago system, giving all attention and funding to the "top" students is stupid in my opinion, since starving and handicapping the less favored will effectively ruin their careers!. And students seem to have just one year to impress the faculty!. It's all self-fulfilling!

For this system to work, we'd have to assume faculty evaluations are omniscient and perfect. It sounds arrogant and pretentious to me. We have a different culture here in Finland and I think I will not fit in.

Are all american Econ PhD programs like this?

I thought students were evaluated by the quality of their thesis...NOT! Helping some students more than others will bias the "thesis quality" measure.

They are famous and I am impressed by their reputation, and Nobel Prizes, but I'd like to make my own mind if they are as good as everybody says.

But for that, I would have to get a PhD first... It's a huge gamble. I think I'd better stay with what I know well.

10-06-2006, 12:53 AM	#17 (permalink)
jahizbarlas Within my grasp! Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 371	This might help... Professor List, As an applicant this yr, I have been talking to professor so I think I can answer your question. Most of the other people have talked about the cut-throat competition, the high drop-out rate at the end of first yr, and the 'no-aid' factor in previous posts. These are all things I have heard from my professors who are well connected at Chicago Economics. I talked to Fernando Alvarez last yr, and he was very nice and after talking to him, I did feel like some things are blown out of proportion when it comes to perceptions about Chicago economics. One thing that I have heard not mentioned in the other posts is that Chicago gives all the attention to its top candidates, and the lower candidates arent given attention from the department. Would you like to maybe discuss that on this forum? Either way, as one of my professors told me, 'Its Chicago! How can you not apply there?', I can tell you that I look forward to applying there. Thank you for your attention in helping us apply.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

09-16-2006, 08:51 AM	#11 (permalink)
OneMoreEcon TestMagic Guru-in-Training Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 538	Not surprisingly, I agree with asquare again. Also, John (if this is really you... I'm hesistant to believe you'd spend time here, still), nothing that's been said should come as a surprise to you. Finally, I don't think UC has been dominating the Nobel the way it used to; however, there are some interesting articles online explaining potential reasons why UC may have been awarded so many prizes for a period of time. By the way, I'm looking forward to one of the articles in the newest issue of Econometrica. Can you guess which? Finally, is it just me, or does it seem like the majority of UC grads either end up (i) at UC or (ii) not taking academic placements. seems a bit odd to me, especially in comparison to a school like MIT.

09-16-2006, 03:04 PM	#12 (permalink)
emjl342 Trying to make mom and pop proud Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 6	OneMoreEcon: I just want to quickly assure you that it is actually John List, the U of C professor who writes under the name jlist. I'm a grad student at Chicago and was talking to him yesterday about this thread. Ethan

09-17-2006, 09:24 PM	#14 (permalink)
economicus TestMagic Guru-in-Training Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 664	I heard that the simple fact that one need financial aid jeopardizes her/his chances of being accepted. And the last year application make this quite clear. So, I would say that for international students the main concern is financial aid.

09-18-2006, 12:04 AM	#15 (permalink)
lyos Eager! Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 48	I'm not familiar with UC's econ dept but I can give the impressions that my advisor's gave me. Being in a policy program I'm more interested in applied micro. My advisors told me to give a shot at Harvard and MIT but not UC mentioning its lack of faculty memebers in applied econ. Also, another mentioned that UC seemed somewhat to the "right".

09-18-2006, 07:53 AM	#16 (permalink)
crslr Within my grasp! Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 165	Hi John, most of what's been said is understandably about the immediate applicant concerns. But I think from the department's point of view, there are also problems with the admit-double-what-you-can-supervise approach. Sifting people out on the basis of comps and qualifiers has a legitimate role in ensuring that PhDs have the basic technical foundation. But beyond a threshold, we all know that better mathematician ~= better economist. Other factors determine job market and career success, and they're not examinable. Maybe it's a myth, but the wisdom among grad students seems to be that, above a certain "teched-up" cut-off, more math prowess correlates inversely with quality as a researcher. If you commit to kicking half the class out after two years, ranking them by a mostly irrelevant or adverse criterion, you're left with a weird sample. Not your best, but many "safe" people with a history of excelling at problem-solving and limited imagination for problem-posing. I wouldn't be surprised if such people tended to go to industry after graduating, or ended up as econ-weary mathematical / financial economists. Of course you get some brilliant Chicago grads, and the professors are highly interesting economists, being in fact selected for research stardom. The program also fills a niche, extremely well. But I suspect it aspires to do more than that - and then it just doesn't make sense to filter your incoming group in this way. Btw, I've a lot of respect for your inviting all the criticism here. Hopefully you can cure us of some biases. Best, Christian (econphd.net)

10-07-2006, 04:09 PM	#18 (permalink)
Cassin TestMagic Guru-in-Training Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 540	Chicago was my 'dream school' for years (I want to do theory). I love professors, I love their research. I don't put much weight on prelims - I'll certainly pass them. On the other hand, "Superstar" factor in faculty advice where top 1/3 of students gets 90% of attention is a mixed-blessing as it can equally help or hurt me. Instead, my concerns are more pragmatic: uncertain job-market placement and uncertain financial aid. I looked at over 200 CVs at top 10 departments and it seems Chicago is under-represented, compared to MIT/Yale/Princeton/Harvard. My advisor said that every year, top students from Chicago get the best jobs but others - not so much. I am not a fan of Harvard but it seems even their weaker students get something (I am not that risk-averse, though . I cannot know how favourably I will compare to a diverse international pool of students at UC. Since I have to support my wife who is also considering graduate studies, financial aid is a necessary condition for me. A likely scenario is me getting into Yale, which nearly guarantees aid, and Chicago which could give me nothing. In this case, I could end up in New Haven. On the other hand, I'd pick Chicago with aid over anything else subject to current information set. I could see UC's jungle, survival of the fittest, in the first year to be advantagenous for students who are confident in their own ability (me). Even then, it only seems to benefit students who don't get into other top5 departments with a smaller applicant pool. I can see students thinking, "Why should I roll the dice and stress needlessly in a large semi-screened applicant pool at UC if I could go to the 'second round' right away at a rigorously-screened smaller pool of admits?"

10-07-2006, 07:56 PM	#19 (permalink)
chauchau Within my grasp! Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 128	In my case, i once took a prof who graduated from U Chicago, and although his math skills were probably excellent, his english was terrible, and although he had published work on health economics, his knowledge about real world health issues seemed minimal. His class consisted of rote-memorizing how to solve problems and proofs and then regurgitating them on exams. I assumed that must have been how he was "trained" at Chicago. Even so, If Chicago was the only top 20 school I had a shot at, I'd seriously consider it b/c of the faculty and reputation.

10-24-2006, 08:13 PM	#20 (permalink)
TheBoss001 Trying to make mom and pop proud Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 5	Just discovered this forum, I'm Finnish. The Chicago system, giving all attention and funding to the "top" students is stupid in my opinion, since starving and handicapping the less favored will effectively ruin their careers!. And students seem to have just one year to impress the faculty!. It's all self-fulfilling! For this system to work, we'd have to assume faculty evaluations are omniscient and perfect. It sounds arrogant and pretentious to me. We have a different culture here in Finland and I think I will not fit in. Are all american Econ PhD programs like this? I thought students were evaluated by the quality of their thesis...NOT! Helping some students more than others will bias the "thesis quality" measure. They are famous and I am impressed by their reputation, and Nobel Prizes, but I'd like to make my own mind if they are as good as everybody says. But for that, I would have to get a PhD first... It's a huge gamble. I think I'd better stay with what I know well.

TestMagic

Free GMAT, GRE, SAT Test, TOEFL practice tests