UC Economics

[jlist]

Hi Group: This time I write for advice. I am the Co-Chair of our admissions and aid committee this year and I am wondering about the factors that make people nervous about attending UC for graduate training.

Thus, have at it please; if you want to send me private messages with your thoughts that is fine too. Everything can stay private if you would like.

Thanks for your advice.

Best,
John

[OneMoreEcon]

I'm sure you and everyone else is well aware of Chicago's reputation. Lots of admits, very few with funding; high failure rate on the comps that leaves a lot of people with $50K in debt and nothing to show for it; and an extremely competitive environment (some like that, some don't).

I suspect that most students are no longer concerned about the ideological leanings of Chicago, though it has a certain reputation based on the work of some professors who are famously associated with the school.

[Nalfien]

I agree with OneEcon. The general reputation of UC is that it is cut throat and that it admits more people that they want to get through the program. It has been hinted on this forum and from my advisors that UCs attrition rate is horribly high. This I would imagine is the biggest concern. UC has some of the best faculty in the world. I would love to go there to work with them but since I am risk averse and do not want to go to a school where I am constantly worrying about whether or not I will be able to make it past the first year. My advisors have also suggested not applying and so I don't believe I will.

Professor, would you be able to give us valid statistics on attrition at UC? It would really help us get an accurate picture of how things are. If you could tell us the number of students who enter, the number who dont pass prelims and the number who finally get out with a PhD it would be greatly appreciated.

[user_name]

Actually those applicants who don't have stellar credentials yet are confident of their ability would appreciate UC giving them a shot. So they (including me) might think the high attrition rate (due to additional admits) is a good thing.

The low funding is unequivocally bad, but I guess there could be no Pareto improvement here?

[floplo]

Another "reputation" goes along the "superstar" syndrome, meaning that even if you make it past qualifiers, the department is identifying the top students of a year and then support is shifted their way (and also especially support on the jobmarket).
So it might be perceived as if less attention is spent on "weaker" students, making it easy to fall through the cracks.

[Toddgu]

My concern with applying to UC is understanding the attrition rates that everyone above has talked about. I would also say in relation to that is the competitive atmosphere and how much support and collaboration you get from the professors. You could argue that this is up to the candidate to development and take the initiative to collaborate, but I also believe there needs to be faculty to help guide you. And with Chicago I wonder about the all famous professors availability and how much you would actually get to work with them.

[econdude]

Chicago definitely has an reputation of "impossibility" more than other schools. You get the vibe that everyone flunks and they keep the top few who will be Nobel laureates, which is a scary proposition. It also seems from this message board that the acceptance rate for internationals is much higher than for US students. Is that true/ would you care to share any data on this?

[zsla]

Guys,

I am sorry about the previous post.

[asquare]

Well, I guess one thing that makes people nervous about attending Chicago is the reputation for encouraging or producting students like zsla -- arrogant and smug, convinced that their way is the only way, that other PhD programs are "infant food."

I know the department can't be held responsible for the attitudes of every graduate student, but I do think that zsla's post epitomizes the concerns that many people harbor about Chicago -- namely, that it competitive to the point where concern for being the best overshadows concern for learning.

There is absolutely no doubt that Chicago produces some truly first class economists. But to outsiders, it appears to do so by tearing down, where as other top universities manage to do so by building up.

I think that Chicago would do well to release as much information as possible about the number of students in each entering class, the fraction who receive funding in their first year and in subsequent years, and the fraction who pass core exams and advance to candidacy. Frankly, I think it would be useful for all schools to make this information widely available to prospective students in the application phase rather than only supplying it to admitted students who specifically and persistantly request it. I think, though, that given Chicago's reputation for admitting substantially more students than it expects to advance to candidacy -- a policy one of my professors described as "open admission followed by a year long free for all" -- it would be especially important for Chicago to take this step.

Of course, this is true only if Chicago wants to change its reputation or the nature of its incoming class. There are people who believe that Chicago is right for them just as it is -- despite or, as in the case of students like zsla, because of its reputation. And it might be that the school is happy attracting that group of students -- certainly many of them turn out to be fine economists.

[jlist]

Dear ZSLA: I respect your opinion, and given that you are on campus how about if you stop by sometime soon and we chat about economics? Or, if you would like you are welcome to let your real identity be known on this chat room and we can continue the discussion here. Your call; I am fine either way.

Group--I am putting together some statistics now. It is great to have all of this feedback. I will have some numbers soon.

Best,
John