where to apply...

[eab445]

I'm applying for econ phd programs for next year, and I'm clueless as to where I stand, if I have a shot at top 10, top 20, etc. I've been toying w/ applying for an NSF grant, but I think my interests aren't focused enough and it's probably too late.

Anyways, here's my profile:
GPA: 3.93
GRE: 800M/680V/5.0A
Econ/Math/Spanish major (in 3.5 years)
Econ courses: Intermediate micro/macro, econometrics, international economics, a few others - all a's except an a- in intermediate micro and a b- in international economics (while studying abroad in chile, so not computed in gpa)
Math courses: came in to undergrad w/ calc 3 done, took differential equations (a), abstract algebra (a-), linear algebra (b), a few stats classes, and real analysis (taking) and differential geometry (taking)
I spent a year on an honors thesis, and I've worked as an RA for the past year. I did a summer internship doing econ work for the state dept and the summer before i did econ research with a different professor.

I'll have one strong recommendation from a dean who advised my thesis, but the other ones I'm less sure of - I can pick the professor I worked for 2 summers ago, the state dept guy (obviously nonacademic) i worked for last summer, and a professor I took a seminar w/ 2 years ago but have been out of touch with.


thoughts?

[Antichron]

I'd say that you have a pretty solid profile, depending where you went for undergrad. (And hence who your letters are from.) I would highly recommend applying for the NSF, since applying for it sends a good signal to the various admissions committees, and winning one can reverse negative admissions decisions. (I've heard that if you win an NSF, you can go to MIT whether or not they accepted you.)

[PCG]

Originally Posted by Antichron

(I've heard that if you win an NSF, you can go to MIT whether or not they accepted you.)

Is this because of the money or because of the "prestige" of winning? It seems like it wouldn't be the funding alone, because then why not admit anyone who could demonstrate the ability to pay? If the prestige, does it mean that they think, "well, maybe we made a mistake on this guy when we rejected him"?

[Antichron]

Originally Posted by PCG

Is this because of the money or because of the "prestige" of winning? It seems like it wouldn't be the funding alone, because then why not admit anyone who could demonstrate the ability to pay? If the prestige, does it mean that they think, "well, maybe we made a mistake on this guy when we rejected him"?

I'd assume it's more on the prestige side of things. I seem to remember Professor Ellickson (at UCLA) mentioning that there was a UCLA undergrad. who won the NSF and ended up going to another top five university to which he wasn't originally admitted. As for the reason behind this practice, it would be my guess that there are so many applicants that have stellar applications that winning an NSF really helps one stand out, especially given that it's a highly respected award in the economics field. (And probably in most other fields as well!)